§2. Crime elements as the basis of realisation of forms of the criminal liability.

In the theory of criminal law of Somalia, after Italy allocation of elements of criminal action which form the basis of the criminal liability and realisation of its forms, that is - preterpevanija the person of restrictions of its rights and freedom, legitimate interests is accurately traced.

Acts of the person in any society it is regulated by laws of that state in which it is. In case act of the concrete individual is beyond this law and falls under norm of criminal law it will be qualified as law-breaking provided that in it all its elements (legal, material and moral) contain.

In the theory of the Russian criminal law discriminate two concepts: concept "crime" and concept "corpus delicti". In Somalia, according to positions of the item of item 15, 96 and 98 illegal acts regulated by the criminal law share on crimes and infringements. Structure of criminally-legal act UK Somalia does not operate with concept, however in it the whole chapter devoted to questions of elements of criminal behaviour which characteristic has similarity to the doctrine about the corpus delicti (a department of I head P, the item item 20-22УК Somalia) contains.

The concept "corpus delicti" is known to criminal law, for example, such European states, as Germany, Austria. In one of comments to UK Germany the concept "corpus delicti" is deciphered as follows, it is the mental scheme, namely, obrisovka actions in abstract concept; concrete action corresponds to structure if it coincides with its abstract picture. It is necessary to notice, that concept of structure as legislative model, theoretical and legislative abstraction, meets and in the Russian criminally-legal literature. [44]

In item 5 § 11 UK Germany it is told, that «illegal act is only such act by which the corpus delicti provided by the criminal law» is carried out. In German criminal law designs of the basis of the criminal liability, institutes of punishment, concept of fault, the justifiable defence, emergency and so forth [45] are widely used

In Russia in the corpus delicti include four elements: object, the objective party, the subject and the subjective party. Each element of the corpus delicti has the signs. The maintenance in act of the person of all signs of structure provided in the law is the qualification basis sodejannogo on norms of the criminal law and forms the criminal liability basis (item 8 UK the Russian Federation). The criminal liability basis, that is qualification sodejannogo, to that, or other category, it is possible to consider its subsequent reference as conditions, or the precondition of realisation of the criminal liability as its basic forms - punishments - are reflected in the sanction of corresponding article, and other measures of criminally-legal character can be applied, as a rule, taking into account a crime category.

The similar doctrine, with certain reservations, it is possible to apply and to Somalia. Necessity of working out of this doctrine follows directly from norms UK Somalia. The chapter II UK Somalia (a department I, item 20-22 item) and is called «the Elements constituting criminal action».

However it is necessary to notice once again, that the Somali criminal law, the doctrine and judiciary practice of other developing countries, generated under the influence of the continental legal system, does not know concept "corpus delicti".

In theoretical works on criminal law elements of a crime which in aggregate represent the criminal liability basis are considered. Therefore at the decision of a question on the criminal liability basis it is necessary to establish all elements of a crime or infringement.

Let's notice, that in criminal codes of some the African countries which have tested influence of the continental legal system, positions about crime elements also contain. Inclusion practice in the criminal legislation of this or that country of the elements (signs) characterising act provided by the criminal law is represented rather steady.

So, in ch. 2 items 23 UK of Ethiopia are told, that criminal action takes place only in case all are realised it konstitutivnye elements: legal, material and moral.

In UK Somalia the legal sign of a crime, a principle «nullum crimen sine lege» is reflected not in articles of the chapter II UK Somalia, and in articles of its other heads so in item 1 of the Part I position contains: « Nobody can be punished for act which directly is not statutory as a criminal offence, and also kinds of punishments, not statutory »cannot be applied. Words of article of the first UK Somalia« Conformity of act to the signs specified in the criminal law », correspond to words ch. 1 items 14 UK the Russian Federation« forbidden by the present Code »and on terminology of French criminally-legal doctrine mean a legal element of a crime, or there correspond to a sign« illegalities », accepted in the Russian criminally-legal doctrine at the description of signs of a crime. This sign substantially defines forms of realisation of the criminal liability, fixed in sanctions of norms of Special part UK and other forms of realisation of the criminal liability, containing in the criminal law. The legal principle has found the reflexion and in the basic regional laws of Somalia. So in ch. 1 items 26 of Constitution Somalilenda it is told:« Crimes and punishments for their fulfilment are established by the law, and no punishment should be appointed as it should be which contradicts the law ». In ch. 2 items 26 of Constitution Puntlenda are reflected the same position.

It is necessary to notice, that UK Somalia directly does not speak about inadmissibility of analogy in criminal law as it, is reflected, for example, in item 3 UK the Russian Federation, courts of justice try after acceptance uniform UK Somalia to start with this principle. However, in spite of the fact that UK Somalia in which basis it is put UK Italy, concerns the continental legal system, has historically developed so, that Somalis are inclined to application of the conventional rules, called Hir (Xeer) [46], for regulation of all public relations. Naturally, it is reflected and in the decision of questions of realisation of the criminal liability. It is necessary to notice, that the most part of the population of Somalia and prefers now a common law, as more clear and habitual, having the deep roots, rich with the traditions and customs on which relations between people are under construction.

Taking into consideration social traditions of the Somali people, the conventional rule, does not interfere with court to appoint guilty fair punishment for the act made by it and on the essence do not contradict the secular law. On the contrary, they promote performance of civil obligations which in consciousness of people are important enough. For today they are capable to keep Somalis from bad Islam of behaviour contradicting rules. Islamic sharia as the basic source for the national legislation, blaming misbehaviour on pain of fair punishment, provides with that the world and a social order, that is in turn reflected and in the Constitution of Somalia.

Ahmed Shejh Ali Ahmad writes in the unique work written in the Somali language: «Hir - the rule of the resolution of disputes established by practice between the people, prevention having by the purpose or offence suppressions». [47]

In Somalia the common law is an integral part of culture of a society. People, as a rule, follow it. They hate the constitutional laws accepted by politicians but only submit to them when are forced. When the Italian colonial government, has left Somalia in 1960th years, Somalis should accept the new legislation in which basis norms of the traditional common law operating since the most ancient times till the colonial period are put. However, Italians, leaving, have pushed Somalis in creation of structure of political system, namely - creation of institute of the government. As marks I.P.Konovalov, «got used to rely in a life on traditions, the majority of Somalis, especially in rural areas, saw in the state only an enforcement machinery. Especially authoritative method of board of dictator Mohammed Siada Barre supervising the country with 1969 for 1991, only strengthened this impression». [48]

The mood of the people can be understood, but the fact there is that the Italian concept was not alternatives. As, as is known, a common law the fault, punishment, a security measure, conditional does not regulate such base concepts, as elements of a crime,

Stay of execution of punishment, etc. so far as the theory of criminal law of Somalia should start with the secular law and the theory developed in other countries.

