# data[].attributes.body
Topic: The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia (Analyse the current national legal approach and provide you criticism).

As it is known, one of the inalienable human rights is the right to life. Along with the international documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, etc. this right is also protected by our national legislation. Assault on the life and health of another person is considered one of the most socially dangerous acts because the life and health of a person is the most important object of criminal protection. In this regard, euthanasia is criminalized in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan as a crime against life and health.

Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Article 135 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan defines this act as follows: “Euthanasia is the satisfaction of patient request about the acceleration of his death by any means or actions, or stop of artificial measures on maintenance of life”. It is punishable by correctional labour for the term up to two years, or imprisonment for the term up to three years with deprivation of the right to hold the certain post or to engage in the certain activity for the term up to three years or without it.

Whether euthanasia is considered a criminal act is a topic of discussion both abroad and in our country. Critics of the issue have strongly objected to the legalization of euthanasia, saying that life is given by a God and only God can take it. On the contrary, other authors state that everyone has the right to live, as well as the right to die, and people should be able to choose when they are ready to die and should be helped if they are unable to end their lives on their own. Others think that laws allowing euthanasia could be abused and people who didn't want to die could be killed.

Euthanasia is considered a form of murder in mitigating circumstances. The social danger of this act which can be considered as a ground for the criminalization of euthanasia is expressed in the fact that it seems to help those who have a serious and incurable disease, but in fact, brutally deprives them of life. On the other hand, the fact that the object of the act is the safety of the person's life is another basis for criminalizing the act. We can assess this practice as a gross violation of the right to life which is one of the fundamental human rights.

When analyzing the relevant article, we see that there are certain gaps and misunderstandings. Thus, a person suffering from any disease cannot act like a victim. In order to be held criminally liable for the relevant act, the victim must be a person with an incurable disease. Such diseases include cancer, end-stage AIDS, schizophrenia, and so on.

In my opinion, it is not expedient to completely criminalize or decriminalize euthanasia. Thus, certain amendments should be made to the relevant article. In this case, we can benefit from the experience of foreign countries. I think it would be more expedient to add exceptions to the relevant article. Such exceptions can be as follow:

• The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain;

• The patient must voluntarily request death;

• If there is no other means or methods for the patient's recovery. When euthanasia is the last resort;

• If there are some other alternatives, then the patient must have been given alternatives to euthanasia and time to consider these alternatives.

Of course, in this case, the patient's death should not cause any harm to others. From another point of view, euthanasia can save another person's life. Thus, a person suffering from an incurable disease is connected to an appropriate device for survival. The device can be connected to a person who needs it more and can be brought back to life. Thus, it is possible to save a person's life. Because life is not just a matter of breathing. The brain of a person who is unlikely to recover does not control anything, and the organs do not perform their functions. In short, such a person has no sign of life. That is why I think that the continuation of such people to live with a certain device is to hurt them and their relatives.

As a result, I can say that euthanasia should not be a criminal offence in exceptional cases, ie in the presence of appropriate conditions. It does not mean that someone who is ill should be euthanized and killed. In this case, of course, all necessary steps must be taken for the person's recovery. If despite all appropriate steps, the patient is unable to recover, ie euthanasia is the last resort, its implementation should not be considered as a criminal act.

# data[].attributes.body
Sama Jafarli, Influence of jealousy on criminal responsibility
One of the motive of intentional murder is jealousy. The question if this writing is " Can jealousy influence criminal responsibility? İf it is yes, then in which form and  to what extent ?"
Firstly, it is discussed national legislation about the theme. İt is known, intentional murder on the motive of jealousy is punished with the Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan. İt is stipulated if there is no any aggravating or mitigating circumstances  which is connected with intentional murder, then this part of article is applicable.
İf we consider intentional murder cases, generally, offenders shows the reason like jealousy. That is why they think this reason can mitigate their criminal punishment or is it real reason? İf they think that this reason can influence their criminal liability in a good meaning, that is a bad news for them it is wrong. Because Criminal Code does not stipulate any mitigating ground related with jealousy. So, the punishment does not change.
Another question arises " Can any changes be implemented to Criminal Code about jealousy as a mitigating circumstance?" Well, my opinion is that jealousy can not be considered in any case as  a mitigating circumstance. İt does not matter what is your feeling, if it concluded with death of one person.
Another strong reason given by offenders is betrayal caused jealousy and this is criminal motive. In that case betrayal can be considered as mitigating circumstance within jealousy or not? İt is my opinion this can not be at all. İf you do not accept betrayal, simply, you can get a divorce. But this can not be ground to commit a crime, even as a mitigating ground. İf this problem caused strong emotional excitement on the offender, then this creates another corpus delicti under article 122 of the Criminal Code. Of course, in that situation this causes less criminal penalty. Nevertheless, in all other cases, this is not appropriate.
On the above, it is noted the question "is jealousy a real reason or not?" when offender gives as a reason. Because, in some cases they use this motive to keep a secret the main reason. For instance, to conceal intentional murder on the motive is  hooliganism, they say jealousy is the reason to commit a crime. Because, as it is known, According to Criminal Code hooliganism is one of the aggravating circumstance of intentional murder. That is why, when the crime is investigated, the motive is researched exactly.
Consequently, I think jealousy can not influence criminal responsibility both negative and positive meaning. This is right and I agree with the special article of Criminal Code, it relates to basic corpus delicti (intentional murder), neither mitigating nor aggravating circumstance.

# data[].attributes.headline
Nazrin Mammadova - The rationale behind the criminalization of military robbery

# data[].attributes.subject
Nazrin Mammadova - The rationale behind the criminalization of military robbery

# data[].attributes.body
Throughout history, when political leaders cannot get what they want through political means, they intervene in wars as the only solution. And today even wars occur within the certain framework determined by International Humanitarian Law to avoid more violence and loss. It is characterized by the prohibition and criminalization of certain actions like military robbery in armed conflict. But, what is military robbery? And what is the main purpose of the criminalization of this action? The basics for the criminalization of the action are clarified during the broad analysis.

Before identifying military robbery as a war crime, firstly we can analyse it as a crime including elements of robbery. First, the perpetrator appropriates certain property. The appropriation is implemented without the consent of the owner. And military robbery takes place in the context of armed conflict, so it also contains violence just like a robbery.

If we interpret it as a crime, then it is necessary to determine the object of the crime. As a robbery, military robbery also causes harm to the property of the person. But it is just a secondary object of this criminal action. The importance of the criminalization of military robbery is reflected in its primary object. Military robbery directly leads to the violation of customs and laws of war established by the norms of international law. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) stipulates that in the conduct of hostilities the opposing forces are governed by several principles: military necessity, humanity, prevention of unnecessary suffering. During the analysis of military robbery, violation of these principles is defined.

War includes enough violence and aggression. So any additional and unnecessary coercive action maybe criminalized. “Destroying or seizing the enemy's property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war” is one of the serious violations of the international law norms in armed conflict. In the case of military robbery, the perpetrator intended to deprive the owner of the property and to appropriate it for private or personal use. The main point is that during armed conflict this action is implemented for satisfying the private interests, but not for the military necessity. So it leads to the violation of the necessity principle of IHL.

For the criminalization of action, another main ground is its social danger. The social danger of military robbery coincides with the violation of the humanity principle of IHL. The principle of humanity forbids the infliction of all suffering, injury, or destruction not necessary for achieving the legitimate purpose of a conflict. So even in wars, there is a certain permitted degree of force and coercion. Military robbery humiliates the honour and dignity of military servicemen. Such violent action against the person who can no longer take part in the fighting or hostilities can not be accepted. As stipulated in article 46 of the constitution of the Republic Azerbaijan: “No circumstance can be a basis for degrading the dignity of an individual”, even war.

The social danger of military robbery is not reflected in only the humiliating the dignity of military servicemen of counter state. It also degrades the reputation of the state's military unit. It expresses the inability of the authorities to impose discipline on their military units.

In certain aspects, military robbery and gaining trophy at war may seem similar. However, the main difference is reflected in the purposes of the actions. Instead of military robbery, the trophy is documented properly and it goes for a military budget of the state, nobody possesses it for his demand, personal gain. So it is implemented for the military interests of the state. But in the case of military robbery, the property is taken for providing the interest of just one person. It should be noted that wars are not implemented to satisfy private interests. So using war as an opportunity for personal interest is abuse and violation of international war law.

After all, criminal law is aimed at the protection of rights and freedom of the persons and it criminalizes certain actions. So another rationale behind the criminalization of military crime is protecting the victims of this action including wounded, sick, and dead people on the battlefield. Protection of the wounded, sick (rule 111), and dead (rule 113) against pillage is reflected in Customary International Humanitarian Law.

In conclusion, we notice that military robbery is a criminal action including the appropriation of the property of the wounded or dead person for personal interests out of the content of the legitimate purpose of a conflict. This is an action resulting in the humiliation of human dignity and dishonoring. For the protection of the principles of the international humanitarian law and defenceless persons on the battlefield criminalization of military robbery is significant. It is also worth noting that military robbery is usually committed by soldiers of the victorious states. But victory can not be a basis for the commitment of a crime. Criminalization of actions like military robbery shows that laws are also applied for members of the victorious nation that violated the norms of international law. So we can change the justice of victory into the victory of justice.

References:

1. “International Humanitarian Law: Answers to your Questions” ICRC

2. Rome Statute of International Criminal Court

3. Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules

4. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-ihl

5. The Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan

# data[].attributes.body
INFLUENCE OF JEALOUSY ON CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTENTIONAL MURDER

The motive of crime (e.g. hooliganism, jealousy, revenge, hatred, envy etc.) is an internal inducements conditioned by certain needs and interests of person which provokes him/her to commit a crime. It is based on the needs and interests of a person, which determine the person’s choice of a criminal behavior when the crime was committed. Motive is one of the facultative elements of the subjective aspect of a crime, but it can also be obligatory sign of a crime. Furthermore, in case of qualification of a crime motive can be recognized as aggravating circumstances (hatred) or mitigating circumstances (compassion). But to what extent is an influence of jealousy in case of qualification of intentional murder? The aim of this task is to answer this question, to analyse the current nation legal approach, and to express my attitude to this issue.

