The General Assembly of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued statements detailing how criminal cases involving military service should be considered in courts. After the statements were prepared, the draft decision was sent to the editorial commission for review, and the document was shared with TASS for familiarity.
The draft outlines a broad catalog of 123 items within the project and reflects amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation enacted in September 2022. These changes respond to evolving legal and security considerations and aim to clarify the boundaries of criminal liability related to military service.
In its framing, the document asserts that desertion by a soldier is charged when there is a clear purpose to entirely evade military duty. This point makes the alignment between intent and action central to how offenses are defined and prosecuted within the armed forces and civilian courts alike.
According to the document, an intention to desert may be proven through evidence showing that a person has obtained or presented false identity documents, or has engaged in military service as mandated by law, or has delayed service by concealing the fact of conscription, employment, or other service obligations while in the custody or oversight of law enforcement agencies. This formulation highlights the role of deceptive behavior and concealment in establishing criminal liability.
The Court of Cassation noted that crimes against military service committed during mobilization periods or amid armed conflict and combat operations carry an elevated level of public danger. As a consequence, such circumstances should be treated as aggravating factors when assessing the severity of the offense and the corresponding punishment.
The court clarified that if an act constitutes a crime against military service but does not produce socially dangerous consequences or harm the state’s interests or the military’s functioning, the case may be closed for lack of a corpus delicti. In such situations, disciplinary measures may be applicable rather than criminal sanctions. The document also enumerates serious consequences that aggravate responsibility for failing to follow orders, including reductions in combat readiness, the failure to complete combat missions, the loss of military command, and damage to critical infrastructure facilities and equipment.
The statements underscore that criminal responsibility can attach to subordinates who execute orders that contravene Russian law. This principle reinforces the legal accountability of service members at all levels, ensuring that unlawful directives do not shield individuals from liability.
Additionally, the document discusses the consequences associated with leaving combat duty, refusing to obey orders, and damaging military property. These scenarios are treated as distinct violations with corresponding criminal or disciplinary pathways, depending on the context and impact on military operations and public safety.
Earlier reports indicated that Russia has the authority to impose criminal sanctions for evading mobilization service, a stance reflected in the current draft and related commentary. The evolving framework aims to provide clearer guidance to judges, prosecutors, and military authorities, reducing ambiguity in how offenses related to military service are interpreted and prosecuted in both mobilized and peacetime conditions. This emphasis on clear statutory guidance is intended to support consistent application of the law across jurisdictions and to deter conduct that undermines national defense and public safety, while also safeguarding due process and the proportionality of penalties.
As the process moves forward, observers note that the judicial approach sought by the General Assembly balances accountability with the realities of mobilization, conflict, and operational demands. The ongoing work appears to reflect an intent to streamline procedures, reinforce state interests, and maintain discipline within the armed forces while ensuring that criminal law remains a tool for addressing harmful actions in times of upheaval. Attribution: TASS.