The Somali common law existed informally in board of the president of the Somali Democratic Republic, the founder of Somali revolutionary socialist party Siada to Barra (1969 - 1991). After disintegration of the state it has again arisen to provide certain level of leadership of the law in

To republic. [49] common law includes a set of unwritten agreements (Hir) and procedures which are transferred orally from generation to generation. Hir is more than the contract. Acting as one of the main regulators of public relations, Hir forms the basic values, laws and norms of behaviour in a society, in it the substantive provisions of Sheriyat in turn generated under the influence of norms and principles of a common law are reflected. [50 [51] thus, Hir is the generated set of the rights and duties of the separate individuals, traditional rules by which elders in the resolution of disputes are guided between


The resisting parties, by application of pacific means.

At the conference of 2014 which were passing in hotel Dzhazira the Oriental carpet in Mogadishu, the devoted judiciary reform, one of acting scientists has stated the following thought: «Hir never will be not claimed. It is stronger, than laws of any government. The laws created by the state, do not satisfy people; they do not cause sufficient justice and consequently they do not bring the world between groups».

As well as any law, Hir forbids murder, an attack, tortures, a beating, rape, kidnapping, a robbery, a robbery, robbery, theft, an arson, extortion, swindle and property damage. The legal system is concentrated to the restitution to victims, instead of on punishment of criminals. For law-breakings, the maximum payments of indemnification to victims are specified in number of camels (payment can be made in equivalent monetary cost). [52]

However the exclusive prerogative of the decision of similar problems belongs to the state. It establishes the norms forbidding wrongful acts in the criminal legislation. It, on the one hand, protection of a society against encroachments and, with another - maintenance of normal functioning of machineries of state.

As the modern condition legal and the judiciary of Somalia is characterised by an increasing role of a common law, analogy of the right, takes place in judiciary practice, on what have specified and 89 % of the judges interrogated by us. It is represented, that at action in Somalia the secular criminal law it is necessary to develop and introduce theoretically in sense of justice of Somalis advantage of the decision of questions of the criminal liability only on the basis of the law that assumes fastening of an interdiction for analogy of the right at perfection of its norms. Taking into account told it is represented expedient to add item 1 UK Somalia ch. 2 following maintenances: « Criminal law application by analogy is not supposed ». That such norm has got accustomed and has entered into practice of work of law enforcement bodies of Somalia it is necessary to introduce under specially developed program in sense of justice of Somalis advantage of the decision of questions on the criminal liability only on the basis of the secular law. Thereupon the offered norm should be installed since January, 1st, 2021

In second chapter UK Somalia as material (objective) and moral (subjective) elements of a crime were already marked, regulated.

Any criminal action on the objective (material) properties is act or omission. Action of the person in any society is regulated by laws of that state in which they are. In case action of the concrete individual is beyond this law and falls under norm of the criminal law action will be qualified as a crime if in it all elements of a crime contain.

The theory of criminal law of the African states proceeds from this position. In them responsibility for the thoughts of the person even stated if they are not expressed in concrete act is not established. As the Nigerian criminalist «crime elements marks, set of the signs characterising given act as a crime is, the cores from them are reflected in a disposition of norm of the special part of the criminal law. In other words, through full comprehension of elements of a crime it is possible to find out for itself the maintenance of elements of this crime». [53]

In item 20 UK Somalia it is told: «Nobody can be punished for the act or omission which is under the law a crime if, the damnified or dangerous result on which criminal action presence depends, was not a consequence of its act or omission. There, where there is a legal obligation for event prevention, default of this duty to equivalently criminal injury». It is easy to notice, that in the given norm of the criminal law are reflected: and a legal element of punishable act and three obligatory signs of its material element - act, its result (damnified) and a causal relationship, that is signs of the objective party, according to the Russian theory about the corpus delicti.

The behaviour of the person, finds external display in its acts, act, act or omission. Act is made in this or that place during certain time and certain way. In the criminal law theory such signs of act can be carried to its outer side. In the Russian Federation these signs carry to the objective party of act, and in criminal law - to the objective party of a crime, in Somalia - to a material element of infringement or a crime.

Penal action is a display of active behaviour of the person in which basis lays telodvizhenie or the speech, meaningly directed on a definite purpose. The most widespread form of committing a crime is action. Inactivity happens the material (objective) basis of the criminal liability much less often.

Inactivity - the certificate of behaviour consisting in omittance by the person of that action which it should and could execute according to the law instruction. [54]

The majority of punishable acts are made by actions, their smaller part - by inactivity from the persons obliged and having possibility to operate in certain circumstances. In Somalia by inactivity such crimes, as failure to report or refusal of execution of official certificates are committed; failure to report by the official who is carrying out public service, failure to report by the citizen, the data concerning a crime; failure to report by medical staff of data concerning a crime; refusal of execution of duties assigned by the law; illegal inactivity or removal of a safety measure against acts of nature or accidents; nonacceptance on imprudence of precautionary measures against accident and accidents in an operating time (item 255 item, 282, 283, 284, 285, 331, 346, etc. UK Somalia). For inactivity in the crimes listed above less strict kinds of punishments, (imprisonment till one year, or the penalty) are provided.

Inactivity as the material element of penal act, is a passive form of behaviour. The person should realise danger of approach of adverse consequences as result of the inactivity and the fact of the duty to operate if its will (for example is not knocked, have connected, have deafened, and so forth) . The passive behaviour deprived of strong-willed character, does not involve criminal liability realisation. Therefore the same as and at action, the criminal liability for inactivity does not come, if it is perfect under the influence of insuperable physical coercion. So, the security guard cannot be responsible for that has not prevented plunder of the property entrusted under its protection if criminals have connected it and have deprived of possibility to resist or call to the aid. The passive behaviour attracts the criminal liability only in the cases specified in the law. On this position there is a criminal law of Italy, the Russian Federation and foreign countries of continental system. In UK Somalia about it is spoken in ch. 2 items 20 and ч.2 item 21. The strong-willed moment characterises a moral element of a crime on which the establishment in the law to the criminal liability form about which it will be spoken more low also depends.