Intentional murder with the motive of jealousy is punishable under Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. If there are aggravating or mitigating circumstances in case of commission of international murder with the motive of jealousy, criminal liability is excluded under Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code.

And it should be noted that Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan clarified this issue.  According to Paragraph 4 of Decision No. 3 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated to 12 December 2002 “On Judicial Practice in the Case of Intentional Murder” states that the commission of intentional murder without the qualified circumstances of Article 120.2 of the Criminal Code and without the mitigating circumstances specified in Articles 121-123 and 135 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (for example, crimes committed without intent to commit hooliganism, in case of disputes and quarrels, out of jealousy, revenge) hatred, envy etc.)  should be criminalized in the basis of Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code.

Jealousy should be distinguished from murder with intent of hooliganism (Article 120.2.2 of the CC). Jealousy is used only as an excuse to kill with the intent of hooliganism. Intentional murder based on revenge, jealousy, or other personal relationships cannot be defined as murder with intent to commit hooliganism, regardless of the place the crime was committed.

When the motive of jealousy arises under the direct influence of the act of infidelity of a man or a woman and in case of commission of a crime, the perpetrator can be in state of physiological affect. Intentional murder with the motive of jealousy in state of physiological affect is punishable under Article 122 (deliberate murder committed in a condition of suddenly arisen strong emotional excitement) of the Criminal Code.

When we look at the criminal legislation of other foreign countries, we can see that the attitude to murder out of jealousy is similar to the criminal approach of Republic of Azerbaijan.

I also agree with the approach of the national legislation to this issue. It should also be noted that in the absence of aggravating or mitigating elements, this act is criminalized in Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code. If we consider that in most cases the motive is regarded as a facultative element of the crime and has no effect on the qualification of the act, such an approach of national legislation is appropriate. However, the circumstances of an intentional murder out of jealousy should be investigated in detail, and it should be distinguished from intentional murder with aggravating circumstances (specially, commitment of intentional murder with the motive national, racial, religious hatred or enmity (120.2.12 of CC).

# data[].attributes.body
1. Influence of jealousy on the criminal responsibility of intentional murder
Intentional murder or homicide, one of the socially dangerous crimes against the life and health of a person, aims at depriving a victim of life. According to Article 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of Azerbaijan, everyone has the right to life and nobody may be deprived of life unreasonably. The death penalty may be applied for high treason, serious crimes against the life and health of humans if the guilt is proven. However, this kind of penalty is revoked by some countries because of its decisive character (absolute sanction). Another reason behind it is the probability of unjust decisions of courts and the impossibility of returning an individual’s life. Another provision in the same Article of the Constitution states the inadmissibility of weapon’s usage against individuals. Except for cases like necessary defence, extreme necessity, arrest and detention of the offender etc require to attain socially necessary purposes.
As comprehending from the chapter’s name, the main object of the crime is the life and health of an individual. This kind of crime can be either performed in direct and indirect intention (subjective aspect). The active and passive form of behaviour may be performed to realise the main goal (objective aspect).
What urges individuals to commit such kind of crime? Anger, hatred, jealousy, revenge may cause committing or attempt to intentional murder. Firstly, it may be affirmed that persons who have chosen solving problems in this way have more psychological problems. Jealousy as a motive in intentional murder may arise between spouses, former spouses or partners who are/were in a relationship formerly. Some scholars consider jealousy as a moral deficiency. If someone has broken up with his/her partner, thus there will nothing to do with him/her. Every person has free will, and partners may end the relationship by coming to a mutual agreement. However, there is a side in some relations, who is not able to accept the “deprivation from joint life”, and begins to envy a rival. In the Azerbaijani explanatory dictionary jealousy is defined as “doubts arisen against love and devotion of a lover”.
How does jealousy affect intentional murder? Thus, the partner might desire these consequences and jealousy urged him to commit the crime. Motive cannot be considered as aggravating factor, because only the method of crime may cause serious consequences. What compels you to murder is jealousy, what jealousy encourages you to commit the crime in an especially cruel way is a method, which you have chosen by free will. Intentional murder on the motives of hatred, revenge and personal grounds is punishable under According to Article 120.1 of Criminal Code according to Qəsdən adam öldürmə işləri üzrə məhkəmə təcrübəsi haqqında Azərbaycan Respublikası Ali Məhkəməsi Plenumunun qərarı.
The case of intentional murder № 1(103)-N/2019 on jealousy considered by the Baku Court of Appeal is a sample for the qualification of Article 120.1. The accused killed his former spouse with the knife (qatlanan ov tipli) assuming her immoral, but injured serious damage to the person with whom his former wife was at the time of the commission of a crime. Baku Court of Appeal did not change the previous decision, and the accused was guilty under Article 120.1, 120.2.7, 228.4 of Criminal Code.
No one may be persecuted or controlled by another person. Inviolability of the privacy of a person is guaranteed by the state. Psychological assistance should be rendered to such persons, who carry hatred, revenge, jealousy in order to release from them and respect others’ life.

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia:
(Analyse the current national legal approach and provide your criticism).

Let's start with the definition of euthanasia in national law:

Euthanasia, is satisfaction of patient request about acceleration of his death by any means or actions, or stop of artificial measures on maintenance of life. And is punished by corrective works for the term up to two years, or imprisonment for the term up to three years  with deprivation of the right to hold the certain post or to engage in the certain activity for the term up to three years or without it. (CC, art.135)

It is clear that euthanasia is prohibited and considered a crime in Azerbaijan. Because according to national law, euthanasia terminates a person's right to life. Both of active or passive euthanasia results in the death of the person, ending his life.  At the same time, euthanasia is legalized in many countries on various grounds, as it eliminates physical and mental suffering.
During the research about this topic, the phrase "the right to death" caught my attention.

If a person has the right to life and is protected by law, why not the right to die?  First of all, why should a person have the right to die?

If a person has unbearable physical pain and there is no cure, medicine for it, if the doctor or health worker sees the only way in waiting for death, with the consent of the person or their patron, euthanasia can be realized painlessly and quickly to relieve physical pain.

Well, in this case, does not the person who renounces the right to live by exercising the right to die, act contrary to the interests of society and the law?
I think so, why?  Let's look again at national law, according to national law, euthanasia is to deprive the lives of people with serious and incurable diseases, as if to help them, but in fact ruthlessly and forgetting their human feelings.
In this case, we can also substantiate that euthanasia is a crime. More precisely, let's look at the grounds for the act to be a crime.

Object: life of preson
Objective aspect: suspension of artificial measures at the request of the patient or acceleration of death by any action/inaction
Subjective aspect: indirectly committed with the motive of having mercy on the victim

"Now that euthanasia or the right to die has been legalized, how can we be sure that it will not be abused after a while?  Or what happens if a person applies for euthanasia on the wrong grounds? Especially considering the recent increase in suicides, I can say that while euthanasia is legal, the number of deaths on illegal grounds will definitely be high."
(Biraz əlaqəsiz olsa da, vurğulamaq ehtiyacı duydum)

There are all the elements to consider a crime, so it is expedient to accept euthanasia as a crime and punish the perpetrator if it is committed.

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale behind the criminalization of “military robbery” (Article 118 of the CC)

First of all we need the definition of pillage or so called “military robbery”. According to guidelines used by the International Criminal Court (ICC), pillage occurs when a perpetrator takes property from the legitimate owner for his or her private or personal use, without consent, in an armed conflict. Essentially, pillage is theft under the cover of war.   [1]

And then we need to clarify the exact definition of the above-mentioned crime. According to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan the definition of this criminal act is as the following:

Article 118. Pillage

Plunder of the property of persons killed or wounded in the battlefield (pillage) – shall be punished by deprivation of freedom for a term of 3 to 10 years[2]

Besides the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, we have “The Law of Azerbaijani Republic concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War”[3] in which the protection of the sick and wounded from the pillage and mistreatment is ensured in Article 24 of the law.

Also we have international treaties to which Azerbaijan is a party. For example, the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949)[4] prohibits pillage during wartime.

As can be seen clearly pillage is not only prohibited in the national legislation of Azerbaijan but also in the international documents. This fact itself indicates the social danger of this criminal act. So it would be an important step to elaborate on the features of the crime in order to get a deeper understanding the rationale behind the criminalization.

Firstly, in the former (1960) Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan this act was criminalized as a crime against military service. However, later its object was defined more precisely and this crime was categorized as a war crime from that time. The social danger of the Article 118 of the CC is expressed in degrading the honor of the military servicemen and reducing their combat capability. Because looting some items from the body of dead or injured shows soldiers’ neediness which is not desirable. This crime can also be seen as an indicator of poor supply for soldiers. Because probably if soldiers do not need those items, they will not touch it (touching dead bodies are dangerous because they carry some disasters and sometimes they have some traps that can cost pillager’s life).

And then the object of this crime is international laws and traditions for conducting combat. As we know pillage is prohibited under international law. Azerbaijani Republic is also a party to the international agreements which criminalize this act (for example see Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949).

This crime is objectively expressed in the looting of the property of persons who have died or been injured. In this case property means weapons, ammunition, clothes etc. The pillaged property can be both civil and military. However, taking property of an alive person (the wounded excluding) is not punishable under Article 118 of the CC. The dead and injured persons whose property pillaged can be both civilians and military servicemen.

This crime is committed with direct intention meaning that the criminal realizes the public danger of his/her action and still desires to do so. The subject of the crime can be any sane person who is over 16.  Usually military servicemen are the subjects of this crime.

There are some other negative consequences of pillage. First of all it destroys an army’s discipline which is very necessary during wartime. Soldiers become barbarians when they seek out for something to pillage and if a soldier takes more loot from the dead bodies than others, it can lead to inequality among soldiers and clashes for the loot inside the army. Because some strong soldiers will try to capture all the loot for themselves which destroys the whole discipline. Throughout history we have always seen that armies lose their discipline when it comes to pillage and the process itself leads to the self-destruction of the army. This is why pillage or so called military robbery is prohibited from XIX century with certain laws.

