Autonomous non-profit organization
To Tear a Man to Pieces
Death in Kaliningrad Kindness zone Crime and Punishment The law has been written Freedom for the dogs Pavlova’s dogs Falsity Dirty Non-English Murder The kindness was in the way? Nobody is to blame and nothing is to be done? Write this down not to forget
“Center for Animal Welfare Legal Protection”
by Sergei Arkhipov
Let us try and do some analysis. A dog is a predator, eating the flesh of animals, capable of tearing a human being to pieces. A dog is a domestic animal, and the dog’s owner is fully liable for whatever the dog may be doing. Any dog has an owner. In the case of homeless dogs, full liability rests with their owners, i.e. appropriate public authorities. As early as 4 thousand years ago, the laws of Mesopotamia and Babylon said that if the dog bit or tore a man to pieces, the dog’s owner was fully liable. The penalties were specific: for a slave – so much, for a free person – so much. In our days, a woman is sentenced by the jury of Los Angeles to 15 years of imprisonment for the crime committed by her dogs: two mastiffs she was walking tore her lady neighbor to pieces. True, the court of California found the sentence too stern. The husband of the accused woman was absent at the moment of murder, but he is the owner of the dogs. He will spend four years behind bars. Only in Russia, such murder is regarded an accident.
In a jural state, any fact of dogs committing aggression against humans, however insignificant, is subject to investigation. In Britain, Princess Anne, the Queen’s daughter, was tried under an article of the law stipulating imprisonment of up to 6 months: her bull terrier attacked two boys. Although the kids got off with small abrasions, the penalty sanctions can not be described as applied for the sake of appearances only: 900 pounds sterling, i.e. around Rbls. 48,000. A farmer, whose dogs barked maliciously at passers-by from a private compound behind a fence, was also fined.
Everybody realizes that if in America, Britain, Mesopotamia or any other in the slightest degree civilized country a dog tears a person to pieces in the center of a major city!), the dog’s owner is put behind bars, and his water club is sold by auction to cover part of the fines and compensations. It is hard to understand, why nobody is held responsible for the order of things that is entirely different in this country. The bark of a charging dog may inflict a serious psychological trauma not only on a child, the dog’s teeth are a dangerous weapon, and the dog’s attack is an armed one. The authorities of Kaliningrad ought to have established the dog-keeping regulations and should have monitored compliance with such regulations. If the dog owner had paid a handsome fine for each trapdoor under the fence, if he had had grounded fears that he would have to pay such fine, all trapdoors would have been stopped. If the authorities had introduced a serious penalty for an uncontrolled dog walking down the street, nobody would have ever termed what happened in Kaliningrad an accident, the club owner would have chained his dogs, and the young man would have been alive. The absence of an appropriate law is a real danger to the safety of humans, and inaction of the authorities is a hazard in itself.
In Westfalia, for example, the authorities set the following standards and procedures: a dog higher than 40 cm and heavier than 20 kg is regarded as potentially dangerous, and must be kept not only on a lead in public places, but also it must be wearing a muzzle (a fine of 1000 Euros). Besides, rotweilers, mastiffs, dobermans, 15 breeds of European shepherd’s dogs must be registered in a special log-book; damage that such dogs are likely to cause should be insured; the owner of such dogs must have a license; a dog must pass a special test and prove that it is, by no means, an aggressive dog towards people, dogs and cats, other domestic and wild animals. If a dog fails in such test, it is removed and annihilated. In France, the owner, failing to sterilize his pit-bull, bull-terrier, stafford (no matter, male or female) will be put behind bars for 6 months and will pay a penalty of 15 thousand Euros. In New-York State, a dog attacking people or animals (even if it has not bit or torn to pieces anyone) is subject to immediate isolation. After testing, the dog is either given a lethal injection or is caged, the cage closed on four sides and from the top.
In the sand-boxes of children’s playgrounds, one can see the dogs’ urine and feces. The dog excrements are not fertilizer, they should be cleared even from the lawns, yet there are no regulations, making this procedure mandatory for dog owners. Many dogs are ill, their excreta are infectious. Nobody says where the owners should bury their pets when they die; so the owners bury them in the nearest public garden. Dog registration does not exist, therefore mandatory vaccination of dogs against rabies and other diseases is impossible. Most dogs are not vaccinated at all.
