Проблемы квалификации преступных действий по реабилитации нацизма (ст. 354.1 Уголовного кодекса Российской Федерации)

Abstract

The object of the study is the problems of the application of Article 354.1, Rehabilitation of Nazism, of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in domestic legal practice; the focus is on criminal law norms on the rehabilitation of Nazism and related crimes and the practice of their application. The aim of the study is to identify and analyze specific problems of law enforcement officers that arise during the implementation of Article 354.1 in legal practice, to propose solutions to them. In the course of the study, the author analyzed the history of the appearance of this legal norm in Russian criminal law and its subsequent transformations, illustrated the problems of distinguishing between finished and unfinished crimes related to the rehabilitation of Nazism by the example of real criminal cases, and also revealed uncertainty in the legal qualification of criminal acts desecrating military graves, monuments, steles, obelisks, and others memorial structures or objects perpetuating the memory of those killed in the defense of the Fatherland or its interests. In preparing the article, the author used the dialectical method of scientific cognition, which imposes requirements for the study of domestic law enforcement processes in dynamics, and special methods: historical-legal, formal-logical, content analysis, and others. The empirical base of the study is the data obtained as a result of the analysis and generalization of the casual judicial practice in criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the decision of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to refuse to accept a citizen's complaint for violation of their constitutional rights by Part One of Article 354.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, materials of judicial and investigative practice of federal courts and investigative bodies of various regions of Russia. The use of an extensive information base, including theoretical provisions and conclusions contained in the applied research works of Russian scientists, the use of general and special scientific methods of cognition and a representative base of forensic investigative practice determines the necessary degree of reliability of the obtained results. The author concludes that the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation should clarify the specifics of the implementation of Article 354.1 in law enforcement practice and formulate criteria for distinguishing the corpus delicti from the one contained in Article 243.4, Destruction or Damage to Military Graves, Monuments, Steles, Obelisks, Other Memorial Structures or Objects Perpetuating the Memory of Those Killed in Defense of the Fatherland or Its Interests or Dedicated to the Days of Russian Military Glory, of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.