As it has been noted earlier, Somalia carries to a material element of a crime of item 20 UK, both fulfilment of the forbidden action, and its omittance which has caused a statutory harmful consequence. It is meant, that if the harmful consequence has come as result of act between act and the come result there should be an inevitable causal relationship. The causal relationship is objectively existing communication between criminal action and the come socially dangerous consequences. Presence of such communication - compulsory condition for attraction of the person to the criminal liability and from volume and character of the come consequence depends application to the person of the corresponding form of realisation of responsibility. All offences which are coming under to punishment, should grow out of human behaviour - or definitive action or inadmissible illegal inactivity. Thus the offence should grow out of action of the concrete subject. Difficulty consists in defining, whether the causal relationship between the perfect person act and the come result took a place in a concrete case.

If it is possible to approve, that in cases when the person has not arrived in appropriate way anything and has not occurred it is possible to speak about causal relationship existence between act and its result. On the contrary, if result, or any event would occur, that, even if the person and did not make anything, it is impossible to say that act of the person, has poured out in a offence, that is here there is no causal relationship. In deliberate crimes, approach of event with harmful result, necessarily should be a consequence of misbehaviour of the person, capable to bear the criminal liability. [55]

The question on the communication reason between act and its consequences at committing a crime by inactivity in practice of the Somali vessels dares the same as and in cases of fulfilment of active actions:

Inactivity of the person which is obliged and could operate, should be the inevitable reason of the come harmful result.

In the theory it is considered, that the proof of such communication, first of all, it is necessary at encroachments on the person (murder, drawing of physical injuries) and consequently the greatest attention of a causal relationship in the literature is given at a statement of questions Especial, instead of the General


Parts. [56]

Somali UK specially regulates a question on a causal relationship in case the criminal result was a consequence of the several reasons. In item 21 UK Somalia is underlined, that confluence of the reasons previous, simultaneous or come later, at least and persons depending on act or omission, does not exclude a causal relationship between act of this person and the come result.

The subsequent reasons exclude a causal relationship only when one them would be enough to cause result. In that case, if preceding act or omission in itself constitutes criminal action, the punishment ordered by the law is applied.

The previous positions are applied also when the previous, simultaneous or subsequent reason of communication is illegal act of other person.

Once again we will notice, that the Criminal code of Somalia discriminates three types of the reasons influencing on forms urealizatsii criminal otvtestvennosti: the previous, simultaneous and subsequent reasons. The previous reason is that which took place before any event or an offence - for example, deadly illness which the killed person was ill. Illness is the reason existing to such crime, as murder. The simultaneous reason is that which appears at a time with an offence, for example, wound or the blow put by other person, attacked the same victim, at the same time. The subsequent reason is that which appears after an offence, for example, the wound put second attacking, after first has just attacked or has wounded a victim. [57]

It is necessary to notice, that all three types of the reasons - previous, simultaneous and the subsequent - influence a causal relationship establishment between act and its result even if these reasons have arisen irrespective of act convicted, they affect a choice to the person of the form and a criminal liability measure.

However, not always probably accurately to define at any stage that, or other reason has affected result sodejannogo and whether has affected in general. Sometimes separately taken reason can "break off" a chain of causal relationships between the offender and act which it has made. It is important for having in view of at the decision of questions of realisation of measures of the criminal liability. On the basis of positions UK Somalia it is possible to allocate rules of an establishment of causal relationships of a material element of act. A rule the first: - there should be a causal relationship between act of the person and its result (item 20 UK Somalia). A rule the second: - the causal relation continues to exist and, hence, does the person responsible, despite events which took place during time, or after a crime made by it. The Rule the third: - The causal relation interrupts (and the person is not already responsible for the action unless its action already in itself is an offence) the subsequent reasons, which in itself are sufficient for offence occurrence.

For a recognition of one acts criminal, there is enough act or omission, and for others - approach of a criminal consequence is necessary. In the latter case there are problems causally - investigatory communication between act and its consequence. [58]

Allocation in UK Somalia values of sequence of the reasons previous penal act, simultaneous with it, or come later, at least and persons depending on act or omission as not excluding a causal relationship between act of this person and the come result (item 21 UK Somalia), allows to formulate the offer on expediency of influence of each reason on a choice court of the form and a measure of realisation of the criminal liability concerning one or everyone persons (depending on circumstances of business) and to reflect it in the law.

Way of fulfilment of socially dangerous act as expression of action and, hence, a material element of a crime, allows not only to define possible object of an encroachment but also to establish the form of fault of the person, its made and, hence, to affect an establishment of the sanction of corresponding article, and finally to affect and the form of realisation of responsibility. For example, the attack on the person with application of violence not only testifies that the encroachment on the person or the property took place, but also allows to draw a conclusion on deliberate character of made actions. «Character of the objective party, V.N.Kudryavtsev underlined, with bolshej or smaller accuracy defines a circle of those public relations on which the criminal trespass could be made, and in some cases predetermines contemplation of the subjective party». [59]

Thus, value of material elements of a crime consists that, first, they enter into the criminal liability basis, secondly, are the legislative ground of qualification of crimes, thirdly, allow to differentiate the acts similar among themselves on other elements, fourthly, contain the criterion differentiating, both different kinds of crimes, and crimes from other offences. [60] material elements, are put in pawn in a disposition of norm of special part UK Somalia and influence the kinds of punishments established in it and possibility of application of security measures, conditional stay of execution of punishment, as forms of realisation of the criminal liability.

The moral element of a crime includes the signs concerning the person, made the act containing in UK Somalia, testifying to ability of this person to bear the criminal liability. The signs characterising the mental relation of the person to sodejannomu by it and its consequences concern a moral element of a crime also. The moral element of a crime, in our opinion, includes also comprehension by the person of inevitability in case of exposure of its act preterpevanija deprivations and restrictions on a court sentence.

The legislator of Somalia, as well as the bodies applying it, at an estimation sodejannogo go from objective to the subjective. Moral elements sodejannogo also influence an establishment of the form of the criminal liability. It is important to notice, that in Somalia signs of the subject of punishable act are connected only with the physical person and its personal (personal) responsibility.

