Transcript:
Dmitry Medvedev: I have summoned you all here to discuss a complicated issue. The problem is nothing new, which does not mean we should sit back and do nothing. We will talk about increasing the measures of state protection for the rights of underage victims of crime.
It is clear that the subject is being widely discussed among society and the media. It would be wrong to say that nothing is being done. We have repeatedly addressed this issue with you and certain other colleagues. A number of federal laws have recently been adopted targeted at strengthening measures to protect children. There is a special fund in operation, and in June an executive order on the National Strategy to Protect Children’s Interests for 2012–2017 was signed. The government has adopted a special plan of action.
Nevertheless, there are some very serious problems, there are figures that I must announce even though they make for very grim reading. In the past nine months, the Investigative Committee opened 11,000 criminal cases involving offences committed against minors, and 1,292 children were murdered. It is clear that children from disadvantaged families, orphans, and children deprived of parental care are particularly vulnerable.
I suggest we talk about several specific issues today. The State Duma alone is reviewing 11 draft federal laws on protecting the rights of victims. We spoke about this not so long ago when I met with the party members and a number of MPs. Four drafts have to do with the protection of juvenile rights and we have agreed to meet and discuss some possible innovations in this area.
Today we will discuss additional proposals on improving legislation with a view to extending the procedural rights of underage victims and creating the conditions for the adversarial system, as well as equality in criminal proceedings. We will also talk about state protection of the rights and interests of children who have been the victims of criminal assault.
This is the agenda of our meeting. I won’t say anything else, but will give the floor to Ms Yarovaya, with whom I have discussed this issue. She will make her report and then we will discuss. Ms Yarovaya, go ahead, please.
Irina Yarovaya (head of the State Duma Security and Anti-Corruption Committee): Thank you, Mr Medvedev. Indeed, we have already covered a long road and you have made many legislative initiatives that have already become laws enhancing state protection of children against violent crimes. I believe now we are fully ready to take new steps. In fulfilling your instructions and acting in line with our preliminary agreement, we have studied several issues. We believe our relevant proposals can become legislative initiatives.
To begin with, every investigation of a criminal case starts with acknowledging a person as a victim. We believe this should be done from the moment of the initiation of criminal proceedings, because any discretionary actions or delay results in a violation of the rights of the victim.
We also believe that it is necessary to extend the number of persons who will inherit the rights of the victim in the event of the victim's death as a result of the crime. Regrettably, we know cases in which close relatives may have a vested interest in the death of the victim. In such cases it is absolutely inadmissible to transfer to them the rights of the victim, particularly a child. In this context we suggest delegating to the investigator the power to prohibit the parents and guardians who abuse the rights of a child from acting as his or her lawful representatives. This will elevate the state protection of the rights of a child to a new level.
It is very important to consider the opinion of the victim in making a decision on a pre-trial restraint. It will not have an exclusive or decisive influence on a decision of the investigator, and later on such a decision will be made by a court, but it is necessary to consider the victim’s opinion because intimidation of the victim, especially if he or she is a juvenile, may be vital for establishing the truth and preventing a repeated offense.
The procedural rights of the victim are also very important. We deem it necessary to equalise the rights of the defendant and the victim, because timely familiarisation with procedural documents creates a basic and essential opportunity to understand at what stage the investigation is at each particular moment. If the adversarial character of the judicial process implies equal opportunities for all sides, the victim should be no less able to make sure that the investigation is objective and that all circumstances are established.
This is directly linked with the principles of justice, humanity, due process of law and legality of an investigation.
Participation of an attorney is very important. We have long been paying from the federal budget to ensure free participation of a public attorney for several categories of citizens. It would be absolutely logical to guarantee participation of an attorney to underage victims on behalf of the state. Today we may have a paradoxical situation in which a child from an orphanage, an orphan does not have any legal representative and nobody is categorised as a victim. In fact the Prosecutor’s Office is the only body that is acting as a public prosecutor and it represents the interests of both the state and the victim. This is why the participation of an attorney is the most basic requirement of legal aid that is vital in the event of such crimes.
There is one more vital issue that always arises – the loyalty of the investigators in sensitive procedures involved in cases of child abuse. It is important to prevent the need for a child to describe the circumstances of a violent crime over and over again. We suggest making mandatory the videotaping of a child’s interrogation and the use of these materials in court. We propose that a child should be interrogated again only in exceptional cases when the court has to study some additional circumstances that it has established. In other words, a child’s repeated interrogation should become an exceptional procedure on the understanding that the recollection of some horrible events is traumatic for a child’s psyche.
