scholarly journals SOME PROBLEMS OF ENSURING THE PROTECTION OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE IN THE CRIMINAL PROCESS OF RUSSIA AND BELARUS

2018 ◽  
pp. 41-43
Author(s):  
E.V. Ezhova

The article deals with the basic guarantees of protection of attorney-client confidentiality in criminal proceedings. A comparative analysis of the legislative norms of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Belarus regulating the legal regime of attorney-client confidentiality is carried out. The article presents the legal positions of the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue under consideration, which contributed to the amendments to the criminal procedure law of Russia aimed at providing additional guarantees for the protection of attorney-client confidentiality. The author concludes that the practice of application of the rules containing guarantees of protection of attorney-client confidentiality testifies, on the one hand, to the need to strengthen the protection of citizens' rights to ensure the confidentiality of information provided to the lawyer, and, on the other hand, to the importance of preventing abuse of the right to protection by lawyers and their clients

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (8) ◽  
pp. 0-0
Author(s):  
Михаил Пресняков ◽  
Mikhail Pryesnyakov

In article the question of validity of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and some other sources of the right which can also possess the highest validity is considered. In particular the author comes to a conclusion that legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation possess the highest validity and in total with the constitutional provisions represent the actual Constitution. On the other hand, both laws on amendments to the Constitution, and the universally recognized norms of international law on the validity stand below constitutional precepts of law. Acts of the Constitutional Assembly of the Russian Federation may in future be qualified as having the highest judicial effect. Such acts may abolish or change any provision of the present Constitution. At the same time the universally recognized norms of international law and the laws of the Russian Federation regulating amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation as independent juridical acts and sources of constitutional law are inferior as compared with the constitutional legal norms.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (11) ◽  
pp. 155-166
Author(s):  
S. R. Zelenin

The legality and validity of the decisions of the investigator, inquirer and the prosecutor on the payment  of the amounts related to procedural costs remain problematic due to the absence in the law of a mechanism  ensuring the judicial procedure for their appeal.  In order to fill this gap, the author studies the possibilities of introducing a procedure similar to the one enshrined  in Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The paper analyzes the positions of the  Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 18-P dated May 13, 2021. It concerns the  victims’ appeal against the decisions of the investigator and the head of the investigative body regarding the  reimbursement of expenses for a representative. Some examples of judicial practice for resolving other disputes  related to the reimbursement of procedural costs are also analyzed.  It is concluded that the right of a person claiming to receive the amounts provided for in Part 2 of Art. 131 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation against a judicial appeal made at his request is universal  and does not depend either on his status in a criminal case, or on the type of the indicated amounts, or on the  body or official that made the contested decision.  Taking into account the practice of applying other norms on appealing against decisions of the investigating  bodies, it was proposed to introduce Art. 125.2. The author formulate its content given the characteristics of the  participants in the proceedings and the powers of the court to resolve the complaint.


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.


Author(s):  
Ol'ga Guzeeva

In the matter of concretizing the constitutional basis of criminal law regulation, the task of building a system of criminal punishments and the rules for their appointment that is adequate to the constitutional basis is of great importance. In its decisions, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation formulated a number of legal positions, which, on the one hand, confirm the already existing criminal law decisions, and on the other hand, act as a fundamental guidance for all subsequent decisions, serve as a criterion for checking the constitutionality of criminal law regulations. Based on the generalization and analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the article presents the main requirements, the observance of which is intended to ensure the commensuration and proportionality of criminal punishment as a means of limiting the rights of a person who has committed a crime. Among these requirements, priority is given to: the prohibition of cruel, inhuman and degrading forms of punishment; limiting the punitive treatment on the person who committed the crime, exclusively within the framework of criminal responsibility; differentiation of criminal punishment and the rules for its appointment while observing the principle of legal equality; commensuration and proportionality of the punishment established by law and imposed by the court on the grounds for the application of measures of criminal responsibility; potential and real ability of punishment to ensure the achievement of the goals of criminal law impact.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 33-39
Author(s):  
Irina V. