The key problem of law enforcement in the qualification of violent crimes against personality is the vagueness of the criteria for differentiating torture (infliction of agony) from related offenses: systematic battery (beatings) and intentional infliction of light or medium harm to health. Changes in criminal legislation aimed at decriminilizing or re-criminalizing domestic violence have created legal conflicts. In practice, investigative bodies often substitute the article «Torture», which is difficult to prove, with simpler charges (battery), ignoring the systemic nature of the victim's mental and physical suffering. Conversely, one-time conflicts involving harm to health are erroneously interpreted as torture, leading to a violation of the principle of fairness of punishment. The purpose of the article is a comprehensive legal analysis of the disposition of the article «Torture», identification of the material and psychological criteria for its separation from battery and harm to health, and the development of clear methodical guidelines for judicial and investigative bodies on the qualification of systematic violence. The study utilizes the formal-dogmatic method (analysis of criminal law), the comparativelegal method, a systemic-structural approach, and content analysis of judicial practice materials and the findings of forensic medical and psychological examinations. The study proves that the key marker of torture is not just the frequency of actions, but a specific purpose – the infliction of deep mental suffering and establishing control over the victim. An author's algorithm for calculating «systematicity» is proposed. The necessity of mandatory forensic psychological examination to record moral damage in cases of torture is substantiated. The practical significance lies in developing recommendations that minimize investigative errors and enhance the legal protection of domestic violence victims.