scholarly journals Ending of the inquiry in an abbreviated form with an indictment

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-82
Author(s):  
A. V. Shuvatkin

The ending of preliminary investigation is final stage of pre-trial criminal proceedings, consisting in the preparation of materials by the person conducting the preliminary investigation, and the transfer of these materials to the prosecutor. This article is devoted to topical issues of the ending the inquiry in an abbreviated form, in particular, the problematic issues related to the compilation of the indictment. The analysis made it possible to establish that the indictment is the procedural decision of the inquiry officer who completes the criminal prosecution when conducting the inquiry in an abbreviated form in which he, in the form of a state-imperious command, within the limits of his competence and in accordance with the criminal procedure law, on the basis of the factual data established in the case, gives answers to the legal questions arising in the case about the guilt of the person who committed the crime. In addition, significant shortcomings in the legal regulation of the procedure for ending an inquiry in an abbreviated form with the indictment have been identified, which are discussed in this article.

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.


Author(s):  
A.Yu. Epikhin ◽  
A.V. Mishin

Ensuring the safety of victims, witnesses in a criminal case allows to carry out the main objectives of criminal prosecution. Interrogation as one of the main investigative actions allows to record important information of evidentiary nature in the case. Currently, there is a sufficient number of proven forensic recommendations for tactics of interrogation of the victim, the witness in pre-judicial production. At the same time, interrogation of such participants of criminal proceedings under a pseudonym in preliminary investigation and, especially in court session, in terms of criminalistics is poorly studied. The article discusses problematic issues of the current state of the organization and tactics of interrogation under a pseudonym of the protected person in pre-judicial and judicial criminal case productions. The authors have proposed variable tactical solutions on production of interrogation of this type, practical recommendations for the persons conducting proceedings, as well as formulated proposals aimed at improving the effectiveness of the law enforcement of the criminal procedure law. The data of generalization of investigatory and judicial practice in the Republic of Tatarstan have been used.


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.


Legal Concept ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 131-139
Author(s):  
Natalia Solovyova ◽  
Altyn Ilyasova

Introduction: in the paper the authors reveal the essence of one of the causes for initiating a criminal case, the socalled fourth cause with the title “the prosecutor’s decision to send relevant materials to the preliminary investigation body to resolve the issue of criminal prosecution”; actual problems associated with the implementation of the powers of the Prosecutor’s office at the stage of initiating a criminal case; the essence of the supervisory powers of the Prosecutor’s office (Prosecutor) at the stages of criminal proceedings. Addressing this topic is due to the main purpose – the consideration of the concept of “prosecutor’s decision as a cause for initiating a criminal case” in the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as the study of topical problems of implementing the powers of the Prosecutor’s office (prosecutor) when considering the issue of ensuring compliance with the principle of legality at all the stages of criminal proceedings. Methods: the methodological framework for the study was the general scientific method of cognition, including the principle of objectivity, consistency, induction and deduction. In the context of this method and in connection with it, the general logical methods of theoretical analysis and specific scientific methods (comparative law, technical and legal analysis, concretization, interpretation) were used. Results: considering the concept of “prosecutor’s decision as a cause for initiating a criminal case”, the authors drew attention to the role of the prosecutor in making the relevant decision on the activity management of the preliminary investigation body, indicated, that in criminal procedure law of this state the most important function of the Prosecutor’s office (prosecutor) is the supervision over compliance with rule of law by all the bodies and officials, by virtue whereof, in practice, the implementation of two mutually exclusive powers of the Prosecutor’s office (prosecutor) can lead to the imbalance in the full implementation of the principles of criminal procedure at all procedural stages. Conclusions: as a result of the study, the authors come to the conclusion that in order to implement fair justice at the stages of criminal proceedings, it is necessary to make appropriate changes in the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, since the combination in one body of powers to initiate criminal proceedings (in particular, sending a corresponding resolution to the preliminary investigation body to resolve the issue of criminal prosecution) and the powers to supervise over compliance with the law by the preliminary investigation bodies is impossible in practice; it requires additional research and appropriate changes.


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-105
Author(s):  
Alexandra Vladimirovna Boyarskaya

The subject. The article is devoted to the investigation of the main direct object and the circle of victims are subjected of harm by criminal acts stipulated by pts. 1, 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.The purpose of the paper is to identify does the art. 294 of Criminal Code of the Russian Federation meets the other provisions of criminal procedure legislation.The methodology of research includes methods of complex analysis, synthesis, as well as formal-logical, comparative legal and formal-legal methods.Results and scope of application. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The discrep-ancy lies in terms of the range of participants in criminal proceedings and the functions performed by them, as well as the actual content and correlation of such stages of criminal proceedings as the initiation of criminal proceedings and preliminary investigation. In addi-tion, the current state of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not take into account the ever-widening differentiation of criminal proceedings.The circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be supplemented by such participants in the criminal process as a criminal investi-gator, the head of the investigative body, the head of the inquiry department, the head of the body of inquiry. At the same time, the author supports the position that the criminal-legal protection of the said persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole.The circle of criminal acts provided for in art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Fed-eration, should also be specified with an indication of encroachment in the form of kidnapping, destruction or damage to such a crime as materials of criminal, civil and other cases, as well as material evidence.Conclusions. The content of art. 294 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation does not comply with the provisions of the criminal procedure law. The author formulates the conclusion that the circle of victims listed in pt. 2 of art. 294 of the Criminal Code should be broadened and joins the position that the criminal-legal protection of these persons should cover not only their activities at the stage of preliminary investigation, but also of the entire pre-trial proceedings as a whole.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
Ya. M. Ploshkina ◽  
L. V. Mayorova

