scholarly journals Modernization of Bail as a Component of Criminal Procedure Restraint in Russia and Abroad

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 466-475
Author(s):  
Alsu Petrukhina ◽  
Vera Popova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Model ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

Measures of criminal procedure compulsion should, in the first place, ensure the enforcement of criminal procedure on a criminal case, i.e. prevent the suspect or the accused person from going into hiding, committing a new crime, continuing criminal activities, influencing in any way other participants of the criminal process or the proceedings. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation foresees bail as one of preventive measure alternative to detention. Bail is not often used in the Russian Federation. According to statistical data from the Court Department of the Supreme Court for the last five years, the number of bails in Russia is negligibly small compared to other preventive measures. On April 18, 2018, the federal law № 72-ФЗ was enacted to change this situation; it did not only introduce changes in the existing preventive measures, but added a new measure prohibiting the performance of certain actions. Such a component of the restriction measure under consideration as the object of bail was examined for the first time in the light of a radical renewal of the existing legal model through the development of an alternative, principally new concept based on the economic interests of the subject of criminal procedure relations which borrowed its key features from the institutes of civil and financial law. It is difficult to notice the impact of this improvement in practice. When bail was chosen as a restrictive measure, the number of cases not only stayed at the same level, but even went down. Due to this, it is relevant to research an opportunity of combining bail with the preventive measure of prohibiting certain actions. A comprehensive research of bail in Russian and foreign law allowed the authors to formulate recommendations on possible improvements in the mechanism of legal regulation of bail in modern criminal court procedure. It is suggested that a number of gaps in legislation should be bridged, specifically, the list of goals of bail included in the law should be changed and the existing goal of preventing new crimes should be supplemented by the following phrase: «Preventing the accused (the suspect) from continuing the crime that began earlier or committing a new crime». It is also suggested that Part 2.1 should be introduced in Art. 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which will make it possible to use bail to compensate for the material damage inflicted by the crime in case of a guilty verdict. The authors believe that it is necessary to improve the effectiveness of such a preventive measure as bail in the Russian Federation, thus reducing the number of cases when incarceration was chosen as a restriction measure for crimes of small and medium gravity.

House arrest in the system of procedural preventive measures against minors (in genesis)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-139
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Tuchina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation

To implement the norms of international law into the practice of Russian legal system while choosing a preventive measure against an accused minor or a suspect, to decide on the most humane preventive measure is the issue of great importance. This position is reflected in Art. 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code providing the fundamental foundations of criminal procedure provisions concerning preventive measures against minors. When making a decision on restraint measures related to isolation from society, the possibility of applying an alternative, more humane preventive measure should be taken into account. The article describes the ratio of house arrest to detention. It has been justified that in the system of preventive measures house arrest should be recognized as a measure not related to isolation from society, and as a more common alternative to detention. The legislator periodically attempts to improve the procedural situation of minors involved in criminal procedure. Problems are connected with unstructured placement of norms regarding juvenile suspects and accused in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Secondly, it is linked with the absence of features of house arrest of minors. All this makes the author state that despite the large-scale judicial and legal reform, the legal regulation of preventive measures against minors needs to be further improved. The subject of the study is a scientific analysis of the sources of criminal procedure legislation on the legal regulation of house arrest in the system of preventive measures against minors. The purpose of the study is to provide scientific analysis of the features of house arrest applied to minors and to form an author’s position on this issue. Research methods cover systemic analysis, structural, logical, and comparative scientific methods. The results achieved are the analysis of the system of preventive measures against minors with the identification of the specifics of house arrest, the recognition of this measure as a preventive means not related to isolation from society, and the formation of the author’s version of the norm of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation governing this preventive step.

scholarly journals Criminal Procedure Code of Russia: Twenty Years Later (2001–2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

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.

scholarly journals The problematic issues of the participation of the prosecutor in the consideration by the court of the petition of the investigator to elect a preventive measure

2019 ◽  
pp. 247-250
Author(s):  
Ol'ga A. Teterina ◽  
Andrey A. Metyolkin ◽  
Kristina A. Ivanova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to a detailed study of the participation of the prosecutor in the court’s consideration of the investigator’s petition on the choice of preventive measures. The article analyses the positions of scientists and practitioners on this issue. Based on the analysis of legal literature and Russian criminal procedural legislation, the authors assessed the role of the prosecutor and identifi ed the problems of his participation in the court’s consideration of the investigator’s petitions on the choice of a preventive measure. It is especially noted that a dispute between the prosecutor and the investigator is unacceptable when the court considers the investigator's petition. The authors propose to return to the prosecutor the right to give consent to the investigator to initiate a relevant petition before the court, and also to make the prosecutor’s refusal to support the petition mandatory for the court. The article also formulates the amendments that are proposed to be made to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals International Standards of Preventive Measures and Their Implementations in the Legislation of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-630
Author(s):  
Dmitrii Ivanov ◽  
Michail Kulikov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Selection Of

