Leseprobe
Table of contents
1.Introduction
2. Evolution of classification of high treason in the Imperial Russia
3. Transnational nature of the organized anti-state activities in Russia
4. Arms smuggling and human trafficking in venue of subversive activities against Russian government
5.Conclusion
List of references
1. Introduction
The historical and legal heritage of Russia and, in particular, problems of activity of political terrorists and the fight of the Russian police against it are a source of inexhaustible scientific interest both in Russia and abroad. The reasons for this interest, at least, can be explained by two main considerations. On the one hand, we try to reveal the pages of the past, to detect the natural connections between events and developments of the past, and to compare them with retained national traditions of public and legal construction. On the other hand, we try to find the answers to the complex challenges of the present and to know unexplored future from our past experience.
Now more than ever urgent is the question of study of mechanisms of causes and conditions of the actual historical processes that have so radically changed the political and social system of Russia in the early XX century. To the author opinion very many problems and troubles in modern Russia have their sources in it’s dim and distant past. Simultaneously, that past contains the lessons to be learned for defense of national interests in Russia and abroad.
In my opinion, in this case external factors played a major role (government policies of other countries pursuing their own interests, as well as the creation by the internal opposition the bridgeheads abroad). This is reflected in the increasing number of border violations, increased smuggling activities, especially the smuggling of weapons and explosives.
The great scientific and practical interest lies in the field of study the specific and, unfortunately, a little-known areas of activity the Russian police. For one of these specific areas and activities of Russianpolice belonged to prevent and combat crimes against the state on the borders of the Russian Empire. This is manifested primarily in the form of combating smuggling of weapons, explosives and subversive propaganda literature. The volume of such contraband during the two Russian revolutions were quite impressive. For example, only the smuggling of small arms during the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905. could afford to equip their contingents terrorists, comparable in size with whole armies. This significantly changed the political situation in the country and, therefore, significantly weakened the external security of the state.
In this regard, it is important to us to reveal the layers of history in this important area of national security in order to exploit the potential of the Russian experience to improve the protection of the borders of different countries at the present stage.
At present, religious fanaticism and ethnic separatism, terrorism in its many forms, the activities of numerous extremist organizations and groups with replenishment from abroad require strong opposition from the state, creating multilayered and deeply layered system to counter one of the milestones which must pass through state borders of the country. Choosing the right decisions and take timely practical measures to combat criminals must state, in particular, based on a critical but rewarding experience of understanding of this struggle.
The textbook is intended for a wide range of people who study the history of the Russian state and the law, the legal regulation of national security.
2. Evolution of classification of high treason in the Imperial Russia
For the sake of study of the purposes and the problems facing the political police of the Russian empire, the great value has explanation of the legal nature of state (i.e. political) crimes which this police should combat.
In the criminal law of pre-revolutionary Russia the category of high treasons has endured the evolution similar to evolution of religious crimes. In former times religious crimes included encroachments on a freedom of worship in the form of heresies, distributions of heresies and so forth as well as various manifestations of religious free-thinking.
In the beginning of XX century in the Russian criminal law the treatment of high treasons as acts of a double sort has become stronger: 1) the traitorous actions of separate persons directed against the state, and 2) the actions directed to violent change of a form of government in all state either its any part or change of limits of territory of the state, in other words, of insurgent actions.[1]
It was recognized the state as an object of criminal encroachments as a whole. In addition to that it was considered that «borders of area of high treasons should not grasp simple expression of political convictions what that was the content of these belief... Political thoughts while they do not pass in instigation to any crime lie outside of criminal justice».[2].
The way of Russian legal thought to such understanding of the nature of high treasons was hard and long.
