scholarly journals A COMPARATIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAWS OF RUSSIA AND THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN AIMED AT THE SEARCH FOR A WAY TO IMPROVE THE INSTITUTION OF SUSPICION

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 68-72
Author(s):  
Olga S. Polikarpova ◽  

The relevance of the article is due to the imperfection of the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation in terms of the institution of suspicion. The author examines the distinctive features of the provisions of Russian law and the criminal procedure law of the Republic of Kazakhstan relating directly to the institution of suspicion and, in order to minimize permissible for criminal proceedings under Russian law, procedural violations, attention is drawn to the possibility of improving the reporting Institute by reforming criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation as a whole with a focus on the introduced in the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan the criminal procedural model.

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.


Author(s):  
Polina O. Gertsen ◽  

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.


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.


Author(s):  
F.F. Zaripov

The article formulates the problems of procedural regulation of ensuring the safety of participants in criminal proceedings on the part of the defense in the process of criminal proceedings. It is noted that despite the hasty division of the participants in the criminal process into groups in accordance with the procedural function performed by them, the need to separate the participants in criminal proceedings standing upon the interests of the defense into a separate group is not disputed. Attention is drawn to the fact that the principle of protecting the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in criminal proceedings does not fully regulate the adoption of appropriate measures to ensure the safety of participants in the criminal process for the realization of their rights and interests. The necessity of making amendments and additions to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (as the main source of criminal procedure law), as well as a number of other legislative acts related to the protection of human and civil rights and freedoms and to ensuring the safety of participants in criminal proceedings in all areas, is substantiated.


Author(s):  
V.V. Djafarov ◽  

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.


Author(s):  
Alexander M. Baranov ◽  
◽  
Pavel G. Marfitsin ◽  

The study aims to formulate the proposals aimed at optimizing the Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (CPC of RF), which enshrines the principles of criminal justice. The authors of the given article examine the content of the rules-principles, i.e. legislative regulations that express and enshrine the principles of law. It is stated that we should distinguish the rules-principles and rules-beginnings, rules containing general permis-sions and prohibitions and rules-definitions because of the first receive development and logi-cal expression in the second. Attention is drawn to the fact that when discussing the nature of the court procedure we should bear in mind that principles make up the content exclusively of legal awareness. At the stage of drafting of the rules, the principles-ideas become regulatory and legal in nature. The developers of the CPC of the RF are criticized, as they did not take advantage of the scientifically valid system of principles of the criminal proceedings. The authors ask why among the rules-principles reflected in the Chapter 2 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, there was no place for many provisions, previously traditionally recognized as such; why the fundamental provisions of the regulation in other laws, including the Constitution of the Rus-sian Federation, were not enshrined in the CPC of the RF. Based on the analysis of the scien-tific literature and the provisions of the criminal procedure law, the authors conclude that one of the obvious omissions of the developers of the CPC of the RF is the non-inclusion of the provision on equality of all before the law and the court in the number of rules-principles. Objections were raised against the absence of other provisions in the CPC of the RF, previouslyconsidered fundamental for criminal proceedings, namely, publicity (officiality) of criminal proceedings, as well as comprehensiveness, completeness, the objectivity of investigation of all the circumstances of the case. Besides, the authors concluded that the contents of separate articles of Chapter 2 of the CPC of the RF, and, in fact, such independent principles, designated by the legislators as "Respect for the honour and dignity of the individual" (Article 9 of the CPC of the RF); "Immunity of the individual" (Article 10 of the CPC of the RF); "The sanctity of the dwelling" (Article 12 of the CPC of the RF); "The secrecy of correspondence, tele-phone and other negotiations, postal, telegraph and other communications" (Article 13 of the CPC of the RF) can be combined into one group, in Article 11 of the CPC of the RF "Protec-tion of human rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings”. Critical assessment is given to the content of Article 7 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, which is reduced to a formal prohibition for the court, prosecutor, investigator, investiga-tive body and interrogator to apply federal law or other rules contrary to the CPC of the Rus-sian Federation. The current version of Article 7 of the CPC, which enshrines the fundamental principle of legality in criminal proceedings, is inconsistent with modern theoretical views on the essence, content and meaning of the principle of legality in law. The authors conclude that the content of the rules-principles, their system, enshrined in Chapter 2 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, are imperfect and need to be adjusted under the fundamental theoretical developments.