The goal of this research is to identify problems arising during the implementation of international standards for the selection of preventive measures into Russian criminal procedure legislation. The authors specify the concept of international standards of criminal court proceedings, present the specific features of their incorporation into constitutional norms as well as rules in different branches of law. The importance of preventive measures in the general mechanism of legal regulation is shown. The authors prove the necessity of systemic changes in the part of Russian legislation that deals with the legal regulation of preventive measures with the purpose of creating an integrated mechanism of criminal prosecution and protection against it. Key findings of research include: 1) Russian criminal proceedings, including its part regulating the selection of preventive measures, should fully correspond to international standards; 2) international standards are implemented in Russian criminal procedure legislation both indirectly, though constitutional clauses, and directly, through the improvements in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; 3) preventive measures should only be selected if there are sufficient grounds for them, and these grounds are not the at the discretion of officials involved in criminal proceedings, they are real evidence in the materials of a criminal case that is necessary and sufficient for selecting a specific measure from the measures included in the law; 4) circumstances that are taken into consideration when selecting a preventive measure, if they potentially provide for a stricter measure from their general list, should be explicitly laid down in the law, and contrary to this, the list of circumstances that could improve the position of a person is not exhaustive; 5) to give a person an opportunity to defend their position, the possibility of selecting the preventive measure of detention is only feasible for the accused, and should be excluded for the suspect; 6) since the proper behavior of a person, from the position of the prosecution, is to give testimony that proves their involvement in a crime, the corresponding indication that this is necessary to ensure such behavior should be removed from the law when selecting the preventive measure of recognizance not to leave; 7) the supervision of the command staff of a military base over military personnel should not be substituted with an actual deprivation or limitation of the freedom of movement within the territory of the base; 8) when there are no grounds for selecting detention, the court should have a possibility to select any other preventive measure from those included in the law. From the methodological standpoint, this research is an analysis of international normative legal acts and generally recognized principles and norms of international law regulating preventive measures as well as the problems of their implementation in Russian criminal proceedings. The following methods were used: comparative legal, historic legal, sociological, interpretation of law norms, a number of logical methods. The obtained data was used to formulate key conclusions, which made it possible to correctly use a number of terms, and determine the necessity of a systemic improvement of Russian legislation through the introduction of mechanisms that ensure the rights, liberties and lawful interests of a person when selecting a preventive measure.

Features of the election of such preventive measure as house arrest in relation to minors

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Manohina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

In the article, the author turns to the study of the peculiarities of choosing such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Due to the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not precisely define cases when a court must elect a house arrest in relation to minors, in practice there are often difficulties in which cases to choose such a preventive measure as detention, and in which house arrest. In the work, the author attempts to determine the essence of such a preventive measure as house arrest and the peculiarities of his election in relation to minors, and also considers the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which minors cannot be subjected. The positions contained in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the practice of the application by the courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest and bail” are analyzed. The author expresses the opinion that it is inadvisable to choose such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Based on the study, the author makes recommendations on the possibility, at the discretion of the court, to make adjustments to the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which a minor suspect or accused will be subjected to whom such a preventive measure as house arrest is chosen.

Ensuring the Rights and Legal Interests of the Victim when Checking the Crime Report: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the Criminal Procedure Codes of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China

2021 ◽  
pp. 128-133
Author(s):  
Irina G. Smirnova ◽  
◽  
Ekaterina V. Alekseeva ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedure Codes

The article presents a comparative legal analysis of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the People’s Republic of China, which regulate the rights and powers of the victim within the framework of the stage of initiating a criminal case. The authors highlight several significant differences in the legal regulation of this issue. The differences are: the obligation to comply with the rules of jurisdiction in China at the stage of filing a statement of a crime, which is not required under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; compulsory fingerprinting of a person when filing a crime report with a public security agency implemented in China; the existence of several types of preliminary checks (the list of activities carried out as part of these checks in China is open); intensive development of IT technologies and their introduction into the life of society, including for the fight against crime and ensuring law and order in society, in China.