Regrettably, the current statistics show that the jury often acquits criminals who have committed a felony of violence against children. Why does this happen? We think that these criminals have a special type of psyche that allows them to stage a drama in court, and this emotional background leads to the wrong legal judgment. To enhance the protection of children’s rights we suggest that violent crimes against children should be reviewed by the professional bench.
Media reports about children who were abused or witnessed crimes are a vital issue as well. They play a huge role in the fate of these children by shaping public opinion, sometimes making it impossible for the victims to remain where they are living. Proceeding from the experience of other countries and the adopted decree on the protection of children’s rights in this country, we suggest making such information top secret. And even the existing practice when with the agreement of the child… Unfortunately, we know some cases in which a family is paid to allow to post videos and interviews with their children and then they face irreparable consequences. We think that it is indecent and inadmissible to make money on that. The media should comply with a common moral rule – that it is inadmissible to use the image of the child and divulgate the story of the tragedy he or she lived through. It is necessary to establish administrative and criminal liability for this. In fact, we are proposing a very soft version compared with similar EU laws.
Of course, the process of further social inclusion is very important. We are not even raising this issue today… This is just a format of a possible decision, a novelty in the law. We are asking you, Mr Medvedev, to issue a relevant instruction to consider additional state social assistance and medical care and rehabilitation for children who are victims of crime. Every year there are 10,000 such children. How we are going to interact with the family, with the child in order to provide the necessary treatment and ensure that he or she is socially and psychologically well adjusted – this is the issue that we should address in the future and come to a relevant solution.
It is very important following the court ruling that the victim, if he or she so wishes, should have the right to be notified of changes to serving the punishment, or pre-schedule release on parole, that is, on facts that might be of importance to the victim and the family. These can involve repeat offences, situations leading the family to decide to relocate and so on. Notifications should also be made with the consent of the victim. Naturally some victims don’t want to know anything about the criminal and his fate. So it would be logical to grant this right.
Compensation for harm is also a very important issue because voluntary compensation for harm to the victim and active repentance can influence the court decision in cases of suspended sentences or release on parole. We think that following this logic would be useful. Meanwhile the guilty party should bear the cost of the defence lawyer, which is absolutely fair. In our view, such measures are logical because our law enforcement system is prepared to implement such approaches. We want to thank all respective departments because we have worked through various issues with them. In principle, we are ready to move forward with the legislative initiative and to incorporate amendments jointly with you, with the Government, in the second reading.
Representatives of non-profit organisations, the Ministry of the Interior, the Prosecutor’s Office are in attendance today. We have discussed this initiative and all these proposals on the patriotic platform with them. This is an urgent request from the public, we need to take such decisions. And first and foremost, we ask you to conduct this work jointly with us as soon as possible, to reduce to the minimum the reviews and the procedure of the draft law’s passage.
Dmitry Medvedev: Thank you, Ms Yarovaya. This is quite a comprehensive report on this issue. What can we do? We have heard all the initiatives. Let’s discuss them now. Anyone here can take the floor. Mr Astakhov, will you be first? You have worked on this issue. Some time ago I created your position of presidential ombudsman for children’s rights. Please, tell us what you think on this score since you are a professional lawyer, too.
Pavel Astakhov (Presidential Ombudsman for Children's Rights): Thank you. Mr Medvedev and colleagues, it is true that in the past three years there has been serious advances in children protection law. Some laws have been adopted in this period that had been shelved by the State Duma. Hundreds of amendments have been introduced to existing legislation. Owing to this and the efforts of the state, the situation has begun to change drastically. In particular, the past three years have seen a clear reduction, a considerable reduction in the number of children who commit crimes, juvenile offenders. The number of orphans and children without parental guardianship has been decreasing but not at the desired pace. However, the trend is clear. The number of missing children, children without guardianship and homeless children decreases every year. Yet, despite intensive legislative efforts in the past three years, I have to say that unfortunately there are two categories of children still growing in number. The first group includes kids with disabilities, and the second category, which we are speaking about here at the meeting, are crime victims. We have analysed the statistics for the past three years and found that 348,192 children fell victim to crime. This is a huge number. Over this period, 6,013 children were killed by criminals and murderers and 24,690 children became victims of sexual crimes and abuse. I will speak on this in detail later. The number of child victims of crime is increasing and has grown by two percent during this period.
The state of efforts to fight sexual abuse of children is extremely poor. For the first six months of this year, some 5,000 cases of sexual abuse were committed against persons under 18, which is a considerable increase since the same period last year. In particular, the number of violent sexual crimes for this period grew by 40%, comparing to the same period in 2011, and this is a lot. We have also found that cases of sexual abuse against small children in 2012 have increased by 52 percent. The number of children involved in pornography and prostitution has more than doubled, while there has been a seven-percent increase in the number of revealed cases of the production of child pornography, 90% of which was distributed over the Internet.
