The Senate rejected the law, which was the fruit of haste

At the 36th plenary session of the Senate, the law “On Prevention of Offenses” was rejected due to several shortcomings and the haste in which it was prepared.

This law was developed by the Ministry of Internal Affairs in order to effectively implement the state policy on crime prevention and ensure full regulation of relations in this field.

The law consists of 8 chapters and 88 articles, and discussions held by the Senate Committee on Defense and Security Issues with the participation of specialists, experts, and scientists confirmed that it should be revised.

According to the senators, a number of norms in the law are inconsistent with other current laws, including provisions directly or indirectly related to crime prevention, and even in some places they are contradictory.

In particular, in Article 19 of the law sees the development and implementation of measures for the prevention of consumption of alcohol and tobacco products among minors.  Health care institutions have power in the field of prevention of offenses, being intoxicated under the influence of alcohol, a  24-hour reception and medical care of minors.

Another item that was discussed during the plenary session, namely, the law “On restricting the distribution and consumption of alcohol and tobacco products”, persons under the age of twenty-one are directly  defined as subjects of influence.

It was noted that it is necessary to eliminate this inconsistency in both laws, that is, it is necessary to express a single and acceptable approach to relations with minors and persons under the age of twenty-one in both laws.

Secondly, in Article 3 of the law, the concept of “unsupervised minor” includes the fact that the parents or other legal representatives of the minor have neglected to fulfill their obligations to provide for him and to raise and educate him, or is defined as a minor whose behavior is uncontrolled due to failure to fulfill these duties.  

Article 64 of the Constitution obliges parents to feed and educate their children until they reach adulthood.  Therefore, emphasis was placed on the need to revise the definition of an unsupervised minor in the law in accordance with Article 64 of the Constitution.

Thirdly, in Article 43 of the law, it is noted that the form of the official warning was approved by the Ministry of Justice.  In the current norms, it is established that the form of the official warning must be approved by the Cabinet of Ministers.  However, neither the experts nor the initiators of the law could explain in the preliminary discussions why this authority is supposed to be transferred from the government to the Ministry.  However, the fact that such an approach leads to the approval of a procedural or official form of document that is universally binding for ministries and agencies of equal status by one ministry is completely contrary to the priority norms.

In addition, in Article 32 of the law, the General Prosecutor’s Office is defined as the only state body that coordinates activities related to crime prevention.

The senators noted that this law needs serious revision and its approval in its current state will cause more problems than effectiveness in practice.