And there is another less known negative effect of this crime as well. It is illegal trafficking of weapons and ammunitions. Every soldier is assigned to their weapons and when their service duty is over they will return their military equipments to the army. However, weapons and ammunitions that taken from the enemy during wartime can be hidden and later be sold to other persons illegally at the exchange for money. This is one of the harsh consequences of this criminal act. And there are other logical reasons to ban this behavior too. One of them is economical damage to the state budget. If the ammunition that looted from the opposite side could be used by the army for the further military activities, it would be very helpful and less expensive to carry out military tasks successfully. And we saw this fact in II Karabagh war. Azerbaijani army restyled and used weapons and ammunition of Armenian army against themselves.

Another logical reason to criminalize the act is to dishonor the army and military personnel. Because every soldier has its own honor and dignity and doing this kind of acts shows their neediness which is not desirable. It is also a shameful and degrading situation for the government too because commitment of this kind of crimes indicates poor and low supply of soldiers generally. So how states dare to wage war with that poor supply of their soldiers? Of course whatever the reality is, every government would like to deny this fact. And that is why it is the best way to criminalize this act so you can prevent showing the weakness signs significantly by a single step.

For all the above-mentioned logical reasons pillage or military robbery is criminalized as a war crime in the present Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. We can see the criminalization of the same act in the international legislation too. So it means Azerbaijan’s legislation is harmonious with international law as well.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1.       "Corporations Shouldn't Profit From Brutal Conflict. #Stoppillage", (2019) Opensocietyfoundations.org, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/why-corporate-pillage-war-crime (accessed 14 March 2021).

2.      "The Progress Report By Azerbaijan", (2001) Coe.int, https://www.coe.int/t/dlapil/cahdi/Source/ICC/ConsultICC(2001)07E%20Azerbaijan.pdf (accessed 13 March 2021).

3.      The Law of Azerbaijan Republic Concerning Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War. Article 24.

4.      The Fourth Geneva Convention. (1949) Article 16 Geneva: The UN

NOTE: I added PDF version of my work, you can read this from there if it is hard to read on Padlet

[1] "Corporations Shouldn't Profit From Brutal Conflict. #Stoppillage", (2019) Opensocietyfoundations.org, https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/why-corporate-pillage-war-crime (accessed 14 March 2021).
[2] "The Progress Report By Azerbaijan", (2001) Coe.int, https://www.coe.int/t/dlapil/cahdi/Source/ICC/ConsultICC(2001)07E%20Azerbaijan.pdf (accessed 13 March 2021).
[3] The Law of Azerbaijan Republic Concerning Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War. Article 24.
[4] The Fourth Geneva Convention. (1949) Article 16 Geneva: The UN.

# data[].attributes.body
2. The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia.
Criminalization of euthanasia for the first time.
Euthanasia is satisfaction of patient request about acceleration of his death by any means or actions, or stop of artificial measures on maintenance of life âl. But why was this act criminalized for the first time? Although the term “euthanasia” first appeared in the 17th century, this practice has existed since ancient times. In ancient Greece, assisted suicide and euthanasia were considered acceptable and even necessary in some cases. Individuals could seek help from the state for euthanasia. Although philosophers such as Plato and Socrates did not support euthanasia, they considered it acceptable in the case of a terminal and degenerative illness. However, this tolerance ended with the spread of Christianity. Although there is no such provision in the Bible, Judaism condemns it and this condemnation became the part of Christianity. Later, this would be confirmed in Islam. Thus, suicide (assisted suicide and euthanasia) began to be considered a crime, and even the relatives of those who died were punished. Several opinions were formed as to why the act was considered a crime.
1 Religious grounds. Life was given by God, and only God had the right to receive it. Each of us belongs to God and we are God’s property.
2. The duty of the state. Euthanasia serves the personal interests of the individual, and no one's personal interests can overweigh the duty of the state, and the duty of the state is to protect the life of the individual.
3. Public interest. A genius who is terminally ill can be of great benefit to society. His death deprives society of this, and the suffering of one person is no more important than the interests of sthe whole society.
Despite the different approaches, the most important logical basis for the criminalization of euthanasia was the religious approach. This approach continues at a time when Islam is spreading.
Criminalization of euthanasia today.
Let's look at the three reasons given above with the worldview of today.
1. Religious grounds. People's traditions, mentality and religion are factors influencing the formation of law. Even if it is a secular state, religion affects the law as part of the mentality, culture and morality. As a result, religion is an important factor in the criminalization of this act.
2. The duty of the state. The duty of the state is to protect the rights and freedoms of the people. The right to life is one of them. However, in modern times, euthanasia is also accepted as a person's right. Although it is sometimes referred to as “the right to die”, it is the person's right to choose to die, that is, to make decisions about his or her life. The duty of the state is to protect the life and freedom of the individual from acts committed by the environment, not from the individual himself. If euthanasia is also accepted as a right of the individual, it will no longer be understood as an act committed against the performance of the duties of the state, but as a duty of the state.
3. The interest of society. This theory is refuted by Hume: “I am not obliged to do a small good to society at the expense of a great harm to myself: when then should I prolong a miserable existence because of some frivolous advantage which the public may perhaps receive from me?” The scientific research carried out by Nazi Germany on people also benefited mankind and the development of science. However, this does not justify the torture of those people. Although we are not the ones who tortured Euthanasia, we are the ones who forced him to bear it and did not allow him to be saved.
These approaches do not correspond to the worldview of modern man. (Except for the religious approach, no matter how important, it is because we are a secular state, we cannot rely on it as the only factor in the decision of the law.) But why is this act still criminalized?
Abuse. Euthanasia is a voluntary version of the murder, and the second name is "mercy killing." The main fear of the state is the involuntary implementation of this act under the guise of volunteering. It is not impossible for relatives to abuse this right for the purpose of inheritance or for a doctor to abuse this for organ transplant or any other purpose. While it may seem like a brilliant idea on paper, in reality, to what extent this is possible. A wrong decision, a wrong opinion of the commission leads to an irreversible mistake. But how likely they were to make a mistake?-Extreme, perhaps, unintentional mistakes can be prevented by strict procedures, but if this mistake is made intentionally. Maybe as a result of the legalization of euthanasia, society will slide down a “slippery slope”.
Should euthanasia be criminalized?
We learned the logical basis for the criminalization of euthanasia. But should it be criminalized? Of course, there is no concrete answer to such a topic, and I can only share my views. Should people who need it really suffer because there are cases of abuse? In my opinion, this is a violation of the rights of such people, because in many cases, keeping alive by force of a person is no different from physical and psychological torture.
Investigations show that this act was committed in secret, illegal ways. Although euthanasia is considered a form of murder, it is considered a mitigating circumstance when the courts punish the relatives of the patient who committed the act. (Of course, it is not the law, but the judge's own opinion). No matter how much it is forbidden, it will exist, so the important thing is not to ban it, but to regulate it in an ideal way. Strict requirements can be set during this process:
1.  Strict control and very strict penalties in case of violation
2. Numerous commission meetings, opinions of psychologists
3. Sane person. The participation of people with mental illness in this process can be done only with the opinion of their guardians and family members. However, this does not seem reasonable and creates ample opportunities for abuse. In my opinion, it is impossible to think about such a possibility today.
As a result, the way out is not to ban euthanasia, but to regulate it properly.

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale behind the criminalization of “military robbery” (Article 118 of the CC)

According to the Article 118 of the Criminal Code, robbery on a battlefield of killed or wounded person’s property is considered as a crime. It is also considered as a crime according to the international laws and customs of war. For example, Geneva Convention on Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field provided that “The appropriation of protected property can take various forms, such as the taking, obtaining or withholding of property, theft, requisition, plunder, spoliation and pillage” and called them as a grave breach (Commentary of 2016, Article 50). And of course, it is considered as a crime if the appropriation was not justified by military necessity.

Firstly, I want to explain why theft is criminalized.  First of all, it is morally wrong to steal. The person who steals harms both himself/herself and the victim. As harming his character and lowering his reputation in the society, he harms himself. He will be the object of criticism, people will call him “thief” and he will no longer be trusted. Of course, these will also affect that person’s family. As harming the victim, the “thief” harms him both morally and pecuniary. The property that he stole may be of great value that the victim worked hard to get it. Or it is the only property that he has or it is something that is very valuable to him, such as a watch his grandfather left for him and so on. Furthermore, if the property is stolen from a dead person, it may harm the family of the victim, because that property could be a souvenir to them.

Secondly, owning property is one of the basic human rights. Everyone has the right to own property and cannot be arbitrarily deprived of his property. It means that theft is a violation of the human rights.

As military robbery only differs for its commitment during wartime from crimes against property, we can conclude that these crimes are criminalized to protect the perpetrator and the victim. In addition, it is important to take into account the condition of the wounded that they may be too weak to defend themselves. That is why they need protection against any harm. Another impact of the military robbery can be on the servicemen, for example, their fighting ability can lower if they see their killed comrades’ property stolen. Talking about the subjects of the crime, if the crime is committed by military persons, it can harm their reputation and rank.

