Termination of Criminal Proceedings (Criminal Prosecution) in Connection with Compensation for the Harm Caused by a Crime: Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Aspects

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dmitriy Ivanov ◽  
Denis Goncharenko
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings

scholarly journals Investigation of the Purpose, Goals and Objectives of the Criminal Procedure by means of Systemic Approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 142-151
Author(s):  
V. I. Ivanov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Mutual Influence ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Hierarchical Structures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Goals And Objectives

The purpose of the paper is to conduct a systemic study of the internal structure and functions of criminal procedural activity based on patterns of formation of tree-like hierarchical structures, to determine the goals and objectives of criminal proceedings at different levels of the system hierarchy. Within the framework of the study, the criminal procedure is considered as a system with complex inter-element relationships and its own mutual influence on its structural elements. Based on the distinction between the categories "purpose", "goal", "result", the author concludes that the purpose of the criminal process is to resolve the materials on the merits in the production of the preliminary investigation bodies and the court in accordance with the requirements of criminal procedural law providing for criminal law application. The study establishes the possibility of achieving the goal of the criminal procedure at any stage in the case of the simultaneous fulfillment of two conditions: the identification of objective criminal procedural grounds for the completion of the criminal process using the criminal law and ensuring the implementation of the principles of criminal proceedings. Through the goals and principles of criminal procedural activity, the author defines the objectives and main functions of criminal proceedings, identifies the general goal and objectives of the bodies of inquiry, preliminary investigation and the court. The author concludes that the establishment of objective criminal procedural grounds for the resolution of materials in production with the application of criminal law is ensured because of preliminary verification of the materials, preliminary investigation or the implementation of the functions of the judiciary by solving the tasks facing the bodies of inquiry, investigation and court. The paper establishes the real purpose and goals of criminal prosecution, defense, judicial and departmental control, prosecutorial and judicial supervision.

THE IDEA OF COMPROMISE IN THE RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCESS AS A MEANING OF COURT ACTIVITY OF CRIME

2021 ◽  
pp. 48-59
Author(s):  
Alexander G. Markelov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
The Individual

The article proposes an original approach that explains the obvious ideological nature of the use of compromise technologies on certain alternative procedures of the Russian criminal process and is considered as an applied tool for combating crime. Such proposals occur against the background of an obvious trend of humanization of punishment and exemption from criminal responsibility of certain categories of persons. The author claims justifiably that new prospectiveand at the same time conflict-free (compromise) forms of criminal procedure for the rapid resolution of criminal cases have been created in the Russian criminal process.At the same time, the author believes that one of the most important advantages of the use of compromise technologies, provided that there are no aggravating circumstances, is the ability to resolve the criminal-law conflict between the parties concerned quickly and create a favorable environment of reciprocity and understanding. The author believes that the idea of compromise as a certain measure of combating crime has already been implemented in modern procedural algorithms for resolving criminal cases through reduced criminal proceedings in the form of an inquiry, specific (compromise) proce-dures in the form of: the court making a final decision on a criminal case with the consent of the accused with the charge brought by the investigating authorities; the court making a final decision on a criminal case when concluding a pre-trial agreement on cooperation (a deal with justice); proceedings in a criminal case on the appointment of criminal-law measures in the form of a court fine when a person is exempt from criminal liability; a termination of the criminal case and criminal prosecution against the suspect or accused in conjunction with the reconciliation of the parties, a termination of criminal prosecution against the suspect or accused in conjunction with active repentance, a termination of criminal prosecution against the suspect or accused in cases of crimes in the field of economic activity, the election of certain preventive measures and the conduct of the individual investigative actions under the individual compromise circumstances. The author believes that the construction of a legal model of criminal procedure compro-mise as a measure to counter modern crime will contribute to the optimization of the Russian criminal proceedings in the interests of the individual, society and the state as a whole. The work proposes the justification of a new scientific direction - the criminal procedure concept of using compromise - and the prospects for its application in scientific research and practical activities to counter modern crime.

scholarly journals ON THE APPOINTMENT OF THE MODERN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCESS

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 271-276
Author(s):  
O.A. Maksimov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Protection ◽  
Modern Russian