It is necessary to notice that in general for understanding of the existing law its history is the best source. In this respect acquaintance to historical development of law of high treasons is seemed especially valuable. Hardly probable in what other area of the Russian legislation the power of the past over the present was more powerful, than in section about high treasons..[3]
Famous Russian writer D.A. Chervonetsky fairly noticed that from all common good ever protected by means of the punishment threat, the most valuable and important for any social organization, undoubtedly, was and there is its statehood and security.[4]
High treason, attempt to harm the state power always and everywhere in the ancient time were considered as a grave crime. Therefore they caused against themselves spontaneously cruel reaction. So, in article 7 of the Pskov Judgement Charter (Pskovskoja sudnoja gramota) of 1462-1467 it was recommended that «perevetnik (i.e. to the military traitor)... zhivota ne dati (i.e. to put him to death»[5]. It is obvious that high treasons originated from a crime in the form of military treason. The code of laws (Sudebnik) of 1497 offered the death penalty to «gosudarskomu ubojce (i. e. a killer of a sovereign» and «koromol'niku (i.e. to a conspirator».[6]
Thereby, the state criminals were considered as personal enemies of the head of the state. It should lead to the hardest reprisals against political opponents of a sovereign or against those whom he considered as those. So, explosion of oprichniks’ (special administrative elite, empowered to investigate treason and execute people) terror under tsar Ivan the Terrible and murder of thousands of not guilty people have been caused not only by intrigues of foreign emigration (Andrey Kurbsky), but also due to painful suspiciousness of the tsar[7].
In process of strengthening of idea of Russian statehood systematization of legislative definition of high treasons extended also. There was a law as wide, as arbitrary behaviour which, without dying, always went with it nearby. Chapter II of Council Code (“Sobornoye Ulozhenie”), 1649 «About sovereign honour and how to preserve his sovereign health» carries crimes against Its Majesty of the Sovereign to area of "great causes", including malicious intention against His Imperial Majesty and treason («izmennoe delo»).
The Imperial health, his corporal inviolability was the object of criminal design of the crime. The Code did not specify the list of the acts falling under «malicious business», probably, those acts became criminal under the personal discretion of the tsar.
From the mental element in crime it was a conduct which was characterized by direct intention («… thought to commit malicious business, and intended to do...»).[8]. It is noteworthy thattheCode did not carry outa cleardifference between the crimeagainst lifeand health ofthe emperorand treason, considering thehigh treasonas a violation of sovereignrights ofthe sovereignand theattempt on hispossession,i.e.,the crimewas directed againstthe supremeauthority,and notinfringed onthe outersecurity of the state.
As the separate varieties of this crime the Code distinguished the deprivation of the sovereign of throne and aid to unfriendly state, the delivery of Russian city to enemy, voyage to abroad for purposes of treason, the communication of information to enemy (the war treason). For determining this type of crime the diverse terminology was very widely used: “stealing”, “disorder in a crowd”, “plot”, “riot”, “disturbance”, “political agitation (“prelestnicheskie rechi”)”.
The punishment for conspiracy (“zloumyshlenie”) to the sovereign and treason was the only capital punishment. There were more lenient sentencing the plot (“skop and zagovor”) against the officers - from two to six weeks of prison, beating by a rod. However, the capital punishment was provided for only for the murder of a man of the Royal Household.
In the tsarist edict dated January 25, 1715 it commanded to everyone, “who is true Christian and loyal servant to its sovereign and to the fatherland… to clearly report about the essential and significant matters to sovereign himself… namely, about the following: 1. about what fraudulent intent against persona of his majesty or treason, 2. about the disturbance or the riot, 3. about the theft of treasury”.[9] In 1718 Russian natives were charged with the responsibility to report personally to emperor “about the first two points” (which then for a long time and permanently entered into the Russian juridical and everyday vocabulary), i.e. about the intent against the autocrat, as well as about the treason and the riot.[10]
The military laws (“Voinskie Artikuly”) of Peter the Great in the sphere of regulation of responsibility for political crimes rested on the Council Code to a considerable extent. In a number of political crimes they distinguished: the insult of majesty, the armed treason, correspondence with the enemy, and the like. The persons found guilty of the plot against the sovereign and the armed riot, and equally the accomplices of the crime were sentenced to the quartering, their property was subject to confiscation. Those, who reviled sovereign and his actions and intention, or those who discussed about the same in an obscene manner, were to be sentenced to the cutting off of head. Traitors, who entered with the enemy in the secret and dangerous correspondence, were quartered.[11]
Political history of XVIII century with the palace intrigues, the plots and the revolutions, disputes about the succession to the throne, elevation and drop of the influential favorites - created exceptionally favorable atmosphere for the rise in high treasons. Not small men of Moscow Russia, not the disturbers of Peter’s edicts, but high and mighties formed the majority in the numbers of state criminals.[12] Those who hostilely spoke against “us and our state”, i.e. against the absolutist authority, came out as the traitors and “pilferers”. In the Order dated 1767, which was given to the commission composing the project of new Code Katherine the Great determined that the acts, against the sovereign and the state “were the most ruinous to society”.[13]
The act fell under the category of high treason, if it contained straight design against the life and safety of monarch or to the treason.[14] Proclaiming about her adherence to the ideas of Enlightenment, “gentle” empress mercilessly fought with her political enemies. The suppression of the Pugachev uprising, which was being accompanied by mass executions, was the last manifestation of collective criminal responsibility for the accomplishment of high treasons. Famous Russian writer Alexander Radishchev for his writing “Journey from Petersburg to Moscow” was first sentenced to the capital punishment, substituted then to the ten-year internal exile. Under Katherine the Great the secret chancellery was revived in the form of secret expedition for the zealous observation of the state of society and punishment of any person, who was daring to attempt even in a word the absolute power of autocrat.