It is incredible, but one can, with impunity, make money in an ordinary flat and even a room of a communal apartment by setting up a nursery, vet clinic or a hotel for any number of dogs, making the life of neighbors a nightmare.
Malicious barking, a definite sign of aggression, leading to immediate withdrawal and isolation of the dog, hangs above Moscow day and night. Some owners – the more malice around, the better for them – manage to force even the most good-natured dogs to bark continuously, furiously in a non-stop fashion in the street and indoors. Why not? As far as barking is concerned, there is not control, either. At least, in this respect we could expect interference of human rights activists: our eminent human rights activist V. Bukovsky tells how he came to know this problem in one of his books. He made a present of a puppet to a family of his relations in Switzerland. The family were unable to tame the puppet as far as barking was concerned (barking is prohibited in Switzerland). The cunning dogs soon realized that even when he showed some signs of intentions to bark, the owners responded by bringing him good food, and thus made their life a torture. Eventually, V. Bukovsky had to pick up his present and accommodate the dog at some other place (he would not specify, where). If this happened now, he surely would have sent it to Russia. Here, human rights, where protection against a cad with a dog is in question, seem to be no problem to the authorities or the human rights activists.
Barking is trivia. Moscow and Moscow Region already seem to be getting used to case similar to the one that occurred in Kaliningrad. Children, old people, men and women die or become crippled for the rest of their lives. During a year, dogs bite over 30 thousand people in Moscow (only those who asked for medical aid are registered). All of these are dangerous offences, for which nobody is ever punished. In Mytischi, two dogs attacked an old woman and gnawed her forearms and hands. The owner of the dogs was identified. Militia says it is not the man’s fault, because he did not incite the dogs. The investigation is shocking. Sounds like: “Are you sure you did not set the dogs on the woman? – No, I looked away, and the dogs attacked. - Well, as long as they charged by themselves, there is no fault of yours. You might well not have looked away". If the owner is not to blame, then the fault lies with the governor of Moscow Region, where the existing system admits of mutilating the old people with impunity.
In ancient Rome, to warn a person of a dangerous encounter with a dog, the wrote: "Cave canem" - "Beware of the dog". In Russia, too, signs “Careful! Malicious dog” used to be common. Nowadays, such signs are few: the dogs are not behind the gate, chained, but in front of the gate, and not untied. If they tear anybody, no one will be punished. Why waste paint? One may risk one’s life walking at night not only past water clubs, but also past motor repair-shops, car parks, construction sites, vacant lots, garbage dumps, factories, markets, garages, warehouses, gateways, shrubs, and anywhere, for that matter.
But this is not all. In Moscow and Moscow suburbs, they banned the trapping of and giving lethal injections to stray dogs (in Moscow suburbs, there is rabies, and the disease may well come to Moscow. A bite of a rabid dog is fatal to a human being). The Official explanation was this: trapping was carried out by bad guys, solely for their own pleasure and enrichment, whereas Mayor Luzhkov and Governor Gromov issued decrees that put an end to those nasty dealings and set up, according to T. Pavlova (she is in charge of the fauna in Moscow Government) the “kindness zone”. Both the Mayor and the Governor forgot to do one natural thing:, i.e. to say something like: “Because we banned the trapping of stray dogs, we shall be responsible for every attack by stray dogs, every bite, all the more so – for a person torn to pieces ". But, obviously one can not be kind enough to bear responsibility for one’s kindness. Those supporting the banned trapping of stray dogs also insist that in this way biological equilibrium is set up. This is wrong. Until quite recently, stray dogs have never been in Moscow, but we have always had a stable biological balance. For example, we never had rats in the streets. The existing equilibrium, with packs of infected, spiteful and hungry dogs everywhere, against the backdrop of elks, boars, beavers, spot deers disappearing from our forests and parks, and passers-by from our streets, is unbearable. The number of dog attacks on the people in the “kindness zone” keeps growing.
As for Moscow, besides the aforesaid decree, allowing humans to be attacked by stray dogs, there exists a draft law. For the last five years, the law has been submitted to Moscow City Duma in various wordings, and finally was approved in the first reading under the title “On Keeping Domestic Animals in the City of Moscow". Five years of debates, revisions and improvements! Is it not too long a time for a trifling problem that has long been settled everywhere? All the more so that all these revisions and improvements in actual fact do not revise or improve anything. They fail to change the gist of this absolutely unacceptable, dangerous law.
Its key definition reads: "domestic animals are domesticated animals as well as animals that are kept in a home or household to meet the need for communication. Domestic means domesticated. What an absurdity? Yet, in this manner, they obviate the absurdity of an earlier wording: “an animal- companion”, but the essence remains unchanged: now, every Muscovite, in a bid to meet the need for communication is free to keep in his (as well as in communal) flat a bear, tiger, wolf, snake, etc. An elephant on the 16th floor and as many elephants as you please. From now on, any animal may be regarded as domestic: all you need is to claim its company. The beauty of the law is that there will be no problems with walking, keeping and responsibility for whatever the animal may do: as before, the law is confined to dogs only.
As soon as the law is adopted (the first or last wording makes no difference) Moscow will definitely turn to the kindness zone for irresponsible individuals. Whatever ruinous is happening now, will be legalized. The dogs will be free to defecate where they please in the streets, their owners don’t have to clear the excrements. The law stipulates neither mandatory registration of every dog, nor mandatory vaccinations. A rabid dog is nobody’s responsibility. A mentally abnormal individual (just like a normal one) may keep as many dogs of any breed as he wants. Those who advocate the law say that one may keep several dogs even in a room of a communal flat, because a dog is property, like a cupboard, and nobody can limit the rights of an individual in respect of cupboards. If a dog is equated with a cupboard, why do they write a separate law for the dogs, not applying the existing laws pertaining to cupboards? There may be property and property. A gas pistol, a submachine gun or tank are also examples of property, but the rights to possess them are strictly limited or are non-existent. Your neighbors may be unaware of your being in possession of a cupboard, but they will always know that you are a dog owner. Besides, a city apartment house is absolutely different from a village yard: this is, in the first place (under the civil and housing codes), a lodging for a human being, thank God, there are no clacking hens, bleating sheep or mooing cows in city apartments so far.
A substantial area of house entrance and communal flat space is in joint ownership or use of all house dwellers, therefore, in order to keep a dog, a person willing to do this must be obliged under law to have, at least, consent of the neighbors. The rights of an individual to live in the house without animals must also be respected. A dog is not a cupboard, and the legislator must be careful not to make the dog a subject arousing animosity among the neighbors. A dog is a special property, and restriction here are unavoidable (is it admissible to keep pets in communal flats whose dwellers are regarded as living in poor conditions and are queuing up for improved housing?).
Limitations of an overall number of dogs in Moscow are also necessary. The most rational solution is to keep the number of dogs commensurate with the area of dog walking grounds designed for a particular number of dogs. At least, it should be understood that every Muscovite couldn’t hope to own even one dog: the city will be unable to accommodate 10 to 15 million dogs (there are also cats and other animals). Moscow would be well advised to follow the example of Beijing: one dog per family.
Another quote from the law: “Dogs representing a threat to humans and other animals must be muzzled. The list of dog breeds for which such requirements are mandatory shall be established by Moscow Government”. However, T. Pavlova said this in an interview to “Moscow Echo”: “Breed-wise, in Moscow we have prevalence of serious, fighting, rather aggressive dogs". Which means that Moscow authorities know full well that out of 1.5-2 million dogs, the majority represent a serious threat to people. What’s more, the dogs not only are a threat, they fulfill it through numerous attacks. In order to ward off such a threat, no need to wait another five years for the law to be adopted (followed by a long wait for the list to be drawn up). The dog owners may be obliged to muzzle their dogs by a brief decree written in a matter of five minutes.
But a muzzle has long, and with reason, been regarded as an absolutely inadequate measure of preventing the threat to human health and life. Even a muzzled dog may maim a human beyond repair. There are countries, where it is prohibited to keep potentially dangerous dogs as a general rule, in others the dogs are tested for aggressivity; the damage they are likely to cause is insured, and only then may the owner walk such dogs on a lead and muzzled. Mandatory taming for obedience is also practiced. How many misfortunes could have been avoided, had such a procedure been adopted? It is inexplicable why, being aware of the threat to human health and life, the authorities did nothing to eliminate it. During all these years that the discussion has been under way, a decree could have been issued and everything could have been organized: registration, trade, burial procedure and everything else.
In Italy, for example, there were 6 900 000 pet dogs and 748 official animals shelters in 2002. Each year the shelters are financed at the rate of Euro 250 million, i.e. over Euros 330 000 per shelter per annum on the average. In Moscow, there are only 10 private shelters for 1.5 – 2 000 dogs. The shelters earn money on pedigree dogs. There is also one state-owned shelter for 20 dogs, which accommodates dogs after their owners die. There are no shelters for stray dogs as such. By Italian standards alone, there ought to have been established around 220 shelters in Moscow.
