Non-reporting article supports practice of collective responsibility in Northern Caucasus

In Northern Caucasus, law enforcers use the article on non-reporting about an intended crime to intimidate relatives and acquaintances of suspected militants, although the legal application thereof is possible only under certain conditions, while one’s close relatives are protected by the constitutional right not to report a crime.

A non-reporting case can be initiated if a person knew any circumstances of a terrorist crime that was committed or was being prepared, said Evgeny Smirnov, a lawyer, who specializes in extremism cases. "The basis for the charge is usually the results of operative activities, correspondence or testimonies of other people. Regarding family members, I can say that spouses and close relatives are not subject to criminal liability," he told the "Caucasian Knot".

The non-reporting article has a single criterion for the corpus delicti, but a specific disposition, Felix Vertegel, an advocate, has noted.

"There is only one criterion for defining the crime elements: if one knows that a terror act is being prepared and fails to report it. But there is an interesting point here: it turns out that the person who knew it must also give a legal assessment of the actions, which requires special legal knowledge. Besides, there must be a sign of the reliability of the information," Mr Vertegel told the "Caucasian Knot".

He has confirmed that one’s testimony, correspondence and one’s own confession can be regarded as proofs in the case. "The fact of a person's knowledge of the prepared or committed act must be proven," he has added.

To initiate a case under the article on "non-reporting a crime," several conditions are necessary, which in practice are not always observed, Timur Filippov, a former prosecutor, criminologist and senior investigator of the division for the investigation of especially important cases, has noted.

“The formal approach of ‘knew-failed to report-guilty’ doesn’t work here, although the law enforcers’ practice is often based thereon. We are talking only about specific terrorist crimes directly specified in the law. This is not just ‘suspicious behaviour’, but real information. Abstract rumours, assumptions or everyday conversations ‘in the smoking room’ don’t fall under this article,” Mr Filippov told the “Caucasian Knot”.

He has drawn attention to the fact that a mandatory crime element is direct intent. “That is, the person not only ‘knew’, but also consciously didn’t report it, understanding the consequences. Without this, there is no corpus delicti. There is no liability for non-reporting if one had no opportunity to report for objective reasons: a threat to life, being in isolation, or incapacity. Thus, the crime that the accused person has failed to report must be specific, the knowledge of it must be proven, the information about the crime must be reliable, and the intent not to report must be established,” he has explained.

In practice, the proofs that a person knew about such a crime but failed to report it to the police is provided by the testimonies of interrogated witnesses, recorded correspondence, wiretapped data, and seized telephones.

“The key difficulty is that investigators must prove one’s ‘knowledge,’ not ‘the ability to know.’ This could be intercepted correspondence or messages that directly state: ‘I know that he is in the ‘Islamic State’ (IS or ISIL)*. It’s not enough to simply be friends, be a relative, or communicate in social networks – investigators must prove that the person not only knew, but also intentionally concealed the reliable information,” Mr Filippov has emphasized.

In national republics such as Ingushetia or Dagestan, Article 205.6 is used not so much as a tool to combat terrorism, but as a lever of pressure on suspects’ families.

Timur Filippov has concluded that close relatives of those accused of terrorist crimes are not at risk, even if they had some information. “Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in the context of cases under the article on failure to report is an extremely important and often ignored defence shield, especially when it comes to relatives of the accused or their close circle of friends. Let me remind you of the content of this article: ‘No one is obliged to testify against himself or herself, his or her spouse or close relatives, the circle of which is defined by the federal law.’ Such relatives include a spouse, parents and children, grandparents, grandchildren, siblings. If a person is a close relative of a suspect, he or she has every right not to report his or her actions, even if he or she knows about them. This is not a crime, because the right not to testify is included in the Constitution which is above the Criminal Code. This provision is especially important for minors and people with limited understanding of legal consequences, who may be coerced or psychologically pressured, including through interrogation without an advocate. If the accused is just an acquaintance, classmate or neighbour, Article 51 does not apply, then (the defence) has to prove that the accused did not know or was not sure that the point was specifically about terrorist activity,” said Timur Filippov.

However, in practice, it is the relatives and friends of the accused who often find themselves at risk and become the first candidates for the role of “scapegoats” for law enforcers.

“The reason is simple: investigators need to demonstrate an active fight against terrorism; and it is much easier to prove the intent of a relative ‘not to report’ than that of a casual acquaintance. In practice, especially in national republics such as Ingushetia or Dagestan, Article 205.6 is used not so much as a tool to fight terrorism, but as a lever of pressure on suspects’ families. This creates the effect of ‘collective responsibility’, which contradicts both the presumption of innocence and the common sense. Thus, the non-reporting article is a dangerous tool that turns into an intimidation means. It is especially alarming when minors or simply the suspects’ entourage fall under it. Without a reliable evidence base, such cases become criminal arbitrariness, and not the fight against terrorism,” the expert has emphasized.

This article was originally published on the Russian page of 24/7 Internet agency ‘Caucasian Knot’ on May 16, 2025 at 03:43 pm MSK. To access the full text of the article, click here.

*On December 29, 2014, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognized the organization "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" (ISIL or IS) as a terrorist international organization and banned its activities in Russia.