scholarly journals Properties of Criminal Procedure Presumptions

Author(s):  
Christina Kalandarishvili

The process of proving has always been and today still is the central problem of criminal proceedings, and most aspects of modern criminal procedure activities are connected with it. The cognitive character of the proving process presupposes the use of multiple methods, the most complex and significant of which is the method of presuming. This method of legal technique is well represented in the Russian legislation. At the same time, legal science and the theory of criminal procedure law, which have multiple definitions of legal or lawful presumption reflecting various aspects of the concept under consideration, do not contain a unified approach to understanding its essence. This situation distorts the meaning of the definition of legal presumption and leads the situation when some authors and practicing lawyers use the word “presumption” to refer to legal norms that are not, in fact, legal presumptions. The authors describe the concept, meaning and key elements of the contents (features) of legal presumption as a method of legal technique that influenced the formation and development of modern Russian criminal procedure legislation.

Author(s):  
Mariia Sirotkina ◽  

The article is turned out to a scientific search for the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or accused" through the study of the essence of reconciliation and role in criminal proceedings thereof. The author notes that criminal procedural law (until 2012) had been proclaimed another approach to reconciliation between victim and suspect, not involved a dispute procedure as a conflict, the result of which can be reached by compromise and understanding through reconciliation. It is stated that one of the ways to resolve the legal conflict in committing a criminal offense was the opportunity to reach a compromise between the victim and the suspect (the accused) by concluding a reconciliation agreement between them, provided by the Code of Сriminal Procedure of Ukraine (2012). The main attention is placed on the shortcoming of the domestic criminal procedure law which is the lack of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or the accused", which can be eliminated only through examining the essence or legal nature of reconciliation in criminal proceedings. Taking into consideration the current legislation and modern views on the institution of reconciliation in criminal proceedings, the author's definition of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement" is proposed. Thus, “The conciliation agreement is an agreement in criminal proceedings concluded between the victim and the suspect or the accused person on their own initiative in relation to crimes of minor or medium gravity and in criminal proceedings in the form of private prosecution, the subject of which is the compensation of harm caused by wrongdoing or committing other actions not related to compensation for the damage that the suspect or the accused is obliged to commit in favor of the victim, in exchange for an agreed punishment and sentencing thereof or sentencing thereof and relief from serving a sentence with probation, as well as the statutory consequences of conclusion and approval of the agreement".


2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-81
Author(s):  
Željko Mirkov

Although there is no uniform definition of procedural principles in criminal procedure theory, they can be defined as legal rules or guidelines on which the criminal proceedings are based. As such, the principles of criminal procedure law apply to procedural entities and procedural actions. Evidentiary actions, as a type of procedural action, clarify the criminal case that is the subject of the criminal proceedings. The Criminal Procedure Code stipulates several evidentiary actions, one of which is the preliminary hearing of the defendant. The defendant hearing, in which the defendant gives their testimony, is given a great deal of attention because it represents one of the most important pieces of evidence, and the course of evidence presentation is the most significant and crucial issue of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the paper will present a review of the criminal procedure principles related to this evidentiary action, starting from the principle of legality as the main principle, followed by the principles of orality, publicity, immediacy and adversity (party control of facts and means of proof).


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 171-180
Author(s):  
V. A. Fastovets

The article deals with the issue of defining the meaning of terms used in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, namely the notion of «special knowledge». It analyzes the definitions of this notion that were made in different periods of time by both national and foreign researchers based on the criteria of the significant features that are distinguished by these researchers in their definitions of the given term. By consequently highlighting faults in these definitions the article distinguishes those features that are the most accurate to reflect the essence of special knowledge in the criminal legal proceedings. Based on the obtained findings the article offers its own definition of this notion: special knowledge in criminal proceedings includes knowledge, skills and competences in any sphere of human activity that the investigator or the judge may not have at all or have to an insufficient extent, the use of this knowledge is at the discretion of the latter or directly regulated in the criminal procedure law, in order to establish the circumstances to be proved or to establish other circumstances relevant to the criminal proceedings.


