Tuva leads the number of rape in Russia. Justice here is as loyal as possible to the accused, especially if the victim "gave reason"

During a trip to the Republic of Tuva, as members of the HRC, we and the human rights activist Andrei Babushkimov visited the colonies and pre -trial detention centers in Tyu. We were surprised by a huge number of prisoners convicted of crimes against sexual integrity and sexual freedom of the individual (Article 131–134 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). Moreover, the terms of punishment were insignificant. In any region, we did not meet anything like this.

Rape in Tuva is massive. Since 2008, the republic has been the first place in Russia in this indicator. Only in 2015, Tuva lost the title of “championship” Chukotka, taking second place.

Among the prisoners in Tyu, the same attitude to other articles convicted in such articles as to other prisoners. While in other Russian zones the rapists are outcasts: most often they are in a separate detachment, other convicts do not sit at the same table with them, they can be sent to the “harem”, etc.

We, members of the HRC, were extremely surprised by the Tuvan justice, which condemns rapists for the minimum sentence, sometimes even conditionally.

“Well, what do you want,” the chairman of the Union of Russian -speaking citizens Viktor Molin told us, “we have the judges mostly Tuvans, who openly say:“ We have our own Tuvan judicial practice. ”

Indeed, its own. For example, in 2010, the well-known Tuvin wrestler Sumo Ausha Mongush, along with his two sport friends, repeatedly raped a 20-year-old girl. They detained him only a year later. But quickly released from a pre -trial detention center for health reasons.

Now the Mongush coach in the fight of Khuresh in the Children's and Youth Sports School of the State Committee Tyvy on Physical Culture, Sports and Tourism. He regularly holds republican sports tournaments of his name. Well, in addition, since 2017, Ausas Mongush has been entering the Council under the head of Tovy Sholban Kara-ool to support civilian initiatives.

Read also

Tuva: How does the region work?

Here are two specific stories (random sample) from the Tuvan judicial practice.

Case No. 1

On December 1, 2016, a 17-year-old student of the Kyzyl Construction College of Anai (the name changed), having taken off from the hostel, went to her mother in the village of Suknak. In the afternoon, her acquaintance Saryglar Shorvaan called her, suggested meeting and celebrating his friend's birthday. Anai agreed. She knew Sarylar since the spring of the 16th year, there was close relations between them, a couple of times they had an intimate. Saryglar came for Anai with his friends-Jambir Chigildei, Kito Bolat Oorzhak, Mergen Massnyn-ool. They had with them the beer they drank in the car.

It is worth noting here that in Tyu, alcohol, including beer, is sold only four hours a day - from 11 to 15 hours and only on working days.

( Such a restriction was introduced in 2017. Thus, the authorities indirectly recognize: one of the main problems of the republic is alcoholism. The statistics of the Prosecutor General’s Office confirms this: most crimes in the region are committed in a state of intoxication. Nevertheless, in the so -called cafe, at any time of the day, you can freely buy alcohol for removal. - Ed. )

Saryglar suggested that Anai call her friend. The girl called the former classmate, and now a classmate of an eighteen -year -old dodar (name changed.). The company drove for Dodar, on the way they bought nine liters of beer in the store. On one of the streets, a friend of Sarylahra Said Hertek joined them.

When we arrived at the garage to celebrate his birthday (and the garage was large, used to belong to the collective farm), there was already aydy Dongak. They began to cook soup and drink beer. The garage was light and warm. Anai almost immediately felt like enough drunk and went to sleep on the second floor, where the attic was equipped.

From the testimony given by Anai in court, it follows that Mergen Maspin-ool immediately rose behind her to the attic, who reached her all evening. However, the girl liked him. And they, by mutual agreement, had sex. Then Anai fell asleep. She woke up from the fact that her acquaintance Sarylag Shoraan woke her. He lay down on the bed, and by mutual agreement they entered into an intimate relationship. Anai fell asleep again.

