"Knowingly false testimony of a witness, victim, or expert, as well as knowingly incorrect translation in court or during a preliminary investigation, are punishable by...

Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

I remember one of the first criminal cases I reviewed. A drunken sailor, Stepan Koval, mocked his fellow sailors who had been drafted later, and beat two young sailors in the ship's quarters. During the trial, Koval denied all his confessions during the preliminary investigation and claimed that he had not beaten anyone, and that he had incriminated himself during the investigation due to the use of illegal methods. The victims, the sailors (I will not disclose their names due to the passage of time), They also changed their testimony in court and claimed that the defendant had not beaten them, and that they had received their bruises and abrasions by hitting the gangway.

The case was not complicated, and the evidence, in addition to the testimony of the defendant and the victims, was sufficient, so Koval was soon sent to serve his sentence in a disciplinary military unit, and a criminal case was opened against the victims for giving false testimony in court. Interestingly, during their interrogation as defendants, they were surprised to learn that Koval had fully admitted his guilt in a cassation appeal to the Northern Fleet Military Court, stating that he was remorseful and only requested that his sentence be reduced to allow him to complete his service on the ship.

"How can this be," one of the former victims said in court, "when Stepan told us that we wouldn't be harmed and that he would be released, but it turned out differently." Yes, everything turned out differently than they had promised. Koval had to serve out his military service in a disciplinary military unit, and the victims who changed their testimony in court were convicted by the military court of the garrison under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, thus ruining their own lives and unblemished records.

Several years have passed since that trial, but there are still cases where witnesses and victims in court refuse to give their original testimony and, under the influence of persuasion and sometimes threats from the defendants and their acquaintances, try to exonerate the criminals.

... In September 1999, the military court of the Severomorsk garrison considered a criminal case involving sailor Fedorov. During the trial, it was established that on July 3, 1999, in the ship's galley, Fedorov, seeking to demonstrate his perceived superiority and dissatisfied with the fact that sailor Pokidov, a member of the ship's dining crew, had placed excess butter on the table of late-conscripted soldiers instead of the table of senior soldiers, despite Fedorov's request, had beaten Pokidov with several punches.

page 45

in the chest, head, and ear, causing traumatic perforation of the eardrum, which is considered to be a minor injury. During the trial, the victim Pokidov changed his testimony, stating that Fedorov did not beat him, but that the armored window cover fell on his ear.

Nevertheless, the court found Fedorov guilty of violating the regulations governing relations between military personnel and sentenced him to serve in a disciplinary military unit. In addition, the court initiated a criminal case against Pokidov for giving false testimony.

The fear of public condemnation of fellow officers, a false sense of camaraderie, and sometimes the inability to resist the defendant's threats are the main motivations that lead witnesses or victims to provide false testimony. For example, in August 2022, a military court in the North Sea Garrison convicted a soldier named Ivanov for violating the regulations governing military relationships. The witness in this case was a sailor named Anisimov, who provided truthful and incriminating testimony against the defendant during both the preliminary investigation and the trial.

After the trial, when Ivanov was sent to a disciplinary military unit, his comrade Alimurzaev decided to "teach" Anisimov a lesson by committing a "sailor's lynching" on him. To this end, he made a noose out of a rope, secured it to a crossbeam, and when Anisimov put his head in the noose at his request, he began to rant about what would happen to anyone who gave false testimony in court. To the credit of the other officers, they themselves stopped Alimurzaev's wild outburst and freed Anisimov from the noose. The outcome of this crime is logical: Alimurzaev will spend three long years in a general-regime correctional colony, realizing the illegality of his intentions to obstruct the administration of justice.

In general, the problem of protecting witnesses and victims from the illegal harassment of perpetrators is quite serious. Unfortunately, we do not have a well-established and proven program for protecting victims of illegal actions, as is the case in the West. However, practice shows that where there is thoughtful and targeted work with eyewitnesses and victims of crimes in military units and on ships, and the command takes measures to isolate the accused and victims, transferring them to other ships for further service, cases of perjury are minimized.

... In December of last year, Magomedov and eight other defendants, who had been mocking and abusing their colleagues for a long time, were brought before the court. The trial lasted several days, but despite the denial of some of the defendants and their attempts to mitigate their fate, the proceedings were completed quickly, and the perpetrators were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment in a correctional facility or a disciplinary military unit, depending on the severity of their crimes. This was largely possible because the victims in the case provided detailed and consistent testimony that incriminated the perpetrators.

When I spoke with Captain 3rd Rank K. Zaytsev, the ship's assistant commander for legal affairs, after the trial, he mentioned that one of the reasons why the victims were able to provide truthful testimony in court was the individual work he had conducted with them, including legal discussions with the military personnel and the transfer of some sailors to other ships for further service. Additionally, one of the victims, sailor Shamakov, stated in court that he would tell the truth without being warned about the criminal liability for giving false testimony, as he was tired of being afraid.

Sometimes, in a moment of revelation, you hear from the defendants that if they tell the truth, they will get a longer sentence than if they remain silent. Is this due to a lack of knowledge about the criminal law, or is it a result of believing the far-from-truthful stories of former convicts? However, Article 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation states that a mitigating circumstance includes both a confession and active assistance in solving the crime, as well as actions aimed at compensating for the harm caused to the victim. This is indeed the case.

Most recently, a court heard a case against Jafarov, who, in the false belief that it was in the best interests of his service, had beaten and otherwise abused young sailors Stupin and Shcherbakov. During the trial, Jafarov fully admitted his guilt and expressed his sincere remorse, while the victims, who also provided consistent and truthful testimonies incriminating the defendant, requested that his sentence be reduced. Therefore, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the defendant's positive character, and his sincere repentance, the court found it possible to impose a non-custodial sentence on Jafarov.

So is it worth ruining your own life, hoping that by giving false testimony you can ease the fate of the criminal and avoid responsibility yourself? "No, and again, no," will say the convicted sailor Pokidov and others like him, who only after the trial realized the futility and harmfulness of their lies: they did not help their abuser and only harmed themselves.

page 46

Permanent link to this publication: