Special Order of Pre-trial Proceedings: Pros and Cons of the Draft Federal Law “On Amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Regarding the Introduction of the Special Pre-Trial Procedure)”

Author(s):  
Lilia Cherepanova ◽  
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viкtor I. Kachalov ◽  

The aim of the article is to identify the meaning of the category “validity of the charge” in criminal proceedings and the scope of its application. After analyzing the content and legal essence of this category, as well as procedural situations in which it is necessary to establish the validity of the charge, the authors come to the following conclusions. Any coercive measures against suspects and accused persons can be applied only if there are serious grounds to assume that a person is involved in the commission of a crime since the restriction of the most important constitutional rights of citizens who, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, are innocent of committing a crime is possible only in exceptional cases. The validity of the charge (suspicion) assumes that a person is involved in the commission of a crime, as well as the fact of the criminal prosecution of this person. It is established if there is sufficient evidence that a person may have committed a crime (a person was caught committing a crime or immediately after it was committed; the victim or witnesses identified the person as the perpetrator of the crime; obvious traces of the crime were found on the person or their clothing, with them or in their house, etc.). The validity of the charge may be confirmed by a decision to initiate a criminal case and bring a person as an accused, by protocols of detention, interrogations of the accused, the victim, witnesses, and other materials. In the procedural sense, the conditions for establishing the validity of the charge differ significantly. When resolving the issue of the use of detention and other preventive measures, the validity of the charge is established within the framework of a court session in the conditions of adversariality with the participation of the parties. When giving the court permission to conduct investigative and other procedural actions in accordance with Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to ensure the secrecy of the investigation, the issue is resolved in the absence of adversariality with the possible participation of only the prosecutor, the investigator, and the inquirer. The category “validity of the charge” is significant in legal terms in a criminal case with the special order of proceedings. A prerequisite for the court to consider a criminal case in a simplified procedure is the validity of the charge and its confirmation by the evidence collected in the case. The validity of the charge in the appointment of a trial in the special order provided for by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is established by the court outside the court session in the absence of the parties. In any of the above situations, the court is responsible for establishing the validity of the charge since failure to establish it means that the decision made is unfounded.


Author(s):  
Nikolay Letelkin ◽  
Dmitry Neganov

The article examines the situationality of modern lawmaking in the field of criminal law in the context of the adoption of the federal law of 1.04.2020 No. 100-FZ «On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Articles 31 and 151 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation», adopted by the State The Duma of the Russian Federation in connection with the pandemics of the Corona Virus Disеаsе 2019 (COVID-19).


The article deals with the fundamentals of organization, tactics of production and fixing the results of one of the most important investigative actions. The authors note that the quality of the investigation of the crime as a whole and the results of the trial largely depend on the quality of the inspection of the scene. At the same time, the inspection efficiency and the objectivity of fixation depend on the scientific and technical means, methods and technologies used in its production. Attention is paid to the issues of organization of interaction both in the course of a study of the situation and objects, and when displaying information in the protocol and its annexes. It is especially important in connection with the changes in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced by the Federal Law № 23-FZ of March 4, 2013. Given that the inspection is a collective investigative action, not only the professional qualities of each employee involved, but also the coordinated work of the whole team significantly impact on the efficiency of its production and the quality of displaying the obtained data in the relevant documents. Special attention is drawn to the organizational problems of the work of investigative operational groups, which, in practice, are formed at random. One of the ways to optimize this investigative action and the fixation of the obtained information is to form investigative-operational groups, taking into account the psychological compatibility and teamwork of participants.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 52-57
Author(s):  
Samvel M. Kochoi ◽  

The paper concludes that article 171 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (as amended by Federal law No. 203-FZ of 26.07.2017) and the practice of its application are not only contradictory, but also contain certain shortcomings. Formulated proposals on the directions of changes and additions to the «business» norms of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. An exception from the Criminal Code article 171 and the qualification an act that falls under the «illegal business» according to article 198 or 199 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is considered as one of these areas.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov

Introduction. 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma on November 22, 2001 by Federal Law No. 174-FZ. The development of criminal procedure legislation in these years was not always consistent, often characterized by chaotic and hasty measures. Nevertheless, the main factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, as well as the key trends in the legal regulation of criminal procedure legal relations, have remained fairly stable for twenty years. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The object of the study is the norms of criminal procedure law that have emerged and developed during the period of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation since 2001. The methodological basis of the study is the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which allowed us to study the subject of the study in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and modelling) and private scientific methods of knowledge (formal legal, historical-legal, and comparative-legal). Results. Among the variety of various factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, there are several main ones: 1. The impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal proceedings. Having ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in 1998, Russia voluntarily assumed obligations in the field of ensuring citizens rights and freedoms, as well as creating the necessary conditions for their implementation. Among the most important criminal procedure norms and institutions that have emerged in the system of criminal procedure regulation under the influence of the positions of the ECHR, the following are notable: a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, the rights of participants in the verification of a crime report, the disclosure of the testimony of an absent witness at a court session, and alternative preventive measures to detention. 2. Optimisation of procedural resources and improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. From the very beginning of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there was a special procedure for judicial proceedings, which is a simplified form of consideration of criminal cases, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In 2009, this procedure was extended to cases with concluded pre-trial cooperation agreements (Chapter 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), and in 2013, the institute of abbreviated inquiry appeared in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Chapter 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). 3. Social demand for increasing the independence of the court, and the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings. Society’s needs to improve the independence of judges, increase public confidence in the court, transparency and quality of justice led to the reform of the jury court in 2016 (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 190-FZ). As a result of the reform, the court with the participation of jurors began to function at the level of district courts, the jurisdiction of criminal cases for jurors was expanded, the number of jurors was reduced from 12 to 8 in regional courts and 6 in district courts. However, practice has shown that sentences handed down by a court on the basis of a verdict rendered by a jury are overturned by higher courts much more often than others due to committed violations, which are associated, among other things, with the inability to ensure the objectivity of jurors. In the context of a request for an independent court, Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the independence of judges (Federal Law of 2 July 2013 N 166-FZ) was adopted. 4. Reducing the degree of criminal repression. In the context of this trend, institutions have emerged in the criminal and criminal procedure laws that regulate new types of exemption from criminal liability. In 2011, Article 281 “Termination of criminal prosecution in connection with compensation for damage” was adopted, concerning a number of criminal cases on tax and other economic crimes (Federal Law of 7 December 2011 N 420). In 2016, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced rules on the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine (Federal Law of 3 July 2016 N 323-FZ). 5. Digitalisation of modern society. The rapid development of information technologies and their implementation in all spheres of public life has put on the agenda the question of adapting a rather archaic “paper” criminal process to the needs of today, and the possibilities of using modern information technologies in the process of criminal proceedings. Among the innovations in this area, it should be noted the appearance in the criminal procedure law of Article 1861 “Obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices” (Federal Law of 1 July 2010 N 143-FZ), Article 4741 “The procedure for using electronic documents in criminal proceedings” (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 220-FZ), the legal regulation of video-conferencing in criminal proceedings (Federal Law of 20 March 2011 N 39-FZ), and the introduction of audio recording of court sessions (Federal Law of 29 July 2018-FZ N 228-FZ), etс. Currently, the possibilities of further digitalisation of criminal proceedings, and the use of programs based on artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings, ets. are being actively discussed. Discussion and Conclusion. The main factors determining the vector of development of modern criminal justice should, in our opinion, include the impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal justice; optimisation of procedural resources and the need to improve the efficiency of criminal justice, social demands for strengthening the independence of the court, adversarial criminal proceedings; the needs of society to reduce the degree of criminal repression, and digitalisation of modern society.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 80-87
Author(s):  
Ju. V. Kuvaldina

The article makes assumptions about the possible consequences of changes made by the Federal Law as of July 20, 2020, No. 224-FZ in edition of the Part 1 of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. According to this amendment, criminal cases on grave crimes will now be considered in the general order, unless a pre-trial cooperation agreement is concluded with the accused. The relevance of this novel is due to the fact that the legislator has once again revised the approach to defining the criteria for simplifying the criminal procedural form. In this regard, practice in the near future may face new or, more precisely, well forgotten old problems related to the period of the beginning of the judicial reform in 1991. A number of issues related to ensuring the right of the accused to a special order of trial will require scientific understanding. The author analyzes foreign legislation, previously and current domestic criminal procedure legislation, opinions on this issue of representatives of the highest levels of the judicial system, prosecutor's office and the legal profession, scientists, statistical data and reviews of the activities of courts of general jurisdiction in criminal cases in 2019. The author comes to the conclusion that in Russia the possibility of applying a simplified procedure associated with the reduction or refusal of the judicial investigation was not directly dependent on the severity of the crime committed, and the reform of the special procedure for judicial proceedings undertaken by the legislator is untimely and is not provided with either personnel or material technical or financial resources. According to the author, the decrease in the number of sentences passed in a special order will occur due to the infringement of the right of those accused of serious crimes to be tried in the procedure provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In this regard, the article outlines the directions for the further development of a special procedure for judicial proceedings, strengthening its consensual nature and ensuring the guarantees of the rights of the accused and victims in this procedure.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
I.G. Rogava ◽  
N.E. Danilenko

The article examines the features of the operation of the principles of criminal proceedings, applied in a special order. The problems of compliance of this form of production with such principles of criminal proceedings as adversarial and equality of the parties, immediacy, orality, free assessment of evidence, publicity are called. Ways of solving the identified problems are proposed by making appropriate changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in the form of an indication in the verdict passed in a special court procedure, the analysis of evidence and their assessment by the judge, as well as limiting the range of cases in which it is possible to conclude a pre-trial cooperation agreement.


2020 ◽  
pp. 123-126
Author(s):  
Olga N. Nadonenko ◽  

The current legislation formalizes three elements of the expert system in Russia: state and non-state expert institutions and experts who do not work in expert institutions. As follows from this triad, the defining concept is “expert institution”. The concept “state expert institution” is legally enshrined in Federal Law No. 73-FZ of May 31, 2001, but there is currently no legislative regulation of the criteria for classifying an organization as a “non-state expert institution”, which gives rise to a number of law enforcement problems. For instance, for an investigator, determining the status of an organization entails the implementation of the provisions of Article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation under Clause 1.2 or Clause 4. Therefore, in the author’s opinion, it is extremely important to pass a law regulating the criteria for classifying an organization as a state or non-state expert institution, or a non-expert institution.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-153
Author(s):  
I. V. Karavaev

The paper analyzes the legal regulation of detention in custody of persons confined on suspicion of committing a crime, as well as of persons in respect of whom a measure of restriction in the form of remand in custody was chosen. The norms of the Federal Law “On detention in custody of suspects and accused of committing crimes”, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation relating to these relations are considered. The differences between the two types of custody are investigated: “detention” and “remand in custody”. The author identifies six fundamental criteria underlying the difference between the two types of custody: the grounds for the detention; a person or body authorized to decide on detention in custody; duration of custody; custodial facility; legal status of persons in custody; grounds for release. It is concluded that it is necessary to revise the Federal Law "On detention in custody of suspects and accused of committing crimes", changing its structure on the basis that the law actually regulates two independent processes: taking into custody when detaining a person and detention in custody when choosing a measure of restriction in the form of remand in custody.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document