The Kadochnikov Systema is not just a military hand-to-hand combat. The author of the system Alexey Alexeyevich Kadochnikov calls it the private safeguarding technique. Consequently it can be regarded as the martial art for self defense. One of the main postulates of the Kadochnikov Systema is defence. Alexey Alexeyevich Kadochnikov insists that in the first place his system should be used as a mean to defend oneself. In this way the Kadochnikov Systema is closely connected with such notions as “a necessary defence” and “an extreme necessity.”
Due to the today’s version of the 37 article of the Criminal Code former simple statement that actions done in a state of the necessary defence is not a crime was changed by the tendency to define the terms of its legality.
The content of this article provides the necessary minimum of information that allows sorting out conflict situations. The subject of the necessary defence may be every individual person despite his age, sex, nationality and religious stripe.
The necessary defence is permitted not only in the relation to a dangerous encroachment but in case of any socially dangerous act. You can exercise the right to a necessary defence even if there was possibility to avoid the attack or ask a third party or the authority for help.
The rules regulating the necessary defence apply to the cases when technical equipments were used to protect legal welfare from the socially dangerous act. Though there is one condition that these equipments were not dangerous for persons who were not doing socially dangerous acts.
A person and the rights of the one who defends himself are in the foreground of the institute of the necessary defence. This coincides with the constitutional principles and norms.
The right to the necessary defence helps to encourage people in fighting, preventing and restraining delinquencies.
Classification of deeds done in the state of the necessary defence remains one of the most acute problems of the criminal law and the criminal procedure.
From the social point of view the necessary defence is a deed of public utility and aims at protecting a person his or hers rights and freedoms, the rights and interests of the society and the state. From the legal point of view it is a justified deed as the one who is defending himself can justify his actions in a given situation. At the same time the legislator, considering the circumstances and the aim of the defensive conduct, doesn’t forbid it as everyone should have an opportunity to use his or her right to defend one’s rights and freedoms by all means allowed by the existing legislation.
The necessary defence is a natural legal right everyone has. It is acknowledged and secured by the law. The legislator regulates the institute of the necessary defence to secure the rights of the one who is defending himself or herself from the socially dangerous act. It is done to encourage him or her to such an activity and protect from the groundless accusations especially in case of exceeding the limits of the necessary defence. This is the purpose of the changes made in the article 37 of the Criminal Code by the federal law enacted at the 14th of March in 2002.
This article underlines the rightfulness of the defence from the socially dangerous act. It may be done by all means. A person can hurt an assailant in any way up to causing him death if the attack jeopardized the life of the one who is defending himself or some other third person.
A danger to the life of the one who is defending himself should be real. If there were no actual danger to his or her life but the person was truly mistaken and had a good cause to think of such danger this wrong belief allows to stop the criminal prosecution as there is no his or her fault.
The exceeding of the limits of the necessary defence means intended actions that don’t correspond to the nature and the degree of danger of the assault.
Consequently we can speak about criminal responsibility for the necessary defence only in cases (not connected with violence endangering one’s life) when the one who is defending himself understood that his actions were wrong and he realized that he could prevent this attack using other ways of protection.
Causing death to an assaulter may be not regarded as the exceeding of the necessary defence in situations not connected with violence but dangerous for human life and with the direct threat of such violence. For instance it is not considered as the exceeding of the necessary defence if a girl kills a rapist protecting herself from his attack. The same situation is when a person kills an assailant who was about to benight him.
The law emphasizes equal rights to the necessary defence for all people despite their professional or other special skills and ranks.
The Criminal Code provides the criminal responsibility only for a murder (part 1, article 108) and premeditated harm-doing in the state of the necessary defence.
Consequently the harm-doing of a light or moderate gravity to an assaulter who is performing a socially dangerous act can’t be regarded as the exceeding of the necessary defence.
Judicial practice admits that a man who is defending himself can’t measure his force. If he instinctively reacted under the influence of an acute pain this will be the most forcible evidence that he applied the defensive actions within reason.
You are welcome to leave comments concerning this topic.
