Canadian and American audiences gain a clearer view of a Russian plan to curb stalking through civil measures
A group of members from the New People party, including Vladislav Davankov, Sardana Avksentieva, and Ksenia Goryacheva, introduced a bill aimed at restricting access to individuals they label as violators. The announcement came through the faction’s press service, reported by TASS.
The bill proposes adding a new provision, article 14.1, to the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. The focus of this article would be a prohibition on approach and any other contacts between the violator and the targeted civilian. The move reflects a broader effort to address a gap in the country’s legal framework surrounding stalking and persistent persecution.
Currently, Russia does not impose direct criminal liability for the act of secretly tracking someone or for sustained stalking. Advocates behind the measure argue that victims often face displacement from their jobs or even relocation to different cities in an attempt to escape the stalker, yet such steps fail to neutralize the threat even when court orders are in place.
One supporter, Sardana Avksentieva, recalled a high-profile tragedy in Yekaterinburg that ended with the death of a woman at the hands of her former partner. She noted that the victim had sought police help for more than two years while trying to hide from the stalker, and the legal system at the time did not provide sufficient tools to stop the pursuit. This case, she argued, demonstrates how gaps in the law can have fatal consequences.
Quote attributed to Avksentieva emphasized the preventative potential of the proposed measure. The suggestion was that barring not only meetings and letters but also any direct approach could prevent similar outcomes. The idea is to extend protections beyond the existing restrictions that focus narrowly on communications such as phone calls, emails, and letters, and to cover in-person contact as well.
Under the current system, a court may prohibit the stalker from calling or sending messages, but it cannot restrict on-site contact or personal approaches. MPs in the faction argue that this leaves victims exposed and that the law should close this loophole to offer comprehensive protection from ongoing persecution.
Davankov, a member of the delegation, stated that filling this gap is essential to fully safeguard individuals against harassment. The aim is to equip the judiciary with the authority to curb direct in-person approaches, thereby reducing the risk of further harm to victims who endure persistent intimidation.
The discussion around the bill also touches on broader questions about public safety and the responsibilities of the state to intervene when a stalker’s behavior escalates. While the proposed changes focus on civil remedies rather than criminal penalties, supporters suggest that the enhanced framework could deter would-be perpetrators by signaling stronger legal consequences for persistent targeting.
In the wider Russian parliamentary landscape, commentary has circulated about how such measures might interact with existing protections for crime victims and individuals at risk. Analysts and lawmakers alike argue that a clearer, more enforceable standard for contact could help prevent cases where victims feel compelled to alter their life circumstances merely to avoid harassment. The debate continues as committees review the draft language and assess practical implications for enforcement, including police coordination, court procedures, and the potential need for accompanying guidelines or training for law enforcement and judges. If enacted, the new article would represent a significant shift toward stronger, more explicit safeguards against stalking and sustained persecution. Citation notes: The original reporting on this initiative comes from monitoring by the press service of the New People faction and coverage by TASS. Additional context for the discussion rests on public statements from the MPs involved and documented cases cited during roundtable discussions and parliamentary sessions. In assessments from scholars and legal practitioners, this approach is viewed as a potential model for balancing civil remedies with practical enforcement challenges. Attributions reflect reported statements and publicly available summaries of the debate as of today.