The article discusses the situation of civil law and consensus in the criminal process for not serious crimes. The essence of consensual proceedings in the criminal process is determined, its procedural form is disclosed, which includes the agreement of the parties and the grounds for closing the criminal proceedings both at the stage of pre-trial investigation and court proceedings. Considering the division of the right to public and private, on the basis of the consensual provisions of the criminal process, it is necessary to indicate that they have different substances and are divided according to different classification criteria. Based on the general and theoretical provisions of the criminal process, the consensual developments of this work, we can determine that public and private law has two directions, which include the theory of interest and the theory of protection of private interests. In this case, we can talk about the material and formal signs of theoretical modifications, namely, to proceed from the content of regulated relations, which should be based on material conditions. That is, if the norms of public law regulate the interests of a person, then they are built on the material theory. How they regulate and what they regulate, we attribute to the legal norms. The conclusion is that in relation to the construction of legal relations between the subjects of the process, this question can be put on the basis of the content of the subjective right. The criminal process has the authority to interfere with the norms of public law in the private interests of the person, if provided for by criminal law. We believe that the criminal procedure law should take measures to limit the interference of public law in private interests. Based on the analysis of civil procedural legislation, recommendations were given on drafting an agreement in the criminal procedure in the procedural form on compensation for material damage.


2021 ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
V. Tishchenko ◽  
L. Belik ◽  
O. Samoilenko ◽  
Yu. Tishchenko

The article is devoted to the study of aspects of the essence and legal nature of forensic examination in criminal proceedings. It is analyzed the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Examination”. The norms of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the grounds for the appointment and conduct of forensic examination have been investigated. It has been established that many scientists in the field of civil procedural law, criminal procedural law, criminology and forensic examination paid attention to the legal content of the forensic examination. The nature of occurrence of forensic examination has been investigated. It has been established that at the legislative level, the term “forensic expert activity” is used only in the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Examination”. In the specified normative legal act there is no clear definition of this concept, scientists through the analysis of some norms of law reveal its content. Regarding the definition of the concept of forensic examination, it has been established that there is no consensus in legal science. Regarding the definition of the concept of forensic examination, it has been established that there is no consensus in legal science. The article analyzes the criminal procedure form of appointing a forensic examination. Key words: forensic examination, criminal proceedings, forensic expert activity, forensic expertology, criminal procedural form.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-513
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Derishev

In November 2019, the world legal community widely celebrated the 125th anniversary of Professor M. S. Strogovich, who, according to his scientific colleagues and students, was a scientist who was “ahead of time”.This article provides a retrospective and comparative analysis of the positions of M. S. Strogovich and his colleagues on certain problems of domestic criminal proceedings, in particular its pre-trial phase, in the context of the direct influence of the scientist's scientific heritage on the development of modern criminal procedure law. The Author of the article particularly interesting views of the scientist and his participation in discussions related to defining the essence and purpose of the preliminary investigation, the implementation of the functions of preliminary investigation in relation to criminal prosecution, the problems of implementation of the principles of presumption of innocence and the adversarial nature of pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases, and, finally, the General Manager of the “investigative case” in modern Russia.M. S. Strogovich consistently adhered to the idea of the need to develop and strengthen procedural guarantees of individual rights, guarantees of justice, and this can be seen in this article. Thus, defining the essence of the criminal process as a system of actions of the relevant officials and the procedural legal relations that arise in connection with them, which in itself was a serious “scientific courage” of those years, M. S. Strogovich particularly defended the position that all participants in criminal proceedings are subjects of the rights granted to them and the duties assigned to them, and they should not be considered objects of unilateral power of officials. This idea has become widespread and generally accepted as the basic definition of domestic (Soviet and Russian) criminal proceedings.The article analyzes M. S. Strogovich’s scientific steps on the conceptual turn from revolutionary-radical ideas about the construction of criminal proceedings to its classical canons and traditions of the Russian criminal process, On the basis of which the conclusion is made about the indispensable use of the scientist's legacy in modernьRussian procedural studies.The research of M. S. Strogovich’s legacy carried out in the article will fully allow to rethink the modern system of criminal proceedings in a new way, can be used as a kind of key to finding solutions to law-making and law enforcement problems, for the further development of the national science of criminal procedure law.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-130
Author(s):  
V S Shadrin

The article explains the recognition of the criminal procedure law as the only source of criminal procedural law, examines the content of legal regulation in criminal cases as part of legal norms, legal relations and individual requirements, demonstrates how the model of criminal proceedings, fixed in the criminal procedure law, turns into a real criminal -process law.