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia

The term "euthanasia" ("eu" - "good", "thanatos" - "death") was first used by Francis Bacon in the 17 th century and is defined differently in various sources, but the basic idea is the same - euthanasia refers to the process of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve suffering (also referred to as "mercy killing").[1]  Euthanasia is both a historical and contemporary problem of medicine, law, ethics, and religion, which is reflected in the multitude of interwoven concepts sharply dividing the scientific and unscientific public to its supporters and opponents. [2]

Euthanasia can be debited from different perspectives and there are a variety of views regarding their acceptability. Firstly, opponents of the legalization of euthanasia, as a primary argument, is the holiness of life. From ethical aspects, euthanasia weakens respect of society for the sanctity of human life. Legalization of means that some lives are worth less than others and also it affects not only the right of a patient but also the right of other peoples. Also, religion is an important factor in determining attitudes towards such practices. From the religious aspect, religions are opposed to euthanasia for a number of reasons. Religious opponents of euthanasia believe that life is given by God, and only God should decide when to end it.[3] In all Islamic countries, in accordance with religious beliefs, direct euthanasia is prohibited and is equated with murder.[4]

Today in most countries the euthanasia is not permissible and as in any case of a criminal offense, which endangers the life of the person, criminal liability applies here.[5] As well as euthanasia is illegal in Azerbaijan. But Azerbaijan has a more progressive approach to the issue compared to its neighbors, like Russia, where a doctor who has conducted euthanasia can be sentenced up to 16 years in jail. In Azerbaijan, such actions are regulated by the Criminal Code, and a doctor who has conducted a mercy killing will be jailed for up to 3 years. As indicated in article 135 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, euthanasia is considered to be committed under mitigating circumstances and it is distinguished as another criminal offense against the personality which is similar by aim but absolutely different by motive, namely murder. As we know, as the most important elements subjective side of the offender the motive and aim of the offence should be mentioned. However, the provision of article 135 of the Criminal Code concerning liability for killing out of compassion, but the legislator does not indicate compassion as the motive of the offence in the dispositions of the article. Also, provision should also be related to the aim of the offence. Only in a few countries, it is directly included in dispositions, for instance in Azerbaijan – acceleration of death by any means or any actions, or stop of artificial measures on maintenance of life.[6]

So, I agree that this act should be criminalized in Azerbaijan. It is a very sensitive issue from an ethical and legal perspective, euthanasia needs to be regulated by strict laws and concrete procedural standards. Lack of these laws, standards, and principles can lead to misuse of the procedure by using drugs on patients or for personal gain and it would diminish the protection offered to the lives of all. There remains a real possibility of the extension of euthanasia to infants, those with mental incapacities or disabilities and the elderly.  I don't believe that it is possible to draft laws and guidelines that will prevent the abuse of euthanasia. It's possible but very difficult. As well as doctor’s professional skills that need to be improved are an important factor for the criminalization of euthanasia in Azerbaijan. So, the criminalization of euthanasia honours the sanctity of life and the equal, underived, intrinsic moral worth of all persons, including the very weakest who can no longer contribute to society.

[1] Araz Said, “Euthanasia: to be or not to be?” (29 August 2012)  https://www.azernews.az/analysis/43014.html
[2] Bozidar Banovic and Vejiko Turanjanin, “Euthanasia: Murder or not: A comparative approach” [2014], 43(10): 1316–1323.  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4441884/
[3] “Ethical problem of euthanasia” http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/problems.shtml
[4] Supra not 2.
[5]R.Polaks, “Deficiences of regulation of euthanasia in legal acts of foreign countries”  (2014) 1.
[6] Id. at 3

# data[].attributes.body
1. Influence of jealousy (qısqanclıq) on criminal responsibility for intentional murder.
(Analyze the current national legal approach and provide your criticism).
Jealousy is one of the motives of crime. Jealousy leads to many deliberate murders. According to “Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan on the court experience on cases of deliberate murder”, intentional homicides committed without descriptive features in Article 120.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan and mitigating circumstances specified in Articles 121-123, 135 of the Criminal Code should be characterized by Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (for example, committed without the intention of hooliganism, during an argument or quarrel, because of jealousy, hatred, envy, enmity arising because of personal relations for the purpose of revenge). So jealousy is not mitigating or aggravating circumstance in our legislation. I agree with this law of national legislation. If jealousy, enmity, hatred is qualifying circumstances, no crime can be classified under article 120.1. Because those are the main reason of violation of that article. But we know deliberate murder with intent to commit hooliganism is qualifying circumstance. The main reason is that the degree of social danger is higher in hooliganism than jealousy. So jealousy does not need mitigating or aggravating circumstance. Because this is one of the main elements of simple deliberate murder.

# data[].attributes.headline
The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia

# data[].attributes.subject
The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia

# data[].attributes.body
The reason for the criminalization of euthanasia is reflected in its public danger. The public danger of euthanasia is expressed by the fact that it seems to help serious patients, but it deprives them of their lives. So, it was criminalized by Article 135 of the Criminal Code. The criminal liability arises under this article if the patient makes a voluntary request for euthanasia. Another main point is that the patient must be in an incurable condition. Otherwise, it will be considered under Article 120 as deliberate murder.
I also support the criminalization of euthanasia due to different aspects. Firstly, euthanasia must be committed voluntarily, if not, it is murder. No one has the right to decide on another’s life. On the other hand, in a difficult situation, the sick cannot decide reasonably and for me, it is a kind of suicide.
Euthanasia is applied in two forms: active and passive forms. The active form should be understood to assist suicide or as murder and it is inadmissible in any case. In some cases, the passive way seems more reasonable and may be applied as an exception. To some extent, I can agree with this, however, honestly, I cannot rely on our health and justice system and permission for passive euthanasia may lead to misuse. Thus the best option is the prohibition of euthanasia in both forms.
From a religious aspect, euthanasia is against the will of God. “As a gift of God, life is sacred, and therefore human beings cannot autonomously dispose of it.” Even the person wants to end his/her life the approach is the same (it is similar a suicide). Therefore, religious thinking stays in the opposite position to euthanasia.
We should also give thought to another side of euthanasia.  Euthanasia is mainly performed by medical staff and relatives of the patient. From a moral point of view, to do euthanasia, “to kill” somebody or to make such a choice, is not easy and it is not right to put people under such pressure. The people’s views depend on society and its morals. In our society, I assume making euthanasia legal may bring various unpleasant consequences.
Taking everything into consideration, I am not a supporter of euthanasia and consider the criminalization of euthanasia a sensible decision.

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia.

Euthanasia is the termination of a patient’s life at the request of a patient suffering from an incurable disease. The approaches to committing this act are ambiguous. This act is criminalized in the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The public danger of euthanasia is directly related to the violation of the right to life. Personal rights may not be transferred to another, voluntarily or in any way by law. During World War II, the emergence of medicine as a service to human experiments and a purposeful euthanasia program negatively affected the discussion of euthanasia in the following period. On the other hand, the ideas and rituals of a number of political and religious organizations that emerged in the 20th century are an indication of the social danger of this practice. The acts of suicide, abortion, and cannibalism promoted by the Church of Euthanasia, one of these organizations, as well as the ideas of “ Save the Planet kill yourself” and “Thank you for not breeding” are salivating. This confirms the validity of the idea of depriving life by forgetting human feelings in the interpretation of Article 135.

Euthanasia should be approached from a religious and psychological point of view. From a moral and religious point of view, a person must live the life given to him. Faith stimulates a person to fight to the end. The facts also show that there are people who fight against incurable diseases and overcome them. Euthanasia deprives a person of this victory. Man’s struggle with disease, in a sense, leads to the development of medicine. The legalization of euthanasia will help people succumb to disease, which in turn can slow the development of medicine. I also think that euthanasia is tantamount to suicide at a time when medicine is advancing and strong painkillers and other drugs are available. Instead of euthanasia, it is more convenient to provide psychological and religious support to the patient and his relatives.On the other hand, the legislation does not specify the stage of euthanasia. In my opinion, committing this act in the early, middle stages of the disease is cruelty to the patient. In the final stage of the disease, the patient’s psychological condition is not in place and he does not make this decision wisely. This violates the general requirements of euthanasia. Legalization of euthanasia can lead to an increase in abuses and medical irresponsibility. Despite all these negatives, the positive side of euthanasia should be noted. Such euthanasia is, in my opinion, more acceptable if the doctor removes the organs of a person sentenced to death in order to bring another patient to life at the person’s choice. This act by the doctor refutes the idea that is part of the Hippocratic oath: “I will not offer such a drug to anyone who wants a deadly drug, nor will I give a recommendation that will cause death”. It should also be borne in mind that the long-term dependence of an incurable patient on an artificial device affects the financial situation of his family, as well as can lead to a lack of equipment. In any case, euthanasia should belong only to the patient, even if it is the wrong choice.
Finally, I consider it right to criminalize euthanasia, taking into account public opinion, psychological and economic situation, moral values in the country.Euthanasia against minors should be classified as an aggravating circumstance in any case. It may be appropriate to allow euthanasia under certain conditions, with strict restrictions and strict supervision, only for the purpose of giving life to another.

# data[].attributes.body
Nurcan Abbasova

Influence of jealousy on criminal responsibility for intentional murder.

Intentional homicide is the intentional killing of another person. In order to correctly describe the crimes of murder, it is necessary to clarify the motive, purpose and method of the crime. According to the decision No. 3 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated December 12, 2002 "On judicial practice in cases of intentional murder" The type of intentional murder specified in Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code includes intentional murder with motives of jealousy, revenge, personal prejudice, hatred, envy, as well as in a dispute arising in a personal relationship.
Jealousy murder is punishable under Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code in the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances. The victim of this crime may be not only a husband or wife, but also a man and a woman who live together outside the marriage and refuse to live together, a man or a woman who promises to marry and break his promise. It does not matter whether there is a real or imagined jealousy for the act to be described in Article 120.1. But I think whether jealousy is imaginary or real should affect criminal liability, because jealousy can happen for two reasons: 1. The reasons that depend on the jealous person. 2. The other party's actions that cause jealousy. In my opinion, in the first case, the motive of jealousy should not affect the criminal liability, because it has nothing to do with the actions of the victim, for example erotomania(a delusion in which a person believes that another person is in love with him/her, it is considered delusional because it’s not based in reality).
But the second case can be taken as a mitigating circumstance, because the crime here is related to the actions of the victim. For example, when the motive of jealousy arises under the direct influence of an act of infidelity by a man or a woman, such a situation may place the offender in a state of physiological affect, which is one of the mitigating circumstances and creates liability under Article 122.
Jealousy is possibly the most destructive emotion housed in the human brain. It’s the leading cause of spousal murder.
We like to think that jealousy is a personal failure, a sign of immaturity, neurosis or pathology. Psychological science, however, points in the opposite direction. We are all capable of jealousy. Contrary to common beliefs, jealousy exists in all human societies and is reliably activated by threats to a romantic relationship. Thus, it would be wrong to interpret jealousy as a mere one-sided feeling and therefore to say that it has no effect on criminal liability.
But if we look at the reality of Azerbaijan, we see that often the parties, especially men, kill the other party under the pretext of jealousy. Therefore, when determining criminal liability, it is first necessary to clarify whether the behaviors that lead to jealousy really exist or is a one-sided feeling created by the perpetrator in his own brain.

