Sociological study on illegal state violence published

A group of sociologists investigated the phenomenon of torture in Russia and public perceptions about it. The scientists talked with victims of illegal violence, as well as with employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Federal Penitentiary Service. The study attempts to answer what motives push law enforcement officers to use illegal violence, what factors affect the likelihood of using torture on a particular person, and why society has developed ideas about the “permissibility” of state violence. Eva Merkacheva, a member of the Human Rights Council under the President of the Russian Federation, says that the conclusions of sociologists confirm the conclusions that she came to while working in a pre-trial detention center and temporary detention center. State Duma deputy Vitaly Milonov would like to know the “customers” of the study and demands that “Western countries look for the beam in their own eyes.”

Last week, the human rights organization Team Against Torture (CPT; former Committee Against Torture, which was recognized as a foreign agent and self-liquidated) published sociological research “‘Permissible vs. Unlawful’: A Study of State Violence in Russia and Public Perceptions of It”. At the request of the CPT, in 2022, a group of independent sociologists interviewed people who had suffered from illegal violence, as well as former employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Federal Penitentiary Service. Sociologists discussed the problem with lawyers and human rights activists, and also studied the opinion of the townsfolk about the permissibility of torture. In a more than 100-page study, they assessed where the line for Russians lies between “acceptable” and “unacceptable” violence in law enforcement and penitentiary systems.

In total, sociologists conducted 71 in-depth interviews and organized 9 focus groups. Among the motives for torture, they found not only the desire to obtain evidence, but also extortion, personal revenge, as well as the desire to suppress a person and force him to observe discipline.

Analysis of the collected data showed that violence in the police or the FSIN system is more often used against men. “The vast majority of our interlocutors who were subjected to violence were men. Despite the fact that generalizations regarding gender should be made with great caution, our interlocutors note that security forces are less likely to use physical violence against women, choosing other methods of coercion,” the authors note. Among other factors that increase the likelihood of violence, sociologists cite age (younger people experience violence more often), ethnicity (people from the Caucasus and Central Asia are more likely to report violence against them), and past encounters with law enforcement officers. Another factor is “lack of orientation skills in the system”: lack of knowledge of the law can aggravate the situation of a person who has fallen into the zone of attention of law enforcement officers. The success of their manipulation “depends on how many resources he has for defense and resistance.”

In public perceptions of “permissible” and “unlawful” violence, scholars have not found a social consensus on what constitutes violence and torture, when to consider them fair, and why. The lack of consensus “works to reinforce torture as a normality,” since “the discussion is fragmented and therefore inaudible,” says one of the authors, sociologist Marina Vasilevskaya. According to her, stereotypical ideas about law enforcement officers often contribute to the idea of ​​the “normality” of torture: “For example, people can say about the security forces: “What to take from them, they have a plan” or “What to take from them, they are not taught to work to another.”

Associate Professor of the Department of Sociology of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the National Research University Higher School of Economics Olga Savinskaya believes that the formulation of the problem and the choice of research methods are “logical and consistent”: “A good bibliography, everything is justified. A detailed analysis of the experience of people who gave interviews. The work has sociological value.”

The CPT itself notes that the conclusions of sociologists did not fully coincide with their conclusions – for example, in terms of the “totality” of violence – but believe that this is “the beginning of a dialogue about the causes of widespread violence and about how law enforcement and penitentiary systems coexist people who have been tortured, and people who use torture as a routine work tool.”

A member of the Presidential Council for Human Rights (HRC), Eva Merkacheva, told Kommersant that the study confirms the theses that she presented at a meeting of the head of state with human rights activists the year before last: “I talked about torture, spoke about their causes and offered options for combating them . There are living stories in the study, I myself heard similar stories both in the pre-trial detention center and in the temporary detention facility.” Ms. Merkacheva noted that the findings of the researchers will help the HRC in its work aimed at eradicating torture.

“It is interesting to know who is the customer of the research, which once again “convincingly” proves another lie about our country,” said State Duma deputy Vitaly Milonov (ER). “I believe that sociologists were paid by the same organization that maintains secret prisons and military bases around the world. The task of our opponents in the West is to publicly dehumanize our society and state system, to create the impression that Russia is unworthy of existing as a sovereign state. Let them look for a beam in their own eye, but don’t bother us.”

“Kommersant” asked the Federal Penitentiary Service for statistics on the facts of exceeding official powers by employees of the department in the form of the use of illegal violence, but by the time of publication they had not received a comment.

Emilia Gabdullina