Author(s):  
Александр Валентинович Черезов

В статье рассматриваются актуальные проблемы реализации уголовно-процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений УИС в стадии возбуждения уголовного дела. В частности, рассмотрена проблема и дано определение компетенции органов дознания и предварительного следствия, предусмотренной УПК РФ. Исследован объем уголовно-процессуальных прав и обязанностей органов дознания и следствия, а также оперативных подразделений УИС в системе иных органов дознания и следствия. Проведен анализ порядка принятия решений уполномоченными должностными лицами ФСИН России при проверке сообщений о преступлениях, выражено мнение о том, что они вправе принимать только одно решение: о передаче сообщения о преступлении по подследственности и в исключительных случаях возбуждать уголовные дела в порядке, предусмотренном ст. 157 УПК РФ. Рассмотрены причины, на основании которых законодатель уменьшил полномочия оперативных подразделений ФСИН России как органа дознания. Рассмотрены актуальность применения ст. 157 УПК РФ в части возбуждения уголовных дел и проведения по ним неотложных следственных действий, а также роль начальников органов и учреждений УИС в их проведении. На основании рассмотренных проблем подведен итог о нечеткой регламентации процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений ФСИН России в уголовно-процессуальном законе и подзаконных актах на стадии возбуждения уголовного дела. The article deals with the actual problems of implementation of the criminal procedure powers of the criminal procedure authorities and institutions at the stage of criminal proceedings. In particular, we consider the problem and the definition of the competence of bodies of inquiry and preliminary investigation under code of criminal procedure. The volume of criminal procedure rights and obligations of operational divisions of the criminal investigation department in the system of other bodies of inquiry and investigation is studied. The analysis of the procedure for decision-making by authorized officials of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia when checking reports of crimes is carried out. The reasons why the legislator reduced the powers of operational divisions of the Federal penitentiary service of Russia as a body of inquiry are considered. The relevance of the application of article 157 of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation in terms of criminal cases and conducting urgent investigative actions on them, as well as the role of the heads of criminal investigation bodies and institutions in their conduct, were reviewed. Based on the problems discussed, the author summarizes the lack of regulation of the procedural powers of the Federal Penitentiary Service bodies and institutions in the criminal procedure law and by-laws at the stage of initiation of a criminal case.


2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (82) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Inese Baikovska

It is presumed that no appeal may lie from a judgment that has already entered into legal force and such a judgment is regarded as final in a case, criminal proceedings may still be reopened under certain legal circumstances, which are called newly discovered. This is how the right of persons involved in criminal proceedings to a fair trial and a fair final judgment is ensured.The goal of this article is to examine circumstances that can be recognised as newly discovered and serve as grounds for the reopening of criminal proceedings, identify problems related to legal framework and find a legally sound solution. The tasks of this article are to investigate provisions applied to newly discovered circumstances as defined by the Criminal Procedure Law. As a result of the research, the author has concluded that the Latvian legislation governing criminal procedure with respect to the definition of newly discovered circumstances is deficient; therefore, suggestions are provided for the improvement of the existing legal framework. The research is based on the analysis of legislation, judgments of courts, conclusions and separate opinions of judges.


Author(s):  
Y. Voitovych

The article considers the peculiarities of the legislative regulation of the institution of judicial control in the criminal process of Ukraine. The authors who paid attention to the research of this institute of criminal procedural legislation, the purpose of the research are determined. In particular, as a result, the definition of judicial control as an independent institution of procedural law has been clarified, taking into account both recent changes in procedural legislation and taking into account current changes. It is pointed out the imperfection of certain terms of the procedural law, which, among other things, affect the content of the institution of judicial control. The inconsistency of the content of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with the principles that preceded its adoption was emphasized. A gap in the procedural law has been identified, which consists in the lack of regulation of the actions of officials of the prosecution in the event of a court decision such as returning the indictment to the prosecutor as not meeting the requirements of the law. A comparative analysis of the criminal procedural norms that regulated the institution of additional investigation during the CPC of the USSR, with the rules that give the court the right to return the indictment to the prosecutor as one that does not meet the requirements of the law. The procedural powers of the investigating judge outside the stage of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings have been defined, and their inadequacy to restore the constitutional rights of a person, which could potentially be violated, has been criticized. The constitutional prescriptions that define human and civil rights are analyzed, their implementation is assessed in terms of the problem covered; It is concluded that the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law do not comply with the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular, attention is focused on the possibility of restricting the constitutional rights of a person in the absence of an effective mechanism for their renewal. The conclusion was made on the basis of the analysis of constitutional norms and doctrine of law with regard to the definition of justice. Certain provisions of the law have been criticized, and suggestions for their improvement have been made. As a result, it is proposed to define judicial control as a direct verification by an investigating judge of the legality and validity of decisions, actions or omissions of the prosecution and other state bodies in criminal proceedings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document