Among positive results I can cite the introduction in February 2012 of a ban on suspended sentences for sexual crimes against minors, as well as the prohibition of parole for persons who committed sexual crimes against minors, which was recently signed by the President. These measures have already resulted in a 57% decrease in the number of suspended sentences in non-violent crimes during this year’s first six months, namely under Criminal Code’s articles 134 and 135, which include sexual intercourse or other sexual acts with a person under 16.
We believe that the public danger and gravity of such crimes’ effects are grossly understated, especially with respect to adolescents. During this year’s first six months, the share of those who received a suspended sentence under Article 134 (sexual intercourse with a person under 16) totalled 62%, meaning that 62% of these criminals walked free. Under Article 242.1 (production and distribution of child pornography) the share of suspended sentences is higher and amounts to 80%. This shows a clear misjudgement of the consequences for public safety. In this regard, I would like to mention the fact that I have requested that the Supreme Court hold a plenary session on this subject, as I believe we have gained enough practical experience in this class of crimes. Such a meeting would make it possible to summarise the information and provide courts with guidelines in this regard.
Also, during the first six months of this year, criminal cases against more than 22% of persons were closed on non-exonetaring grounds, that is due to conciliation of parties. There was a high-profile case involving a brothel in St Petersburg of underage boys where the owner was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Other accomplices have brought to court (this is a well-known case) settlements signed by 15 victims, all aged 16. With the consent of the prosecutor's office, the court dismissed the case due to the settlement.
Dmitry Medvedev: Is settlement possible at all under the current Criminal Procedure Code?
Pavel Astakhov: No.
Dmitry Medvedev: I’m not an expert, but I’ve always thought that such cases are not subject to settlement.
Pavel Astakhov: This is not a violent crime.
Dmitry Medvedev: They must have reclassified the case, because there may be no settlement for such crimes.
Pavel Astakhov: It was not classified as a felony.
Such a ruling has socially crippling consequences for a child who sees that a criminal, a person who took his life away from him and made him a tool in this crime, remains at large.
There are a few more considerations on the subject. We have a severe shortage of children’s forensic investigators. There are only seven children’s sex therapists in Russia who conduct forensic investigations of sex crimes against minors. It's true: just seven people who go from case to case, but with such an increase in crime rates there’s simply not enough of them. The academic and research base for training such professionals is not expanding.
Dmitry Medvedev: Is it not expanding or we just can’t hire qualified people? I don’t think that we don’t have such specialists in Russia.
Pavel Astakhov: It’s not expanding. The first reason is that the Serbsky Forensic Psychiatry Institute can barely keep good experts on the job. We are doing our best to support them: I invite them to various expert boards under the presidential envoy and we also try to get them involved in research projects. However, there’s no policy for training such specialists. Although not quite related to today’s topic of conversation, we don’t have programmes to train paediatric suicidologists. There are just a few of them in Russia.
I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the internet one is probably the most serious factor affecting crime against children today. It is impossible to ignore it, because 90% of criminal production and trafficking of child pornography occurs online. We took the studies of the General Prosecutor's Office for 2008-2009 that laid the foundation of the law which came into effect on 1 September. The results were amazing. We discovered that 60% of children surveyed (8th and 9th graders) said that they are mimicking the behaviour of characters from films, television shows, videos and the internet. One-third of respondents argued that it’s okay to commit minor offense, because they’ve seen it committed on screen and know how to go about it. That is, we now have an entire generation raised in this kind of media environment.
Dmitry Medvedev: This is a big problem. Still, Mr Astakhov, I would like to go back to the practical and important part of our meeting today. I want to understand your stance on the proposals that have prepared by our colleagues in the State Duma and my party colleagues, because they suggest using a fast-track procedure to adopt them. To what extent, do you think, it’s legitimate?
Pavel Astakhov: I believe that we should support this proposal, because, unfortunately, we have no time tocorrect mistakes which have been plaguing us for so long.
Please allow me a final word about the internet, which is such a hot topic today.
Dmitry Medvedev: Please go ahead.
Pavel Astakhov: Having assessed the situation as not quite favourable when the internet and media act as a tutor and occasionally as an executioner, we suggest launching from 1 January an all-Russian media campaign against violence and abuse. I would like to ask you to support it and issue appropriate instructions to the Ministry of Education and Science, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Healthcare, the Ministry of Culture and the Ministry of Communications and Mass Media, because I believe that the professional community, journalists, officials and civil society should be part of it.
One last point: incomplete regulations that aren’t, unfortunately, covered by this law. We have repeatedly said that, unlike Europe and the United States, we do not prosecute the manufacture, storage and cross-border traffic in child pornography that is not intended for dissemination. What we see is that Russian websites are accumulating increasing amounts of child pornography, because it’s not prosecuted. Russia can become a major storage site for child pornography. I believe that a regulation to this effect should be introduced in the Penal Code.