The paper considers the second attempt made by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in terms of introducing the concept of criminal misconduct into the Russian criminal and criminal procedure legislation, examines the goals of its introduction. The authors conclude that the introduction of a criminal offense in the draft law No. 1112019-7 will entail the need to review some approaches in Russian law: the legal nature of the crime, the ratio of a criminal offense with a minor act and an administrative offense, the elements of a crime with administrative prejudice, the principle of justice. It seems possible to achieve procedural effectiveness, reduce the burden on judges and protect the rights of victims without introducing a criminal offense within the existing criminal and criminal procedural mechanisms related to exemption from criminal liability and expansion of non-rehabilitating grounds for termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution. It seems possible to use the already established categorization of crimes in relation to crimes of small and medium gravity. In terms of expanding the grounds for terminating a criminal case or criminal prosecution, it is appropriate to use the experience of the German legislator, which provides for the possibility of terminating criminal prosecution on grounds of expediency when the accused fulfills various duties and regulations assigned to him. In German criminal procedure law, the termination of criminal prosecution on grounds of expediency when assigning duties or prescriptions to the accused is the right of the relevant officials and bodies, and not their obligation, since in fact it is an alternative to criminal prosecution. This will allow it to be terminated at a certain stage in the case when there are all legal grounds for criminal prosecution.


Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya

The purpose of this study was an attempt to theoretically understand the subject of judicial consideration of complaints against decisions, actions (inaction) of officials carrying out criminal prosecution. The research was carried out on the basis of comparative legal, formal logical, empirical, statistical methods. Judicial statistics for the year 2020 have been provided, and legislation has been studied from a historical and contemporary perspective, taking into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The problem is that, in practice, for about 20 years the courts have had difficulties in determining the subject of complaints, since neither in theory nor in practice a consensus has been developed on this issue. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation also does not contain a definition of the concept of «subject matter». The situation is aggravated by the presence of evaluative concepts in the text of the law, leading to a varied understanding of the subject of appeal by the courts, which leads to a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. In the article, taking into account the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, legislation and the opinion of scientists, a recommendation was made to amend the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to specify the subject of consideration of complaints in accordance with Art. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in order to eliminate existing contradictions in practice and increase the level of protection of individual rights in pre-trial proceedings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 3-6
Author(s):  
Elena V. Markovicheva ◽  

The article reveals the possibilities of using conciliation technologies on minors in Russian criminal proceedings. The author analyzes the statutes of the draft law aimed at reforming the criminal procedure law and assesses the prospects for the use of special conciliation procedures as an alternative to criminal prosecution of minors.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 220-227
Author(s):  
ELENA PAPYSHEVA ◽  

This article examines the possibilities of using machine-readable law technologies in criminal procedural legislation and criminal proceedings; the analysis of the Concept of development of technologies of machine-readable law is carried out in order to determine the possibility of applying its provisions in the context of criminal procedural law. According to the author, the development of the technology of machine-readable law sets the legislator the task of starting the process of adapting the norms of the criminal procedure law to their subsequent presentation in formal language. Legislative acts should be structured as much as possible, within the acts, norms are more clearly divided into certain categories and groups with the building of logical connections between them. The norms of legislative acts need to be formalized, their content should not have legal and linguistic uncertainties, normative conflicts and broad discretionary powers. The conclusion is made about the need for legal transformations, formalization of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, based on the principle of legal certainty. If the adaptation of legislation to machine-readable norms is the future in the development of science and the system of legal regulation of the state, then the use of digital technologies in criminal proceedings is a matter of the present. It seems that modern digital technologies are sufficiently developed to start developing an automated information system at the state level that meets the formal requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, within the framework of which a preliminary investigation will be carried out. Moreover, we are talking not only about the «electronic criminal case» in its generally accepted understanding. The author proposes the creation of a comprehensive universal program that provides for the automated application of the ontology of machine-readable law (descriptions in the formal language of many objects in the field of law and the connections between them) in the investigation of criminal cases using the method of teaching artificial intelligence based on a large array of data (including data, constituting the empirical base of research, which was studied in the development of private methods for investigating certain types of crimes).


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-105
Author(s):  
Nikolay N. Kovtun

This work critically assesses the legal nature and practice of the institution of bringing as a defendant in criminal proceedings in Russia, particularly in its relation to the substantive legal act of bringing to criminal responsibility. The author argues that, due to the general bureaucratization of the process, both the first and second acts have actually lost their original purpose to be the determining material and procedural guarantee of individual and justice in criminal proceedings. Objectifying as a legal fiction, the act of bringing the accused as an accused in the doctrine of Russian criminal procedure law, done directly in practice, is increasingly characterized as an accusation of duty, initial, intermediate, and final, which respectively form the ideas of duty, intermediate, initial, and investigative-final criminal prosecution. This negates the role of the named defining acts. Hence, the paper suggests an optimal mechanism for their implementation according to the purposes and tasks of substantive and procedural law


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document