The plenum of the Supreme Court of Russia has ruled that a soldier who voluntarily surrenders can be punished with up to ten years in prison if he takes no steps to avoid the surrender. This interpretation was reported by Interfax. The guiding principle is that surrender itself is a criminal act unless the soldier demonstrates attempts to prevent or mitigate the situation.
The court also clarified that if a soldier is caught for the first time and, at the same time, takes steps to save himself, returns to his post, and does not commit crimes while in captivity, punishment may be avoided. The emphasis is on proactive self-preservation and a prompt return to duty rather than on punitive retaliation for the mere act of being captured.
A soldier who has been taken prisoner, sustained injuries, and was unable to resist may be acquitted, reflecting a consideration of the soldier’s physical condition and the constraints imposed by captivity.
Moreover, the Supreme Court stated that choosing to side with the enemy to participate in conflicts as part of enemy formations should be treated as treason and can carry a penalty of up to 20 years in prison under the Penal Code. This underscores the severity assigned to acts of collaboration with opposing forces during armed conflict.
The court reminded that during mobilization or martial law, the army is still bound to execute orders and fulfill official duties, even in dangerous circumstances. The duty to comply remains a central obligation under extraordinary conditions.
The document instructs courts to recognize that damage caused by military personnel while performing their duties is not criminally liable if the actions align with applicable regulations. Conversely, soldiers do retain the right to refuse orders from a commander if those orders violate the law or do not pertain to their official duties. If a soldier adheres to a criminal order and knows it is illegal, criminal liability applies, and the commander may be held responsible as the instigator or organizer.
According to the Supreme Court’s decision, evading the draft by not appearing for service can be treated as a failure to show up without a valid reason. The process may involve review, professional psychological selection, and a draft board meeting. Those who fail to appear at the times and places specified in the military registry and registration offices may be considered as evading service, with prosecutors required to prove that the individual was informed of the obligation to appear.
A legitimate reason for not reporting to the military registry and service office after receiving a summons includes illness or the death of a close relative, disability caused by force majeure, or any other condition beyond the citizen’s control.
A citizen who leaves military service can be punished only for kidnapping during the period of enlistment, with a two-year statute of limitations applicable in that case.
The court also noted that feigning illness or injuring oneself intentionally to dodge military service constitutes a crime and is prosecutable.
Temporary desertion carries a penalty of up to one year of detention in a disciplinary unit. Complete exemption from conscription for intentional self-harm can result in up to seven years of imprisonment, and in times of military conflict the penalty can reach up to ten years. The length of the evasion period is immaterial to the outcome.
If an enlisted person was harmed by a third party, the helper faces conviction under two articles of the Criminal Code for fugitive complicity and damage to health, reflecting accountability for aiding harm during the event.
The Supreme Court also recalled that there are individuals serving sentences of forced and remedial labor, those detained or deprived of liberty, as well as persons under preliminary investigation, and those with unexplained or extraordinary convictions. Those under investigation or facing criminal proceedings who are not drafted into the military are cases that may be brought before the court.
Earlier, the St. Petersburg military registration and recruitment offices began sending call-up notices with warnings of potential restrictive measures in cases of noncompliance, a reminder of the ongoing enforcement framework surrounding conscription and mobilization.
Source attributions: Interfax and related court statements provide the basis for these interpretations of military service obligations and penalties. The rulings emphasize the balance between upholding duty and recognizing circumstances that may mitigate liability during armed conflict and mobilization.”