The article is devoted to the differentiation of criminal liability for various forms of treason. Using the experience of Ukraineafter the occupation of its territories by the Russian Federation in 2014 and legal doctrine, analyzed some forms of crime under Art. 111of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.Such forms of treason are considered as: 1) transition to the side of the enemy in a state of martial law or during an armed conflict;2) espionage; 3) providing assistance to a foreign state, foreign organization or their representatives in carrying out subversive activitiesagainst Ukraine. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the statistics of convictions for treason and the actual number of servicemen, lawenforcement officers, judges, and civil servants who have sided with the enemy differ significantly. Difficulties and contradictions inlaw enforcement are revealed, ways of their elimination are offered.Based on the study of each of the forms of treason, the responsibility for which is provided by Art. 111 of the Criminal Code ofUkraine, revealed a significant difference in the degree of public danger of such acts. Analysis of the practice of national courts also showsthat for this crime under Art. 69 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine often imposed a milder punishment than provided by law. Ta king intoaccount the above, as well as the experience of the legislation of states such as Germany, Switzerland, Sweden, it is proposed to providein a separate article of the Criminal Code of Ukraine to allocate such a form of treason as providing assistance to a foreign state, foreignorganization or their representatives. According to the author, this act should be defined as a not particularly serious crime, which shouldbe punishable by imprisonment for up to ten years. This will avoid the unjustified severity of the criminal law, and in the event of a politicaldecision to reintegrate the occupied territories, apply amnesty to those who will be prosecuted for such a crime after the conviction.
Read full abstract