As we know already, in Moscow there exists a special system, unimaginable in a jural state. The system consists in this: the dogs are trapped in response to applications filed by unified customer management offices. An application is filed following a dog attack on a human, resulting in harm caused to human health. Once the application is filed, it is considered: has an act of aggression been really committed, or is it a provocation (against whom?). If the fact of aggression is established, the dog is trapped (but not always and not immediately). The dog is sterilized and vaccinated against rabies. This costs Rbls. 2.500-2.700, although it is virtually impossible to verify if the dog was sterilized or vaccinated, or the budgetary resources were wasted. This done, the dog is released in its former customary environment to roam freely (although nobody mentions this, but every dog must be trapped and vaccinated once a year. Nobody can afford this). The advocates of such an approach insist that after female dogs are sterilized, they no longer have heats, therefore the pack of dogs is not dangerous any more, because male dogs become aggressive during “dog weddings” only.
Here, the following must be pointed out. The municipal authorities in other countries, realizing their responsibility, see to it that the trapping service is effective, whereby they protect their citizens from that first act of aggression in response to which an application is drafted in this country. But each application is already a communication of the committed offense. While a piece of flesh is torn out of a person’s hip, they are considering not the term of imprisonment for the guilty party, but how the dogs will keep running after and attacking people: sterilized or non-sterilized.
A few words about sterilization and aggressivity. Here is what that the famous American veterinarian Dr. H. Allen Whiteley writes in his book “Dogs – Our Friends”: "Methods of treatment consist in castration, use of drugs (e.g. Prozac) as well as in correction of behavior". Sterilization of female dogs is absolutely not enough (castration of male dogs is not even discussed), a special course of cure is required in addition to surgery. But even then the result cannot be guaranteed: "If the dog actions are dangerous, euthanasia rather than treatment should be regarded as a way out". Than treatment! But they don’t treat the dogs in this country. Huge resources are expended on sterilization that is pointless, whereupon the dog, that already has a record of having attacked humans, is released into the street. But if the dog charges a human a second time, why does every body pretends that nobody is to blame?
That a dog is a domestic animal is a recognized law of nature. More than 15 thousand years ago, the dog was the first animal to be domesticated and to live in a man’s home. Man does not have a more domestic animal than dog. Therefore, to release the dog into the street to grow feral is not only represents deadly danger to people, it means entering into a conflict with nature. An explanatory note to the law defines homeless dogs as “living on the territory of the city in a state of natural freedom". Now, emulating the example set by the authorities, each owner is free, with impunity, to throw his dog into the street, i.e. place it back in a “state of natural freedom”. If one has overlooked the undesirable contact, and the dog has given birth to unclaimed posterity – out with the puppets, for freedom. If the owner gets tired of feeding and restraining three aggressive dogs all the time, set them free in the city, it’s so natural. Nobody should be punished for this, a more appropriate reaction would be a reward. Meanwhile, any dog (even one, not in a pack) represents a threat to people. Why, only yesterday, it was to be walked on a lead and muzzled, but today the owner threw it out, and it feels it has no restrictions. In Moscow, nobody even thinks about setting up a dog trapping service (before they attack humans) for dogs running about without the owners.
Moscow practices and the new law are dangerous and contradict not only common sense, and the world legal norms, but the law of nature. The dog’s natural freedom is living atman’s home. Living on the territory of the city is so unnatural of the dog.
Imagine a law, whereby a driver. knocking down a person, while driving a personal car, is imprisoned, whereas a driver, knocking down somebody, when driving a municipal vehicle, may proceed moving without even stopping. Or: an ordinary person obeys the Criminal Code, whereas an officer of municipality doesn’t.
