Those convicted of domestic violence may be banned from approaching the victims’ home or work

The Constitutional Court (CC) of Russia has issued an important ruling regarding situations of domestic violence. He pointed out to lower courts the possibility of prohibiting aggressors from visiting places “where the victim may be regularly present,” including “coming within a certain distance of these places.” This is actually an analogue of protective orders for victims of domestic violence, say experts interviewed by Kommersant. Human rights activists and lawyers hope that the courts will take note of the Constitutional Court’s ruling and will use the restraining order to protect victims.

A complaint to the Constitutional Court was filed by Russian woman Olga Balukova, who suffered from her former partner. The girl said that from 2015 to 2018 she was in a relationship with Arthur Lagransky. After the breakup, the man began to threaten her with violence and harass her. In December 2019, Mr. Lagransky came to Olga Balukova’s work and beat her; then he began to choke the girl until she lost consciousness. The aggressor also hit an acquaintance of Ms. Balukova, who tried to intervene in the situation.

Doctors diagnosed the girl with a concussion and also recorded multiple contusions and bruises. In January 2020, a case was opened against Mr. Lagransky under Part 1 of Art. 119 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (threat of murder or infliction of grievous bodily harm). In July 2021, the magistrate found the man guilty and sentenced him to a year of restriction of freedom. The convict was prohibited from leaving his place of residence from 23:00 to 6:00, changing his place of residence without the consent of the penal inspection, traveling outside of Moscow, and also visiting places of public events.

The verdict did not suit Olga Balukova. In the appeal, she stated that the punishment “does not correspond to the nature and circumstances of the act committed and does not prevent the commission of new acts of violence against her.” However, the district court found the sentence fair and proportionate. Then Ms. Balukova appealed to the cassation and stated that she feared “the continuation of illegal actions against her by the convicted person.” The girl asked the court to prohibit the aggressor from coming closer than 300 meters to her home and place of work. But the cassation instance, and then the Supreme Court, refused. Then, in the summer of 2023, the girl turned to the Constitutional Court and asked to recognize Part 1 of Art. 53 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (“Restriction of Freedom”) does not comply with the Constitution, since the measures listed in it “are not directly aimed at protecting against the recurrence of violence.”

Later, the Constitutional Court accepted a similar complaint from Yulia Chernigina, who was tortured by her former partner. She also asked the courts to ban the man from approaching her, her home and place of work – and was also refused. The Constitutional Court consolidated the complaints. In January 2024, the court issued a ruling in which it refused to recognize Part 1 of Art. 53 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which contradicts the Constitution: “In its constitutional and legal meaning, it does not exclude the court from specifying a restriction to visit certain places.” The Constitutional Court emphasized that the court still has the right to establish a ban on visiting places “where the victim may regularly be,” including a ban on “approaching these places at a certain distance.”

Involved expert of the Consortium of Women’s NGOs Daryana Gryaznova notes: how Art. 53 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was applied by the courts, significantly limiting the possibility of protecting victims from domestic violence. Now the position of the Constitutional Court gives the courts a broader interpretation of the article of the Criminal Code, which makes it possible to provide comprehensive protection against the recurrence of violence or its escalation.

Ms. Gryaznova notes with regret that the Constitutional Court did not indicate in the resolution the possibility of a ban on approaching the locations of not only the victims, but also their relatives. At the same time, the Constitutional Court noted that the courts can “impose restrictions on the convicted person visiting such places due to the fact that the victim himself regularly visits them” – for example, a ban on approaching the school where the victim’s child studies.

The Constitutional Court ruling does not imply the possibility of prohibiting the aggressor from approaching the victim outside the “prohibited” territories. However, the Constitutional Court indicated that the federal legislator can “specify or supplement” the article on restriction of freedom – “taking into account the task of ensuring and preventive protection of the rights of victims in terms of minimizing objectively justified risks of continuation (repetition) of illegal or actually psychotraumatic actions on the part of the convicted person.” “And we hope that the federal legislator will do this in order to improve the regulation of restrictions on freedom,” concluded Ms. Gryaznova.

Capital lawyer Valentina Frolova believes that the Constitutional Court’s resolution can be called an analogue of a protection order. Now courts have the opportunity to impose “individualized restrictions on the actions of convicted persons,” she says, so that victims “really feel safe and the violence does not recur.” “Previously, the courts did not order such measures, limiting themselves to general prohibitions – leaving the house at night, attending mass events, leaving the city of residence. But such general prohibitions had nothing to do with the circumstances of the life of the victim and with the specific situation of violence for which the sentence was passed, explains Ms. Frolova. “And in cases of violence from a partner, ex-partner or close person, the use of such restrictions is necessary. As a rule, such violence is systematic, and the perpetrator of the abuse knows everything about the victim’s lifestyle: where she goes, where she works, where her children study. The victim should feel safe. She should not leave her home, change jobs or transfer her child to another school to avoid a recurrence of violence.”

The head of the Center for the Protection of Victims of Domestic Violence, Mari Davtyan, draws attention to the fact that Art. 53 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation was originally formulated so that the courts were able to establish restrictions for the convicted person to visit the places where the victim is located. However, courts of general jurisdiction are conservative, and therefore only order what is expressly stated in the law itself, says Ms. Davtyan. The resolution of the Constitutional Court makes it possible to use this norm more widely. “At the very least, we will be able to build on this ruling and more reasonably ask the courts to apply this rule to protect victims. I hope that over time this practice will develop,” Ms. Davtyan told Kommersant.

Emilia Gabdullina