One more point while we are at it. Unfortunately, medical and psychiatric contraindications to pursue a particular professional occupation have not yet been made part of the law. Ms Golodets, perhaps this is your area, because I once wrote to the Minister of Education and Science and received a lengthy response to the effect that variations in sexual preferences do not constitute sufficient grounds for refusing a candidate the job of a teacher or an educator. We are aware that in today's world there are many such deviations, including paedophilia. If someone honestly mentions it in the job application that he is a paedophile, he will be hired, because this is not enough to deny him the employment. We have developed several proposals and we will submit them to you with your permission.
Dmitry Medvedev: All right. Thank you Mr Astakhov.
I would like to hear out the Ministry of Justice. Mr Konovalov, did you have a chance to look at these proposals? What do you think?
Alexander Konovalov (Minister of Justice): Yes, I did. The issue is about the proposals regarding convicts released on parole who must compensate damages. This idea has been discussed for a fairly long time now. The Justice Ministry included it in one of its initiatives. We share this approach.
Some innovations with regard to providing free attorney services for the time of being recognized as complainant are clearly acceptable, but may need to be worded better. In some cases, parents who can afford it may want to hire a lawyer. In other words, there should be an alternative to free attorney services. In some cases, it will be necessary to specify grounds for being recognized as complainant , but we should do so without putting off deadlines for such decisions and making sure that the decision is well-grounded and trustworthy.
I have only one comment regarding the lower limits of sanctions.
Alexander Konovalov: After all, the proposal to establish criminal responsibility for violating the right to privacy is not so brutal, so as to establish a lower limit of sanctions. I simply suggest that the judicial system should work within the limits that we set for it and remove the lower limit – but not start with one year…
Dmitry Medvedev: Remove the lower limit and raise the upper limit.
Alexander Konovalov: It is possible to raise them. We have never done or proposed anything in regards to the upper limit.
Dmitry Medvedev: This is completely normal.
Alexander Konovalov: There should always be a choice depending on the gravity of the crime. A judge can impose the maximum punishment, or give a six-month sentence – and that would suffice.
Dmitry Medvedev: Okay, thank you. Let me say a few words. I will tell you straight away that I have discussed everything that I have heard here with Ms Yarovaya. Generally, I think that all of these proposals are well-balanced, and even painstakingly so, I’d say. It is always possible to discuss wording because it is not ideal and it can always be polished to prioritise nuances. That having been said, I generally think that it is correct to acknowledge a person as a victim from the start of the criminal proceedings and to make the decision regarding transferring his rights as a complainant from his parents to third parties – maybe to representatives of the state in certain cases – because parents are not always the best legal representatives despite their nominal legal status. Maybe there should be a special provision to this end.
As for maintaining a balance between the rights of the defendant and the victim, I’d like to hear the opinion of our colleagues from the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Investigative Committee and other agencies. On the whole, I think that this is the right approach to try and balance them. We must see which amendments should be made to the criminal procedure legislation in this regard.
As for recording a child’s interrogation, I think that this is an absolutely correct and humane position. Everyone present – or the majority in any event – are people with a legal practice, legal experience and even a legal education, who know what a tough issue this is. As for juvenile victims, it may have fatal consequences for them. Thus, I think that it is absolutely right to make recording interrogations a compulsory procedure, so as not to summon juvenile victims or summon them only by some special decision. I don’t know who must make it. This is a human approach – plain and simple – towards the victims of a crime.
I think that the proposal on the bench is also a possibility. The requirement not to disclose information about victims is also fair. Keeping it top secret ensures juvenile rights and interests. There are cases when such information is traded and disseminated and this is disgusting – even if juvenile victims do not understand. They may be offered money for more details and they may think about it if they come from poor families. But this is simply undermining the moral foundations of society and we must not allow this to happen.
As for rehabilitation measures for abused children, this is also an absolutely fair proposal. We should just consider our potentialities – both for social adaptation and material compensation.
I have no objections whatsoever to a campaign against violence in the media. But if we announce it, I think that it should be a consolidated decision. It would be pointless to speak about this if some agencies fail to support it for some reason. This should be a corporate decision. Only in this case will it be effective. I’d like to emphasise again that it should be a corporate decision rather than a government one because we have no censorship and the state’s influence on the media is fairly modest no matter what they say. If such a corporate decision is made, we will simply raise the level of our general culture. I think that it is quite sensible to suggest this.
As for imposing a criminal penalty for some of the felonies that you mentioned, I think that this is also possible, but please formulate a proposal. That’s a deal.
<…>