Once again, Anai woke up from the fact that Chigilde tried to undress her. “During the drinking of alcohol from Chigildei on the basis of sexual motives, in order to satisfy his sexual need,” the criminal case said, “there was a criminal intent aimed at rape Anai.” Chigilde seemed to not know the age of the girl and until that day he was not familiar with her. Anai resisted, Chigilde threatened, closed her mouth with his hand, piled on her and raped her.

Chigildea replaced Herk. He did not let the girl dress, but threw her on the bed and, despite the resistance, Anai raped her. On the body of the girl remained bodily injuries.

Further, on the ground floor, Chigilde saw a sleeping dodar and began to stroke her chest. The girl woke up and pushed Chigildea. He got angry and cut the girl’s clothes with a knife, while Darus screamed and beat the rapist with her arms and legs. Having covered her mouth with his hand, Chigilde raped her.

Hertek, who was in the same room, watched what was happening. Without allowing Dodar to dress and despite her active resistances, Hertek raped Dodar.

In turn, Dongak watched the rape of Dodar and Hertek. He did not allow Dodar to get up and dress, threw her on the bed and also raped her. On the body of the girl remained bodily injuries.

After triple rape, Dadar still managed to break out into the street and call the police. At the trial, the girl said that during the investigation, relatives of the rapists repeatedly called her and offered money to take a statement from the police.

Anai also said that after the arrest of the defendants, Sarylag and Maspin-ool came to her and asked to pick up the statement, said that "relatives of Herk and Chigildei would pay money and hire lawyers to help stop the criminal case and let them go."

Chigildea, Hertek and Dongak was charged under paragraph “a” of part 2 of article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - rape committed by a group of persons, and Chigildei and Hertek also the charge under paragraph “a” of part 3 of Art. 131 of the Criminal Code - rape of a minor. In court, the accused refused to testify, citing the 51st article of the Constitution, but asked not to deprive them of freedom.

At a court session, the witness of Orrzhak Kan-Bolat (he left the garage before rape began) said that he had a birthday that day. Chigilde and Sarylag came to his house in their car. Then Maspin-ool approached them. They went to the store, and the birthday man bought eight liters of beer. Drunk went to the shore of the Yenisei. Then Saryglar called his friend Anai, who, in turn, called her friend Dodar. Everyone got into the car and drove for beer. We bought six liters of beer. Then we drove the sample around the village by car and drank beer. And then, as Oorzhak said, they, by mutual agreement with Dodar, made sexual intercourse in a car. The rest at that moment stood on the street behind the car.

Well, then "Tuvan justice" begins.

The decision of the Kyzyl District Court says that since the defendants of Chigildei and Herthec had no intent to rape a minor, and her appearance and free manner of behavior when communicating with representatives of the opposite sex (and besides, she drank and smoked) did not give a reason to think that she was still a minor, the court excluded the qualification sign from the prosecution “Rape of a minor” (paragraph “a” part 3 of article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, punishment from 8 to 15 years).

Since the anai raped alternately, and not at the same time, the rapists did not use the force together, did not help each other, the judge Marina Oorzhak changed their qualifications from group rape to a one -time (that is, from part 2 of article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation - a punishment from 4 to 10 years - to part 1 of article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Criminal Code of the Criminal Code of the Criminal Code of the Criminal Code of the Criminal Code of the Criminal Code of 3 to 6 years).

“The court regards the immoral behavior of the victims Anai and Dodar, expressed in violation of moral standards and rules of behavior in society, since they drank alcohol in the evening and at night in the company with unfamiliar people in the amount of six people, of which the victim Anai was familiar only with Sarylahm, and the victim of the part I was familiar, ”says Judge Oorzhak. - The court believes that the immoral behavior of the victims Anai and Dodar provoked the commission of rape against them by the defendants, which followed the commission of the victims Anai and the dodar of sexual acts by mutual consent with different persons, and the defendants by virtue of young age and small life experience ( at the time of the crime there were 25 years, education - the average, worked as a cake on the beekeeper. The meat processing plant is 21 years old, an incomplete middle one, he worked as a butcher at a meat-processing plant-27 years old, education-4 classes, worked as a coconut in a warm parking lot, and Dongak has a civil wife and two children . The victims of Anai and Dodar will also agree to commit sexual acts. ”

The immoral, according to Judge Marina Oorzhak, the behavior of the victims was a mitigating circumstance for the defendants.