From the maintenance of the chapter of II th, the item of item 59 and 60 UK Somalia, and also item 43 of the Constitution of Somalia are accurately looked through approaches to an establishment

Signs of the person who are coming under to the criminal liability. A personal responsibility principle carry to classical special principles of criminal law. [61]

In spite of the fact that UK Somalia was created on similarity UK of Italy, the legislator of Somalia has not followed the Italian legislator who in 2001 the Law of 231/2001, has entered the criminal liability of legal bodies, with a view of the meeting commitment, following of the international conventions. The criminal liability of legal bodies is entered in many countries. In Somalia the principle of personal responsibility is fixed in the state Organic law, in particular, item 43 of the Constitution of Somalia says: «the criminal liability is personal. Any kind of collective punishment» is not supposed. In Somalia the question on an establishment of the criminal liability of legal bodies is discussed only by separate jurists. The criminal law fixes a personal responsibility principle. Item 23 UK Somalia says: «Nobody can be punished for action or except the person who has made it is conscious, and on the will».

The personal responsibility principle is fixed and in the legislation of other African countries. So, according to item 96 UK of Ruanda: «the Criminal liability has personal character». [62]

Let's notice, that the international documents do not oblige the state to include in the criminal legislation of legal bodies as subjects of the criminal liability. On the contrary, they focus the legislator on an establishment concerning legal bodies of the sanctions effective, proportional and having constraining influence corresponding to legal principles of the state.

Legal bodies in Somalia answer on norms of other branches of law that does not contradict the international conventions and keeps specificity of institutes of criminal law.

Ability of the person to realise sodejannoe contacts its age and state of sanity. The age of the person is put and in an application basis to it of special forms of the criminal liability. According to norms UK Somalia, the perpetrator admits the responsible person who has reached 14 - summer age (the item of item 59-60 UK Somalia. This general rule for realisation of responsibility for fulfilment of any crime. However for minors at the age from 14 till 18 years obligatory mitigation of punishment (item 60 UK Somalia) is provided.

The law does not limit a circle of acts for which, responsibility comes from 14 years. It is considered, that from this age the person is capable to realise the actions and to give the report to the behaviour, thereupon to persons at the age from 14 till 18 years special forms of realisation of responsibility are applied.

The legislator has fixed a presumption of absence of ability osoznanno to bear responsibility for sodejannoe the person aged till 14 years. At the same time, according to positions UK Somalia if the juvenile person is recognised by socially dangerous, it can be subjected security measures in reformatorijah for minors.

At a choice of separate kinds of punishments or security measures, the minor, it is underlined by the legislator, that the great value has those from them which are among incentive norms.

In the countries of Europe widely vary the minimum age of the criminal liability. For example, in England and the Wales the lowest age of the criminal liability - is established 10 years. We will result some examples: in Luxembourg the same as and in Belgium - 18 years, for all a crime, except for the grave crimes, in

Portugal and Romania - 16 years. In each of four Scandinavian countries, the age of the criminal liability is established 15 years, in Bulgaria, Spain, Italy, Germany and Austria - 14 years; in France, Greece and Poland - 13 years. [63]

The criminality among youth becomes more and more sharp social phenomenon, especially in the English-speaking countries, such as the Great Britain and the USA. Therefore the different age of the criminal liability in the different countries complicates working out of international treaties about forms of realisation of the criminal liability on different age groups. Is remarkable that the USA - the unique country which along with Somalia has not signed the most important international treaty in this part - the Convention of the United Nations on the rights of the child. [64]

It is necessary to notice, that since first half 90th years, were and various offers on decrease in the bottom age border of the criminal liability with 14 till 12 years continue to exist. These offers yet do not send the response in Somalia. Though a number of the African states has lowered this limit till 8 years (Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Nigeria, etc.) Distinctions in an establishment of the minimum age of the criminal liability partly speak distinction of culture and level of sense of justice of the different people. We believe, that in Somalia in modern its social and economic condition, level of culture of a society, at considerable influence of norms of Sheriyat, decrease in the bottom age border of the criminal liability with 14 till 12 years would not be apprehended by the people. We offer not only be guided by positions of the law on application to minors of so-called incentive norms, but also to allocate features of application of forms of realisation criminal

Responsibility to two categories of minors: made punishable acts at the age from 14 till 16 years and from 16 till 18 years. Acts of children should be separated, from their personal qualities. They were not generated yet as the person. Concerning minor offenders it is important to develop system of incentive norms for Somalia.

The age of the criminal liability, is in a sense connected with state of sanity. Made it is considered the person who at the moment of committing a crime had ability to realise danger of made act, to expect its consequences and to wish to make the given act (item 47 UK Somalia).

As the fault is established only with reference to the concrete physical person who has made socially dangerous act, so far as the decision of a question on its responsibility as preconditions of its fault and preterpevanija burden of responsibility, it is connected with appointment to this person of the form of realisation of the criminal liability.

Responsibility is one of necessary signs of a recognition of the person guilty of committing a crime. It, in case of doubt in mental condition of the person, is established by carrying out sudebnomeditsinskoj examinations.

For the Russian criminal trial it is characteristic, that responsibility of the perpetrator not prezjumiruetsja, the onus of proving

Diminished responsibility does not lay on convicted (item 14 UPK the Russian Federation). On the same position there is also a Somali legislator. In the item of item 63-64 UPK Somalia is said that the convicted should not prove the innocence from what it it it is possible to draw a conclusion that on it the diminished responsibility onus of proving as the circumstance eliminating does not lay also

Guilt. [65] if the court, or other bodies had doubts about responsibility of the person at the moment of fulfilment of a crime by it they petition for carrying out of corresponding examination on which basis the conclusion can be drawn on ability of the person at the moment of committing a crime to give the report to the actions and to supervise over them in force, or presence at it mental disorder, or short-term frustration of sincere activity.

According to a common law, suspects are considered innocent until the victim has not proved, that the suspect has broken its rights.

Responsibility assumes ability of the person to understand and supervise the impulses to action. UK Somalia, as well as UK Italy, the Russian Federation, of some other countries does not contain concept of responsibility, but is unconditional, starts with it at a criminal liability regulation. UK Somalia contains norms about diminished responsibility and the reduced responsibility. The condition of the reduced responsibility influences a choice to the person of more softened form of responsibility, and state of insanity - applications to such person of medical influence in connection with its danger to a society.

Ability to understand an event reality, its positive or negative social value at act fulfilment assumes intellectual working capacity, ability to operate with the person with will. Ability to carry out strong-willed act consists in ability independently to define and supervise the impulses in relation to fulfilment of this act.

