scholarly journals Promotion of Justice as an Independent Criminal Procedure Function

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (6) ◽  
pp. 786-796
Author(s):  
Vadim Latypov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
History Of ◽  
High Level ◽  
Correct Understanding ◽  
Procedural Decisions

The article proves the necessity of involving the persons assisting the parties and the Court into criminal proceedings. The author analyzes the promotion of justice as an independent criminal procedure function under Chapter 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which is carried out by both the participants of criminal proceedings and by other subjects of criminal law relations who do not have an independent procedural status. The conducted social and legal analysis made it possible to state that the development of the idea of the rule of law requires individuals to obtain a correct understanding of the organization of the modern society, its development trends, and the necessity of acquiring due legal awareness. The understanding of legal awareness varied throughout the history of our state but what remained unchanged were the ideas that it can be influenced and that it determines the development of law and the law enforcement itself. Citizens with the due level of legal awareness are ready to promote justice, which testifies to their high level of social development, a desire to be involved in law enforcement work, to bring justice and ensure legality of procedural decisions. The author shows that criminal proceedings in Russia require facilitation, but the majority of people are not ready to provide it for a number of reasons, which proves the need for a detailed analysis of promoting justice in the modern Russian criminal process. The conducted research stresses the theoretical and practical inadequacy of the three-part system of criminal procedure functions enshrined in the current Russian criminal procedure legislation. The author examines the possibility of singling out the promotion of justice as an independent criminal procedure institute necessary for making lawful, well-grounded and comprehensive procedural decisions by officials and state bodies. The author concludes that it is necessary to introduce changes in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federations which will foresee the possibility of renaming Chapter 8 of the Code. Besides, having analyzed the concept of «justice», the author presents his position of what should be understood as the promotion of justice.

scholarly journals TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CONCEPT «PROCEDURAL COSTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS»

Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Procedural Costs ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 5

The article is devoted to the issues of formulating the definition of such a criminal procedural concept as «procedural costs». Emphasizing the importance both for science and for law enforcement of clarity and clarity when formulating the definition of criminal procedural concepts, the authors point out that the formulation of this concept present in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is far from being improved. Having studied the opinions on this issue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a number of procedural scholars, the authors propose their own version of the definition of the concept of «criminal procedural costs» with its allocation in a separate paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Specifics of some anti-corruption measures in Russia within the framework of public and state security

2020 ◽  
pp. 541-547
Author(s):  
Tatyana Plotnikova ◽  
Andrey Paramonov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
State Security ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Russian Federation

In the current difficult conditions for the economy of our state, corruption crimes represent a higher level of danger. It is necessary to reform anti-corruption activities in order to increase its effectiveness. One of the radical measures in the field of anti-corruption will be the abolition of the presumption of innocence for corrupt illegal acts. The presumption of inno-cence is a fundamental and irremovable principle of criminal law, which is enshrined in article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Violation of this principle is impossible for criminal proceedings, but modern circumstances require timely, prompt, and sometimes radical so-lutions. It is worth not to neglect the measures of “insuring” on the part of law enforcement agencies, since otherwise it will increase the share of cor-ruption crimes in law enforcement agencies. The content of paragraph 4 of article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is man-datory even if the presumption of innocence for corruption crimes is can-celed: “A conviction cannot be based on assumptions”. At the same time, the principle of differentiation of punishment will be implemented by assigning the term of imprisonment from the minimum to the maximum, depending on the severity of the illegal act.

scholarly journals Practical Application of the Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Regarding the Measure of Preventive Arrest

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Nicolae Silviu Pana ◽  
Ana Maria Pana
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code