The subsequent development of Russian legislation about the high treasons in XIX v. occurred under the sign of the supremacy of the Peter’s “first two points”, in spite of numerous legal reforms. Well-known Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevskiy characterized the uniqueness of the criminal policy of the ruling Russian circles: “Over a period of entire XIX century since 1801; from the entrance to the throne of Alexander the First, Russian government conducted the purely provocateur activity: it gave to society exactly as much freedom, it was as necessary to cause its first manifestations in it, and then it covered and punished careless simpletons”.[15]
The Code about the Criminal and Corrective Punishments of 1845 devoted the third division to high treasons (articles 241-261). They were distinguished in the Code as: crime against the person of sovereign and members of emperor house and the abuse of emperor and emperor house with “evil and harmful words” (crime of the 1st point); and riot against the Supreme Power or treason of the sovereign and of the state (crime of the 2nd point).
Let us examine the basic characteristic features of the above-indicated criminal acts. Malicious intent against sacred person of the sovereign of emperor was considered as a crime wilfully committed against the life, the honor and the health of sovereign, his/her overthrow from the throne, seizure of power, deprivation of the sovereign of freedom and accomplishment with respect to the sovereign of any violence. If the insult of its majesty was directed, first of all, “toward the dissolution of the connections of love and trust of monarch with the people and against the reverence for monarch” and punished “altogether only” by imprisonment in the fortress of up to 2 years and 8 months or by penal servitude of up to 12 years, then for the encroachment on the personal inviolability of emperor and members of emperor house the capital punishment was required. In this case in accordance with the Article 243 of the Code all persons, who participated in the plot or directly in the criminal actions against sovereign as accomplices, instigators, resetters of criminals, noninformers, sufferers, were to be equally punished by the capital punishment.
The Article 249 of the Code provided for criminal responsibility for uprising or riot in the true sense of word (mutiny). Different forms of mutiny and political plots were implied under this general name, such as: mutiny “by disorder in a crowd and by plot” against the sovereign and the state, design to subvert government in entire state or certain of its part either to change the means of administration, or the order established by law of the inheritance of throne and the composition in regard to this plot, or participation in this plot, collection, storage and the distribution of weapon and other preparatory actions to the riot. Everyone participated in these acts, including the main culprits (organizers), accomplices, instigators and other accomplices, and also the noninformers involved in the affair and concealers underwent the punishment in the form of the capital punishment. However, the simple detection of design to act for achievement of criminal purpose forcedly and accordingly to the dependence on the degree of participation in the plot, the degree of the importance of criminal design drew the punishment in the form of domestic exile from 12 to 15 years.
Before the adoption of law dated June 4, 1874 the organization of criminal associations was pursued only according to Article 318 (formation of antigovernment associations) and the Article 923 (formation of the criminal associations for purposes of the accomplishment of high treasons as the special kind of gangs) of the Code, 1845. Law dated June 4, 1874 composed the second part of the Article 250 of the Code. It provided for responsibility for the formation of the third form of the criminal associations: the political associations, aimed at reaching, at least in the more or less distant future, the purposes of riot.[16] Depending on the degree of participation of the association and other circumstances of the matter the guilty persons underwent the punishment in the form of conviction of offence to the hard labor works from 4 to 6 years, to exile to the settlement in localities intended to that, to jail into the prisoner departments or jail placement in the fortress for the period from 1 year and 4 months to 4 years.
