CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ISSUES OF THE STATUS OF A PRIEST AS A PARTICIPANT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 183-195
Author(s):  
Sergey V. BOLOTIN ◽  
Natalia V. SIDOROVA
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Terra Incognita ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Government ◽  
Definition Of

The article is devoted to one of the undefined terms used in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation — “priest”. The relevance and novelty of this study is due to the fact that, in practice, this issue is terra incognita not only in the science of criminal procedure, but also in related scientific disciplines. The purpose of the current work is to try to identify approaches to defining the content and essential features of this concept. The article presents historical and factual moments that reveal the essence of the main carriers of religious functions on the example of four confessions operating in Russia. On the basis of comparative, etymological, logical methods of analysis of the powers and appointment of various representatives of the main religions in Russia, the authors make such conclusion that it is impossible to use the term “priest” in an equal sense for all the studied confessions. The authors of this article also propose a definition of the investigated term in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, as well as determine the corresponding body of the Government of Russia, which could be entrusted with the responsibility of officially interpreting the terminology on this issue.

scholarly journals TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CONCEPT «PROCEDURAL COSTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS»

Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Procedural Costs ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 5

The article is devoted to the issues of formulating the definition of such a criminal procedural concept as «procedural costs». Emphasizing the importance both for science and for law enforcement of clarity and clarity when formulating the definition of criminal procedural concepts, the authors point out that the formulation of this concept present in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is far from being improved. Having studied the opinions on this issue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a number of procedural scholars, the authors propose their own version of the definition of the concept of «criminal procedural costs» with its allocation in a separate paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

scholarly journals The essence and problems of substantiating certain types of decisions in criminal proceedings

2021 ◽  
Vol 136 (3) ◽  
pp. 98-104
Author(s):  
V.V. Djafarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Mandatory Requirement ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Procedural Decisions

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.

scholarly journals Discussion on the Properties of Relevance, Admissibility and Reliability of Criminal Procedural Evidence

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 67-76
Author(s):  
S. V. Kornakova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
Nature Of Information ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Procedural Decisions

The paper analyzes the legislative definition of criminal procedural evidence. The author gives critical assessment of replacement of the phrase “any factual data” from the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR with the phrase “any information” in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The wording under consideration gave rise to the possibility for some authors to conclude that the law does not indicate the factual nature of information claiming the status of evidence. The main attention is paid to the question of the necessary properties of proofs. The paper points to the erroneous perception by some researchers of the content of Art. 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which manifests itself in endowing the properties of relevance, admissibility and reliability with the status of criteria for evaluating evidence. According to the author, relevance, admissibility and reliability are not criteria for evaluating evidence, but information obtained in the course of proving for the possibility of using it as evidence. The criteria for evaluating the evidence are specified in Part 1 of Art. 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation—the law and the conscience of an authorized person who evaluates evidence according to his inner conviction. In contrast to the opinion of researchers who believe that the necessary properties of evidence include only relevance and admissibility, the author argues that each evidence must also have the property of reliability. Only in the presence of the entire set of necessary properties, the information obtained in the course of proving can be endowed with the status of evidence.The author demonstrates that each of the necessary properties of a proof has an independent content and meaning. Therefore, their confusion is unacceptable. It is concluded that relevance, admissibility and reliability should form the basis for all procedural decisions concerning evidence. According to the author, a clear understanding of the content of these properties would be facilitated by the consolidation of the definitions of these categories in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. It is also advisable to edit Part 1 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by means of defining the concept for criminal procedural evidence as "any factual information" and indicating the purpose of obtaining them as "for the correct resolution of the case".

To the Matter of Procedural and Legal Problems of Detaining a Person on Suspicion of Committing a Crime

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.V. Bolshakov ◽  
◽  
I.D. Nazarov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Moment

The subject of the research within the framework of the article is the criminal procedure institute for the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime. The legal nature of this institution is analyzed, and comments are given on the normative legal acts and judicial practice regulating the issues of detention. The theoretical basis of the research is based on the publications of the last two decades on this problem, in particular, reflecting the discussion of the process scientists S. A. Shafer, S. B. Rossinsky and A. A. Tarasov, the subject of which was the issue of the legal nature of a suspect detention in a criminal case. In the paper, the authors ask the following questions: What is the detention of a person on suspicion of committing a crime in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation? From what moment does the detained person acquire the status of a suspect? Is it possible to detain a person before initiating a criminal case? The study concludes that a person acquires the actual status of a suspect from the moment of direct detention, that is, before documenting this status and, as a result, before initiating a criminal case. Amendments to the articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are proposed, and the authors` versions of the definitions of the concepts «detention of a suspect», «the moment of actual detention» and «pre-trial proceedings» are given.

scholarly journals Search in Criminal Procedure of Russia and Germany: Comparative Legal Characteristics

2018 ◽  
Vol 50 ◽  
pp. 01159
Author(s):  
Anton Shamne
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Federal Republic ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Federal Republic Of Germany ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Similarities And Differences