Well, besides, "the defendants at the place of residence and precinct are characterized positively, none of them have a criminal past, there were no complaints about them from relatives and neighbors."

REFERENCE

Oorzhak Marina Kuzhugetovna - a judge in honorary resignation since 2011. In 2013, the qualification collegium of judges of the Republic of Tuva allowed Oorzhak to act as a justice of the peace. In 2017, by order of the Supreme Court, Tyva Oorzhak was appointed by the judge of the Kyzyl district court, which she headed since 2009 by decree of the President of the Russian Federation to her early resignation.

The judge did not find aggravating circumstances. At the same time, she excluded an aggravating circumstance - committing a crime in a state of intoxication, "since the evidence was not presented in confirmation of this aggravating circumstances." That is, according to the logic of the judge, the girls drinking beer were drunk, and young men did not get drunk from beer. Although the paragraphs of paragraphs above the judge regarded the state of intoxication of rapists as a softening circumstance, which absolutely contradicts the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Further, due to the fact that the defendants actively contributed to the investigation of the crime and, due to the lack of aggravating circumstances, the court decided to proceed from the sentence, which cannot exceed two third maximum term. That is four years.

Then the judge, applying the provision of the Criminal Code on the exceptional circumstances related to the goals and motives of the crime, the role of the perpetrator, his behavior during and after the commission of the crime (part 1 of article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation), announces the sentence below the lower limit. Then Judge Oorzhak involves another article of the Criminal Code (part 6 of article 15) and changes the category of crime with grave for medium severity.

Well, the judge’s verdict: “The court considers it possible to achieve the goals of punishment and restore social justice to the defendants of punishments that are not related to imprisonment, and shall sends punishment conditionally with a trial period.”

Chigilde and Hertek received 3 years conditionally and two years of the trial period, and Dongak - a year and a half conditionally and two years of the test term.

The defendants were released in the courtroom (they were arrested during the investigation). The judge took the procedural costs of lawyers due to the property failure of the accused at the expense of the federal budget.

In the appeal - in the Supreme Court of Tyvy - the prosecutor did not agree with the application of the same mitigating circumstances for different articles and indicated that the judge did not decipher how the victims provoked rapists. The lawyer of the accused Herket answered this. Lawyer Sarylag said that the immoral behavior of the victims was a reason for rape.

REFERENCE

Sendash Radmir Vladimirovna, Chairman of the Court of Criminal City of the Supreme Court of the Tyvy (appointed by decree of the President of the Russian Federation 08.08.2007). By the Decree of the Presidium of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation of 2014, Sendash “For great contribution to the improvement of justice in the Russian Federation, for the merits in protecting the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, conscientious labor” was awarded the sign of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation “For Serving Justice”.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Tyu Radmira Sendash honored the re -qualification of rape from the group to single, as well as the re -qualification of the case from a serious crime in medium severity, but at the same time indicated: “The trial court did not fully take into account the increased public danger of intentional crimes committed against sexual integrity and sexual freedom of personality, committing crimes in a state alcohol intoxication, the fact that two serious crimes against two victims were committed by convicts of Chikvelde and Hertek, one of which is a minor. ”

And therefore, the Supreme Court of Tyva leaves the defendants the same sentence of punishment, but replaces the conditional term with a colony-settlement.

REFERENCE

In the colony-settlement, the sentence of persons who committed crimes by negligence, mild and moderate severity is serving. Prisoners in such settlements are not under the close control of the overseers, they can freely move around the institution without escort, there are no restrictions on the receipt of parcels, the form of clothing is civilian, and also after work they can meet with relatives daily. And besides, they have an advantage of release by parole.