Preventive measures are coercive criminal law enforcement institutions, aimed at the deprivation or restriction of individual liberty, by which the suspect or defendant is prevented from undertaking certain activities that would adversely affect the conduct of the criminal proceedings or the achievement of its purpose. They have been instituted by the legislator for specific purposes, namely: to ensure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, to prevent the abstraction of the suspect or defendant from trial and to prevent the commission of new offenses (art. 202 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Preventive measures are not inherent in any ongoing criminal trial, but are exceptional measures (art. 9 para. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and the court can decide to sease the measure or make use of the measure in the light of the specific circumstances of each case. Of the five preventive measures, three are deprivation of liberty - detention, house arrest and pre-trial detention, and two are non-custodial: judicial control and judicial control on bail. All these measures are only applicable to the natural person. Specific preventive measures may be taken against legal persons, but those are regulated by the provisions of art. 493 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Specific Features of Criminal Proceeding Regarding Criminal Misdemeanours

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viacheslav V Vapniarchuk ◽  
Inna L Bespalko ◽  
Maryna G Motoryhina
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Scientific Investigation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Proper Understanding ◽  
Basic Approach ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Court Proceedings

Abstract The urgency of the problem stated in the article is conditioned by amendments to the criminal procedural legislation, which in a new way regulate the procedure of criminal proceedings concerning criminal offences. The aim of the article is to investigate the procedure for conducting criminal proceedings for criminal offences and to make suggestions for improving its regulatory framework. The basic approach to the study of this problem was to conduct a critical analysis of the rules of the current criminal procedural legislation, which regulate criminal proceedings for criminal offences, and to express views on rules’ proper understanding and application. Based on the analysis of the features of the normative regulation of criminal proceedings concerning criminal offences, the publication comments on a number of norms of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate both pre-trial investigation of criminal offences in the form of enquiries and court proceedings against them; approaches to their elimination have been proposed. The materials of the article represent both theoretical and practical values. They can be used for further scientific investigation of the features of criminal proceedings regarding criminal offences, as well as for the proper understanding and implementation of law enforcement criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals The essence and problems of substantiating certain types of decisions in criminal proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 136 (3) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
V.V. Djafarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Mandatory Requirement ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Procedural Decisions

The article considers problems of substantiating certain types of decisions in the criminal process. The author’s views are based on recent changes in the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the existing experience of the Russian Federation. The article focuses on provisions of the current criminal procedure code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The author refers to Russian proceduralists whose works are devoted to the problems of studying the validity of procedural decisions at the pre-trial stage. The author indicated types of decisions, which are not recognized as criminal procedural, but for which justification should be a mandatory criterion according to the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The article provisions justify the need to enshrine the definition of «reasonableness» in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a mandatory requirement that must be met when taking decisions by the prosecuting authorities.

Basic principles of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ihor Rohatiuk
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Times

Principles have always been the cornerstones of criminal proceedings’ legal regulation affecting all participants of criminal process. Taking into account the accelerated pace of current law enforcement reforming it is necessary to mention the prosecution institute and key role of criminal proceedings’ principles presenting scientific background for further empirical findings. The majority of these principles defines the priority growth directions of criminal process as well as creates friendly environment for behavioral aspects of criminal proceeding parties. This article provides comparative analysis of the existing criminal procedural principles of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal proceedings with specification of the legality principle as a requirement for all subjects of the criminal proceedings, including the prosecutor, to use the norms and provisions of legal acts correctly, to comply it consistently and perform accurately, explores the historical origins of these principles and their determinants’ origin starting from the times of Kievan Rus and its unique judicial system and proves that the adversarial principle is closely connected with dispositivity of prosecutor’s participation in criminal proceeding. An emphasis is placed on correlation between the ‘principles’ and ‘foundations’ terms examined by Ukrainian and Soviet scholars and its application in relation to the newly adopted Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

scholarly journals PERLINDUNGAN SAKSI DAN KORBAN DALAM PROSES PENEGAKAN HUKUM PIDANA

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Yudi Krismen
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Probative Value ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Matters