ELECTRONIC CRIME INCIDENT REPORT AS A REASON TO INITIATE A CRIMINAL CASE (THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL REGULATION IN THE NORMATIVE ACTS OF THE RUSSIAN MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS AND THE RF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE)

2021 ◽  
pp. 44-50
Author(s):  
P. A. Samoylov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Electronic Interaction ◽  
Incident Report ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Internal Affairs ◽  
Electronic Crime ◽  
Crime Reports

The integration and active application of electronic document flow to the daily activities of the police have consistently and logically led to the fact that the electronic crime incident report is increasingly used as a reason to initiate criminal cases. The departmental normative legal acts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia regulate in detail the processing of such reports. However, under the RF Criminal Procedure Code, not all electronic crime reports registered by the Departments of Internal Affairs meet the established requirements, and, accordingly, they can not perform the function of a criminal procedural cause. In this situation, with the obvious relevance of electronic documents, an example of a contradiction and gap in the law is evident, which somewhat hinders the development of electronic interaction between the participants of criminal procedural activity and can cause negative consequences. The paper analyzes and compares the provisions of some normative sources regulating the reception and consideration of electronic crime reports by the Departments of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation and the norms of criminal procedural legislation. The author critically evaluates the legal definitions of the concept of a crime incident report and some organizational and legal mechanisms for accepting and considering electronic crime reports established by the departmental legal acts of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. The study highlights and clarifies the rules of filing, mandatory requisites, and some other requirements for electronic crime reports, which must be complied with according to the provisions of the criminal procedure code. Based on the data obtained, the author offers recommendations to improve criminal procedural law and the algorithm of accepting electronic crime reports using the official websites of the Departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation.

SHORTENED TIMELINE OF APPEAL AGAINST INTERIM COURT DECISIONS MADE AT A PRE-TRIAL STAGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 38-49
Author(s):  
Polina O. Gertsen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Medical Organization ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

The article deals with the problem of classifying interim decisions among those that are appealed in a shortened timeline, and determining the list of such decisions, as well as the closely related problem of determining the rules for calculating such a shortened timeline. Currently, the Criminal Procedure law provides for the possibility of appealing a number of interim decisions made at a pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings before the final decision Moreover, for appealing some interim decisions at a pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, a general period of appeal is provided - 10 days from the date of the court decision, or the same period from the date of serving with a copy of the decision the person who is in custody, while for others a shortened timeline is 3 days from the date of the decision. Meanwhile, it follows from the literal interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation that within a shortened three-day period, court decisions on the election of preventive measures in the form of a ban on certain actions, bail, house arrest, detention, the refusal to apply them or extend their application can be appealed. At the same time, such a conclusion is not confirmed either in the positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation or in judicial practice. Based on the analysis of the criminal procedure law, the position of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts of the Russian Federation, scientific literature and practice, several problems are highlighted. Thus, the author states the discrepancy between the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation when it comes to establishing the terms for appealing the court decision on a preventive measure in the form of bail. In addition, there is no single criterion for establishing shortened deadlines for appealing interim decisions, and there-fore, the list of such decisions requires analysis. In addition, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not contain a norm that determines the rules for calculating daily terms. The author formulates several proposals for amendments. It is proposed to determine the criteria for a shortened appeal timeline as the restriction of the constitutional right to liberty and immunity of a person that requires the immediate judicial review of the lawfulness of such a decision. It is also necessary to correct the phrasing of Article 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which defines the procedure for applying a preventive measure in the form of bail, and establish the rule that appeal against such an interim court decision is filed according to the rules of Chapter 45.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code within ten days. The list of court decisions which must be appealed in a shortened timeline must be expanded by a court decision on putting a suspect or an accused into a medical organization providing medical or psychiatric care in hospital settings for forensic examination, as well as the extension of a person’s stay in a medical organization. In addition, the author has analyzed the approaches to the calculation of daily terms and proposes to amend Part 1 of Article 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by establishing a single procedure for calculating daily terms, which does not take into account the day that served as a starting point of the term.

Improvement of criminal-procedural legislation, regulating the activities of employees, establishments and bodies of the penal system

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Александр Борисович Диваев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Penal System ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной статье рассмотрен ряд вопросов совершенствования регламентации процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы Российской Федерации. Высказаны предложения по модернизации ряда норм, устанавливающих статус органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы и их должностных лиц как органов дознания. Рассмотрен круг проблем, связанных с более четким процессуальным регулированием механизма исполнения меры пресечения в виде домашнего ареста. Даны предложения по внесению изменения в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство, которые должны содействовать более эффективной реализации полномочий по контролю за арестованными со стороны уголовно-исполнительных инспекций. Сформулировано предложение по устранению терминологической неточности, допущенной в ст. 397 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации. The article deals with a number of issues of improving the regulation of procedural powers of bodies and institutions of the penal system of the Russian Federation. In particular the proposals for the modernization of a number of rules establishing the status of the bodies and institutions of penal system, and their officials, as criminal investigation bodies. In addition, the range of problems associated with a more precise procedural regulation of the mechanism of execution of preventive measures in the form of house arrest. In this regard, proposals were made to amend the criminal procedure legislation, which should contribute to a more effective implementation of the powers to control arrested persons by the penal inspections. In conclusion, a proposal to eliminate the terminological inaccuracy in article 397 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation is formulated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document