The special form of high treason according to the articles 251 and 252 of the Code about Criminal and Corrective Punishments were composition and the distribution of the compositions and speeches calling to the uprising (political propaganda). In view of rigid censorial limitations to the publishing activity in the territory of the Russian Empire the substantial part of the propagandistic anti-State literature was published and printed abroad for the subsequent illegal delivery to Russia. In accordance with the explanations of the Senate (the higher court instance in the Russian empire) simple printing or lithography of criminal composition or appeal was only preparation to the crime, nevertheless other actions, by which these compositions or appeals were moved to the places of propagation, including the transportation from abroad or delivery into the place of propagation they composed attempt on the accomplishment of political propaganda.[17]
The punitive measures for the political propaganda varied depending on the hazard level: for the propagation of the essays, inducing to revolt, the penal servitude of up to 10 years was to be imposed, while for the propagation of the essays blaming the state order - of up to 6 years. However, storage of such essays entailed arrest to 3 months with the subsequent supervision of the police of up to 3 years.
The treason was always considered as one of the heaviest high treasons. The Code, 1845, distinguished three forms of the treason: a) the war treason; b) diplomatic treason; c) public treason. The description of the war treason was given in the Paragraph 3 of the article 253 of the Code and briefly it could be brought to four forms of the war treason: favoured treatment to enemy(aiding and abetting the enemy during the war in its actions against the fatherland); military treachery (intentional delivery to the enemy of city, fortress, ship); military espionage (communication to the enemy of information of military nature); joining the enemy (participation in the war on its side against Russian Empire).[18]
In all these cases the guilty persons were sentenced to the deprivation of all rights of estate and capital punishment (the Article 254 of the Code, 1845).
According to Paragraph 4 of the Article 254 of the Code the trachery was recognized as diplomatic, when the diplomat or another official, who was charged to conclude a treatise with the foreign power, used that confidence with the intent for putting the explicit harm to state (treachery of the interests of Russia). Paragraph 5 of the Article 254 stipulated for responsibility for theft or destruction of intergovermental documents with the intent to damage Russia. This treason also was punished by the capital punishment.
Responsibility for the accomplishment of public treason was provided for by Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Article 253, and also, in the articles 256-258 of the Code. The wide enumeration of the forms of this type of treason was introduced by these articles (transfer of control of the state or any part of it to the foreign government, the excitation of the intentions of foreign state to the war with Russia, the communication of the Russian state secrets to a foreign government).
Together with high treason in the Code about the punishments were contained the articles about the so-called “crimes against the national law”, i.e. about the attacks in peacetime against the inhabitants of neighbour country, crime against the foreign states and insult of foreign diplomatic agents. Let us touch the first two forms of such crimes, which refer direct to the object investigated by us.
Attack in peacetime on the inhabitants of neighbour countries entailed the danger of rupture of diplomatic relations with the friendly power and with the possibility of retaliation against Russian regions from the side of the subjects of this power. The need for the introduction of this standard was caused by specific criminal situation in the Caspian Sea basin , where the gangs of smugglers and robbers robbed Persian vessels and settlements on coast, which led to the diplomatic complexities with the neighbor country. This crime was punished by hard labor works with period up to 10 years (the Article of 259of the Code).
Crimes against the foreign states included: an attack the head of a foreign state, participation in the armed revolt against a foreign state or an assistance and support to its opponents (the Article 260). The combating against these crimes has got the special urgency in connection with extending of terrorist activity by the party “Dashnaktsutyun” in Armenia in the beginning of XX century, putting one of its purposes to overthrow in Turkey the ruling regime through both practicing terrorists raids across the border and terrorists actions in territory of Turkey from the bases in the Russian territory. Meanwhile, despite obvious danger, this crime was punished by rather moderate punishment – confinement in roundhouse and the exile in a distant settlement.
In 1903 the highest edict affirmed Criminal Law Code (”Ugolovnoe Ulozhenie”).[19] Third chapter of this Code was devoted to high treasons. The Criminal Law Code preserved the division of high treasons in “first two points” which were traditional for the Russian legislation with some innovations. Editorial commission for the preparation of new Code indicated that attacks against state could be directed against the internal existence of the state (riot) or against its so-called external existence (treason).[20] Unfortunately, The Code had not come into force in full volume: only in 1904 its third Charter about high treasons came into effect.