Speaking about victims and witnesses, we can not be separated rather than criminal proceedings. In the provision of Article 184 paragraph (1) letter a witnesses KUHAP positioned as "evidence" that major in criminal matters. So consequently, in every process of law enforcement if the witness does not meet the legitimate calls from investigators, prosecutors until trial, the investigator, the prosecutor can conduct a forced effort to pick up the forced witnesses. Because, criminal proceedings are still bound by doctrine in introdusir Criminal Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code where the witness in the formulation of concentrating on "no probative value". However, with the enactment of Law No. 13 of 2006 on Protection of Witnesses and Victims, is expected to address issues of law against prolonged witnesses and victims in criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals Problems of Using Special Knowledge in Criminal Proceedings and Ways to Solve Them

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 106-110
Author(s):  
O Yu Antonov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Improvement Of Legislation

In article actual problems of using of the conclusions and evidence of specialist parties and the court, appointment of judicial examination before initiation of criminal case, including problems realization of related innovations of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; the proposals on improvement of legislation, law enforcement practice.

scholarly journals APPLICATION BY THE PROSECUTOR OF TEMPORARY ACCESS TO THINGS AND DOCUMENTS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CHARGE FUNCTION

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-142
Author(s):  
Iryna Sukhachova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Effective Means ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Individual Treatment ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to one of the effective means of obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings – temporary access to things and documents, the legal regulation of which is defined in Chapter 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Attention is drawn to a number of problematic issues related to the prosecutor's use of temporary access to things and documents in the exercise of the function of prosecution, the presence of which does not ensure the effectiveness of criminal procedural evidence and the effectiveness of this institution in criminal proceedings. According to the results of the study, the author concludes that the use of temporary units to temporarily access things and documents on the basis of a prosecutor's order makes it impossible to recognize the results of such action as evidence in criminal proceedings, as they do not meet the admissibility requirement. Prosecutorial oversight in criminal proceedings should not only ensure the inevitability of criminal punishment, but also ensure proper respect for human rights in criminal proceedings, respect for the individual, treatment as a person whose guilt has not yet been proven, and ensure impartiality and objectivity of the pre-trial investigation. Based on the results of the analysis of the decisions made by the investigating judge based on the results of consideration of the petitions, the author identified the grounds for the prosecutor's refusal to satisfy these petitions by the investigating judges. It is proposed to expand the procedural powers of the prosecutor as a subject of criminal procedural evidence, giving him the right to instruct operational units to conduct not only investigative (investigative) and covert investigative (investigative) actions, but also other procedural actions. Thus, taking into account the results of the analysis of scientific literature and materials of law enforcement practice, we can conclude that it is necessary to expand the procedural powers of the prosecutor as a subject of criminal procedural evidence by stating paragraph 5 Рart 2 of Art. 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the following wording: «to instruct the investigative (search) actions and covert investigative (search) actions or other procedural actions to the relevant operational units», as well as the need to supplement Part 1 of Art. 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine by the authority of operational units to carry out other procedural actions on behalf of the prosecutor.

scholarly journals On the improvement of work management in authorities of the prosecutor's office on consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings against actions (or inaction) and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Popov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Single Instance ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Work Management

This article raises the questions on the improvement of work management in the prosecutorial branches on consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings against actions (or inaction) and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor. Analysis is conducted on the existing in the prosecutor’s office procedure of pretrial dispute, which legislative consolidation is associated with usage of the term “superior prosecutor”. The subject of this research is the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, executive documents of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation and prosecutor's offices of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, as well as scientific literature on the topic at hand. The conclusion is made that the current legislation and the established law enforcement practice assume on the recurrent appeal on the same instance of violation of law within a single prosecutorial branch, and thus do not effectively protect the rights and legitimate interests of the parties involved in the criminal procedure sphere. For this reason, the author makes recommendations on the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation aimed at adjustment of the procedure of consideration of complaints of the parties to criminal proceedings, which would ensure their resolution within the framework of a single prosecutorial branch in a single instance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document