Ilya Shablinsky

Doctor of Law, Member of the HRC

- I believe that this court decision is completely unreasonable and unfair. You can try to explain the position of the judge, and this explanation will consist in one word - it is a patriarchal society, it is a patriarchal view of this crime by the judge, it does not matter whether a man or a woman. What does patriarchal mean? This means that a man can afford a lot about a woman, he can say goodbye to him, he can be sexually aggressive, and in principle it is close to normal. And the woman, if her behavior at least a little deviates from these patriarchal norms, unwritten, but allegedly allegedly such judges, may well become the object of crimes, in this case the behavior of criminals, rapists can get a moral justification from the point of view of these patriarchal notions of society, about the relationship of a man and woman.

Like a man, a woman has the right to protect her sexual immunity. If she considers it possible to enter into sexual intimacy with one or another man, this is her right. We are not entitled to say that she, entering into close relations with one or second man, even if in a car or somewhere else, she acts immoral, or, at least, that this immorality may be the basis for the subsequent criminal behavior of a particular man. This is precisely the manifestation of the patriarchate of the consciousness of judges.

Speaking more specifically. The first is the most egregious in this situation that the judge considered it possible to refer to the basis, mitigating the responsibility of the defendants, to the immoral behavior of these girls. This is not her case at all, it is not a court case to give moral assessments, their case is to give legal assessments. This girl really agreed to the proximity to two men. This means that now it can be raped?

The girl is close to one man, another man stands nearby, and he believes that after that he gets the right to rape? Where is the causal relationship?

Well, let's suppose he came to this conclusion at some point, but if the girl says “no” to him, if she resists, what references could be the fact that she gave reason, gave reason? This decision of the court is an egregious case, because the judge took the work of justifying the behavior of the defendants with the immoral behavior of the victims. This is unacceptable.

The second-I see no reason to say that the criminals contributed to the investigation, taking into account the fact that in court they refused to testify, citing article 51. This is their constitutional law, absolutely true, they had the right to be silent, but after such a court has no reason to conclude that they contributed to the investigation.

And the third - there are no exceptional circumstances to mitigate responsibility. The judge applied all the norms that allow him to impose a milder punishment. But the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation says that this is possible in exceptional cases.

This case is completely no exceptional, it is terrified with a banal, it is terrified ordinary.

Judges usually do not take into account the words of the defendants that they could not understand the age of the victim. And here, on the contrary.

Далее, абсолютно неоснователен отказ суда от квалификации этого преступления как группового изнасилования. Групповое изнасилование означает, что изнасилование жертвы совершают несколько человек. Статья вовсе не требует, чтобы они совершали половой акт одновременно. Они видели поведение друг друга, они взаимодействовали, они не давали одеться девушке, то есть один пользовался возможностями, которые предоставляли друг другу.

За изнасилование никакую колонию-поселение, а тем более условныйо срок не дают. Им должны были дать реальный срок. Я не жажду крови и не говорю, что 6–8 лет, но они должны были сидеть в тюрьме и в исправительной колонии.

Case No. 2

Днем 9 апреля 2017 года 21-летний неработающий Чадамба Монгуш встретился в центре Кызыла со свои знакомым, также неработающим 20-летним Чангы Кара-оолом. Купили пива, выпили на лавке, пошли еще за пивом, но им его не продали. Тогда они на такси поехали на окраину города. Купили пива. Drank. Купили водку. Пили на улице. Walked. Встретили дальнюю родственницу Кара-оола Тоорук (имя изменено) и Кюске (имя изменено), с которой не были знакомы. Девушки предложили вместе выпить, и они пошли в подъезд пятиэтажного дома.

«В ходе распития спиртных напитков между женщинами возникла ссора, — говорится в материалах уголовного дела, — после чего Кюске вышла из подъезда и пошла за дом. В это время у Монгуша на почве сексуальных побуждений, в целях удовлетворения своих половых потребностей, возник преступный умысел, направленный на изнасилование Кюске».

Монгуш пытался повалить девушку на землю, но она сопротивлялась, отталкивала его. В это время подошел Кара-оол, который тоже хотел изнасиловать Кюске. Они вдвоем повалили ее на землю и стали раздевать. Сняли брюки и нижнее белье. Девушка продолжала сопротивляться, кричать и звать на помощь.