In accordance with the Article 100 of the Criminal Law Code the persons guilty of the endangering of the imperor’s life and health or to his overthrow from the throne, as well as a change in Russia or in its any part the means of administration either the order of the inheritance of throne established by the fundamental laws or tearing away any part of Russia (riot) were sentenced to the capital punishment. The persons guilty of the participation in the association, formed for the accomplishment of this crime, were sentenced to the penal servitude for the period not more than 8 years (the Article 102 of the Criminal Law Code). In this case the concept of this criminal association assumed the connection of several persons, united under one common purpose, by the more or less complete subordination of the will of separate participants to the interests of whole group which were expressed in the repeated meetings and other external manifestations[21].
As it was noted above, such provisions manifested the enormous step of Russian state toward the establishment of more civilized relations between the state and its people - the simple and free expression of their thoughts and political views did not form the composition of crime, until the carriers of such thoughts and views approached the practical realization of their views through the definite anti-State actions.
Such legal approach acquired special importance after declaration by tsar in October 1905 “Manifesto abouttheimprovementofstateorder” whichgrantedto people“firmbasesofcivillibertyonprinciplesofthereal inviolabilityofpersonality,thefreedomofconscience, meetingsandunions”[22].
Withthatentireeuphoria,which creeped over all Russian societyaftertheintroductionofthebasicsofthe constitutionalmonarchyinRussia,jurists,nevertheless, notedthat notonepoliticalsystemcouldexistminutes, ifitwould bedeprivedofprotection againstforced encroachmentson it.However,fightingwiththeforced encroachmentson thepoliticalsystem, thestate power, from itsside,pickedup the fulfillmentofcertainsocialetiquette conditionsof:first, thefightwiththeforced encroachmentsshouldnotexceedthe limitsnecessaryfortheiraverting,neverbeingcoloredwitha feelingof spite andvengeance;inthesecondplace,citizensmust begivenfreedomtoexpress their political persuasions,withoutpassingtheboundariesbetweenthe freecriticismoftheexistedordersandthecallsof the forcedoverthrowofpoliticalsystem;thirdly,state itself mustcorrespondtothenatural conditions of the politicalthinking ofpeople[23].
It is necessary to emphasize that the crimes against the administrative procedures often stood in direct connection with by high treasons and, first of all, with disturbance. Chapter Five “About the Disturbance” of the Criminal Law Code united in itself the standards, which provided for responsibility for the anti-State revolutionary activity, which by that time had already began to present obvious threat for the country. The following actions were understood as disturbance.
1. Participation in the gathering (crowd) on the agreement or by chance for: a) of outrage upon the supreme power of the state; b) for the reprimand of the means of administration; c) for the sympathy to riot or to treason either to a rebel or to a traitor; d) for the sympathy to revolutionary movement, i.e. to the motion, which set as its goal the forced destruction of the existed political system (the articles 121-123 of the Criminal code).
2. Formation of associations and any participation in their activity for the purpose of the destruction of political system and order. Such associations included public associations, which pursued political or professional purposes, control of which was accomplished by entities or those persons, who were located abroad.
Criminal prosecution was undertaken also against the associations, who undertook secret measures for the concealment of their existence, their real purposes, the order of control of them, and also those, who participated in control of them (the Article 124 of the Criminal code).
The law introduced the heavier sanctions (imprisonment in the fortress, penal servitude of up to 8 years) for the persons guilty of the participation in the association, which deliberately set out the goal to excite the hostility between estates and classes of the population and the overthrow of the existed social system (the articles 125, 126 of the Criminal Code).
3. Propagation of studies and judgments, which called to the revolution, to riot or to treason, to the insubordination or the opposition to law (the Article 130 of the Criminal Law Code).
The beginning of XX century was marked for the Russian Empire not only the strongest internal perturbations, but also opposition with such powerful states as Germany and Austria-Hungary in the West and Japan in the East. This could not but produce increase in the espionage unprecedented to that time, which acquired permanent and complex organization, with its purpose for the systematic obtaining of the most diverse information about the condition of armed forces and military defense of Russia[24].
The dangerous phenomenon proved to be the joining of the eternal and external enemies of the state in the person of their intelligence agencies for the purpose of its destruction with the use of its secret networks in Russia and abroad, as this will be shown below. In this connectionit is interesting tofollowthe development of the Russianpenallawof treasonand espionage.
