Abstract: The article is devoted to the problem of the current state and prospects of the criminal legal regulation of the denial of genocide in Russia. The issue is considered in the context of the implementation of the state task of protecting historical truth, enshrined in Part 3 of Article 67.1 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and other legal acts. Historical truth is socially significant reliable information about historical events related to ensuring the security of Russia, consisting of accurately confirmed historical facts. From 2020 to the present, the genocide of the peoples of the USSR has been established by court decisions in 13 regions of the Russian Federation, which gives information about these events both confirmation and public significance.
Analysis of the current criminal law has demonstrated that in its version, denial of the genocide of the peoples of the USSR is not a crime. The discovery of legal and social grounds leads to the conclusion that it is necessary to criminalize the genocide of the peoples of the USSR. The experience of regulating liability for genocide denial in European countries does not allow us to recommend it for reception. The experience of criminalization of such an act in the Republic of Belarus is considered preferable. As an alternative to it, a new version of Part 1 of Article 354.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is proposed, providing for responsibility for denying the genocide of the peoples of the USSR.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the provision on criminal liability for training for the purpose of carrying out terrorist activities. In the course of this research, the author determines the content of the elements of a crime stipulated by the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, defines boundaries of this criminal violation, as well as makes recommendations on the improvement of its legal regulation. The article is based on the component legal analysis of the body of crime, stipulated by the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, with application of such methods of legal hermeneutics as grammatical and systemic interpretation. It was revealed that de facto, a direct object of crime envisaged by the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation differs depending on the type of crime for which the subject is undergoing training; while the objective side of crime consists in training, including self-training of the subject. The article criticizes the legislator’s decision to establishing a minimum age threshold (14 y.o.) for the subject of crime, as well as the method to describe the purpose in disposition of the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The author describes the cases when introduction of the Article 205.3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation allows double prosecution for the same offence, as well as regulation of a stiffer penalty for preparation, in comparison with the completed substantive crime, which in both cases violates the principle of justice (Article 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).  A proposal is made to exclude the Article 205.3 from the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, as well as introduce a special rule on the boundaries of punishment for preparation of terrorist acts.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the rate of recorded crimes of terrorist and extremist nature in their dynamics for the period of implementation of the National Security Strategy of the Russian Federation until 2020. For the purpose of discovering the impact of criminalization and decriminalization processes upon the changes of this index, the author explores s the norms on responsibility for extremist and terrorist crimes, which also comprise the subject of this research. Attention is given to corrections in method of accounting of such crimes in the examined period, as well as their impact upon the changes of the index. In the course of study it was discovered that compared to 2009, the number of recorded crimes of extremist nature during the period of 2014-2018 increased by 2.5-3 times, but in 2019 this index has returned to the initial numbers, which is explained by partial decriminalization of acts stipulated by the Article 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. The number of recorded crimes of terrorist nature by 2019 superseded the 2009 index by almost 3 times, caused by criminalization of various accompanying manifestations of terrorist activity. The growth in the indexes of both cases relates to expansion of the list of actions attributable to the aforementioned categories of crimes in formation of statics. In the end, implementation of the Strategy cannot be assessed negatively due to growth in crime rate, since it is caused by the socially justified amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and changes in statistical calculation.

Abstract: The subject of this research is the norm of criminal law stipulated in the Article 205.2 with regards to regulation of responsibility for terrorism propaganda. This publication makes one of the first attempts to examine the new to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation term of “terrorism propaganda”, including in correlation with the act previously prohibited by the Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Particular attention is given to interpretation of the legal definition of such act, set by the Addendum 1.1 to the aforementioned Article. The author also examines the characteristics of the subject, subject side and the ground for criminalization of terrorism propaganda. The main result of the conducted research consists in definition of the boundaries of the criminal legal prohibition of the norm established by the Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation due to inclusion of terrorism propaganda into its content. The study demonstrates how the new alternative action introduced into the Article 205.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation practically consumed previously existing actions in the Article. In introduction of insignificant legislative correction into the Addendum 1.1, public calls for terrorist activity and public justification of terrorism could be completely excluded from the norm without loss of its content.