scholarly journals Formation of Real Legal Regulationin the Practice 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.

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-150
Author(s):  
Iryna Hloviuk ◽  

Current period of development of the legal system of Ukraine is characterized by variability of legislation that regulates, in particular, organization of judicial system and implementation of criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, criminal procedure legislation is no exception, given how many changes and additions have been made to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine since its entry into force in 2020. Undoubtedly, like any other codified legal act, CPC of Ukraine in modern conditions cannot be unchanged, given the dynamics of public relations, the provisions of international law, decisions of ECtHR and number of attempts to solve identified problems of its application. Difficulties of criminal procedural law enforcement are manifested in such an area as the use of discretion of authorities in criminal proceedings, although without it application of legislation is ineffective. At the same time, lawful discretion in criminal proceedings should not turn into its opposite � arbitrariness, which will already violate rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities. In criminal proceedings, given the imperative method of legal regulation and possibility of various coercive measures, including those related to the restriction of constitutional human rights, this issue is of particular importance, given, inter alia, that prosecution�s discretion applies within non-adversarial procedure, and the CPC of Ukraine does not always provide for the possibility of appealing such decisions in court. The peer-reviewed monograph consists of four chapters, which contain 10 sections. Structuring of the monograph is logical; the author analyse problems of discretion from questions of concept, signs and limits of discretion, and then moves to the characteristic of realization of discretion by judge, prosecutor, investigator, detective. In general, without a doubt, the monograph of Torbas O. O. �Discretion in the criminal process of Ukraine: theoretical justification and practice of implementation� is relevant, complete and fundamental scientific work, has scientific and practical value. Monograph of Torbas O.O. significantly enriches criminal procedure doctrine regarding the subjects of criminal proceedings, criminal procedure decisions and other areas.


2021 ◽  
pp. 226-237
Author(s):  
A. A. Muhitdinov

At the present stage of development of the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, many legal institutions that have a long history of doctrinal development have received normative consolidation. Among them is the institution of participants leading the criminal process at the stage of pre-trial investigation. In the history of Uzbekistan, the activities of these subjects of the criminal process were regulated by numerous normative legal acts, including codified ones. The first Criminal Procedure Code of the Uzbek SSR was adopted in 1926. Soon the Uzbek SSR Criminal Procedure Code of 1929 entered into force. In comparative legal terms, the latter was significantly inferior to the previous one in terms of the degree of detail in the regulation of criminal procedural relations with the participation of pre-trial investigation bodies. Analysis of the content of the legal norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1929, regulating the activities of these bodies, allows us to identify features that, from the standpoint of the modern vision of the optimal model of the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan, are assessed as shortcomings in the legal regulation of the relevant public relations. As such, we can name the following: the CPC does not contain norms defining the sources of criminal procedural law; the code does not provide for a separate chapter devoted exclusively to investigative actions, a detailed description of their procedural form; there is no clear delineation of the competence of the bodies of inquiry and the investigator; the investigator is by law entrusted with supervisory functions that are not characteristic of him in relation to the bodies of inquiry; the Criminal Procedure Code does not include a norm prohibiting persons conducting a preliminary investigation from obtaining evidence by violence, threats, etc.; The Criminal Procedure Code determined the existence of sufficient data, and not evidence, as the basis for the accusation. After being charged, the person acquired the status of a defendant, not an accused; the application of preventive measures, including detention, was carried out by the investigator independently, without the sanction of the prosecutor, which testified to the absence of guarantees of the observance of the right to personal inviolability.


Author(s):  
Svetlana V. Verkhoturova ◽  
Oksana V. Pavlenko

This article examines the current theoretical and practical issues of criminal proceedings against minors in the light of recent changes in the criminal procedure legislation. The research was conducted using formal-logical and dialectic methods, as well as the comparative-legal method when analyzing criminal and legal proceedings against minors. The authors conclude that a number of existing criminal procedure norms regulating the preliminary investigation and consideration of criminal cases in court against minors do not meet international standards and require further improvement. This article draws attention to the procedural errors of investigators (inquirers) and judges that are allowed in the process of investigation and consideration of criminal cases in court in relation to minor suspects, accused persons, defendants. The lack of sufficient legal regulation in the criminal procedure law is called the main reason for the mistakes made in the criminal proceedings against minors. In order to solve the identified problems, the authors propose to make appropriate additions to the current criminal procedure law.


