TORTURE: PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION AND WAYS OF IMPROVING CRIMINAL LAW
( Pp. 85-94)

The concept of "torture" and its features in the context of international obligations of Russia, national criminal legislation and judicial practice in criminal cases are investigated. The differences between the national and conventional definitions of this concept are considered. The discrepancy between the definition of torture under the criminal code of the Russian Federation and the conventional definition in terms of unjustified expansion of the range of subjects of torture was revealed. The author proposes a new version of the definition of torture (note to article 117 of the Russian Criminal Сode (RCC), which would correspond to the definition enshrined in Art.1 of the UN Convention against torture ratified by Russia, justifies the need to place this definition as notes to Art. 286 RCC. At the same time, it is proposed to fix in the notes to Art. 286 RCC the definition of the dependent person and the rules of delimitation of torture from causing suffering, not separated from the reasonably applied punishment or other legal restriction of the rights and freedoms of a person. The expediency of the exclusion of part 2 of Art. 117 "Torture" RCC, paragraph "d" (the Commission of torture the use of torture and amendments of article 286 RCC the new part providing for increased liability for excess of powers of office with application of torture. A similar provision is proposed to supplement Art. 288 RCC ("Assignment of powers of an official"). The necessity of criminalization under Art.302 RCC of coercion to give evidence (including torture) of persons brought to administrative responsibility, as well as the inclusion of judges in the range of subjects of the crime under this article is proposed and justified. The necessity of criminalization as a crime against military service the action in excess of the head office against a subordinate serviceman or persons performing military duties, as well as the adoption of a special resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on court practice in cases on crimes related to torture to dependent persons.

Asnis A.Y., (2019), TORTURE: PROBLEMS OF INTERPRETATION AND WAYS OF IMPROVING CRIMINAL LAW. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 6 => 85-94.

Barenboym P.D, Karakhanyan S.G., Kravchenko D.V. Psikhologicheskaya pytka v Rossii i za rubezhom. M.: Izd. LUM , 2016. 212 s.
Borkov V.N. Aktual nye problemy kvalifikatsii prevysheniya dolzhnostnykh polnomochiy // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2016. № 4.S. 4-8.
Veklenko V., Galyukova M. Istyazanie i pytka: ugolovno-pravovoy analiz // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2007. № 4. S. 15-18.
Dodonov V.N., Kapinus O.S., SHCHerba S.P. Sravnitel noe ugolovnoe pravo. Osobennaya chast : Monografiya. Pod red. S.P. SHCHerby. M.: YUrlitinform, 2010. S. 85-96.
Konarev M.YU. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost sotrudnikov ugolovno-ispolnitel noy sistemy za primenenie pytki: vchera, segodnya, zavtra // Prikladnaya yuridicheskaya psikhologiya. 2012. № 1. S. 182-185.
Krivoshein P. Pytka: ponyatie, priznaki // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2005. №5. S. 40-43.
Nakazaniya za pytki v mezhdunarodnom prave // https://ljusifer.livejournal.com/536172.html (data obrashcheniya: 20.02.2019).
Rashkovskaya SH.S. Prinuzhdenie k dache pokazaniy // Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo prava v shesti tomakh. Red.koll.: Piontkovskiy A.A., Romashkin P.S., CHkhikvadze V.M. Tom VI. M.: Nauka, 1971. S. 130-136.
Tokubaev Z.S. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost za pytki: mezhdunarodnyy i otechestvennyy opyt // Vestnik Vostochno-Sibirskogo instituta MVD Rossii. 2017. №4. S.121-129.
Ugolovnoe pravo. Osobennaya chast . Uchebnik. Pod red. L.D. Gaukhmana i S.V. Maksimova. M.: Eksmo, 2005. S. 63-65.
Scott, George R. The history of torture throughout the ages / 2nd ed. London: Luxor Press, Published, 1959. 328 pp.

torture, criminal law, interests of justice, criminal procedure, administrative procedure, dependent person, public persons.