Lawyers pointed to the consequences of mitigating punishment for blood revenge.

Murders motivated by blood revenge should be classified as committed out of personal animosity, as a separate provision of the Criminal Code creates inequality before the law. Excluding blood revenge from the qualifying characteristics would contribute to the spread of vigilantism, lawyers surveyed by "Caucasian Knot" pointed out.

As reported by "Caucasian Knot", on November 3, Professor of Dagestan State University Dureya Ziyadova proposed to exclude the motive of blood revenge from the qualifying characteristics of murder and to impose punishment for such crimes under part 1 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation instead of part 2, which provides for stricter punishment, up to life imprisonment. According to Ziyadova, the current provision violates the principle of equality of citizens before the law, and in conditions of corruption and dishonest work of law enforcement, blood revenge can serve as a means of restoring justice.

Qualification of murder motivated by blood revenge leads to unequal application of the law

In modern conditions, the custom of blood revenge does not fulfill a useful social function

The motive of blood revenge as a qualifying characteristic of murder has an imprecise and vague nature, which can lead to unequal application of the law, believes lawyer Timofey Shirokov. In his opinion, this motive is primarily associated with representatives of the peoples of the Caucasus, although revenge for a relative is possible regardless of nationality and cultural traditions.

"We understand perfectly well that there are certain inflated, so to speak, expectations regarding representatives of the Caucasus, because this custom has existed there the longest. But what if, for example, a resident of the Moscow region became so angry that he decided to take revenge for a relative and openly admits it? But I do not recall such cases. Although the explanation to the article of the Criminal Code about motives of revenge does not say that it is necessarily tied to any custom, to any ethnocultural tradition, but just a specific case when someone carries out retribution through vigilantism," he said to the correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

Considering the motive of blood revenge when imposing punishment may contradict the norm allowing to recognize the unlawful or immoral behavior of the victim as a mitigating circumstance, Shirokov pointed out. At the same time, he distinguished between the murder of the immediate perpetrator of the crime and the reprisal against his relatives, who had no relation to the incident.

"This is even a kind of competition of norms, in the sense that mitigating circumstances in the form of unlawful or immoral behavior of the victim become, on the contrary, aggravating circumstances. This is provided that, say, the avenger took revenge on the one who deprived his loved one of life. It is another matter if, according to the custom of blood revenge, retribution concerns not the perpetrator, but his relatives, who were not participants in the crime. In this case, the murder of an innocent person cannot be caused by unlawful behavior," the lawyer explained.

In modern conditions, the custom of blood revenge does not fulfill a useful social function, as the resolution of conflicts and punishment of the guilty should be ensured by state institutions, believes Shirokov.

"And distrust of law enforcement agencies is a consequence. Blood revenge was widespread in some, say, mountain societies where there were no state institutions. Indeed, with its help, self-regulation occurs. But for modern Russia, for the overwhelming majority of countries, it cannot make sense. By the way, blood revenge is also prohibited in Islam, because it causes more harm than good. Retribution is carried out only by court verdict," he emphasized.

According to the lawyer, the motive of blood revenge can be excluded from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as the motive of personal animosity is sufficient for classifying a crime. He linked the existence of a separate provision with the state's desire to maintain exclusive rights to impose punishment.

"Personal animosity is quite sufficient as a motive. But, apparently, the meaning of the norm is that it emphasizes the role of the state. That the state is jealous of its right to punish and pardon, saying that there is no need to interfere in this," Shirokov concluded.

The motive of personal animosity allows classifying murders committed in retaliation for the death of a relative without a separate reference to the tradition of blood revenge, believes lawyer Abusupyan Gaitayev.

"After all, there are political or ideological motives, due to personal animosity, finally, from hooligan motives. For example, due to the fact that he killed his brother, he developed personal animosity. It is precisely on such motivation that those who committed murders out of revenge are judged, but not according to the traditions of blood revenge," he told the correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

The application of the qualifying characteristic of blood revenge predominantly to representatives of peoples who had the corresponding tradition creates inequality before the law, Gaitayev pointed out. According to him, the custom implied certain rules and procedures, including the participation of a council of elders, and acted predominantly among representatives of the Caucasian peoples.

"Therefore, one can agree that there is some inequality before the law. If a Russian kills a person because that person killed his brother, for example, this will not be blood revenge, because there is no institution of blood revenge in Russian society. For this, a procedure is necessary, a council of elders. Moreover, blood revenge was only between one's own or neighboring peoples of the Caucasus. It did not concern the Russians," the lawyer explained.

