scholarly journals Detention and Remand in Custody: Comparative Legal Analysis

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.

2021 ◽  
pp. 128-133
Author(s):  
Irina G. Smirnova ◽  
◽  
Ekaterina V. Alekseeva ◽  
◽  

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.


Author(s):  
Oleg Kozhevnikov

Almost three decades have passed since the appearance of the Law of the Russian Federation from 06.07.1991 No. 1550-1 «On local self-government in the Russian Federation». Over the past historical stage, the regulatory framework of local self-government and its bodies has significantly transformed: this applies to the concept of local self-government, territorial and organizational foundations, and of course the legal status of individual local self-government bodies. This article provides a comparative legal analysis of certain provisions of Federal law No. 131-FZ of 06.102.2003 «On General principles of local self-government organization in the Russian Federation» and Federal law No. 6-FZ of 07.02.2011 «On General principles of organization and activity of control and accounting bodies of subjects of the Russian Federation and municipalities» in the part concerning control and accounting bodies of municipalities. Based on the results of this analysis, significant contradictions were identified in the basic Federal normative legal acts regulating the legal status of the control and accounting body of a municipality, which need to be corrected by the Federal legislator in order to increase the level of unity and consistency in the legal regulation of the status of one of the most important bodies in the system of local self-government-the control and accounting body of a municipality.


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.


Author(s):  
Nikolai Shurukhnov ◽  
Iraida Smolkova

In the process of investigative actions, especially non-verbal ones, the search, finding, registering, study of traces and material evidence are of paramount importance. According to rules of the criminal procedure legislation, work with such objects makes it possible to carry out proofing in order to establish the circumstances included in Art. 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The effectiveness of collecting evidence depends on the use of special knowledge, technical devices, information-telecommunication technologies, and training of the persons involved in investigating actions. Based on this, the object of the article is a comparative legal analysis of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Statute of Criminal Procedure of 1864, and the legal positions of scholars with the purpose of determining whether an investigator possesses any special knowledge, how he acquires that knowledge, and if he is able of using it during the procedural action. The article presents the contents of some norms of the Statute of Criminal Procedure, which considered the court investigator to be the subject of applying special knowledge and demonstrated practical situations in which it was used. Considerable attention is paid to how an investigator acquires special knowledge through the study of criminalistics as a special legal theory in the educational institution of the corresponding sphere (it is noted that 76 % of investigators have higher or special secondary education). A systemic improvement of the qualification of investigators, their specialization on investigating specific types of crimes, their experience are named as sources of special knowledge. The author describes four conditions of the effective use of special knowledge by the investigator himself. It is concluded that, due to the professional university training and the experience in investigating, the investigator acts as a subject of special knowledge and, according to his legal status, should use it for proofing. According to the author, this conclusion follows from the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and stimulates the effectiveness of the investigators work on collecting, verifying, evaluating and using evidence in the process of crime investigation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 116-120
Author(s):  
M.A. Mityukova ◽  
◽  
N.A. Shishkina ◽  

The lack of sufficient legal regulation of criminal procedural activity at the stage of initiating a criminal case causes the constant appeal of theorists and practitioners to the study of this stage. At the same time, the legislator has not yet made the necessary changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. This study analyzes the methods of verifying reports of a crime, in particular, the problems of proper process fixing of received objects and documents when using such methods of collecting evidence as reclamation and presentation. Based on the analysis of theoretical provisions and investigative practice, problems are posed and conclusions are drawn about the need to fix the possibility of seizure in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when checking a crime report. The issues of the legal status of participants in the stage of initiating a criminal case at the stage of receiving and registering reports of a crime, during the production of investigative actions are also studied. Conclusions are drawn about the need to make changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation aimed at consolidating the legal status of the applicant, the victim, eyewitnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-166
Author(s):  
Vyacheslav V. Nikolyuk ◽  
◽  
Elena V. Markovicheva

