Unlawful deprivation of liberty (Art. 127 of the Criminal Code): analysis and commentary

click fraud protection

Every citizen is guaranteed the legislator right to personal liberty.Accordingly, illegal deprivation of liberty (Art. 127 of the Criminal Code) throughout the world is a criminal offense.

objective side

Russian criminal law establishes liability for direct commission of the act, that is, deprivation of opportunity to choose the location of a restriction on his freedom of movement.In fact, the crime can be expressed in binding (imposition of a put), locked in a dwelling or building of economic purpose, forcible detention and other law enforcement agencies.Place the act is irrelevant, since the crime of the analyzed item.127 of the Criminal Code may take place in the street, and any agency or institution or even home of the victim.Capable of holding a person is cheating and / or violence (physical or psychological).Thus, within the meaning of Art.127 of the Criminal Code of the crime designed as formal.

should distinguish between the deprivation of liberty of the citizen and his abduction.Unlike the first kidnapping involves taking it from home or other familiar habitats and forced displacement in the other place.

Nature crime

to admit criminality, it is necessary to make sure that it has a clandestine nature.This means that the offender did not have the right to dispose of the freedom of the victim.This right arises only in exceptional circumstances listed in the criminal law.In the absence of these circumstances, the act is considered illegal.

subjective side

unlawful deprivation of liberty (Art. 127 of the Criminal Code) always presupposes the existence of a direct criminal intent.The offender is not only aware of the deprivation of liberty of the victim location and movement, but also wants to deprive a person of the rights belonging to him under the law.

Motives analyzed act not recognized qualifying attributes, and thus can be used by the judge in the individualization of criminal responsibility.The motive is often simple acts of mischief, but often in practice, watch the action of revenge or greed.


to recognize the intruder the offender is required to establish his sanity and age.Legally responsible for illegal deprivation of liberty (Art. 127 of the Criminal Code) comes to the age of sixteen.

officials illegally deprived the person of liberty for the location and movement, are liable under other articles of the Criminal Code.Their actions can be seen as abuse of power, abuse of power or as one of the crimes committed against the justice system.

Comparative analysis

There are three staff, in a sense similar to each other.It is, in fact, art.127 of the Criminal Code, abduction of the aforementioned citizens and hostage-taking.The difficulty in qualifying criminal offenses is that the deprivation of liberty may, in fact, progress in the abduction.Everything will depend on the particular circumstances in each individual case, and, most likely, imprisonment is part of a kidnapping (not being a separate offense).Both of these articles should be distinguished from acts defined as the taking of hostages.The difference lies in the facilities, as well as objective and subjective aspects of offenses.

Comparison hostage

When the taking of hostages is an object of public safety, which is understood as based on the law and generally accepted rules of order of life and behavior in a society that guarantees the protection and respect for fundamental human rights.With the full implementation of this order persons with criminal intent are not able to impinge on the dignity, property, life and well-being of others, at their own expense to negotiate with the state.

Therefore, hostage-taking, in contrast to the article under consideration.127 of the Criminal Code, in the case are the victims of a special type.Criminals have no relation to the seizure of the victims, as the latter have nothing to do with invaders.The hostages are only needed in order to force the government to listen and meet the requirements of intruders, and these requirements are in no way associated with the captured people.According to statistics, most often voiced demand to transfer large sums of money, drugs, ammunition and weapons.Often the invaders needed the aircraft to cross the state border.

Unlike analyzed Art.127 of the Criminal Code, criminal hostage-taking is characterized by greater scale illegal activities, the emergence of panic among the people, defiance of the constitutional rights to a safe life.The method is also quite specific and even registered in the title: the seizure.In the formulation of clear: Art.206 of the Criminal Code describes the crime is much more dangerous than the deprivation of liberty of a citizen or a kidnapping.Hostage-taking is associated with more obvious manifestations of violence severity, and deprivation of liberty of the citizen and his abduction could do without violence.

There is another difference between Art.206 of the Criminal Code of the rule of law and considered art.126. The hijackers held hostage as long as the state does not fulfill their demands.Killing of hostages is not done out of personal motives and emotional motives, but from a desire to force the state authorities to hasten the adoption of decisions.


Thus, provided art.127 of the Criminal Code with commentaries can be seen that the analyte can act not only form a separate category of crime, but also be part of other criminal acts.

noteworthy that the abduction and subsequent retention of the citizen was kidnapped in a room with a violation of his right to freedom of movement and location content is covered by Art.126. The Russian judicial practice shows that in this case there is no need to further assess criminal acts even under Article 127.

as the actual event deprivation of liberty of a citizen is not always associated with criminal intent and not always constitutes a criminal offense.To distinguish an incident of interpersonal relations of crime, it is necessary to establish and prove the absence of consent of a citizen on his deprivation of liberty of movement and location.The lack of agreement is considered to be obvious and needs no proof if the deprivation of liberty of a citizen is due to him against violence or overt deception on the part of the attacker.