Under the general rule, concerning persons whom acts at the moment of fulfilment were in such mental condition which completely excluded its possibility to realise and wish to make, forms

The criminal liability are not realised. However these persons can be recognised by court by socially dangerous and according to item 176 UK Somalias it can be appointed such security measure, as the compulsory medical treatment which is not concerning in similar situations to forms realisation of the criminal liability. For example, the person who has reached by the moment of committing a crime of eighteen-year age, is considered the adult and consequently it is supposed, that it is capable to understand value of all actions if it is made and, hence, concerning it it is possible to realise any form of the criminal liability. However this assumption can be confuted, if is proved, that the person (it cannot be the criminal) was unable understand and operate intentionally at the moment of act fulfilment, owing to mental lacks or for other reasons (item 50-51 UK Somalia) and then this person does not bear responsibility for sodejannoe. Thus, ability of the person to realise character and danger of act made by it, to expect its result, that is psychological (intellectual moment) and desire to make such act, that is possession ability to choose variants of the behaviour (strong-willed moment) underlie the maintenance of concept of responsibility and criminal liability realisation.

The decision of questions on a recognition of the person deranged and its clearing of responsibility in Somalia has the specificity. So, in northern regions Somalias in which operated UK India, based on the Anglo-Saxon right, rule Maknatena was applied. The essence of this rule consists that the person, suffering a mental illness or defect of mentality, is not involved in the criminal liability if it is deprived ability to realise the nature and quality of made act.

The mentioned rule has been changed with acceptance current UK Somalia. It is connected with business certain Dzhama Abdi. In 1965 it has made murder of the nephew and soon after that has been seized by neighbours is delivered in a police station. On interrogation Dzhama Abdi denied the participation in murder and has declared, that remembers nothing. It was found out, that he suffered the mental derangement excluding responsibility. Further Dzhama Abdi under the decree has been sent in psychiatric clinic. [66]

On this business the Supreme Court has established, that the person can be recognised by deranged after studying:

1) histories of a family of the convicted;

2) its private affair before committing a crime;

3) conditions and circumstances of fulfilment of the crime.

Proceeding from it, the court has enacted, that the recognition of the person deranged is difficult procedure which should be spent by the expert.

Somali UK as it was already marked, provides full diminished responsibility and the reduced responsibility. According to item 50 UK Somalia persons who at the moment of committing a crime were in such mental condition which completely excluded possibility to understand character of made act and to wish approach of the consequences connected with it, are released from the criminal liability. According to item 51 UK Somalia the person who at the moment of committing a crime was in such mental condition which did not exclude, but essentially reduced ability to realise character of made act and to wish approach of the consequences connected with it bears responsibility for sodejannoe, but punishment for it should be lowered. Apparently, the legislator flexibly enough delimits limited or as sometimes name the reduced or partial responsibility.

Century N Dodonov and And. And Malinovsky have noticed, that the institute of the reduced (limited) responsibility began to extend more widely in the legislation of the different countries recently. In a case awarding punishment to persons with the limited responsibility that fact is considered, that mental disorder of the criminal though has not made its deranged, nevertheless substantially has negatively affected it intellectually - strong-willed qualities. After 1991 the above-stated institute has received fastening in new UK all CIS countries (except Moldova and Uzbekistan), and also Albania, the Peoples Republic of China, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia. [67] concept of the reduced responsibility also is known to the criminal legislation of Italy, Brazil to Denmark, Libya, Germany, Switzerland, Japan, etc.

Refusal of the criminal liability of persons, owing to the mental derangements which are not possessing ability «freely and correctly to choose between right and wrong», is one of base approaches to criminal liability realisation in modern criminal law. It admits the doctrine of criminal law and is fixed in criminal laws of many states. [68] for example, in ch. 1 item 21 UK of Spain is provided, that the one who during fulfilment of criminal act because of any mental deviation or infringement could not realise illegality of act made by it does not come under to the criminal liability or to supervise over the actions. [69] According to § 20 criminal codes of Germany «without fault operate the one who at fulfilment of act owing to the painful mental derangement, deep frustration of consciousness,

Weak-mindedness or other heavy mental deviation it is not capable to realise illegality of act or to operate with consciousness of their illegality ». [70]

UK Somalia (item 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 57,58) allocates some categories of irresponsible persons which depending on their ability to realise the actions and to supervise over them, can be recognised deranged and, accordingly, not to bear the criminal liability, or persons with the reduced responsibility in which relation features of realisation of the criminal liability are established, it: the persons, suffering mental disorders; the persons who were in a condition of alcoholic or narcotic intoxication because of an emergency or force majeure; deaf-mutes who at the moment of committing a crime could not understand the actions and wish their fulfilment because of the illness.

With reference to the person, suffering mental disorder the court should not recognise as its perpetrator if in connection with illness this person was unable (for example, in monomania of prosecution of the murder made by other person and felt constant prosecution of the persecutor) to supervise over the actions). [71]

At the same time, according to item 52 UK «fulfilment by the person of a crime in a condition of emotional excitation or passion not only does not release Somalia from the criminal liability, but also is not the extenuation. Distinction of two specified conditions consists that the first have passing character and are characterised, as sudden shocks of mind, the last have strong and deeper roots. In any case, according to the Somali legislation and the theory of the Italian criminal law the reasons excluding responsibility, it is possible to divide on: the physiological reasons (age); the pathological reasons (illness); and the reasons of toxic character (an intoxication alcohol or drugs). We will stop on last in more details as the legislator has accurately formulated the position on the given question in the item of item 53-57 UK Somalia. It is remarkable, that in UK Somalias contain special instructions on under what circumstances there comes responsibility of the persons who have committed crimes in a condition of alcoholic or narcotic intoxication and under what conditions these persons can be recognised by deranged.

It is necessary to understand time and reversible change of informative and strong-willed processes as drunkenness at the subject after reception of alcoholic drinks. Thus the legislator allocates casual and habitual drunkenness as drunkenness versions. Casual drunkenness is defined, how the drunkenness which has grown out inadvertent or circumstances of force majeure (ch. 1 items 53 UK Somalia). As an example the person who works on a distillery can serve, drinks as a result of emergency flood. If such drunkenness leads the person to a pathological condition at which are excluded understanding possibility by this person of character of made actions and ability to supervise over them, the recognition of the person by the perpetrator, and, hence, is excluded also it and does not come under to punishment; if this condition only gives boldness and considerably reduces ability to supervise over the actions, punishment is applied, but to a lesser degree. On the contrary, habitual drunkenness a finding of the person at the moment of committing a crime in a condition of usual alcoholic intoxication does not exclude responsibilities and punishment increases (item 55 UK Somalia).