# data[].attributes.body
Aysel Gasimova
The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia.

The issue of euthanasia is a very controversial and divisive issue that raises many advanced moral, ethical, social, philosophical, legal and religious issues. In our view, the medically and ethically conflicting approaches to euthanasia have led to conflicting legal assessments of this phenomenon.
According to our legislation, the lives of all people, regardless of age, physical and mental condition, social status, health or illness, are protected by criminal law. Therefore, euthanasia is considered a murder in our legislation.
If euthanasia is legal, it legitimizes murder out of compassion, which in turn can lead to many abuses. For example, according to J.M.Mann, although euthanasia is a crime in the UK, passive euthanasia is used by British doctors for both newborns and the elderly. The legality of euthanasia can exacerbate such cases.
The development of medicine also refutes the arguments put forward by proponents of the legitimacy of euthanasia. Thus, many diseases and injuries that until recently were considered incurable are now being successfully treated. Allowing euthanasia can be a psychological barrier to finding new, more effective ways to diagnose and treat critically ill patients. Severe pain is usually the main reason for the patient's request to hasten his death. For example, in past wars, doctors have often heard such words from severely wounded soldiers and officers who preferred death to ending physical and mental suffering rather than consenting to amputation. Over time, the pain subsided, life no longer seemed unbearable to them, and according to Stefan John Grabil, the vast majority of such disabled people regretted their requests to cut off medical care and speed up their death. Active treatment, pain relief, mental comfort for the dying patient, and the belief that he will recover are the just and true humanistic principles of medicine that do not allow any methods and means of euthanasia.
At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the ability of a mortal patient to give informed consent to commit suicide is questionable.  It is also claimed that doctors and relatives can force people to accept euthanasia for reasons beyond their control and not related to their well-being.
In addition, the issue of ensuring human rights such as health, dignified life and dignified death is especially relevant. Since the Human Rights Act 1998, however, campaigners have claimed that the denial of a right to release oneself from unbearable pain amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment, is a violation of privacy and family life , amounts to discrimination given the legality of suicide itself, and that an individual’s inherent dignity and ‘right to die’ is violated by the current legislation of the UK. Jurisprudence, however, does not recognise a parallel right to die implied by the right to life.
However, in some cases, despite the ban on euthanasia, no criminal liability has been established. For example, the applicant in the Rodriguez case, Sue Rodriguez, was a competent 42 year old woman suffering from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis ('Lou Gehrig's disease'). This incurable disease destroys cells in the spinal cord and brain stem and progressively leads to paralysis. It usually leads to death by suffocation due to loss of control over lungs and diaphragm. Sue Rodriguez wanted to be able to choose to die, if and when she reached the point when she no longer wished to continue living with her disease. She anticipated that this would occur at a time when she lacked the physical capacity to end her own life. Therefore, during his choice, he asked the court for a legal decision for a doctor to do so. But the court rejected it. She argued that the prohibition in section violated her rights under a number of sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice. The right to security of the person encompasses notions of personal autonomy and the right to make choices concerning one's own body. Ms Rodriguez argued that this right therefore must include the right of a person to control the method, timing and circumstances of his or her own death; the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment; the right to equality before the law without discrimination on grounds including physical disability. Ms Rodriguez argued that the prohibition on physician-assisted suicide infringed this right, because it prevented persons physically unable to end their lives without assistance from choosing suicide, when that option was in principle available to other members of the public without contravening the law. Ms Rodriguez's arguments were rejected. Despite loosing her legal action, Ms Rodriguez ended her own life in February 1994 in her home in British Columbia. She did so with the assistance of an unidentified doctor. No charges were laid against the doctor in relation to Ms Rodriguez's death.
Even if euthanasia is allowed, it should not be done en masse. The state must have a good health system for this, and the state health system must work. There must be compulsory health insurance. Doctors must work to bring this man back to life. That is, it should be very rare, not mass.

# data[].attributes.body
Influence of Jealousy on Criminal Responsibility for Intentional Murder

I. Introduction

Jealousy is the feeling based on the insecurity of a person’s value and sexual attractiveness for the person’s partner and can be manifested in a wide range of behavior; from “normal jealousy” which most often presents universal human experience to extreme pathological manifestations that can be defined as actual mental illness.  It can be one of the motives of intentional murder. But how does jealousy affect criminal responsibility for intentional murder?

II. Analysis of the current national legal approach

Intentional murder is described in Article 120 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan. But there is no information about the influence of jealousy on criminal responsibility for intentional murder. When looking through history, it is seen that jealousy was included in the Criminal Code which was adopted in 1927.  “Article 171, included in Chapter VI, was entitled “intentional murder with aggravating circumstances” and here signs like greed, jealousy, etc. was described.”  As seen here, jealousy was considered an aggravating circumstance in the Soviet period. Although not included in the current code, how is it assessed and should be assessed now?

There is a decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan “on the Practice of Intentional Murder”. This is stated in paragraph 4 of this decision: “Crimes of intentional murder committed without the descriptive features of Article 120.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan and mitigating circumstances specified in Article 121-123, 135 of the Criminal Code (for example, without intent to commit hooliganism, in disputes and quarrels, due to jealousy, revenge …) should be characterized by Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.”  It is understood that jealousy is not considered as an aggravating or mitigating circumstance, intentional murder due to jealousy should be characterized by basic corpus delicti - Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code.

In some cases, intentional murder due to jealousy is confused with hooliganism. The Generalization from “Court Practice of Intentional Murder” of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan indicates: “Intentional murder based on revenge, jealousy, or other personal relationships should not be defined as intentional murder to commit hooliganism, regardless of where the crime was committed.”  To properly address this issue, the motive and purpose for the murder must be fully and comprehensively analyzed.

III. Conclusion

Generally, when assessing the intentional murder due to jealousy, the level of jealousy should be measured. So, there is a need for medical examination. Because in some cases jealousy is at the level of mental illness. In these cases, the perpetrators need medical treatment, after treatment, the perpetrator may serve the remaining part of his sentence in prison.  Because one of the main purposes of punishment is the rehabilitation of perpetrators and if the perpetrator has a mental illness, only imprisonment can not rehabilitate this person. First of all, this person should be cured, then imprisonment can be applied.

In many cases like the betrayal of wives or women, people are afraid of public condemnation and the sentence of “What will the people say?”. So, they choose this way – murder. In Azerbaijani mentality, this is considered a great insult to men which mainly motivates men to do such a bad action. So, it can be said, people could do it under the influence of society, not their free will.

When analyzing these cases, the choice of the legislator is seen as reasonable, the basic corpus delicti is more suitable. But generally, to properly address this issue, the motive, purpose and other circumstances of the murder must be fully and comprehensively analyzed. An individual approach should be applied.

# data[].attributes.body
Sevil Hasanli

3.The rationale behind the criminalization of military robbery.

Robbery is criminalized in Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan as publicly theft of property and its main object is the right to property. But Military robbery (Article 118) defines property as an additional object. The main purpose of this Article is the protection of human dignity. Military robbery criminalizes plundering on a battlefield of killed or wounded person’s property. So the question may raise: Does a person still have dignity after his death? What is the importance of criminalization?

Due to the definition of dignity, it is explained as ‘the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect’.[1] The preamble of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stipulates that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.[2] So dignity is linked with being human and according to the Universal Declaration, our rights are ‘inalienable’ – they can’t be taken away or given away. So even if the person is dead, his dignity has to be respected. That is why Article 245 criminalize insulting actions on graves and corpses, even if the person is dead.

In Article 118, it defines property like personal things or gun, military clothes, foods of the person on the battlefield. Due to my opinion if a person theft such things in order to acquire material benefit, only this condition has to be criminalized. For example, afterwards, a person sells such things. If a person needs really them and there is not another option for satisfying his needs, so it shall not deem as a criminal act. Because this thing was really important for the life of others. Maybe he can be starved. So I think the purpose of a person committing such action is important.

[1]Oxford dictionary < https://www.lexico.com/definition/dignity> accessed 12.03.2021
[2] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights < https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-999-i-14668-english.pdf> accessed 12.03.2021

# data[].attributes.headline
Gunay Qaraxova. The rationale behind the criminalization of “military robbery” (Article 118 of the CC):

# data[].attributes.subject
Gunay Qaraxova. The rationale behind the criminalization of “military robbery” (Article 118 of the CC):

# data[].attributes.body
Military robbery is one of the most dangerous crimes on the list.  In addition to being an important part of war crimes, it is also directed against international law and the property of other military personnel.  If we compare military robbery (Article 118) with other (for example, robbery – Article 180), we see that there are some differences between them.  For example, robbery generally refers to looting in all areas of society.  For example, an ordinary person can commit this crime against another ordinary person.  Maybe he steals money, a phone, or other valuables.  In this case, it is judged under Article 180.  But military robbery is different.
Robbery covers all areas of life, but military robbery only applies to the robbery of people killed or wounded in a war zone.  That is, the most important difference between them is that the crime of military robbery covers a narrower aspect of place and space.  In terms of social danger, it can be considered more dangerous as a war crime.  If we look at the reasons why it is considered dangerous, we can approach the reasons for criminalization.  From this point of view, we can say that robbery against a dead or wounded person is contrary to human values.  Human values do not mean legal norms, but laws that are not written in almost all societies, but are known to many people.  The reason can be explained as follows: It is not right to take advantage of a dead or wounded person's helplessness.  An action that contradicts human values and human rights, of course, contradicts the rights protected by law.  According to both the norms of international law and the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan, an act committed by a person is a violation of the rights specified in those laws - more precisely, property rights.  The perpetrator thinks that the property of the dead or wounded person is ownerless and it is not a crime to misappropriate it. As we know, this is a misconception, because according to the law, the property of the deceased passes to his heirs and is not ownerless.  On the other hand, a person who commits such an act may damage the reputation of the military unit to which he belongs.  No matter how much punishment is applied to a person, from the outside it is seen as a discipline or a violation of the rules, which can create a certain sense of complacency in other people.  By the way, I can say that not only those in the military unit, but also the fact that this act is not criminalized or goes unpunished can create a tendency to rob.  Because we know that punishment is one of the most important reasons to avoid committing any crime.  As long as such an act is considered a crime and is severely punished, it is prevented from spreading among the people.
As a result, I would like to point out that there may be other dangerous aspects that we do not take into account.  If we do not take all of them into account, the above-mentioned acts provide sufficient grounds for criminalizing and punishing.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Influence of jealousy (qısqanclıq) on criminal responsibility for intentional murder.

