Sexual offences

Articles 131 and 132 require violence, the threat of violence, or the use of the victim’s helpless state. Article 131 covers sexual intercourse; Article 132 covers other sexual acts. Their structure and sentences are identical, and which one is charged depends only on what act is alleged.

Article 134 punishes sexual intercourse by a person over eighteen with a person under sixteen, and Article 135 punishes indecent acts with the same age group. Neither requires violence. Neither requires the younger person to have objected. Agreement is irrelevant to liability — it is the age that creates the offence.

That distinction is the single most important thing for a foreign national to understand. A relationship that would be lawful in most of Europe at fifteen is a criminal offence in Russia, and the fact that both people considered it consensual changes the sentence rather than the outcome.

Under Articles 134 and 135 the prosecution must prove the accused knew, or from the circumstances should have known, that the other person was under sixteen. The Supreme Court said so directly in Plenum Resolution No. 16 of 4 December 2014, and it is the ground on which these cases are most often reduced.

What supports the defence: the setting where they met — a bar, a nightclub, a venue with an age limit; documents or a profile stating an older age; the account the younger person themselves gave; appearance and manner as described by witnesses who are not related to either side. What undermines it: contact through a school or a children’s activity, correspondence in which the age was stated, and the presence of parents.

Note 1 to Article 134 also provides that a person convicted for the first time under part 1 may be released from punishment where they have married the other person and neither remains socially dangerous. It is a narrow provision and it is not a strategy — but it exists and it is occasionally the right application to make.

There is rarely a witness. What there is: the complainant’s account, a forensic medical examination, an expert psychological assessment, correspondence, and the movements of both people before and after. The defence work is in all five.

The account. Statements taken over weeks change, and the changes matter. We obtain every version, including the first report and the pre-investigation check, and put the differences to the court rather than arguing in the abstract that the complainant is lying.

The medical evidence. The forensic report says what injuries exist and when; it does not say what caused them or whether there was consent. Investigators and courts routinely blur that line, and the report has to be read for what it actually establishes.

The psychological assessment. Where the complainant is a minor, an expert opinion on their capacity to understand and describe events is normal. It is examinable: whether the expert answered questions within their competence, whether the interview was suggestive, whether the defence was allowed to put its own questions before the examination began.

The correspondence. Investigators extract the messages that support the charge. The full thread, in order, with what came after, is often a different story — and it is disclosable.

Article 191 of the Criminal Procedure Code sets requirements for questioning a minor: a teacher or psychologist must be present, there are limits on the length of the interview depending on age, and for complainants under sixteen video recording is mandatory unless the minor or their representative objects.

Those requirements are frequently not met, and a breach is not a technicality here — it goes to whether the account can be relied on at all. Obtaining the recording, or establishing that none was made, is standard work in these cases and it is the ground on which testimony is most often excluded.

Pre-trial detention, without a realistic alternative. A closed hearing — Article 241 of the Criminal Procedure Code allows it for sexual offences and it is normally applied, so the case is not heard in public. An investigation that moves quickly at the start and then slows for months while expert examinations are prepared.

Expect also that early release will be distant. Parole under Article 79 requires three quarters of the sentence for offences against the sexual inviolability of minors, and four fifths where the child was under fourteen. Where a conviction happens, commutation under Article 80 and the conditions of the sentence become the realistic ground of work, and that is a different practice — see parole and commutation.