scholarly journals The Application of Video Conferencing in Criminal Proceedings: Prospects of Legal Changes

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 14-18
Author(s):  
Maryam Sh. Bufetova ◽  
◽  
Dmitriy N. Kobzar ◽  

The article discusses the use of video conferencing systems in criminal proceedings under the current legislation. The prospect of changing the norms of criminal procedure legislation with the extension of the possibility of using videoconferencing systems to the stage of preliminary investigation is considered. Studied problematic and debatable issues of conducting investigative actions remotely via videoconference-studied the types of investigative actions that can be carried out remotely, the grounds and procedure for their conduct and certification. Various points of view on the possibility of using the video conferencing system at the stage of preliminary investigation, as well as the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, were studied. It is concluded that it is necessary to introduce such changes in the criminal procedure legislation in the context of the pandemic and the worldwide spread of coronavirus.

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 74-80
Author(s):  
M. S. Shalumov

The article provides a comparative analysis of the previously existing criminal procedural rules and norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which regulate the procedure for conducting pre-investigation checks, the possibility of conducting investigative and other procedural actions during such checks, their list and content, the grounds and procedure for the court to recognize the results of these actions as evidence for criminal the case, the points of view of various scholars are given, including the author himself, as well as the legal positions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation regarding the procedural statue of the explanations and other materials obtained during the preliminary investigation related to the assessment of the evidentiary value of the materials collected by the investigator, the preliminary investigator before the initiation of the criminal case, and presented as evidence in the course of the trial, the conditions are revealed under which these materials can be recognized as evidence in a criminal case.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
E. V. Smakhtin

The article deals with the peculiarities of the activity of courts in making judicial decisions in the context of a pandemic. First of all, we are talking about the wider use of digital and information technologies in criminal proceedings, which have previously been repeatedly recommended by forensic science for implementation in judicial practice. Some recommendations of criminalistics are currently accepted by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Decision dated April 08, 2020 № 821 and Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counteract the spread of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in the territory of the Russian Federation № 2, which provided appropriate explanations for their use in practice. In particular, we are talking about the possibility of using video conferencing systems for certain categories of criminal cases and materials that are considered urgent, although this is not provided for in criminal procedure legislation. It is concluded that it is necessary to change the current criminal procedure legislation, bring it into line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts, including orders of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1(63)) ◽  
pp. 127-133
Author(s):  
Виктор Николаевич ГРИГОРЬЕВ

The purpose of Russian criminal proceedings, which is very important among the modern social and legal institutions, is nevertheless deficient in its legal and regulatory form. It is noted that in the modern situation, some formulations of the purpose of criminal proceedings have come into conflict with the real social and legal reality. Purpose: to resolve contradictions between the formulations of the purpose of criminal proceedings and the actual social and legal reality. Methods: the author uses the methods of dialectical and formal logic, comparison, description, observation, interviewing, experiment, analysis, interpretation. Results: a theoretical basis has been developed for the choice, in the event of a conflict between the formulations of the purpose of criminal proceedings and the actual social and legal situation, of whether to change the normative formulation of the purpose of criminal proceedings or whether to change the procedure itself. In choosing the subject of reform, preference is given to traditional Russian values. Modern trends in Russian criminal proceedings do not fully reflect the needs of civil society in the Russian Federation. It is more accurate to assume that this is the result of a system of departmental and bureaucratic measures to distribute influence and burden. From a humanitarian standpoint, it would be more correct to return the criminal justice system to a state where it will again reflect the lost purpose, in particular, protecting individuals from unlawful accusations. The first step should be to remove from law enforcement officials the obligation to be unilateral in the examination of evidence and to represent only one party – the accusation (Chapter 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), as well as to remove the normative prohibition for the preliminary investigation and inquiry bodies to gather evidence defending the accused (Part 2 article 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).