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.


Author(s):  
Yerbol Omarov ◽  
Adil Inkarbekov

Kazakhstan has adopted a policy of procedural economy, which is expressed in the acceleration of the pas-sage of criminal cases at all stages of the criminal process. The introduction of many new procedural institu-tions and forms of pre-trial investigation, the updating of criminal procedure legislation actualizes the issue of investigating the procedural status of the victim. The modern domestic criminal process should provide a balance between numerous novelties and procedural rules designed to ensure compliance with the principle of competition and equality of the parties to the prosecution and defense. In accordance with this principle, "the parties involved in criminal proceedings are equal, that is, they are given equal opportunities to defend their position in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the CPC. The authors have studied international documents regarding the regulation of the rights of victims in criminal proceedings. The victim is one of the Central figures in the criminal process, especially if it is a crime against the person, and must have broad rights to protect their interests. In this regard, the issue of choosing a preventive measure against a suspect (accused), taking into account the opinion of the victim, is of particular importance. The authors studied the opinions of scientists and practitioners on the issue under consideration, as well as the provisions of criminal procedure legislation regulating the rights and obliga-tions of the victim, the ratio of General and special norms. As a result, the authors concluded that it is necessary to grant the victim the right to Express his opinion on the use or non-use of coercive measures against the suspect. In the course of studying this issue, the authors applied methods of comparative analysis, deduction, forecasting, and others. On the basis of the research, appropriate recommendations were developed to improve the legal regulation of the rights of the victim in criminal proceedings of the Republic of Kazakhstan.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 320
Author(s):  
Hanafi Hanafi ◽  
Muhammad Syahrial Fitri ◽  
Fathan Ansori

Following the background, the problems in this study are, first, the mechanism for implementing procedural law in E-Court for criminal cases in Indonesia, secondly how E-Court accommodates the process of proof in criminal cases in Indonesia. The method used in this research is pure legal research, which refers to and bases on legal norms and principles, applicable laws and regulations, legal theories and doctrines, jurisprudence, and other literature that are relevant to the topic. The results of this study are, firstly, the mechanism for implementing E-Court procedural law is regulated in the Supreme Court Regulation 4/2020 on the Administration and Trial of Criminal Cases in Electronic Courts provides 2 (two) alternatives for conducting trials in criminal cases, namely Normal Courts and Electronic Courts. Such matters are not previously regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code or other procedural regulations. Second, concerning the process of proofing evidence in criminal cases in E-Court still follows the provisions of the normal criminal procedure law and has the same value or power of evidence as normal trials.


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.


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.


Russian judge ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 22-26
Author(s):  
Oksana Yu. Vatutina ◽  

This article examines the specifics of legal regulation of the procedural status of a specialist in the criminal procedure law of Russia. It is pointed out that the procedural status of a specialist is not sufficiently regulated in relation to the procedural status of an expert as participants in criminal proceedings. The author reveals the essential elements of the procedural status of a specialist as a person with special knowledge and its legal uncertainty. The article analyzes the constituent elements of the procedural status of a specialist, which include not only the rights and obligations of a specialist, but also guarantees of their implementation. The significance of the goals and objectives of the specialist’s participation in the criminal process as elements of its procedural status is revealed. The procedural function of a specialist is defined as the function of promoting justice. The article presents and analyzes the data of judicial practice on the issue of assessing the admissibility of the conclusion and testimony of a specialist as evidence in a criminal case, in the context of the implementation of elements of the procedural status, that is, in terms of competence, disinterest, responsibility of the specialist, goals and objectives of his participation in the process. The author reveals the ambiguity of judicial practice in the issue under study, as well as the tendency to deny the evidentiary value of the conclusion and testimony of a specialist, due to the lack of the necessary level of regulation of the procedural status of a specialist in the current legislation. The author defines the regulation of the procedural status of a specialist in the current legislation as an element of the procedural status itself, identifies its insufficiency, and formulates a thesis about the need for its proper regulatory regulation in modern 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".


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document