The article examines the purpose of the modern Russian criminal procedure as a way of implementing the constitutionally defined tasks of the state. With a variety of approaches to defining the subject of research, one can single out two interrelated, but also mutually exclusive ideas that underlie the understanding of the purpose of criminal proceedings - for the implementation of criminal law (combating crime, organizing criminal prosecution) or for protecting the rights and freedoms of persons involved in criminal proceedings. legal proceedings. The prevalence of one of them depends on the type of process, while they cannot exist on equal terms due to the opposite methods of implementation in a particular criminal proceeding. With the priority of one of the ideas, the entire criminal process is built according to the type of designated purpose, and the second idea is one of the means of achieving it. The purpose of the criminal procedure follows from the main tasks of the state. It is concluded that in connection with the clearly established in the Constitution the basic values subject to state protection, the only purpose of the modern Russian criminal procedure is to protect human rights and freedoms, regardless of his procedural status in criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals PRINCIPLE OF OPPORTUNITY OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION – LEGAL AND THEORETICAL ASPECTS

2021 ◽  
pp. 231-248
Author(s):  
BORIŠA LEČIĆ
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Structural Changes ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
A Minor ◽  
Short Time ◽  
Made In

All social, political and economical progress that was made in the end of 19th century and beginning оf 20th century had a really strong consecuensed a wide reforms of processes of criminal law and criminal proceedings law by a legislation of Republic of Serbia, which showed uneficcience, inert and uneffective plan of crime prevention in practice. Practical analysis proved that it's necessary to make structural changes to pervious criminal procedure, first through the changed act of a public prosecutor, than in aplyying a simplified form of actions in his criminal cases. Effective fight against criminal, which has showing a constant trend of growth, always requiered quick, adequate and contemporary procedure and trial in short time. That was the interest of a whole society, and a defendant too. In that circumstances, principle of opportunity hac become a important instrument that requieres eficient procedure of minor crimes. Ratio legis and criminal political justification of the introduction of this principle in the criminal law of Republic of Serbia, reflected first throuht relief of courts, reduction of the number of cases and rationalization of criminal law. In this way, Republic of Serbia was followed aplyed trends of European comparative legislation, creating conditions for a new aproach of a criminal procedure in threating perpetrators of a minor crimes. The point was in a efficient, effective, and deformalised crime procedures.

Part III The Right to Justice, C Restrictions on Rules of Law Justified By Action to Combat Impunity, Principle 23 Restrictions on Prescription

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pinzauti Giulia
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Theoretical Framework ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Domestic Legislation ◽  
The Right

Principle 23 deals with statutory limitations (prescription, in French) aimed at protecting defendants from stale claims that might be difficult to counter. Statutory limitations refer to legal norms that regulate the effects of the passage of time in domestic systems. In criminal law, they provide for a maximum timeframe, or prescription period, within which criminal proceedings can be instituted or sentences enforced. The passage of time makes the gathering of evidence more difficult and may also reduce the effectiveness of criminal prosecution. Significant delays in criminal action may thus impair the accused’s right to a fair trial. Furthermore, criminal proceedings tend to lose legitimacy as time passes. After providing a contextual and historical background on Principle 23, this chapter discusses its theoretical framework and how the statutory limitations have been applied in practice under multilateral treaties, domestic legislation and case-law. It also examines the practice of United Nations organs.

scholarly journals Counteraction to Miscarriage of Justice in Ukraine

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 96-105
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Specific Regulation ◽  
Miscarriage Of Justice

Investigation of crimes against justice in Ukraine is among topical problems of miscarriage of justice. Hundreds of criminal cases are recorded as a crime in the Official Register in Ukraine but only a few have been brought to the court. In this article we try to approach this problem in three ways: from the point of view of criminal law, criminal procedure and criminalistic measures of counteraction to miscarriage of justice. Such an approach helps to demonstrate problems of investigator, prosecutor and judge at different stages of criminal proceeding. Special attention is paid to specific regulation of the issues of criminal proceedings against a certain category of persons, including judges. Mistakes of representatives of law enforcement bodies become visible as a result of analyzing of real criminal cases. Such an analysis is aimed to disclose the problem of counteraction to miscarriage of justice in Ukraine.

scholarly journals Meaning of the Category “Validity of the Charge” in Criminal Proceedings

2021 ◽  
pp. 218-223
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viкtor I. Kachalov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Simplified Procedure ◽  
Special Order