The law establishes, that the condition of partial loss of consciousness therefore occurrence and check of it are compulsory condition for an establishment of the basis of the criminal liability and its realisation also concerns a psychological element.

In the law it is specified, that concerning the persons who have committed crimes in state of insanity, corresponding security measures (item 176 UK Somalia) can be applied.

The person who at the moment of committing a crime was in state of drunkenness completely excluding ability to understand an event admits deranged also and to wish approach of its result. If state of drunkenness did not exclude, but essentially limited ability to realise and wish the person comes under to the criminal liability, however punishment to it is necessarily softened (ch. 2 items 53 UK Somalia). State of drunkenness which has resulted from an emergency or force majeure is thus considered. The person who has voluntary resulted itself in state of drunkenness, is not released from the criminal liability, and punishment to it is not softened. If the person has resulted itself in state of drunkenness for the purpose of committing a crime or preparation to itself justifications, punishment to it, on the contrary, amplifies (item 54 UK Somalia). To the person who was at the moment of committing a crime in a condition of narcotic intoxication, the same rules, as to the person who was in a condition of alcoholic intoxication (item 56 UK Somalia) are applied. The Aggravating circumstance committing a crime by the person which was in a condition of habitual alcoholic or narcotic intoxication (ch admits. 1 items 55 UK Somalia). The person in a condition of habitual intoxication considers such person who has conceived a liking for the use of alcohol or narcotics and thus often is in state of drunkenness (ch. 2 items 55 UK Somalia).

In case the person is in a condition of a chronic intoxication

Organism alcohol or narcotics it can be

It is recognised completely by deranged or it is reduced made on the same bases, as the persons, suffering by mental disorders (item 57 UK Somalia).

The criminal code of Somalia especially reserves a recognition the subject of penal act of deaf-mutes. The persons, suffering this lack in case of their inability owing to a physical illness to estimate an event and to show the will «do not come under to punishment». Concerning the deaf-mutes who have made acts, containing in norms UK Somalias and released from punishment, are applied security measures.

If at such persons ability to realise and wish has been considerably lowered, that, punishment decreases »(item 58 UK Somalia).

Let's notice, that full or partial defect of mind, or the personal frustration caused by physical defects (deafness, absence of possibility to speak, move and so forth) in rare instances, but nevertheless can exclude display of comprehension, an event and will owing to what admit mental disorders. In any case, the committed crime should be caused mind frustration.

Unlike item 22 UK the Russian Federation about the criminal liability of the person with the mental derangement which is not excluding responsibilities (the so-called reduced responsibility), recommending to consider such condition at awarding punishment or to recognise as its basis of application of forced measures of medical character, UK Somalia establishes obligatory mitigation of punishment to persons with the limited responsibility (item 51,53, 58). However the law does not reserve limits of such softening. Thereupon it is offered to add item 51 UK Somalia ch. 2, the item of item 53 and 58 UK Somalia ч.3 the following maintenance: «to Persons with the limited responsibility caused by age features, or a physical illness, the size of as much as possible statutory punishment or a security measure are softened on one third».

In the doctrine of criminal law of Somalia it is not given attention to the special perpetrator as it is made, for example, in Russia. However, in separate norms UK Somalia responsibility of persons which, besides the general signs of the subject, should possess additional is reserved, for example, it is possible to allocate such structures as: state secret disclosure; abusing a post in cases, the law specially not provided; rape; employment by prostitution; illegal marriage; adultery; duty infringement to assist a family (item 204 item, 250, 398, 405, 425,426, 430, etc. UK Somalia). Responsibility forms are realised concerning special subjects taking into account their personal characteristic. In the resulted corpuses delicti citizenship, official position, a marital status and so forth can be a sign of the special subject

In second section UK Somalia is in detail described other component of a moral element of a crime - a psychological element, or mental condition of the criminal. According to item 20, it is not enough of that the criminal the actions has caused a crime. As it is told in this article, the person should be in the certain mental condition, capable to realise an event and to express to it the will. The formulation «it is conscious and on the will» means, that the consciousness of the criminal has been focused on result of event.

At the heart of a moral element of act the principle of responsibility for its guilty fulfilment lays, that is, nobody comes under to the criminal liability for the act made without criminal intent. Differently, it is a question of criminal intent, fault of the person and its kinds.

Criminal intent is a desire to make something, that is forbidden by the criminal law. For example, if the person at first plans murder, and then kills a victim already in its intention accompanied by certain actions, necessary criminal intent is expressed,

Demanded by the law for the characteristic of a moral element of act. It has planned harmful and dangerous act and aspired to its fulfilment which is characterised as a crime. The moral element of one of degrees in the commission of crime is shown. Realisation forms

Responsibility are applied and in cases of attempt at it (item 17. UK Somalia). The law establishes punishment limits for attempted crime depending on kinds of the maximum punishments established in sanctions of corresponding articles. So for attempt at the crimes punishable mortal execution, imprisonment

It is established for the term from twenty till thirty years; for attempt at the crimes punishable by life imprisonment punishment there can not be less than twelve years of imprisonment, for attempt at other crimes punishment is appointed in limits from 1/3 to 3/4 maximum penal terms established for completed crime (item 125 UK Somalia).

The person can be punished for the crimes made on imprudence, in cases, statutory.

Fault - an obligatory sign of a moral element of a crime. Made be guilty can are recognised not only conscious and voluntary actions of the person, but also automatic, instinctive, habitual. However in judiciary practice they represent assumptions, characteristic for a guilty offence. [72]

The fault assumes presence of ability of the consent of the subject on fulfilment of concrete act. The moral element of a crime, besides fault includes motives, the purposes and an emotional condition of the person at the moment of its fulfilment which are considered at realisation of forms of the criminal liability.

UK Somalia discriminates three forms of fault: deliberate, careless, and also, so-called preterintentsionalnuju. The basic form of fault on the Somali criminal law is the intention. Responsibility for the act made on imprudence comes only in cases, directly statutory (item 23 UK Somalia). Similar position is fixed in ч.2 item 24 UK the Russian Federation.

Intention components are not only consciousness and will, but also the feelings inseparably linked with any human act.

Except intention and imprudence as it has been told, the criminal legislation of Somalia, provides the third form of fault - preterintentsionalnost. In item 24 UK Somalia contains definition of all specified forms of fault. «A crime, the harmful or dangerous act made with criminal intent which grows out of predicted act or omission admits and is wished by the criminal as consequence of its act or omission and where the law considers this act as a crime.