(Analyse the current national legal approach and provide your criticism).

The definition of intentional murder is given in Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: “Deliberate murder is deliberate deprivation of life of another person”.

Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code provides for the “simple” corpus delicti of murder. In practice, simple intentional murders include jealousy, revenge motives, personal prejudice, envy, hatred, conflict in personal relationships, as well as other intentional murders in which there are no aggravating or mitigating circumstance .

In the absence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, murder motivated by jealousy is punishable under Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code .

But first, let’s find out what jealousy is.

Jealousy is a normal feeling in human nature. This feeling is mainly due to weak will and is more common in people with low self-esteem. Such people do not like to share anything they have, and this hinders the lives of both them and the people in front of them. But sometimes jealousy can be pathological and become a psychological disease in people. Even such people are prone to affective states. When the motive of jealousy arises under the direct influence of the act of adultery of a man or a woman, such a situation can put the offender in a state of physiological affect. Intentional murder in a state of physiological affect is punishable under Article 122 of the Criminal Code .

Second, let’s look at the current national legal approach to this issue.

But first, I want to comment on this issue from a social point of view, it is important.

In general, the concept of jealousy varies from society to society. For example, in our society, some jealousies of a man towards a woman may be considered normal by the majority, but in another society, they may be considered completely abnormal. The root of these jealous murders is to act by the values of society. As we know, there are many stereotypes in our society. And it is known that society is governed not only by by-laws and rules but also by public attitudes and public condemnation. And all such crimes are committed based on "honor" and "zeal". Even the Criminal Code makes it clear that "jealousy" is neither aggravating nor mitigating, it's just a simple murder. But those who commit crimes out of jealousy are treated with more respect in prison, and that crime is seen as a sign of masculinity. And this creates a sense of relief for the perpetrator. At the same time, this can be seen in the testimonies of criminals. In most cases, they cannot even prove it. Because often this "jealousy" is just an "imagination”. However, it does not matter whether there is real or imagined jealousy to describe the act under Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code.

And, of course, it makes it difficult to reform. Because for the second time we have encountered murders out of jealousy, and even if the perpetrator feels remorse, he does not capture his "honor".

According to the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan dated May 3, 1993 "On judicial practice in cases of deliberate murder", intentional murder based on revenge, jealousy, or other personal relationships should not be defined as murder with intent to commit hooliganism, regardless of where the crime was committed. In order to properly address this issue, the motive and purpose of the murder must be fully and comprehensively analyzed. Murder with intent to commit hooliganism is committed, apparently for no apparent reason, or with the slightest excuse to kill. One of these excuses can be jealousy. But hooliganism is an aggravating circumstance.

In fact, if we distinguish between the crimes of "hooliganism" and "jealousy", we see that the main confrontation is between "society" and "individual". In one, there is a clear disrespect for society, intending to violate the rules of coexistence, and in the other, the feeling of jealousy that one person feels towards another plays the role of intention (leaving aside the place of the crime).

In fact, it is reminiscent of our national social values. But given that the number of crimes against jealousy is growing exponentially, and that children growing up in the same family become future "potential criminals" because of the trauma they receive, these crimes also pose a great social threat, such as hooliganism.

But how is the solution possible?

Given that the main task of criminal responsibility is to rehabilitate the perpetrator and reintegrate him into society, this becomes even more controversial.

Crimes committed out of jealousy often emphasize "betrayal." And in this case (I cited it as an example of "betrayal" in many cases) it is possible to inflict "moral damage" other than murder.

Murder is by no means an excuse. As its name suggests, it is intentional murder. It happened under the control of the offender, he had a choice.

All these are true for women as well, however, in cases of deliberate murder out of jealousy, women are often the victims (statistics show this).

And if all these reasons were taken as aggravating circumstances, I think the number of crimes committed out of jealousy would decrease (not only for the first time but also repeated crimes out of jealousy). And at least they would not commit a crime out of fear of the term of criminal liability and the fact that it is an aggravating circumstance.

References

1. Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, article 120 (1999).

2. Decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Azerbaijan  "On judicial practice in cases of deliberate murder" (may 3, 1993).

3. N.N. Xudiyev, Sadə Qəsdən Adamöldürmə Cinayətlərinin Xüsusi Amansızlıqla Qəsdən Adamöldürmə Cinayətlərindən Fərqləndirilməsinin Bəzi Məsələlər, 1 Sosial-Siyasi Elmlər Seriyası, 5 (2008).

4. Firudin Yusif oğlu Xudiyev, Azərbaycan Respublikasının Cinayət Məcəlləsinin Kommentariyası, 411 (2018).

# data[].attributes.body
Topic: The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia (Analyse the current national legal approach and provide you criticism).

As it is known, one of the inalienable human rights is the right to life. Along with the international documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, etc. this right is also protected by our national legislation. Assault on the life and health of another person is considered one of the most socially dangerous acts because the life and health of a person is the most important object of criminal protection. In this regard, euthanasia is criminalized in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan as a crime against life and health.

Euthanasia is the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma. Article 135 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan defines this act as follows: “Euthanasia is the satisfaction of patient request about the acceleration of his death by any means or actions, or stop of artificial measures on maintenance of life”. It is punishable by correctional labour for the term up to two years, or imprisonment for the term up to three years with deprivation of the right to hold the certain post or to engage in the certain activity for the term up to three years or without it.

Whether euthanasia is considered a criminal act is a topic of discussion both abroad and in our country. Critics of the issue have strongly objected to the legalization of euthanasia, saying that life is given by a God and only God can take it. On the contrary, other authors state that everyone has the right to live, as well as the right to die, and people should be able to choose when they are ready to die and should be helped if they are unable to end their lives on their own. Others think that laws allowing euthanasia could be abused and people who didn't want to die could be killed.

Euthanasia is considered a form of murder in mitigating circumstances. The social danger of this act which can be considered as a ground for the criminalization of euthanasia is expressed in the fact that it seems to help those who have a serious and incurable disease, but in fact, brutally deprives them of life. On the other hand, the fact that the object of the act is the safety of the person's life is another basis for criminalizing the act. We can assess this practice as a gross violation of the right to life which is one of the fundamental human rights.

When analyzing the relevant article, we see that there are certain gaps and misunderstandings. Thus, a person suffering from any disease cannot act like a victim. In order to be held criminally liable for the relevant act, the victim must be a person with an incurable disease. Such diseases include cancer, end-stage AIDS, schizophrenia, and so on.

In my opinion, it is not expedient to completely criminalize or decriminalize euthanasia. Thus, certain amendments should be made to the relevant article. In this case, we can benefit from the experience of foreign countries. I think it would be more expedient to add exceptions to the relevant article. Such exceptions can be as follow:

• The patient must be experiencing unbearable pain;

• The patient must voluntarily request death;

• If there is no other means or methods for the patient's recovery. When euthanasia is the last resort;

• If there are some other alternatives, then the patient must have been given alternatives to euthanasia and time to consider these alternatives.

Of course, in this case, the patient's death should not cause any harm to others. From another point of view, euthanasia can save another person's life. Thus, a person suffering from an incurable disease is connected to an appropriate device for survival. The device can be connected to a person who needs it more and can be brought back to life. Thus, it is possible to save a person's life. Because life is not just a matter of breathing. The brain of a person who is unlikely to recover does not control anything, and the organs do not perform their functions. In short, such a person has no sign of life. That is why I think that the continuation of such people to live with a certain device is to hurt them and their relatives.

As a result, I can say that euthanasia should not be a criminal offence in exceptional cases, ie in the presence of appropriate conditions. It does not mean that someone who is ill should be euthanized and killed. In this case, of course, all necessary steps must be taken for the person's recovery. If despite all appropriate steps, the patient is unable to recover, ie euthanasia is the last resort, its implementation should not be considered as a criminal act.

# data[].attributes.body
Influence of jealousy on criminal responsibility for intentional murder.

Shabnam Guliyeva

According to the commentary of Article 120 (deliberate murder) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, murder on the basis of personal relations and jealousy is defined by Article 120.1 (simple content) of the Code.

As stated in the decision of the plenum of the Supreme Court, para.4, dated December 12, 2012 the crime of deliberate murder committed without the descriptive features of Article 120.2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the mitigating circumstances specified in Articles 121-123, 135 of the Criminal Code must be classified by Article 120.1 of the Criminal Code.

In the case of N.Bagirov and S.Aliyev, N.Bagirov's action was justified in the court of first instance as deliberate murder to commit hooliganism and was sentenced to 9 years in prison. The Court of Appeal, on the other hand, took into account the fact that the individuals had previously had disputes on the grounds of jealousy, and that the incident was committed out of jealousy, and described it under Article 120.1 Based on this case, we can say that the personal relationship between the persons before the crime, the situation must be taken into account, and this case shows that deliberate murder on the grounds of jealousy is not an aggravating or mitigating circumstance under our law.

As stated in paragraph 21 of the plenum decision of the Supreme Court, when imposing a sentence for deliberate murder, all circumstances of the crime, type, motive and purpose, method, stage and circumstances, as well as the identity of the offender, attitude to the act, mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall be taken into account. At the same time, information about the identity of the victim, his relationship with the perpetrator, as well as his behavior before the incident should be investigated.  What is the significance of these circumstances in the description of the deed? Explain this on the basis of the example given in the commentary: If a person learns that he has been betrayed and then kills out of jealousy, we can take it as a mitigating circumstance, given that the person is in a state of affect. I think it is right to evaluate the crime of premeditated murder out of jealousy, depending on the situation, according to the example I mentioned above. Thus, according to Article 122 deliberate murder as a result of immoral acts (inaction) committed by the victim is a mitigating circumstance. It can be concluded that this is a mitigating circumstance if the act was not planned in advance, if it was committed out of jealousy and high emotional excitement at that moment.