The article compares the Criminal Procedural Codes provisions of the Russian Federation and the Federal Republic of Germany that regulate conducting a search as an investigative act. It also provides and compares the definitions of the concept “search” and “dwelling” given in Russian and German criminal procedural legislation. The reasons for conducting the search in general and the search of dwelling are considered, similarities and differences are revealed in relation to the status of the subject who is under the search. The author characterizes the search of dwelling and gives a comparative analysis of this investigative action as well as the notion of “urgent cases” in both countries. The authors also proposed some brief recommendations for improving the norms of the Russian Federation Criminal Procedure Code.

scholarly journals FEATURES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF PRIVATE PROSECUTION

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 875-880
Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedural Rights

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.

SHORTENED TIMELINE OF APPEAL AGAINST INTERIM COURT DECISIONS MADE AT A PRE-TRIAL STAGE OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
pp. 38-49
Author(s):  
Polina O. Gertsen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decision ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Medical Organization ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

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.

Specifics of some anti-corruption measures in Russia within the framework of public and state security

2020 ◽  
pp. 541-547
Author(s):  
Tatyana Plotnikova ◽  
Andrey Paramonov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
State Security ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Russian Federation

In the current difficult conditions for the economy of our state, corruption crimes represent a higher level of danger. It is necessary to reform anti-corruption activities in order to increase its effectiveness. One of the radical measures in the field of anti-corruption will be the abolition of the presumption of innocence for corrupt illegal acts. The presumption of inno-cence is a fundamental and irremovable principle of criminal law, which is enshrined in article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Violation of this principle is impossible for criminal proceedings, but modern circumstances require timely, prompt, and sometimes radical so-lutions. It is worth not to neglect the measures of “insuring” on the part of law enforcement agencies, since otherwise it will increase the share of cor-ruption crimes in law enforcement agencies. The content of paragraph 4 of article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is man-datory even if the presumption of innocence for corruption crimes is can-celed: “A conviction cannot be based on assumptions”. At the same time, the principle of differentiation of punishment will be implemented by assigning the term of imprisonment from the minimum to the maximum, depending on the severity of the illegal act.

Improvement of criminal-procedural legislation, regulating the activities of employees, establishments and bodies of the penal system

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Александр Борисович Диваев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Penal System ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной статье рассмотрен ряд вопросов совершенствования регламентации процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы Российской Федерации. Высказаны предложения по модернизации ряда норм, устанавливающих статус органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы и их должностных лиц как органов дознания. Рассмотрен круг проблем, связанных с более четким процессуальным регулированием механизма исполнения меры пресечения в виде домашнего ареста. Даны предложения по внесению изменения в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство, которые должны содействовать более эффективной реализации полномочий по контролю за арестованными со стороны уголовно-исполнительных инспекций. Сформулировано предложение по устранению терминологической неточности, допущенной в ст. 397 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации. The article deals with a number of issues of improving the regulation of procedural powers of bodies and institutions of the penal system of the Russian Federation. In particular the proposals for the modernization of a number of rules establishing the status of the bodies and institutions of penal system, and their officials, as criminal investigation bodies. In addition, the range of problems associated with a more precise procedural regulation of the mechanism of execution of preventive measures in the form of house arrest. In this regard, proposals were made to amend the criminal procedure legislation, which should contribute to a more effective implementation of the powers to control arrested persons by the penal inspections. In conclusion, a proposal to eliminate the terminological inaccuracy in article 397 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation is formulated.

The Admissibility of Statements Provided by an Accused Person in the Russian Criminal Procedure

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 1684
Author(s):  
Roman KOSTENKO ◽  
Georgii YURIEV
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Information Sources ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Special Significance ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Evidence ◽  
General Characterization ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Admissible Evidence

This article substantiates that compliance with the requirement of admissible evidence acquires special significance for a criminal proceedings, which is proved by the analysis of various sources, including the current edition of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the article aims to determine the nature of admissible statements of the accused in the Russian criminal procedure as one of the most important types of legal evidence. The authors of the article have obtained crucial results for the study of criminal proceedings, defined the basic requirements that should be met by admissible statements of an accused person, analyzed rules for admitting statements of the accused, performed their general characterization and formulated the main provisions defining the essence of statements provided by the accused in criminal proceedings. The main conclusion reached in this article is that the admissibility of statements provided by the accused should comply with the following basic rules: (1) the rule of appropriate subjects authorized by virtue of the existing Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to carry out procedural actions for collecting (obtaining, recording) evidence; (2) the rule of proper information sources on the facts provided for by the current Criminal Procedure Code; (3) the rule of proper proceedings stipulated by the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation for collecting (receiving, recording) evidence; (4) the rule of the proper procedure provided for by the current Criminal Procedure Code for collecting (receiving, recording) evidence from the viewpoint of its proper obtaining is considered as the need to comply with requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document