In connection with the beating of a prisoner by Kadyrov’s son, the topic of adult defendants arose

The rule of law is based on the rule of law, which applies to everyone without exception. Many people remembered this the other day after watching a video in which the minor son of the head of Chechnya, Ramzan Kadyrov, beats prisoner Nikita Zhuravel (the young man was arrested for the disgusting crime of publicly burning the Koran). Everything happens in the office of the head of the Grozny pre-trial detention center. It is not visible that anyone tried to stop the beating.

Let’s abstract from personalities. In a pre-trial detention center, one person (civilian) beats another (prisoner). What legal consequences might this incident have? Who can be punished and for what exactly?

As an expert on prisons (I have been checking them as a human rights activist for more than 10 years), I will try to analyze this situation with only one goal – so that nothing like this happens again.

The office of the head of the pre-trial detention center is located in a sensitive area (receptions of citizens take place in the administrative building, where access is free, but where prisoners are never taken out). To get there, you need to go through at least two checkpoints. The law outlines the circle of persons who have access behind bars: investigators, lawyers, prosecutors, deputies, members of the Public Monitoring Committee and the Commissioner for Human Rights. No one else can get there – unless he has special permission from the Federal Penitentiary Service.

If he is not there, and a stranger has gone inside, then the sentry at the checkpoint and the duty officer should be punished (he writes out a pass, presses the button that opens the door).

Let’s say that a minor (the one who beat the prisoner) had permission from the Federal Penitentiary Service to enter the territory of the pre-trial detention center. Although it is given quite rarely – to clergy, various public figures who bring humanitarian aid or hold concerts for household service groups.

But in order to talk with the person under investigation, you also need written permission from the investigator who is handling his case. The likelihood that there is such a properly executed, stamped and signed permit from an investigative agency employee is zero. And that’s why. In order to grant permission to communicate with a prisoner, the investigator must somehow justify this.

How and in what way could the meeting between the teenager and the prisoner help the investigation? There could be no confrontation between them – he was not at the crime scene. In general, the answer is obvious.

And here is the result – a prisoner was beaten in the office of the head of the institution, and this was filmed. It is important to make a reservation here: you can take photos and videos of the person under investigation only with his permission and the sanction of the investigator.

Can you imagine such a scene? The visitor turns to the prisoner: “I’m going to beat you now. Write here that you don’t mind having this filmed.” And then he asks the investigator: “Write that you are not against video recording of the beating of a person whose case you are investigating.”

Well, that’s absurd!

What is noteworthy is that the appearance of the video on the Internet should be punished no less than for the incident itself. And now the question is: who exactly can be subjected to what sanctions as a result of such an emergency? I will list the articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: 285 “Abuse of official powers”, 286 “exceeding official powers”, 293 “Negligence”, as well as 33, which provides for liability for complicity in a crime (organization, complicity).

Several employees fall under these articles at once – the exit inspector, the deputy. according to the regime, DPNSI (duty assistant to the head of the pre-trial detention center) and the head of the pre-trial detention center himself.

As for the head of the Federal Penitentiary Service of the region, then, as the jailers say, the chips will fall. But, most likely, in such a situation, he will have to wait from an angry call from the leadership of the central office to a reprimand. They wouldn’t have fired him, they wouldn’t have put him under criminal charges either, since he had every right to lay all the blame on the head of the pre-trial detention center.

As for the actions of the one who beat, they may well be described by Article 115 of the Criminal Code “minor infliction of harm to health,” for which a fine is provided.

But “may” does not mean “will”. In this story, the most important thing is to make it clear: no matter what terrible crime a person commits (and robbers and murderers are behind bars, among others), he is there under the protection of the state. No one can carry out lynching or help organize it. Otherwise it will not be a legal system, but a medieval one.

I ask the director of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia A.A. Gosteva to assess what happened and transfer Zhuravel to a pre-trial detention center in another region to ensure his safety.