In a commentary to Advokatskaya Gazeta, lawyer Alexander Nenaidenko highlighted a number of interpretations of the norms of procedural and substantive law given by the Supreme Court regarding the possibility of releasing a person from liability with the imposition of a court fine is associated with the commission of not any socially approved actions, but only those as a result of which the harm caused by the crime is considered to be atonement.
“Firstly, referring to significant violations of the Criminal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure committed by lower courts, the Supreme Court should have listed the specific norms that were violated by them. However, instead of indicating such norms with a disclosure of their content (both “letter” and “spirit”), the Court only formally cited the content of Art. 76.2 of the Criminal Code and Part 1 of Art. 25.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without revealing the essence of the violations committed by the lower courts. As a result, questions remain about which specific norms of the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure or both codes were incorrectly applied by the lower courts,” he said.
Secondly, according to the lawyer, references only to the social danger of the composition provided for in Part 2 of Art. 216 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and the presence of an additional object to which damage is caused by this composition in addition to the main one, in themselves, give little. “In fact, by sparingly mentioning the value of human life, the Supreme Court unmotivatedly pointed out the insufficiency of the numerous actions performed by the perpetrator to make amends for the harm. The court also mentioned the possibility of the accused re-acquiring IP status, which, apparently, would mean a partial withdrawal of the “apology” to the accused. The motivation, let’s say, is unusual and not very clear,” he believes.
Thirdly, according to the expert, Art. 76.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is applied not for the purpose of exacting from the accused a proportionate “vira”, payment for the death caused, but solely to confirm the absence of a persistent antisocial attitude on the part of the perpetrator, his active repentance, regret for what he has done and the determination not to commit such illegal actions. “Unfortunately, Supreme S