The research is devoted to the analysis of the essence and place of the adversarial system in modern criminal procedure regulation. The existing acute debatability regarding the procedural status of the adversarial system in the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation necessitates the appeal of scholars to this category. The purpose of identifying the true procedural nature of the adversarial system and the boundaries of its implementation is directly related to the determination of the correct place of this procedural category in the modern system of criminal procedure regulation. The analysis of modern scientific views on the procedural status of the adversarial system indicates the presence of diametrical views on the compliance of the adversarial system with the characteristics of an independent industry-wide principle. A controversial opinion about the extension of the principle of adversarial practice to the pre-trial stages of Russian criminal proceedings is noted. According to the authors, the current law enforcement practice confirms the implementation of the "pure" adversarial system only in the judicial stages of the criminal process. Taking into account the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the work provides an argumentation of the authors’ position on the advisability of changing the status and, accordingly, the place of the adversarial system in the structure of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation from the "industry-wide principle" to the "general condition of the trial".


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (Extra-D) ◽  
pp. 273-278
Author(s):  
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov ◽  
Ekaterina Alekseevna Trishkina ◽  
Anna Vladilenovna Skachko ◽  
Elena Vladimirovna Blinova ◽  
Irina Valerievna Larina

The article discusses topical issues related to compensation for physical harm caused by a crime, according to the legislation of the Russian Federation. Analysis of the provisions of the current criminal procedure law in Russia, as well as a number of neighboring countries (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan) allowed the authors to analyze the existing problems and propose rational ways to solve them.  One of the main goals of the institution of compensation for harm caused by a crime, the authors consider the creation by competent officials of the preliminary investigation bodies of appropriate conditions for the restoration of social justice through compensation for the harm caused by the crime. The authors substantiated the conclusion that a claim for compensation for physical harm is most often declared through a claim method of protecting violated rights; it is logical to assert that the possibility of making such claims should be included in the content of the rights of a civil plaintiff as a participant in criminal proceedings.


2020 ◽  
pp. 53-57
Author(s):  
Valery K. Znikin ◽  
◽  
Inna N. Razzorenova ◽  

The analysis of the criminal procedure law made it possible to conclude that there is a historically established tendency for a complete, comprehensive, and objective investigation with the principle of reasonable time. The authors emphasize the lack of legislative consolidation of the concept of “reasonable time”, which results in the lack of clarity in making a decision on its violation. The research into practice has shown that there are situations inconsistent with the principle of reasonable time that are not recognized as a violation of it. Having summarized the theoretical views and practices of applying the provisions of Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the authors identify the obstacles in ensuring citizens’ access to justice and ensuring a reasonable period of criminal proceedings and propose the ways to improve the mechanism for ensuring judicial protection of the rights of individuals. They also stress out the need for legislative consolidation of the delivery of a court decision on the deadline for verification of a crime report or a timeframe for investigation in a criminal case. The conclusion is that a reasonable period of criminal proceedings is such a period that does not give rise to a contradiction between the actions of the participants in the criminal proceedings and the public’s demand for a timely and adequate response of the court to all abuses committed by these participants, entailing an increase in the duration of the criminal proceedings. As a consequence, the requirement for a prompt, complete, comprehensive, and impartial investigation is part of the “reasonable time” principle.


Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 94-97
Author(s):  
T.I. Yastrebova ◽  

The article examines the relationship between the procedural and tactical aspects of search and seizure, their common and distinctive features, draws attention to the essence of the compulsion of these investigative actions. The concept of «voluntariness» is analyzed in relation to the production of seizure. The article reveals the problems of procedural regulation of seizure in cases of voluntary provision of objects both by participants in criminal proceedings and by other citizens and officials. It is proposed to introduce into the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation a new article on the appearance in criminal proceedings of objects that are significant for the case.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document