Crime admits, the dangerous or harmful act made with preterintentsionalnoj by fault or without intention which has appeared more serious, than that would be wished by the criminal, arisen of act or omission.

Crime on imprudence admits, act when the result is expected, but we do not wish the criminal, and occurs as consequence of imprudence, absence of skill or non-observance of the law, rules, orders, or instructions. At the same time in such cases the person operates on imprudence, despite an obvious prediction of that its actions can cause event of crime, but hopes, that it will not occur; it does not accept in serez risk occurrence and consequently does not want and is self-confidently assured of possibility to avoid this result ».

Positions about intention and imprudence concern and infringements (ch. 2 items 24 UK Somalia).

Comprehension guilty possibilities of approach of criminal result is the aggravating circumstance for the crimes made on imprudence (the item from"item 39 UK Somalia).

According to the doctrine of the Italian criminal law, preterintentsionnaja the fault form takes place when the person causes the forbidden act or omission more serious result, than what wanted. In other words, preterintentsionalnost means, that the person had no intention on that result which has come. Such formulation reminds concept of the mixed or double form of the fault provided by item 27 UK the Russian Federation. Unlike Russian UK, in the Somali criminal law there are no instructions that the relation of the subject to heavier consequences should be careless.

At the same time the criminal legislation of all countries, and Somalia is not an exception, establishes responsibility for, so-called preterintentsionalnye (preterintencional), made besides intention, unpremeditated punishable acts. These are the acts made on imprudence, but persons capable to express the will to the fact made by them.

Concerning infringements, the person should be responsible for the act or omission made meaningly and on the will, in independence of that it is perfect with criminal intent or on imprudence.

Allocation preterintentsionnoj forms of fault as independent on Somali UK is an exception of the general approach to forms of fault, characteristic for criminal law of developing countries of Asia and Africa. The given form of fault is allocated as the independent form in UK Somalia under the influence of criminal law of Italy. However concerning the maintenance preterintentsioniosti there is no common opinion even in the most Italian criminally-legal doctrine. One authors carry it to eventual recklessness, others to the mixed form of fault, the third at all do not consider as its independent form of fault. [73]

In the Somali criminal legislation two cases with preterintentsionalnoj fault in the pure state are reserved. So, in item 31 UK Somalia the following is told: «Except the cases mentioned in previous articles, because of an error in a prediction of approach of heavier result, at committing a crime, or for any other reason the come event differing from wished criminal, the person should bear responsibility for this not desirable event where action contains elements of the crime made on imprudence. If the criminal also has caused desirable event the positions regulating coincidence of crimes» in this case are applicable.

Questions of interpretation of item 31 were considered by the Supreme Court of Somalia in business Musy to Douala Ali. The essence of this business consists that Musa the victim has put to Douala Abdi N. M's physical injuries owing to which has deceased. Musa D. A has been condemned for murder without intention of causing of death under article 441 UK. In the further Musa D. A has appealed in the Supreme Court, however, last recognised application in the given case of item 441 UK lawful. During consideration of this business the Supreme Court has explained item 31 thus:

The principle which has been put in pawn in item 31 consists that if the person makes action which causes event not wished by it, it will bear responsibility for this not desirable event where action constitutes a deliberate crime. There, where action provokes event not wished by the person the same as also wished by it, it will bear responsibility both for not desirable event, and for event wished by it where act

It is made on imprudence. Differently, the person comes under to punishment for


Two acts. [74]

However it is necessary to notice, that exists two exceptions of the key rule which has been put in pawn in item 31 UK Somalia. So, if preterintentsionalnym event is the death of the person during committing a crime which became an unintentional cause of death the criminal intending to make physical violence "beating" (item 439 UK) or to cause physical injuries (item 440 UK), will not bear responsibility for the death caused by negligence, according to article 31, and will answer only for murder without intention of causing of death under article 441 provided that application of physical violence or injury was intention of the criminal.

But, if the person had intention to commit a crime, somehow physical violence (item 439 UK Somalia) or injury (item 440) the key rule and the criminal liability should be applied will be realised both with the account preterintentsionalnogo events, and taking into account result which it wished (item 447 UK Somalia - death, or a physical injury as a consequence of other crime).

The second exception operates in cases if unintentional event is the aggravating circumstance of a deliberate crime. In such cases of the form of the criminal liability are realised not for both crimes, and for unique deliberate act, with the aggravating circumstance. For example, the doctor who does abortion to the woman (from it or without its consent) in case of her death (event which he did not wish) will be responsible only for abortion with the aggravating circumstance under article 421 UK Somalia-death, or physical injuries to the woman. [75] in other words, the main rule consists that responsibility should be

It is realised for both crimes: for the first which he intended to make and event which he did not wish but which happens as result of its criminal act.

In the Italian criminally-legal doctrine

preterintentsionalnnost it is considered as a combination of the intentional fault and objective imputation for result. The objective imputation which is not reflecting modern criminally-legal ideas, is exposed to criticism in


The Italian criminally-legal literature.

Meanwhile UK Somalia does not define objective conditions of criminality, and only establishes two criteria: the first consists of event in an external world which should be not obligatory the desirable offender, the second should be connected with unlawful conduct of the person.

In essence, it is a question of the objective imputation criticised by the Italian criminalists. However it is necessary to notice, that it is an exception of a principle fixed in article 23 UK Somalia, that nobody can be punished for the act or omission recognised as the law by an offence if it has not made it intentionally and meaningly.

Thus, as Italian scientist Renato Ancheloni truly marks, [76 [77] «an establishment of a principle of the personal responsibility is cancellation of any form of the objective imputation following from purely formal parity between concrete act and the given person, irrespective of actions of this person and conscious will deliberate or on imprudence». Further he writes: «the new Code excludes objective imputation to editors of newspapers for the offences made in a press, or any other kind of objective imputation for the actions made by other persons without participation in a crime,


Person presumably bearing responsibility ».