Кара-оол держал руки и рот потерпевшей, а Монгуш насиловал Кюске. Далее они поменялись местами — Кюске насиловал Кара-оол и при этом угрожал, что изобьет ее, а Монгуш ее силой удерживал. Девушке были причинены телесные повреждения.

Кюске написала заявление в полицию об изнасиловании. Монгуш на следствии и в суде заявил, что он не насиловал девушку, у них был добровольный секс.

Кара-оол скрывался от полиции, когда его все-таки нашли, он сказал, что с Кюске у него не было никаких сексуальных отношений. Потом изменил показания и заявил, что секс был, но по обоюдному согласию. На суде Кара-оол отказался давать показания, сославшись на 51-ю статью Конституции.

Кюске сказала в суде, что она добровольно занималась сексом с двумя мужчинами, помнит это плохо, лишь фрагментами, потому что была пьяна. Почему на следствии и во время очных ставок она неоднократно заявляла об изнасиловании, а в суде сказала, что все было по доброй воле, объяснить не смогла.

Суд решил, что девушка говорит неправду, желая облегчить судьбу Монгуша и Кара-оола. Одним из доказательств преступления стала найденная на куртке девушки сперма обоих обвиняемых.

REFERENCE

Монгуш Елена Анай-ооловна — судья Кызылского городского суда, назначена указом президента РФ в 2009 г.

Ну а дальше — вновь «тувинское правосудие». Судья Елена Монгуш меняет квалификацию преступления. Она соглашается, что изнасилование было совершено группой лиц, но отрицает предварительный сговор. «Признак совершения преступления группой лиц по предварительному сговору имеется в том случае, если сговор на совершение преступления состоялся до момента выполнения соучастниками объективной стороны преступления, то есть применительно к изнасилованию, до момента применения насилия к потерпевшей с целью подавления ее воли к сопротивлению», — написала в приговоре судья Монгуш.

Смягчающими обстоятельствами судья признала положительную характеристику Монгуша и Кара-оола по месту жительства, частичное признание вины Монгуша, молодой возраст обоих и наличие малолетнего ребенка у обвиняемого Кара-оола. Отягчающих обстоятельств судья не обнаружила. А как же алкогольное опьянение? Ведь обвиняемые сами признали, что пили пиво и водку. А как же совершение преступления в составе группы лиц? Ведь это тоже отягчающее обстоятельство. Но про это в приговоре ни слова.

Далее судья Елена Монгуш меняет категорию преступления с тяжкого на преступление средней тяжести и назначает колонию-поселение. По четыре года каждому.

Ilya Shablinsky

доктор юридических наук, член СПЧ

— Дела по изнасилованиям носят частно-публичный характер, то есть возбуждаются они по заявлению потерпевшего, но прекращаться в связи с примирением сторон не могут. Но здесь-то часть 2 ст. 131 УК РФ — это групповое изнасилование, оно вообще не попадает под частно-публичный характер.

Если факт преступления был установлен, то на основе чего судья смягчила приговор? Следствию они не помогали, один из них в суде молчал. Это изнасилование с помощью угроз и насилия. И это групповое изнасилование по предварительному сговору. Сговор мог возникнуть в одну минуту. Это организованная группа — их двое, один насиловал, другой держал. А потом они поменялись.

Если в приговоре оставлена была 2-я часть статьи 131-й, если это групповое изнасилование, какая может быть колония-поселение? I have no answer to this question. Судья меняет категорию преступления с тяжкого на средней тяжести. Но групповое изнасилование — это в любом случае тяжкое преступление. По-моему, это нарушение уголовно-процессуального закона.

PS

В обществе, где за изнасилование винят не насильника, а жертву, где формируют терпимость к насилию, где дают условные сроки за групповые изнасилования, где совершение преступления в пьяном виде не считается отягчающим обстоятельством, подобных преступлений будет только больше. Тем более с учетом того, что Тыва занимает первое место в России и по совершенным преступлениям в состоянии алкогольного опьянения, и по нераскрытым преступлениям.