1Редчиц М.А_Summery_131018 (1139360), страница 6

Просмтор этого файла доступен только зарегистрированным пользователям. Но у нас супер быстрая регистрация: достаточно только электронной почты!

Текст из файла (страница 6)

The removal of such items implies theirphysical extraction from the places of their occurrence.Damage to the cultural layer means tampering with the integrity of the layerwhich results in the loss of a possibility to obtain certain information encapsulatedin the cultural layer. The moment of completing the crime constitutes the momentof damage to the cultural layer without specifying the extent of such damage.The crime can be committed either with intent or by negligence. In all cases,to form the required state of mind, the individual committing the crime must beaware of the presence of the cultural layer at an archaeological site.

This fact is animportant criterion for establishing the criminal conduct, since it essentially thesingle element by which the offender can be distinguished from any otherindividual who accidently found and removed a cultural valuable object from thesite of its occurrence.In the case when an individual was not aware of the cultural layer, his/heractions must be qualified according to the rules of factual mistake, therefore, suchactions cannot be criminally charged.For the purposes of a crime qualifying under Part 2 Art.243(2) CC RF, itdoes not matter whether or not the archaeological object has any connection to theobject of cultural heritage from the territory of which that object has beenremoved.The definition of the subject matter of the crime punishable under Art.243(3)CC is inconsistent and therefore contradicts to the principle of the uniformity in thelegal construction of law. For the purposes of unification of the terms in theCriminal Code of the R.F.

with respect to the cultural heritage protection, it isproposed that movable objects that have special cultural value should be defined as“cultural assets of value” and accordingly, the appropriate clarifications should bemade to the language of Art.243(3) CC RF.22The criminal act is complete at the moment of the refusal by an individual totransfer the discovered cultural valuables to the government, which fact can beestablished either by the expiration of the period of time afforded by the law for thetransfer procedure or by other factors that would evidence the individual’s intent toavoid transferring the discovered objects to the government, in particular, byentering into transactions for alienation of the cultural assets.The subjective standard of the substance of the crime can be characterizedby specific intent; the individual must be aware of the fact of cultural significanceof the objects against which the criminal act is being committed.The Conclusion summarizes the results of the dissertation research,formulates the main conclusions and proposals directed towards the improvementsto the criminal law legislation and its practical application.Attachment 1 introduces a questionnaire for investigators and judges.Attachment 2 presents the results of previously conducted surveys.Attachment 3 describes results of analysis of court decisions on the casesinvolving crimes pursuant to Art.243 CC RF for the period from 2010 to 2017.Attachment 4 describes results of analysis of court decisions on the casesinvolving crimes pursuant to Art.243(2) CC RF for the period from 2010 to 2017.Attachment 5 describes results of analysis of convictions on the cases involvingcrimes pursuant to Art.164 CC RF for the period from 2010 to 2017.Attachment 6 contains judgments entered for administrative violations qualifiedpursuant to Part 1 Art.7.14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the R.F.based on examination of court decisions in cases involving violations under Part 1Art.7.14.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for the period from 2015 to2017.Attachment 7 presents statistical data from the Edition of the Unified Report onCrimes for the period of 2010-2017 regarding the crimes under Art.243 CC RF andfor the period of 2010-2017 regarding the crimes under Art.243-243(3) CC RF.Attachment 8 presents results of comparison evaluation of substances of thecriminal offenses pursuant to Art.243 CC RF and Part 2 Art.243(2) CC RF.Attachment 9 represents a graphic illustration of the system of cultural heritage.23The main provisions of the dissertation research were published inpublications recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission under theMinistry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation1.

Redchits M. A. To the question of the international legal framework ofcriminal law protection of cultural heritage in the Russian Federation //International Criminal Law and International Justice. 2017. No. 2. P. 30-32.2. Redchits M. A. Criminal law protection of objects of cultural heritage //Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics. 2016. No. 3. P. 50-58.3. Pogosova Z. M., Redchits M. A., Sidorov V. N.

Compensation of moraldamage caused by the commission of a crime // Zakon. 2014. No. 4. P. 165176.Other publications1. Joint XVI International Scientific and Practical Conference and IXInternational Scientific and Practical Conference “Kutafin Readings”“Strategy of National Development and Tasks of Russian Jurisprudence”(Moscow, O. Kutafin University (MGLA), 2015). Report: "The subject ofthe crime under Art. 243 of the Criminal Code.2. XIII International Scientific and Practical Conference "Criminal Law:Development Strategy in the XXI Century" (Moscow, O.

E. KutafinUniversity (MSLA), 2016). Report: "Protection of objects with signs ofobjects of cultural heritage."3. Collection of publications of the scientific journal "Globus" based on thematerials of the XII international scientific-practical conference: Economicsand jurisprudence: theory and practice "of St. Petersburg: a collection ofarticles.

- S.-P .: Scientific journal “Globus”, 2017. P. 37-42.24.

Характеристики

Список файлов диссертации