The new law, while not giving a definition of a dog owner, introduces a new notion: a guardian. A guardian is a person who takes care of a dog voluntarily. Under the law, one is free to take care of a dog and not be liable for anything. A care easy to take: watch the condition of the animal, assist the cure, if necessary. And, not at all mandatory: whether you watched the dog condition or you did not, nobody is entitled to reproach you. Keep, the dog at home, If you like, or let him sleep outside, in a light frost. Forget about dog leads, muzzles, mandatory vaccinations and suchlike trifles. Just like in the case of municipal dogs. A guardian is a replica of a dog owner, but without a shade, of responsibility. Presumably, many will opt for the status of a guardian rather than an owner (not registered anywhere, anyway). A situation: a rotweiller attacked a man in Timiryazevsky Park. The lady-owner tried to pull the dog away from the man, but did not succeed and fled. She did so because she knew that nobody would be searching for her (and nobody did), however, had she stayed, she would have had to pay Rbls. 30 as a fine. This thrifty lady is a definite candidate for a guardian. Once she says that she is a guardian? She will not have to flee any longer. NO penalties for guardians are stipulated by the law. The laws enable a guardian just watch the progress of unfortunate developments, and in case the situation becomes unfortunate for the dog (e.g. a man manages to find a stick to protect himself from the aggressor dog), protect the dog.
Everybody knows the famous phrase pronounced by Antoine de Saint-Exupery: "People have forgotten this truth, - the Fox said, - but you remember: you are always liable for all you’ve tamed". It would be naive to suppose everybody likes the phrase.
In a few years, a dog cemetery will be opened. Some dog owners will be able to bury their pets there for handsome amounts of money. The problem, however, is not to enable someone to earn good money by offering service to the well-to-do pet owners, but to allot areas for the burial of all dead dogs and to oblige all pet owners to bury their pets at the cemetery instead of throwing them out in refuse dumps or bury them in children’s playgrounds. Here, a business-plant must be the last thing to consider, priority being given to the problem of ethics and sanitation.
A dog census has been organized. A few people were walking from door to door of the apartments of the huge megapolis (did they visit industrial enterprises, too? No, of course, not. They will not be allowed in there), putting down whatever the willing pet-owners told them (“In apartment 5, they said they had three red dogs and two black ones"). At the same time, some dogs, whose owners so desired, were vaccinated against rabies free of charge. The good and authenticity of such “census” are nil (imagine inspectors of State Traffic Police walking round the apartments, by way of motor-car registration, jotting down special features of vehicles and vehicle numbers as told by car owners). Nothing but harm and a waste of money.
Instead of such census, mandatory registration of all the dogs must be carried out, with strict control of compulsory vaccination by the owners of millions of their pets. Every dog must be vaccinated each year not only against rabies, but also against a number of other diseases. What is required are not sample free vaccinations at the taxpayer’s expense (which comes to no small amounts), but the owner’s serious responsibility for a non-vaccinated dog. Now, a sanitary inspector has informed the mayor that the rowing numbers of stray dogs may result in a spread of rabies. Nobody talks about mandatory vaccination of every dog (cat, other animals). Should a rabid dog bite anyone of us, nobody will be brought to account. Neither the mayor, nor the sanitary inspector, nor the pet owner. In Mesopotamia, four thousand years ago, this kind of situation was unimaginable. The EU and Switzerland are about to prohibit entry of our dogs without a certificate indicating the content in the dogs’ blood of the required level of rabies antibodies. There, they realize better what kind of situation we are faced with, and take care of the safety of humans.
Posters were put up all over the city, urging to clear the dogs’ excrements, while trailers were shown on central TV channels: “Clear the ground after your pets!” This campaign must have cost a huge amount of money. The result is nil (if the result is clearing the excrements, not spending budgetary resources). Nobody is going to clear the excrements: neither the existing regulations, nor the future law stipulate a penalty for failure to clear the excrements. The “Don’t drive when drunk!” campaign would have been just as effective, had the Road Traffic Regulations not stipulated any sanctions for such an offence.
But T. Pavlova tells the “Moscow Echo” she knows how matters stand in other countries: "In Britain, if one goes out or visit a public place with a dog on a string, and if the dog should bite a person, the dog may be given a lethal injection, subject to court ruling, and the owner may have to pay a rather heavy fine. Which means that in Britain such problems are considered on a state level".
Britain is not the only place where a similar practice exists. Such practice may exist anywhere, but not in this country. In Moscow, where dogs are the responsibility of the state, represented by T.Pavlova herself, dozens of thousands of people consult doctors, following dog bites, out of this 7 to 8 thousand are children. 300 to 400 children are taken to hospitals in a grave condition. No trials, lethal injections or heavy fines. It looks like in Moscow, this not a problem for the state? Whose problem is this, then?