Responsibility for high treason and espionage regulated by the Chapter Four “about high treason” of the Criminal Law Code. In the opinion of the editorial commission for the preparation of the project of a new Code the word “treason” in the Russian legislation beginning with XVI century was applied also to those high treasons, which consisted in the assistance to external enemies of the state in the encroachment of international existence of Russia[25].
The general concept of high treason was contained in the Article 108 of the Criminal Law Code and consisted in “the contribution or the preferential treatment” to enemy in its military or other hostile actions against Russia. The Russian national was subject of this crime. Urgent penal servitude was the measure of punishment for the treason without aggravating circumstances. Persons were to be sentenced to the termless penal servitude if they were guilty of the treason, which was expressed in the essential assistance to the enemy, or murder to be committed with the treacherous purpose. The qualified signs of the war treason further followed: preferential treatment to enemy (destruction of means of attack and protection, forced resistance to the Russian military forces, the murder of unit commanders); military treachery (intentional surrender or attempt on the surrender to the enemy of army, navy, force, separate military unit, ship, declination to the treachery by force, the troops and unit commander); military espionage(communication to the enemy of information of military nature). In these cases the guilty persons were sentenced to the capital punishment (Paragraph 3 of the Article 108). In addition, thecompositionof militarytreason includedcrimes such asdesertion to theenemy(the Article109),incitement tomilitary and other hostile actionsagainst Russia(the Article110).
Article 111of the Criminal Law Code about the Criminal and Corrective Punishments provided for the responsibility for secret service espionage activity and for the attempt on it, which punished by the detention in the correctional house. Both Russian nationals and foreigners were the subjects of this crime. In our opinion, so soft a punishment for this crime was the manifestation of underestimation by the Russian state of the foreign espionage danger . Certain scientific interest arouses statistical data which was processed a famous Russian criminologist E. N. Tarnovskiy in 1906 about those, who completed high treasons at the turn of XIX and XX centuries.
Thus, in the period since 1884 until 1890 4307 person were pleaded guilty for committing such crimes, i. e. 538 people on average per year. From 1901 until 1903 7796 persons were pleaded guilty for the high treason, i. e. 2599 people on average per year, i.e. more than 5 times[26].
At that time criminal proceedings were instituted against petty bourgeois - 43,9%. In 1880 years the majority of the accused in the accomplishment the high treasons belonged to the privileged classes(nobles, clergy, honorable citizens, merchants) - 49 %; nobles alone were summoned for such crimes in 30% of cases. It is interesting to note that during the period since 1827.until 1846 100 persons were exiled for the accomplishment of high treasons: nobles - 64 people, petty bourgeois - 6, peasants - 17, military classes - 13 people[27].
For the subsequent analysis and the generalization it is important to cite the data about a residence of the persons, accused of the committing high treasons, in abroad. In the period of 1884-1890 about 10% of those accused (462 persons of 4307) travelled abroad, the relative majority in Switzerland (108 people), in Austria (98 people), in Germany (56 people), in Turkey, Rumania, Bulgaria (55 people), in other countries (65 people). In the period from 1901 until 1903 707 people from the number of accused of the accomplishment high treasons or 9 % were abroad, the majority of them visited Germany and Austria, especially in the near-boundary localities of these countries[28].
It turns out that yearly 3 % from the total number of persons, accused subsequently in committing high treasons had been previously abroad. For the proper estimation of this phenomenon we produced the comparison of the total population of the Russian Empire at the turn of XIX and XX centuries with a average annual quantity of people, which were being moved through the boundaries of the Empire at the beginning XX century according to the data of the central statistical committee Ministry for Internal Affairs of the Empire. In 1897 the population of Russia composed 129 million 142 thousand people[29]. Average annual motion through the boundaries of the Empire at the beginning XX century composed approximately 2million 300 thousand people with the entry into the country and, approximately the same quantities with the departure[30]. Approximately half from this number composed foreigners, the number Russians composed approximately 1 million 150 thousand people, i.e. altogether only of 0,89 % of the total population of the country both with the entry into the country and with the departure from it.
We assume that the comparison of data of criminal and state statistics makes it possible to reveal a certain disproportion between them. State criminals were moved through the state border more actively, than the overall mass of population. In our opinion, the results of this comparative analysis in the certain degree reflects the regular connections of state criminals existed in the pre-revolutionary Russia with their accomplices abroad and they can testify about the complex characteristic of the objective side of such criminal encroachments, as were high treasons in the pre-revolutionary Russia.