Introduction. In the Russian criminal process, criminal proceedings against minors have historically taken shape as a complicated procedure. Twenty years of operation of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation have shown sufficient efficiency of legal regulation of criminal procedural relations having to do with the investigation and consideration of this category of criminal cases. But in the process of law enforcement, a number of problems were identified that required resolution through the adjustment of the current criminal procedure law. This article is devoted to the analysis of the most significant changes in the normative regulation of criminal proceedings against minors during the period of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. A critical understanding of the process of transformation of the relevant norms will contribute to the development of an updated regulatory model of criminal justice involving minors. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The theoretical basis of the study consisted of both Russian and foreign scientific works in the field of criminal procedural law, specifically those devoted to both complicated proceedings in general and the specifics of juvenile criminal proceedings. The use of a formal legal research method allowed us to identify patterns in the transformation of criminal proceedings against minors. Results. The article reveals the most significant transformations of the normative regulation of criminal proceedings against minors. Some changes and additions made to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation during the period of its validity are analysed. Further, he main directions for further scientific discussion on the legal regulation of criminal procedure relations with the participation of minors are outlined. Discussion and Conclusion. Although criminal proceedings against minors show sufficient efficiency and compliance with international law, there is a need to systematise the criminal procedural norms governing the participation in criminal proceedings of all minors, regardless of their procedural status. The authors propose, within the framework of the updated criminal procedure law, to systematically consolidate the norms governing the legal status of not only the underage defendants, but also the juvenile victims and witnesses.


2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 179-188
Author(s):  
I. N. Chebotareva

The article is devoted to changes analysis made in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation by the Federal law No. 73-FZ of April 17, 2017 regarding strengthening of lawyer legal status in criminal legal proceedings. Additional guarantees of lawyer’s independence rendering qualified legal aid in criminal legal proceedings brought by this law are revised. It is possible to call this law "lawyer law" because it is devoted to questions of legal regulation improvement of lawyer’s status in criminal legal proceedings. And in fact is a reduction of existing Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in compliance with legal positions created by earlier Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. On the basis of changes analysis of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation conclusions on strengthening of guarantees of lawyer independence rendering legal aid in criminal legal proceedings and some critical remarks on the matter are stated. Three blocks of questions which cover changes are allocated: the introduction of the defender in criminal case, lawyer secret, and participation of the defender in proof. Changes concern the following questions: formal obstacles for the defender introduction in criminal trial are eliminated; interrogation of the lawyer is possible only according to the petition of protection side; the person called for questioning which isn't subject to interrogation doesn't acquire the status of witness; search, survey and dredging concerning the lawyer can be carried out only under the judgment at observance of established guarantees; additional guarantees in petition satisfaction declared by the lawyer are established; procedural funds of use of expert help are deposited by the defender.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 362-367
Author(s):  
N.V. Mashinskaya ◽  

The problem of legislative regulation of the procedure for reconciliation of the victim with the suspected, the accused until a certain time was only a subject of discussion in the scientific literature. At the same time the state’s need to find measures that can eliminate the consequences of crimes without the use of ordinary criminal procedures has actualized the work on introducing alternative methods of settling the criminal-legal conflict into criminal proceedings. Given the urgent need to apply this procedure in practice, the Interregional Public Center “Judicial and Legal Reform” has developed and posted on its website a draft federal law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation to Provide the Victim, Suspect, and Accused with the Possibility of Reconciliation.” To implement the procedure for reconciliation in criminal proceedings, the drafters of the bill propose to include a new chapter in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). The author of the article critically evaluates the attempt due to the inconsistency of a number of novels, their uncertainty and inconsistency with the norms of the criminal procedure law. To eliminate the existing shortcomings, it is proposed to provide a separate article defining the procedural status of the conciliator and to include the specified rule in Ch. 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. As a guarantee of the right of the victim, suspect, accused to reconciliation, the introduction of an appropriate addition to the criminal procedure norms governing the legal status of the named participants in criminal proceedings is considered.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document