But we can look at this issue from another angle. Unfortunately, in recent years, the number of crimes against women, especially divorced women, has increased due to violence and jealousy. In such cases, it may be more appropriate to take into account the fact that the personal relationship between the two people is over, that there is no reasonable basis for jealousy, and that people are abusing the situation so that it is aggravating in certain situations. This will prevent excuses such as "I killed out of jealousy" and will allow women to continue their lives as independent individuals after divorce. As I mentioned earlier, the increase in women's crimes on the same grounds requires more serious measures in this regard.

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale behind the criminalization of “military robbery”

Introduction

According to the 1999 Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, military robbery is considered a war crime. According to Article 118 of this Code, military robbery is plunder on a battlefield of killed or wounded person’s property and shall be punishable by imprisonment for the term from three up to ten years. However, in the previous Criminal Code of 1960, this crime was interpreted as a crime against military service (Article 261). Article 413(a) of the Criminal Code of Georgia defines military robbery as: “..looting, i.e. taking possession of items of the person killed or wounded during military actions as well as taking possession of citizens’ property which is left in the zone of military actions, and/or robbery of settlements or other territorial entities”.  But, this code does not explicitly call the crime as a military robbery. The general name of the article is stated as violation of the provisions of international humanitarian law.

The main reason why this crime is defined as a war crime according to the current legal approach is that the act is committed on the battlefield. Robbery that does not take place on the battlefield is not considered military robbery. However, both servicemen and civilians can be victims of this act. For understanding of this approach, it is necessary to clarify the concept of war crime. A war crime is a violation of the laws of war.  The laws of war is the component of international law which contain vital principles within it such as military necessity, humanity, proportionality, distinction, and honor. Article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention defines war crimes as: "Wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including... wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial... taking of hostages and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly."

Criticism

The reason for criminalization of any act is that this act harms the society, the state or any relationship. During the criminalization of act , the degree of damage and existence of elements of corpus delicti are also taken into account . When applying all these grounds to the deed of military robbery, the first thing should be clarified is why this deed is considered socially dangerous. If the perpetrator or victim of the act is a military serviceman, we may face situations such as damage to the reputation of the military establishment where the serviceman operates, humiliation of the military honor and loss of combat capability. The perpetrator or victim of this act may be a civilian, in this case the property of the victim will be damaged. From these grounds, we can see that military robbery has a high degree of public danger.

The object of military robbery is the customs and laws of war established by international law. Damage to these relations, i.e violation of international law norms, increases the public dangerousness of this act. The additional object is the property of the person. As we know, acts against property are criminalized under a special chapter in the Criminal Code of Azerbaijan. In the act of military robbery, the property of civilian or military serviceman is also plundered. The looting of property is also the basis for criminalizing this act.

In some cases, military robbery is confused with a crime against property (Chapter 23 in CC). First of all, let's clarify the term "robbery". According to Article 180 of the Criminal Code, robbery is the open looting of another's property. According to Article 135.2 of the Civil Code, property is a collection of things and intangible property. The robbery is usually directed against material goods, i.e physical objects. In military robbery, property means weapons, ammunition, clothing which in the possession of a dead or wounded person. There is no need to refer to article of crimes against property when solving cases of military robbery because Article 118 covers the full scope of this crime. Also, if the property of person who is alive is looted, this should be solved with reference to Article 116 of the Criminal Code (Violation of international humanitarian law during an armed conflict) . In another case, if the property is outside the war zone, it will be solved with reference to articles about crimes against property.

Conclusion

As a result, we can say that military robbery is a criminal act that violates the customs and laws of war and this deed is contrary to international law. The fact that this act degrades the honor, dignity of victim as well as, the norms of international humanitarian law and property as objects increase its public danger and make it important to criminalize the act. In many countries, this act has been criminalized and considered grave crime. In Azerbaijan, this act is punished with imprisonment for the term of three to ten years. It is punished with eleven to fifteen years in Georgia and two to eight years in Armenia. Another reason for the criminalization of this act is the damage to the reputation of the military establishment. This can be a  reasonable basis for criminalization.

# data[].attributes.body
2. The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia:

The definition of euthanasia is established in our national legislation. It is mentioned in Article 38 of the Law of the Republic of Azerbaijan "On protection of public health" : "Euthanasia, that is, the acceleration of the patient's death by any means or action at the request of the patient, the cessation of artificial measures that help to continue life, is prohibited. A person who deliberately inclines or euthanize a patient shall be liable in accordance with the law".
Another similar definition is given in Article 135 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan: "Euthanasia is the act of accelerating the patient's death by any means or action at the request of the patient, or of stopping the artificial measures that help him to continue his life".
There are two main types of euthanasia.
- Passive euthanasia is the deliberate use of no treatment other than the reduction of the patient's pain and the separation of special devices that actually stop the treatment or ensure survival.
- Active euthanasia is the voluntary realization of death by the patient's direct request or by special means, guided by the motive of mercy by certain means. In general, the legalization of euthanasia contradicts the development of medical science, the basic principles of humanism and law. Therefore, I consider it correct that the legislation of the Republic of Azerbaijan calls euthanasia a criminal act against the law.
Euthanasia can be viewed from a medical-scientific and legal point of view. It has been scientifically proven that every human body is unique. There are people who fight against deadly and incurable diseases and overcome them. The number of people recovering from coma is quite high. The presence of euthanasia increases the chances of these people losing their lives. Also, the fight against deadly diseases is of great importance for the development of new treatments and medicine. Severe illnesses that have been incurable for years and that have killed millions of people in the past have been cured by medical science. The legalization of euthanasia, also known as the "right to death," will also lead to more people succumbing to certain diseases, more deaths, and a weakening of medical science.
It is very dangerous to legislate euthanasia in a positive way, because it will lead to state interference in people's right to life. And this is completely contrary to the right to life. Thus, the legalization of euthanasia could lead to more deaths and crime in the future. And it can increase the risk of euthanasia abuse. This has been witnessed in some American states and some European countries.
In some cases, a person who has agreed to euthanasia may request that his or her healthy organs be donated to those in need. This is a good thing in one aspect. However, legal permits can help those involved in human organ trafficking to become more active in this area. It is not excluded that these people may induce euthanasia by various means. In many cases, a person with a serious illness usually suffers from certain psychological traumas. This can lead to the person agreeing to euthanasia or even committing suicide.
Finally, I want to say that I fully agree with the legislation of Azerbaijan. The existence of euthanasia can lead to an increase in deaths and crime. This takes away people's right to life. It can also increase the abuse of this situation, as I said above. It is also unacceptable to do this at a time when medicine is developing, in my opinion.
Sometimes this can be done if the patient and his relatives agree, if his well-being is taken into account. However, legalizing it is against both humanism and the law.

# data[].attributes.body
Euthanasia is the practice of intentionally ending a life to relieve pain and suffering. Euthanasia is considered a controversial medical practice in many countries. Euthanasia has both supporters and opponents. Supporters see it as humanism because it only applies to the terminally ill. Opponents argue that the right to life is universal, but not the right to die. They think that only God can do that. Well, what about atheists? :D
In Azerbaijan, euthanasia with consent of the patient or his relatives is prohibited(Criminal Code art.135)  and in 2012 this was reinforced in the "Rights of Patient" law.
What is the reason behind the criminalization of euthanasia in Azerbaijan?
We know that there are three types of euthanasia:
Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries.
Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries.
Involuntary euthanasia (without asking consent or against the patient's will) is also illegal in all countries and is usually considered murder.
This method may raise a number of issues and problems. Legalization of euthanasia could gradually lead to abuse, and voluntary euthanasia can quickly escalate into involuntary euthanasia. For instance, some people will make decisions under pressure from their relatives, who may seek to receive an inheritance, or what is more, some doctors themselves may use euthanasia for their own purposes, such as the transplanting organs.
And what if treatment for a disease that is not treated at the time of euthanasia is possible after a while?
In fact, no one wants to die. Some researches show that even those who commit suicide may regret their decision in the final moment. People innately have survival instincts and reflexes, so in any dangerous situation we want to survive, in spite of everything.
That is why I want to add this quote by The Shawshank Redemption:
“Remember, Red, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies."
But if we have to legalize euthanasia with eliminating circumstances of abuse we must set up special clinics with a conscientious medical staff. And staff of these clinics must be changed from time to time.( this term can be defined after psychological tests.)

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale behind the criminalization of “military robbery” (Article 118 of the CC)

First of all, let’s pay attention to the social danger of act to understand the rationale behind the criminalization of “military robbery”. The social danger of the crime is expressed in staining the honor and dignity of servicemen, degrading the combat honor of the military unit. Humiliation of honor and dignity is inadmissible in any case.
Then let's try to find out what the crime is directed to(object). The main object of this crime is customs and laws of the conducting of war which were established by international law norms. This act, which contradicts to these customs and laws, is a violation of international law norms and, of course, it is a crime. The second (additional) object of the crime is property. If our constitution stipulates that the property is inviolable, any deed that threatens to this inviolability is unacceptable and should be considered a crime.
So I think that the reasons I mentioned above are the main rationale behind the criminalization of "military robbery".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The rationale behind the criminalization of

# data[].attributes.body
İnfluence of jelousy on criminal responsibility for intentional murder
We know that "premeditated murder" is enshrined in Article 120 of the Criminal Code. While the crime of premeditated murder can be committed with both direct and indirect intent, such a crime can only be committed with direct intent. It is defined in Article 120.1. According to this article, a person who commits a crime is punishable by 9 to 14 years in prison. This is reflected in practice. For example, on June 4, 2020, a man stabbed his wife out of jealousy in Sabunchu district and put an end to his life. The matter was investigated by the Sabunchu District Prosecutor's Office
He was remanded in custody under Article 120 of the Criminal Code.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tariyel Ali -  The Rationale behind the Criminalisation of "Military Robbery"

# data[].attributes.subject
Tariyel Ali -  The Rationale behind the Criminalisation of "Military Robbery"

# data[].attributes.body
Imagine you are a soldier in a war. While attacking enemy line, you rush out of the trench, and after a few minutes, you get wounded. Your attack is suppressed and now you lie in the no-man’s-land while your army retreats. You think of your family – your parents, your wife and kids. While you dream of them, you feel a hand in your pockets. A person you don’t know takes your belongings. You see him taking your medallion, and looking at your wife and children’s photos in it. He says something in his own language. You don’t understand what he says but you know it wasn’t something nice. His curse was the last thing you hear, and your desire to choke him till death is the last thing you think before you die. That war didn’t only take your arms, legs, and your soul. In the last minutes of your life, it took all of your pride and crushed it under the war machine.