In his practice, Gaitayev achieved reclassification of the charge of murder motivated by blood revenge to murder motivated by personal animosity. According to him, the case was considered in Astrakhan, and one of the grounds for changing the qualification was the conclusions of the Institute of Oriental Studies.

"This was in Astrakhan. There were criminal showdowns. And during this, a Chechen killed the leader of a gang - a Russian, who had previously killed himself. And initially, the Chechen was charged under part 2 of Article 105, with the motive of blood revenge. I requested an examination from the Institute of Oriental Studies regarding the tradition of blood revenge. The court took their conclusions into account and reclassified it to part 1 of Article 105, on the motive of personal animosity," Gaitayev said.

The custom of blood revenge has practically lost its previous prevalence, believes the lawyer. He noted that previously, even distant relatives of the perpetrator could become objects of revenge, who had no relation to the murder. The reduction of such cases, in his estimation, was also facilitated by the activities of Islamic religious figures.

"It used to manifest itself worst in the revenge of a member of the teip regardless of whether he participated in the murder or not. This was practiced among some of our teips, which was quite, one might say, barbaric. A person was not involved, so he was not even a brother, not a father, but a cousin, and they would hold him accountable. This was especially the case in the 1990s. But now it has become more regulated. This is also due to the work of Islamic figures. After all, according to Sharia, vigilantism cannot be carried out, especially against the innocent," Gaitayev pointed out.

Lawyers spoke about the consequences of excluding blood revenge from the Criminal Code

Blood revenge is not manslaughter, but a cold-blooded planned crime

Blood revenge as a widespread practice has also faded away, however, the application of criminal legislation and the work of law enforcement agencies cause distrust among citizens, believes lawyer Aydemir Ismailov. In his estimation, in Dagestan, investigators often initially choose the most severe qualification of the crime, and the courts do not show due diligence when considering cases.

"In this Article 105 everything is described in the first part. There is also murder in a state of affect. But, unfortunately, in different regions, the practice is quite diverse. For example, in Dagestan, unfortunately, investigative bodies do not always initially correctly establish the motive. And if earlier, say, 10 years ago, they would first initiate a criminal case under part 1 of Article 105, and then qualify it to more serious compositions upon establishing intent, now they do the opposite, they first initiate under the most serious article. The first thing is to put the citizen in a pre-trial detention center. And the courts mainly also believe that if the case has been submitted, then the person must be charged anyway. There is a clear unwillingness to work thoroughly with the criminal case," he said to the correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

Excluding the motive of blood revenge from the qualifying characteristics of murder may lead to negative legal consequences, believes former law enforcement officer, lawyer Isa Aliyev. In his opinion, the territorial prevalence of this custom does not in itself serve as a basis for changing criminal legislation. Refusing a separate qualification for such crimes will deprive the courts of the opportunity to impose life imprisonment specifically for murder motivated by blood revenge.

"If point "e.1" is excluded from part 2 of Article 105 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, then the possibility of imposing life imprisonment for the qualifying characteristic "murder motivated by blood revenge" disappears. Thus, the courts lose a special tool to reflect the increased public danger of murder committed in accordance with the custom. Blood revenge is not manslaughter, but a cold-blooded planned crime aimed at taking a person's life," Aliyev said to the correspondent of "Caucasian Knot".

Vigilantism cannot be considered an acceptable way to restore justice, as it substitutes the legally established procedure for punishment with private violence, the lawyer emphasized. In his opinion, revenge can lead to the death of innocent people and provoke new murders.

"The state monopoly on criminal prosecution and sentencing is the foundation of a legal state. Those who carry out vigilantism justify it by allegedly "restoring justice". In fact, they substitute the legal procedure with private violence and escalate the cycle of revenge. Murder without investigation can also lead to innocent victims - where is the guarantee that the person who became a victim of blood revenge is indeed guilty? Vigilantism does not ensure the verification of evidence, the right to defense, and the review of the decision. Retaliatory revenge can spawn new murders and prolonged conflicts. Moreover, in order to mitigate punishment, the murderer may motivate the crime as committed out of blood revenge, although it is not," Aliyev pointed out.

To prevent blood revenge, it is necessary to more actively involve public and, above all, religious authorities in reconciling conflicting parties, who should explain the possible consequences of vigilantism, believes Aliyev.