Author(s):  
Mariia Aleksandrovna Iurkevich

Legal regulation of the use of video technologies in the Russian criminal procedure is conducted on the international and domestic levels. However, based on the primacy of international law recognized by the Russian Federation, the marker is the position of international community that is reflected in the normative legal acts of its special bodies, as well as on the doctrinal level. This article carries out the chronological analysis of the acts issued by international bodies and organizations pertaining to the use video conferencing in criminal proceedings. The subject of this research is the acts of international bodies and organizations that underlie the development of the national legal framework for the use of video conferencing in the Russian Federation. The analysis of normative acts that regulate the use of video conferencing in the Russian criminal procedure demonstrate that for the most part this question is being addressed in the international agreements ratified by the Russian Federation, rather than in the national legislation (considering the provisions of the Part 3 of the Article 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). Leaning on the acquired results, the author concludes that such tendency can be explained by a number of circumstances, namely lag in the rates of digitalization compared to the leading European practices, insignificant period of approbation of the results of using video technologies, as well as relatively short period of intensive implementation of such technologies due to the amendments in criminal procedure policy of the country, which now requires exhaustive normative regulation. The author believes that it is more appropriate to begin the analysis of normative acts that determine the legal framework for application of video conferencing in criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation with the general principles and norms of international law and international agreements, since their role in intensification of the process of digital transformation of criminal procedure in Russia cannot be overestimated.


Author(s):  
N.O. Mashinnikova

In this article the author considers the simplified procedures of judicial proceedings from the point of view of their compliance with the basic principles of criminal proceedings, enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The article concludes that the race for the economic efficiency of any state process affected the proceedings as well. This was the reason that justice, as a service, was reborn in the state service of justice, which in turn led to a decrease in its quality, which according to the author is expressed not so much in the absence of "cancellations" as in its non-compliance with the principles and purpose enshrined in the criminal procedure code. The author welcomes the initiative of the Plenum of the Supreme Court about the need to adopt measures to decrease the absolute number of criminal cases dealt with in simplified procedures, however, did not agree with the solution proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In author’s opinion, the amendments proposed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation violate the rights of the accused to defense and contradict Article 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The author presents her own proposal to change the code of criminal procedure in this part with bringing the necessary justification to that.


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".


Author(s):  
A.I. Shmarev

The author of the article, based on the analysis of statistical indicators of the Prosecutor's office for 2018-2019 and examples of judicial practice, including the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, examines the problematic issues of implementing the right to rehabilitation of persons unlawfully and unreasonably subjected to criminal prosecution, and the participation of the Prosecutor in this process. According to the author, the ambiguous judicial practice of considering issues related to the rehabilitation of this category of citizens requires additional generalization and analysis in order to make appropriate changes to the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11 of 29.11.2011 "On the practice of applying the norms of Chapter 18 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation regulating rehabilitation in criminal proceedings". The examples given in the article of cancellation of lower-level court decisions were based on complaints of persons who independently sought to restore their rights, and not on the representations of the prosecutors involved in them, who were called upon to ensure the possibility of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms at the court session. The adoption of organizational measures, including those proposed by the author, in the system of the Prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation will increase the role of the Prosecutor in protecting the rights of illegally and unreasonably prosecuted persons.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 129-134
Author(s):  
I.V. Fatyanov ◽  

The article examines the ambiguity in the interpretation of article 76.2 of the Criminal code and article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation to establish terms of compensation for the damage and (or) smoothing caused by the crime harm. The author substantiates the argument about the fallacy of considering this condition only formally, the author focuses on the mandatory establishment in this case of the characteristics of the identity of the guilty person and the measure of public danger of the committed act. The scientific novelty of the article lies in the approach proposed by the author to the study of the problem of establishing such a condition. In particular, the author considers it essential to solve such a problem to study the legal nature of compensation for damage and compensation for damage when a criminal case (criminal prosecution) is terminated on this basis. The author defines the specifics, identifies the main purposes of such a legal phenomenon in the context of a legal problem. The article concludes that if the preliminary investigation body and (or) the court (justice of the peace) the lack of property harmful consequences from the crime, the failure to make reparation is not to be considered as an obstacle to the termination of criminal proceedings on the grounds provided by article 25.1 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, article 76.2 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation. As a conclusion, the scientific work has prepared a specific text of the interpretation of the condition in the relevant explanations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which will exclude ambiguity on this issue from the law enforcement officer.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document