Four Russian Soldiers Convicted of Killing Chechen Civilians

In what human-rights groups are describing as a landmark case, a military court in Rostov-on-Don has convicted four Russian soldiers — three in absentia — of murdering six unarmed civilians in Chechnya:

The case has been followed closely in war-scarred Chechnya, where many are outraged that no one has been brought to justice for the January 2002 killing of a driver and five passengers of a truck in Chechnya.

A three-judge panel at southern Russia’s top military court sentenced Capt. Eduard Ulman in absentia to 14 years in prison and handed down sentences of nine, 11 and 12 years to three subordinates.

Two separate juries had acquitted the men, who claimed they were following orders, but the acquittals have been overturned by the Supreme Court, forcing new trials. In Russia, the Supreme Court can throw out acquittals on procedural grounds.

Ulman and two other defendants have been missing since they failed to show up for hearings in April, deepening the sense of injustice among relatives of the victims.

[snip]

During the first trial, defense lawyer Alexei Ulyanov said the killings occurred when the driver of a suspicious-looking military-style truck ignored demands and warning shots to stop, and Ulman gave the order to open fire on the truck until it halted.

He said the soldiers discovered they had killed one of the six people in the truck and wounded two others. He claimed they were then ordered by superiors in radio messages to kill the survivors and make it look like the truck was carrying rebels and had blown up on a mine.

This is only the second time since 1994 that Russian soldiers have been convicted of killing Chechen civilians. And not surprisingly, the convictions and resulting sentences have drawn fire from both sides:

Chechnya’s ombudsman, Nurdi Mukhazhiyev, said the defendants deserved at least 20 years and possibly life in prison, Interfax reported. “The courts still have a biased attitude toward servicemen and Chechens,” Whenever they try a resident of the Chechen Republic, they sentence him to 20-25 years or life, even if he confesses after torture,” he was quoted as saying.

Prosecutors had requested sentences ranging from 18 to 23 years.

Another lawyer for relatives of the victims, Lyudmila Tikhomirova, expressed dissatisfaction with the sentences and said defendants convicted in multiple killings were usually sentenced to at least 15 years.

A nationalist Russian lawmaker, meanwhile, suggested the verdict was politically motivated — predetermined by the Russian government’s desire to please the allies it relies on to rule Chechnya, Ekho Moskvy radio reported. Dmitry Rogozin also said it was “absolutely possible” the defendants were abducted or killed.

Victims relatives have said they believe Ulman and the other two have gone into hiding to avoid the trial, and that their absence was an admission of guilt.

The fact that three of the soldiers were convicted in absentia is troubling, but there seems to be little doubt that the four are guilty. After all, one of the defense attorneys admitted that the soldiers killed at least five of the civilians in cold blood and then covered up the crime. The superior-orders question, though, is more complicated than it may first appear: unlike most domestic criminal codes and the statutes of the international tribunals, Article 42 of the new Russian Criminal Code does not limit the defense of superior orders to orders that were not “manifestly unlawful” — orders whose illegality a reasonable soldier would have recognized. On the contrary, a soldier is entitled to the defense under Article 42 as long as he did not actually know that the order was unlawful, a much higher standard:

1. There shall not be deemed to be a crime the causing of harm to the interests protected by the criminal law by a person acting in execution of an order or instruction that are obligatory to him. The criminal responsibility for causing such harm shall be born by the person who has given the unlawful order or instruction.

2. A person who has committed an intentional crime in execution of a knowingly unlawful order or instruction shall bear criminal responsibility on the general grounds. The non-execution of a knowingly unlawful order or instruction shall exclude criminal responsibility.

The military court obviously concluded — contrary to the two civilian juries — that the four soldiers knew they could not lawfully kill unarmed civilians. Article 42’s knowledge requirement is still troubling, though, because it encourages soldiers to know as little as possible about the laws of war: the more ignorant they are, the less likely they will be to recognize an order’s illegality. Given the widespread unlawfulness that pervades the Russian military, the perversity of that incentive needs no explanation.