The aim of the article is to identify the meaning of the category “validity of the charge” in criminal proceedings and the scope of its application. After analyzing the content and legal essence of this category, as well as procedural situations in which it is necessary to establish the validity of the charge, the authors come to the following conclusions. Any coercive measures against suspects and accused persons can be applied only if there are serious grounds to assume that a person is involved in the commission of a crime since the restriction of the most important constitutional rights of citizens who, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, are innocent of committing a crime is possible only in exceptional cases. The validity of the charge (suspicion) assumes that a person is involved in the commission of a crime, as well as the fact of the criminal prosecution of this person. It is established if there is sufficient evidence that a person may have committed a crime (a person was caught committing a crime or immediately after it was committed; the victim or witnesses identified the person as the perpetrator of the crime; obvious traces of the crime were found on the person or their clothing, with them or in their house, etc.). The validity of the charge may be confirmed by a decision to initiate a criminal case and bring a person as an accused, by protocols of detention, interrogations of the accused, the victim, witnesses, and other materials. In the procedural sense, the conditions for establishing the validity of the charge differ significantly. When resolving the issue of the use of detention and other preventive measures, the validity of the charge is established within the framework of a court session in the conditions of adversariality with the participation of the parties. When giving the court permission to conduct investigative and other procedural actions in accordance with Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to ensure the secrecy of the investigation, the issue is resolved in the absence of adversariality with the possible participation of only the prosecutor, the investigator, and the inquirer. The category “validity of the charge” is significant in legal terms in a criminal case with the special order of proceedings. A prerequisite for the court to consider a criminal case in a simplified procedure is the validity of the charge and its confirmation by the evidence collected in the case. The validity of the charge in the appointment of a trial in the special order provided for by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is established by the court outside the court session in the absence of the parties. In any of the above situations, the court is responsible for establishing the validity of the charge since failure to establish it means that the decision made is unfounded.

scholarly journals Practical Application of the Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Regarding the Measure of Preventive Arrest

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Nicolae Silviu Pana ◽  
Ana Maria Pana
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code

Preventive measures are coercive criminal law enforcement institutions, aimed at the deprivation or restriction of individual liberty, by which the suspect or defendant is prevented from undertaking certain activities that would adversely affect the conduct of the criminal proceedings or the achievement of its purpose. They have been instituted by the legislator for specific purposes, namely: to ensure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, to prevent the abstraction of the suspect or defendant from trial and to prevent the commission of new offenses (art. 202 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Preventive measures are not inherent in any ongoing criminal trial, but are exceptional measures (art. 9 para. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and the court can decide to sease the measure or make use of the measure in the light of the specific circumstances of each case. Of the five preventive measures, three are deprivation of liberty - detention, house arrest and pre-trial detention, and two are non-custodial: judicial control and judicial control on bail. All these measures are only applicable to the natural person. Specific preventive measures may be taken against legal persons, but those are regulated by the provisions of art. 493 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

scholarly journals The subject of judicial control in consideration of complaints: controversial issues of legal regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-109
Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

scholarly journals The institution of suspicion and the initial stage of the criminal process: interrelated prospects of development

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-131
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Polikarpova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Initial Moment ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
Kyrgyz Republic ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Initial Stage

The article considers the question of the interdependence of the improvement of the institution of suspicion and the transformation of the initial stage of the Russian criminal process. The article highlights the problem of the legislative limitation of the period of the procedural status of a person as a suspect in the event of a criminal case being initiated not against him, but upon the commission of a crime and insufficient evidence of the involvement/non-involvement of such a person in a criminal offence committed at the initial stage of the investigation, which often does not allow avoiding unreasonable restrictions on the constitutional rights and freedoms of this participant in criminal proceedings. The relevant experience of some post-Soviet states that followed the path of a radical change in the criminal procedure model after the collapse of the USSR is analysed. The article compares the provisions of the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic directly related to the institution of suspicion, including the moment of triggering criminal prosecution and the duration of a suspect’s keeping the specified procedural status. The arguments given in the article substantiate the need to reform the initial moment of the emergence of the procedural status of a suspect in Russian criminal proceedings and the associated expediency of abolishing the stage of initiation of a criminal case in order to increase the guarantee of the rights and legitimate interests of the person introduced into the procedural status we are analysing.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document