According to above specified item 22 UK Somalia the person can be punished for a crime, even thus, that it did not expect a consequence. Such occurs only in two general types of situations: in preterintentsionalnyh cases and crimes which have automatically grown out of other crime about what in detail it has been told above. Thus, such consequence as the death of any person is a condition for charge in murder. If, any person strikes another, having intention only to strike it on the person, and the victim falls on the earth and hits golovoju about a stone and dies, the criminal becomes guilty of death of the victim even if it never and had no intention to kill it. As business is and in a situation when one crime turns out to be consequence another. In any case the convicted bears responsibility for an offence which automatically follows even if he did not wish, approaches of this consequence. [78 [79]

Objective imputation as criterion for charge is specially provided in General part UK of some the countries, a particular, it is included in item 42, point 3 UK of Italy, which (after an establishment in the first part of present article, that nobody can be punished for the act made without comprehension and intention) it is said, that «the law should define those situations at which the come result should be carried to the offender as the result of its act or omission».

Hence, according to UK Italy, objective imputation is considered an unusual case for indicting while the general criterion there is that responsibility arises owing to fault of the offender. Really, when UK Italy have been approved in 1930, hardly who called in question a hypothesis of objective imputation in unusual cases. However, the situation has changed, when the Constitution of Italy has become effective: item 27, Constitution point 1 says, that «the criminal liability has personal character». Some ucheny began to interpret this position as a synonym «the criminal liability in connection with own guilt» in the sense that criteria for charge should be limited exclusively by intention and guilts to correspond to the Constitution. The constitutional Court of Italy did not express the position on this question until its decisions 364 and 1055 1988, have not concerned direct interpretation of the item 27 UK Italy. According to decisions of the Constitutional court of Italy the decision of questions of objective imputation for sodejannoe is based on a guilt principle.

In the decision of a question on fault of the person as the basis of the criminal liability and a condition of forms of its realisation great value positions of item 27 UK have Somalia: «Whoever has made actions, under compulsion owing to physical pressure, violence to which it could not resist or, anyway, could not avoid in any way, does not come under to punishment. The mental violence at inactivity is considered as the extenuation at awarding punishment».

The considered elements of a crime form the criminal liability basis though in UK Somalia is not present special article about the criminal liability basis, the detailed description in the chapter II UK Somalia material and moral elements of penal act allow to consider them as the unique basis of the criminal

The responsibility, substantially corresponding to concept "corpus delicti", presence of which all signs, according to item 8 UK the Russian Federation it is recognised by the criminal liability basis.

The majority of the Russian lawyers as the responsibility basis recognise the corpus delicti. So, for example, Ivanchin, And. V considers, that the criminal liability basis is fulfilment not only the act containing the corpus delicti, but also fulfilment of socially dangerous act. Further he offers following definition: «the criminal liability basis is fulfilment of socially dangerous act which signs correspond to the corpus delicti provided by the present code». [80]

In summary it is necessary to underline, that the elements of a crime reflected in gl. II department I, «the Elements constituting criminal action», UK Italy have the features. They substantially influence not only an establishment in sanctions of articles of Special part UK Somalia of punitive measures, but also on application of other forms of realisation of the criminal liability. We consider necessary introduction of legal definition of the basis of the criminal liability in UK Somalia which, in our opinion, should serve maintenance of a principle of legality and a gradual exception of analogy in the right. Consider expedient to include in General part UK Somalia the norm establishing the basis of the criminal liability. We suggest to add item 5 UK Somalia with a part 2 th following maintenances: « The criminal liability basis is fulfilment dangerous to the Somali state and a society of the act containing signs of legal its present Code legal, material and moral elements ».

The elements constituting criminal action, are considered as an establishment condition in sanctions of articles of the Special part of the criminal law of kinds and the sizes (measures) of punishment and, and in separate situations and as possibility of application of other forms of realisation of responsibility to the person who has made act, established in UK Somalia, or having intention to make such act and recognised dangerous to a society.

It would be in our opinion expedient to add item 23 UK Somalia with a part of the first of the following maintenance: «the person who during committing a crime could not realise actual character and the social danger of the actions (inactivity) does not come under to the criminal liability or to supervise over them owing to the mental derangement, or other disease state of mentality». Positions of operating item 23 UK Somalia to consider as a part of the second.

The question on crime elements is one of the major in criminal law of Somalia, but it far not always finds adequate reflexion in the legislation of the countries of Africa. In criminal codes of some the states about them in general it is spoken nothing.

At the same time, in spite of the fact that in Somalia norms about material elements of a crime have found the legislative fastening, their separate positions, in our opinion, are inconsistent and require specification. So, item 22 UK says: «If for punishability of criminal action the law demands approach of the known condition, guilty is responsible for criminal action even if the result on which condition approach depends, to it was not desirable». In essence, in it there is a speech about the objective imputation criticised by modern lawyers. At the same time in article 23 UK Somalia it is established, that nobody can be punished for the act or omission recognised as the law by an offence if it has been made not deliberately and is not realised. The contradiction is available. Article 23 UK speaks Somalia about subjective imputation. It would be expedient to result

These norms in conformity. It is obviously necessary to establish in the legislation an interdiction of bringing to criminal liability on the basis of objective imputation. With that end in view it is offered to state item 22 UK Somalia in the following edition: «If for punishability of perfect act the law demands approach of a known condition, the person bears responsibility only when result on which approach of a condition it depends could and should expect».

<< | >>
A source: AHMED ABDIKARIM ALI. FORMS of REALIZATION of the CRIMINAL LIABILITY In FEDERAL REPUBLIC Somalia. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the Master of laws. Moscow -. 2016

More on topic §2. Crime elements as the basis of realisation of forms of the criminal liability.:

  1. 3.1. Activity MUS on bringing to criminal liability for a genocide crime
  2. § 1. Concept of punishment and value of its purposes of criminal liability realisation in Somalia.
  4. Death as the juridical fact and the basis of the termination of the criminal liability
  6. § 2. Perfection of sanctions for a crime provided by item 258.1 UK the Russian Federation, with a view of differentiation of the criminal liability
  7. Forms of realisation of pedagogical and psychological knowledge in the criminal trial
  8. an aggression Crime as infringement of human rights and prospect of the international criminal liability for fulfilment of the certificate of aggression
  9. Chapter 3. Problems of qualification of the crime provided by item 258.1 UK the Russian Federation, and perfection of sanctions for its fulfilment with a view of differentiation of the criminal liability
  10. CHAPTER 3. Features of the criminal liability for the organised criminal activity and unification of criminal legislations of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in sphere of counteraction to criminal societies (the criminal organisations)
  11. § 1. The retrospective analysis of institute of the criminal liability for oryoganizatsiju the criminal society (the criminal organisation) on zakonodatelyostvu Russia, Belarus and Ukraine