scholarly journals Concerning the determination of the period of familiarization with the materials of the criminal case

Pravovedenie ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 434-452
Author(s):  
Alla V. Vereshhagina ◽  

Despite the variety of proposals to improve the completion of the preliminary investigation, they are mainly palliative. This is due that researchers count this institute is aprioristic. The article is devoted to only one element of the Institute — the establishment of the period of familiarization with the materials of the criminal case by the court. The initial research hypothesis was the assumption of abuse of procedural rights by participants in criminal proceedings when familiarizing themselves with the materials of the criminal case by retardation the procedure. The article analyses the judicial practice has confirmed this assumption. The analysis also revealed some peculiarities of law application in different regions, which are not essential. In addition, the study of court decisions, combined with an analysis of the existing norms, revealed a number of defects in the criminal procedure law, which nullify such procedural guarantees as the appeal of the court decision on the setting the deadline of familiarization with the materials of the criminal case and arraignment. The author came to the conclusion that it is necessary to radically modernize the procedure for the completion of criminal proceedings with the preparation of an indictment, since the available regulation creates the prerequisites for the falsification of evidence by both parties and does not contribute to the justice. The methodological basis of the research is the General philosophical principles of cognition of comprehensiveness, objectivity, pluralism, as well as specifically sociological, formal-logical and comparative methods of cognition. The during research was studied the works of T. Volchetski, A. Grinenko, S. Gubin, T. Riabinini, V. Strukova and others, were used 13 scientific papers. The empirical basis of the work is 150 appeals (cassation) decisions of the courts of the Irkutsk region and Primorsky and Khabarovsk territories for the period 2011–2017.

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 90-96
Author(s):  
E. V. Markovicheva ◽  

The functioning of the jury in Russia has demonstrated not only effectiveness, but also a number of problems that need to be resolved. Such problems include the personal jurisdiction of criminal cases by jury. The article reveals the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation regarding the right of minors to trial a criminal case in a jury. The approaches to solving this issue that have developed in the judicial practice of individual foreign states are analyzed, the main directions for further scientific discussion regarding the right of minors to a jury trial are outlined. The purpose of the article is to disclose various approaches to the administration of criminal justice in the relations of minors with the participation of lay judges. The theoretical basis of the study was Russian and foreign scientific works in the field of criminal procedure law, devoted both to the consideration of criminal cases with the jury, and the specifics of juvenile criminal proceedings. Using the comparative legal research method has allowed to reveal various approaches to the access of minors to jury trials in individual states. In Russian legislation and judicial practice the question of the right of minors to have a criminal case against them considered by a jury remains unresolved. The position of the Constitutional Court of Russia regarding the jurisdiction of such criminal cases is also controversial. The experience of foreign countries indicates that there is no universal way to ensure the right of a minor to a proper court. This issue is decided depending on the type of criminal process, the presence or absence of specialized juvenile courts. Any direct borrowing in this regard cannot be considered effective, but a generalization of foreign experience can create the necessary basis for optimizing both the work of the jury and criminal proceedings against minors.


2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 394-401
Author(s):  
Aleksei Suslikov

In the process of criminal proceedings, the determination of the procedural status of a person participating in a criminal case is the most important stage of the investigation. It depends on who the person will be recognized, what rights and obligations it will have, how actively it will be able to participate in the criminal case. The paper examines issues related to the determination of the procedural status of a person inclined to use drugs, draws conclusions about the need to recognize the inclined victim in the framework of the investigation of criminal cases under Art. 230 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation “Induction to the consumption of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances or their analogues.” The article analyzes the arguments in defense of the provision on recognizing as victims those who are inclined to use drugs, and also provides arguments explaining what kind of damage is caused by the perpetrator to people who have used drugs and who have refused their use. The presently existing judicial practice on determining the procedural status of persons inclined to use drugs is presented. The paper explains the reasons why investigators and prosecutors do not want to involve persons inclined to use drugs to participate in criminal proceedings on the side of the prosecution. Using the example of a judicial act that has entered into legal force, it is explained how the status of a victim in a criminal case can affect the sentence passed. The situation with cannabis is considered in order to understand the harm arising from one-time use of narcotic drugs. Attention is focused on the attitude of society towards narcotic drugs made from hemp, and on the example of works in the field of medicine, the author describes the damage caused to a person when hemp-based drugs are consumed. At the same time, it explains why drugs inflict both physical and moral harm on a person. Conclusions are formulated about the need for the incited person to participate in a criminal case in the status of a victim from the moment the investigator makes a decision to initiate a criminal case.


Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 57-64
Author(s):  
Vagip Abdrashitov ◽  
Davlatali Kakhkhorov ◽  
Violetta Gavrilova

Introduction: the paper examines the problems of implementing the procedural relationship between the prosecutor and the investigator in the course of judicial control proceedings when applying the measures of procedural coercion in the form of detention. In the doctrine of criminal procedure, there are different positions of processualist scientists on improving the criminal procedure activities of the prosecutor and the investigator at the stage of deciding on applying a measure of restraint in the form of detention. The authors took a keen interest in the lack of a legitimate determination of the prosecutor’s opinion on the validity and legality of the request of the preliminary investigation bodies to choose detention in the course of judicial control proceedings. It is the written opinion of the prosecutor as a form of intervention at the pre-trial stages, especially in the course of judicial control proceedings when investigating the issue of choosing detention that contributes to the court’s taking a legitimate and reasoned decision. In this context, the authors set the goal of finding and improving the efficiency of the procedural model of relations between the prosecutor and the investigator on the issue of resolving a preventive measure in the form of detention in the course of judicial control proceedings. Methods: the methodological framework for the study is a set of methods of scientific cognition, among which the main ones are the methods of cognition, comparative law and historical analysis. Results: the authors analyzed the provisions of the criminal procedure norms of the Soviet period on this issue which helped to identify a number of shortcomings in that period and in the present one, which were inherited from the past. Conclusions: the existing procedural model of interaction between the prosecutor and the investigator in a detailed study of the problem of preventive measures in the form of detention, regulated by the current criminal procedure law, does not correspond to the current state policy in relation to the Russian prosecutor, who acts on behalf of the state at all stages of criminal proceedings. In this regard, the authors, based on the analysis of numerous positions of processalist scientists, as well as the judicial and investigative practice, proposed a procedural model of interaction between the prosecutor and the investigator during the judicial control proceedings, which can be applied in regulating the relationship between the prosecutor and the investigator when considering the issue of applying a measure of restraint in the form of detention.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 186-195
Author(s):  
Ilya N. Yefimovykh

The article analyzes the norms of the criminal procedure law, the opinions of scientists, judicial practice materials related to the examination of evidence in criminal proceedings in the court of first instance, on the basis of which the author proposed definitions of the notions subject of examination evidence and limits of examination evidence they were compared with the concepts of subject of proof and limits of proof. The study used such research methods as logical, system-structural, statistical. As a result of a study of specific court decisions in criminal cases, differences in the understanding of evidence and the examination of evidence were revealed. A distinction has been made between the subject and the object of the study of evidence at the court hearing. The question of determining the subject matter and the limits of the examination of evidence was analyzed, including with regard to the consideration of the criminal case in a special order of judicial decision of the court, with the consent of the accused with the accusation. The rationale for the view that the examination of evidence takes place during the examination of a criminal case under a special court procedure is given, the circumstances that can be established during the court session, namely, the circumstances that may lead to exemption from punishment, as well as the postponement are analyzed. serving the sentence. These circumstances, if any, are mandatory to be established in court proceedings through the examination of evidence. According to the results of the analysis, proposed measures to improve the norms of the criminal procedure law governing the consideration of the criminal case in a special order of the trial. The question of the scope of the examination of evidence was considered in conjunction with the norms of the criminal procedure law, which established the grounds for the return of the criminal case to the prosecutor.


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):  
Oleg Aleksandrovich Kravchenko ◽  
Roman Valer'evich Fedorov

Accurate determination of the place of preliminary investigation indicates adherence to the principle of legality in criminal proceedings and the achievement of goals on the protection of rights and lawful interests of the affected parties, as well as on protection of individual from wrongful and unfounded accusations and restrictions of their rights and freedoms. Science addresses the general questions pertaining to determination of the place of preliminary investigation, but does not give due attention to realization of discretionary powers of the higher investigating authority to determination of the place of preliminary investigation. The article reveals the essential conditions for application of such power by the investigating authority, and analyzes case law for compliance with these conditions. The conclusion is made that legislation does not contain clear and specific rules for determination of the place of preliminary investigation, including the territorial jurisdiction of advocating for the election or extension of pre-trial detention. The author describes the flaws in legal regulation associated with the possibility of determination of jurisdiction of a case in administrative proceedings, by means of law enforcement decision prior to the emergence of legal situation (for example, before  submission of a request for the election or extension of pre-trial detention) by lowering the rank of investigating authority, for example to district level. From the practical perspective, elimination of such flaws should facilitate the proper application of the corresponding legal norm, as well as accurate determination of the place of preliminary investigation.


Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina

The article reveals the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, which establishes the freedom to dispose of material and procedural rights. The forms of manifestation of dispositive principles in the material and procedural aspects in the course of criminal proceedings are determined. Taking into account the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, various models of proceedings in criminal cases of a private prosecution and the peculiarities of the implementation of the provisions of the criminal procedure principle of the presumption of innocence are considered. The author critically assesses the legal constructions that allow the application of a special procedure for making a court decision in criminal proceedings of a private prosecution if the accused agrees with the charge brought. In particular, taking into account the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to apply Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering a criminal case of a private prosecution if it is initiated by filing an application directly with a magistrate in the manner prescribed by Art. 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or when investigating a criminal case of this category in the form of an abbreviated inquiry, regulated by Ch. 32.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Bryanskaya ◽  
Anna Altunina

The monograph gives an idea of the process of proof in a criminal case. The process of proof is the driving force behind all criminal proceedings. In this regard, issues related to the concept, types and nature of evidence, their recognition as inadmissible, and their argumentative power are considered. The article presents the material that reveals the stages of the proof process. It is addressed to students, undergraduates, postgraduates, researchers and practitioners specializing in criminal evidence.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document