Summing up, it should be noted that the criminal regulation of responsibility for high treasons in the pre-revolutionary Russia by 1917 reached the sufficiently high level of the study of the compositions of different acts, which entered into this group of criminal encroachments. With the adoption of Criminal Law Code the Russian state political police obtained the possibility to assign on the criminal responsibility of the members of different criminal associations for the perpetration of crimes against administrative procedures, if it did not have available the sufficiency of evidences, which made it possible to present charges in the perpetration of high treasons.
[...]
[1] Pozdnyshev S. V. Osobennaya chast russkogo ugolovnogo prava. Sravnitelnyj ocherk vazhnejshikh otdelov starogo i novogo ulozhenij. M. 190.S. 374.
[2] Ibid.. S. 375.
[3] Chervoneckij D. A. Gosudarstvennye prestupleniya po russkomu pravu. Yur'ev, 1913.S. 1.
[4] Chervoneckij D. A. Gosudarstvennye prestupleniya po russkomu pravu. Yur'ev, 1913. S. 3.
[5]. ossijskoe zakonodatel'stvo X-XX vekov. T. 1. Moscow, 1984. - P. 331.
[6] Ibid. - P. 54.
[7] Skrynnikov R. g. Carstvo terrora. SPb, 1992. S. 368.
[8] Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossijskoj imperii (hereinafter - PSZ). Sobranie pervoe. Vol. I. № 1.
[9] PSZ. Sobranie pervoe. Vol. V. № 2877.
[10] Ibid. №3143.
[11] Rossijskoe zakonodatel'stvo X-XX vv. Vol. 4. Moscow , 1986. S. 346.
[12] Chervoneckij D. A. Op. cit.. S. 19.
[13]. PSZ. Sobranie pervoe.Vol. XVIII. № 12949.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Klyuchevskij V. O. Aforizmy. Istoricheskie portrety i `etyudy. Dnevniki. M., 1993. S. 386.
[16] Anciferov K. K ucheniyu o tajnyh obschestvah po russkomu pravu// Zhurnal grazhdanskogo i ugolovnogo prava. 1882. № 3. S. 76.
[17] Esipov E. E. Ibid. S. 34.
[18] Abramovich-Baranovskij A. Shpionstvo v mirnoe vremya po sovremennym zakonodatel'stvam. /Pravo. 1902. № 17. S. 25.
[19] Ugolovnoe Ulozhenie, Vysochajshe utverzhdennoe 22 marta 1903 g. Prestupleniya gosudarstvennye. Har'kov, 1910.
[20] Malyantovich P. P., Murav'ev N. K. Zakony o politicheskih i obschestvennyh prestupleniyah. Prakticheskij kommentarij. SPb., 1910. S. 6.
[21] Ugolovnoe Ulozhenie, Vysochajshe utverzhdennoe 22 marta 1903 goda. Prestupleniya gosudarstvennye. Har'kov. 1910. S. 49.
[22] PSZ. Sobranie tret'e. Vol. XXV, otdelenie pervoe.№ 26803.
[23] Poznyshev S. V. Osobennaya chast' russkogo ugolovnogo prava. Sravnitel'nyj ocherk vazhnejshih otdelov Osobennoj chasti starogo i novogo ulozhenij. M. 1909. S. 377.
[24] Rezanov A. S. Zakon 5 iyunya 1912 goda o gosudarstvennoj izmene putem shpionstva v mirnoe vremya. Warshawa, 1912. S. 1.
[25]. Malyanotovich P. P., Solov'ev N. K. Op.cit.. S. 6.
[26] Tarnovskij E. N. Statisticheskie svedeniya o licah, obvinyaemyh v prestupleniyah gosudarstvennyh. // Zhurnal Ministerstva yusticii. 1906. April. S 55.
[27] Ibid.. S. 66.
[28] Ibid.. S. 81.
[29] Obschij svod po Imperii razrabotki dannyh pervoj vseobschej perepisi naseleniya. Sroizvedennoj 28 yanvarya 1897 g. SPb, 1905. Vol. 1. S. 6-7.
[30] Statisticheskij ezhegodnik Rossii. 1915 god. Petrograd., 1916. Otdeleniye II. S. 49-50.