Here is one of the most horrid cases. In Moscow, right in the middle of the kindness zone, in a public place, near “Vladykino” metro station, in full compliance with a decree of Moscow authorities, a pack of 29 (!) dogs attacked a 54-year old V. Arkhipova. Each dog gnawed off a piece of flesh, and the woman died a torturous death. Yet another horrible death. Many were shocked. But not all. Said T.Pavlova in an interview to the “Vechernyaa Moskva”: “It is for the first time that I’m faced with mass hysteria of this nature. Funny, adult people flee from tiny dachshunds! But I assure you, Muscovites have nothing to worry about!".
Wrong! – one can’t help worrying and must worry. Are potentially dangerous dog breeds prohibited in this country? No, most of the dogs in Moscow are dangerous breeds. Are the dogs tested for aggressivity? They aren’t, nobody is going to do that. Is the damage the dogs are likely to inflict insured? Does the owner walk the dog on a lead and muzzled? Tomorrow, if another 29 dogs should attack somebody else, will this constitute a breach of some Moscow decree? There may be dozens more ifs. The only measure taken in Moscow to ensure the safety of humans – neutering – has once again proved futile. The dogs keep attacking, biting and gnawing people without any “dog wedding”. It is not funny, when adult people free from dachshunds, is it?
It took several days to trap the pack of dogs that had torn the woman to pieces. All this time, the dogs are known to have attacked humans (they did so before the tragedy, too, but nobody was going to catch them), some people were bitten and were on the point of being torn to pieces. Has anybody been penalized? You’re kidding. What for? This is not Britain. And Rbls. 5 for the dogs walking without a lead? Look, the dogs were not in a park or on a boulevard. And Rbls. 30 for causing harm to human health? But nobody set the dogs on the people, right? Were the dog man-eaters given a lethal injection? No, not only were they not given such an injection, but “some of them we shall probably release. We’ve been approached by the workers of enterprises on whose territory the dogs had lived, requesting to give their pets back to them". Did not those workers approach you with an offer to repair material and moral damage and serve a prison term for the death of the woman and inflicted harm to the health of many others?
Let us take our human rights activists. The chairman of Moscow Helsinki group L. Alekseeva explained their forte in an interview to the “Moscow Echo”: “We are focused on what the state is doing. Simply, this is the way we have formulated our task, we are entitled to this". Formulated, focused… good. But apparently, more should be done. The existing level of concerned has proved too low to realize the humiliating status of a human being in Russia; the state conniving, our people are left without any legal protection, faced with a dog implementing somebody’s evil will.
Dog breeders, cynologists are united in societies, associations and federations, but they lack a patriotic need for offering the society and authorities a set of rules that would enable us to part in a civilized way and in an ethically acceptable manner with the epoch of barbarity, so shameful to Russia, setting the pace in their sphere of activity.
Veterinaries and sanitary inspectors know better than others that even a scratch on the skin of a person left by the teeth of a tiny rabid dachshund is enough to kill. What prevents them from making a statement that would roughly read like this: "From the veterinary and sanitary standpoints, the existing system of dog keeping is dangerous to people. Here is a list of modifications to be made in the federal and local laws. These modifications will make us fully liable for the health of humans as far as we are concerned, engaging in our professions. These modifications will give us authority to take the following measures (list) and to set the following rules (list). Besides rabies, animals may infect humans with some other diseases. We know how to prevent this and guarantee that, subject to observance of the procedures we are introducing, all will be healthy. We don’t understand why we did not do this before (or: we did not do this before because…)".
The current dog keeping rules set by Moscow executive power do not ensure the safety of the people. The safety of a human being is foremost concern of any authority. What is this – negligence (Art. 203 of the RF Criminal Code), i.e. failure by an official to do his duties, or improper execution of his duties that resulted in a substantial violation of the rights and lawful interests of the citizens and even led, through carelessness, to the loss of life or other grave consequences?
Who, but the law machinery was the first to take note that the existing system of dog keeping is a threat to public safety, to find and punish the guilty parties and to insist on adopting regulations that would provide for the safety of humans. However, for some strange reason, the law machinery in this case stands guard over the law-breakers, not the law. Even if a person is gnawed to death, sometimes the enormous efforts of the poor victim’s relatives are not enough to make militia institute an inquest into the accident. As for the law protecting and encouraging the owner of the dog that tore a person to pieces, “Moscow Main Department of Justice issued a favorable report, Moscow Prosecutor’s Office, Institute of Comparative Law Science".
January, 2005