It’s disturbing, isn’t it? It becomes much more disgusting if we think that these military robbers don’t distinguish between a friend and foe. I believe that story is enough to prove why military robbery should be criminalised but let’s go further.

Victor Hugo descripts military robbery and military robbers like no one ever could. He says, in his book Les Misérables, that looting dead bodies after the battle is one of the most defiled things in war. He continues by saying that “these people dishonour the glory”, and he calls them “vampires”, and “crawlers”. [Hugo, 1862]

Hugo’s description shows us that even in the 19th century, which is one of the bloodiest centuries ever, these people were considered the “the trash among people” (again, that’s what Hugo calls them). However, even before that, in the Medieval Age, knights, which were the backbone of the armies, were, mostly, against looting because of their Code of Chivalry. [History.com, 2019] In the Ancient Times, people who die in battles were so highly regarded that they were buried with their armours and weapons. [Smallwood, 2019] Considering all these, it would be safe to say by the time modern conventions illegalised plundering bodies, it was a taboo in the military society.

This act is far more dangerous than a simple theft. This is because by pillaging the bodies of the fallen, the criminal doesn’t only take their possessions but also humiliate their dignity and honour. Furthermore, if we dig deeper, we can say that humiliating honour and dignity is the violation of fundamental human rights.

In the end, considering all the terror and horror wars bring and the custom established by the 20th century, the legislators criminalised what is already disregarded in the society. Dead men may need no possessions, but they need their dignity, and by striping them off from their clothes, one stripes them off from their dignity too.

# data[].attributes.body
Sevil Hasanli

3.The rationale behind the criminalization of military robbery.

Robbery is criminalized in Article 180 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan as publicly theft of property and its main object is the right to property. But Military robbery (Article 118) defines property as an additional object. The main purpose of this Article is the protection of human dignity. Military robbery criminalizes plundering on a battlefield of killed or wounded person’s property. So the question may raise: Does a person still have dignity after his death? What is the importance of criminalization?

Due to the definition of dignity, it is explained as ‘the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect’.[1] The preamble of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stipulates that these rights derive from the inherent dignity of the human person.[2] So dignity is linked with being human and according to the Universal Declaration, our rights are ‘inalienable’ – they can’t be taken away or given away. So even if the person is dead, his dignity has to be respected. That is why Article 245 criminalize insulting actions on graves and corpses, even if the person is dead.

In Article 118, it defines property like personal things or gun, military clothes, foods of the person on the battlefield. Due to my opinion if a person theft such things in order to acquire material benefit, only this condition has to be criminalized. For example, afterwards, a person sells such things. If a person needs really them and there is not another option for satisfying his needs, so it shall not deem as a criminal act. Because this thing was really important for the life of others. Maybe he can be starved. So I think the purpose of a person committing such action is important.

[1]Oxford dictionary < https://www.lexico.com/definition/dignity> accessed 12.03.2021
[2] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights < https://treaties.un.org/doc/publication/unts/volume%20999/volume-999-i-14668-english.pdf> accessed 12.03.2021

# data[].attributes.body
Name: Mustafa

Surname: Safarov

Group: English-9

Course: II

Instructor: Elvin Balajanov

The research topic: “The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia”.

Introduction

What is euthanasia?

“Euthanasia also called mercy killing, act or practice painlessly putting to death persons suffering from a painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder or allowing them to die by withholding treatment or withdrawing artificial life-support measures”. [1]

The definition of euthanasia is defined as a crime and this act is criminalized in Article 135 of the criminal code of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

Article 135. Euthanasia

Euthanasia, that is, the hastening of the patient's death by any means or action at the request of the patient, or the cessation of artificial measures to help him continue his life— is punished by correctional labor for the term up to two years, or imprisonment for the term up to three years with or without deprivation of the right to hold certain position or engage in a certain activity for up to three years.

I both agree and disagree with this article because I think that our criminal code should decide on some diseases which are allowed for euthanasia. To my mind, some diseases need euthanasia. I would like to talk about one video. This video is about Diana Pretty. Her husband made this video. Diana Pretty had an incurable disease and in time she would lose her mobility and all her abilities and eventually die, so she told her husband she wanted to die, and she agreed but they knew that if her husband helped her the criminal liability would have arisen. Therefore, Diana appealed to the European Court of Human Rights for requiring the right to die but the court did not allow her. “There were five articles they were talking about. There's Article 2, the right to life, but Diane wanted to have the right to die. Article 3, no one shall be subjected to torture or inhumane and degrading treatment or punishment. Well, Diane felt that she was being degraded because she had to have people look after her, like me, nurses, social people coming in to help clean her up, wash her, dress her. She felt like she was being tortured by having to keep alive longer than she feels that she needed. Article 8 is everyone has a right to respect for his or her private and family life. Private life did not include the right to die. But it should have included the right to die. Article 9. Everyone has the right to freedom, freedom of thought, conscience and religious beliefs, and Diane's belief of wanting to die at home of a time of our choosing comes within that”. [2]

I completely agree with Diana, because she said that she was being degraded because she had to have people look after her, like myself, nurses, social people coming in to help her up, wash her, etc. This situation is bad for people and everyone chooses to die. Also, Article 9 shows that everyone has the right to freedom, freedom of thought, etc., and Diane’s belief of wanting to die at home. This video proofs that we should figure out some disease which is allowed euthanasia and we must prepare the list of these diseases(e.g., Cancer, the end-stage of AIDS, tetraparesis, schizophrenia, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (motor neuron disease)) and we should show some conditions. Firstly, the consent of the person and the circumstance of his or her disease means can heal or not. If we consider these conditions euthanasia will be legal.

In the beginning, I also said that I agree with our criminal code because we live in Azerbaijan and the religion of the Azerbaijani people is Islam. According to Islam, God gave man life, God should take it, that is, no one can hasten it, even if he did, it was a crime. It is said that every person lives his destiny, but I want to say that this thought is not correct and, maybe religion should not affect our criminal legislation, because our country is a secular state.

Conclusion

I would like to summarize all my thoughts and research; euthanasia should be allowed for some diseases and this process will be carried out due to some conditions i.e., the consent of the person and the circumstance of the disease of the person.

[1] < euthanasia | Definition, History, & Facts | Britannica>last visited 13.03.2021
[2]< Diane Pretty's unsuccessful fight for the right to assisted suicide | Britannica>last visited 13.03.2021

# data[].attributes.body
The rationale behind the criminalization of “military robbery” (Article 118 of the CC)

1.    What is robbery according to criminal legislation of Azerbaijan Republic (after that AR)?

2.    What is military robbery according to legislation of AR?

·         Its objective aspect

·         Its social dangerousness

·         Its object(s)

·         Its matter

·         Its subjective aspect
.         Its subjects

3. Comparison of provisions of foreign countries on military robbery.

First of all, what is robbery?

The term of “robbery” is defined as openly plunder of other people’s property in Article 180 of Criminal Code of AR. As other types of stealing, main object of robbery is also others’ property, but distinguishing feature of robbery is that it is committed openly, in front of the eyes of victim or another people. This is the objective aspect of robbery and main basis for social dangerousness of robbery.  It reflects clear intent and illegal bravery of offender.

Then what is military robbery?

According to Article 118 of Criminal Code of AR military robbery is plunder on a battlefield of killed or wounded personals’ property. At first, we have to identify who the killed and wounded people are. According to Commentary of Criminal Code of AR they can be both military personels and civil people. Here the term property includes gun, clothes and other things that might be considered as property in law. That property may be in the ownership or use or in the disposal of the victim. Subjective aspect of military robbery is characterized only by direct intention, because offender understands social dangerous nature and social dangerous consequence of his act and desires this consequence. Objective aspect of the military robbery is characterized by the acts committed for the intent of robbery against the dead or wounded people in war, more preciously in battle area. It has socially dangerous nature, that is reflected in abasing dignity of military servants and military units, lack of combat ability of military unit. And this crime also decreases reputation of military unit and military servants. The main object of the crime is laws and customs of international law and additional object of military robbery is considered property. As the way of acquisition of property the disposition of Article 118 sets robbery, but this act can also be commited with brigandage (quldurluq) and theft (oğurluq). It means not only openly, but also by violence against the victim it can be commited. On these bases criminalization of military robbery is important for all the states.

We can compare our provisions with other foreign countries’ provisions for analizing the criminality of military robbery.

In Georgia Criminal Code, Article 413 which is called “other violations of the provisions of the international humanitarian law”, it is reflected that “...looting, i.e. taking possession of items of the person killed or wounded during military actions as well as taking possession of citizens’ property which is left in the zone of military actions, and/or robbery of settlements or other territorial entities shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of eleven to fifteen years.
Similarity between AR CC and GR CC is that in both AR legislation and in GR legislation it is defined as violation of provisions of international law and their sancion is improsenment.

In the Criminal Code of Armenia Republic, Article 383  which is called “plunder” it is noted that “theft of items from the dead and wounded in the battlefield is punished with imprisonment for the term of 2 to 8 years”.
Similarity is the same with as Georgia Criminal Code.

As it seems from the social dangerousness of the military robbery  which we analized in main part by different aspects, its criminalization is required and it has been provided in the legislaton of a number of countries, as violation of provisions of international law.

Actually, I am not satisfied with the punishment for military robbery, other types of punishments or compansation for the acquired property can be more suitable.

Reference:

·         Criminal Code of Azerbaijan Republic

·         Commentary of Criminal Code of Azerbaijan Republic

·         Criminal Code of Georgia Republic

·         Criminal Code of Armenia Republic

# data[].attributes.body
1. Influence of jealousy (qısqanclıq) on criminal responsibility for intentional murder.

(Analyse the current national legal approach and provide your criticism).

# data[].attributes.body
2. The rationale behind the criminalization of euthanasia.

(Analyse the current national legal approach and provide your criticism).

# data[].attributes.body
3. The rationale behind the criminalization of “military robbery” (Article 118 of the CC):

(Analyse the current national legal approach and provide your thoughts).