347 Thus was introduced into Russian procedural and criminal law a clear distinction between crimes against the tsar and the realm, that is, against the existing political order, on the one hand, and crimes against the lives and property of private individuals, on the other. The latter crimes were given the designation partikuliarnye prestupleniia}"^ The political crimes, gosudarstvennye prestupleniia, which had previously been called slovo i delo gosudarevo, had been regulated for the first time in Russian legal history in the Ulozhenie of 1649, the second chapter of which (“On the honor of the monarch and how the monarch’s health is to be preserved”) stipulated a special inquisitorial procedure for cases of criminal acts against the life and health of the tsar.*'® In Petrine legislation, however, a clearer distinction was made between political crimes and other criminal categories, a distinction which reflected the more severe manner in which absolutism viewed these acts. According to the Ukaz o forme suda, then, the old inquisitorial, or rozysk, trial was to remain in use for cases designated as political crimes. Even in this matter, information was gathered about how Swedish law dealt with such cases. During the preparation of the ukaz, it was found that in Sweden the so-called gosudarstvennye prestupleniia were 1) insulting the monarch {vina oskorbleniia velichestva), and 2) conspiracy (hunt), insurrection (vozmushchenie), and treason {izmena)}"' Moreover, the Vkaz o forme suda borrowed technical details from Swedish procedure both in the case of the summons and in the case of the proceedings in court. An illustration of this is provided by the rules concerning lawful excuses, that is, the rules indicating under what circumstances a party summoned to appear in court might be absent without risking any repercussions. The absent party could claim a lawful absence if he could show that one of the lawful excuses described by the law had occurred. The rules generally aimed to make legal proceedings more efficient, since, with certain specific exceptions, they required the parties to appear when summoned to court under the threat that they would 7.A (no. 175), 129. The so-called panikuliartiyc prcstitplcniia was defined in the following way in one of Peter’s ukazes: "one who, as an individual (partikuliarno), slanders another," ZA (no. 176), 132. Tel’berg, 9, 29—30, 36; see, too, PRP, VI, 31—36. According to the Ulozhcnic of 1649, the slovo i delo gosudarevo essentially encompassed the following three groups of offenses: 1) treason, 2) attacks on the tsar’s life and well-being, and 3) attacks against the tsar’s authority and attempts to assume control of the Muscovite state and become tsar. See V. I. Veretennikov, Istoriia tainoi kantscliarii Petrovskogo vremeni (Khar’kov, 1910), 11. ZA (no. 393), 396. See, too, the third draft of the law, where "gosudarstvennoe delo” was changed to "izmena, zlodeistvo ili slova protivnye na gosudaria i ego familiiu i bunt,” ZA (n. 391), 394.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=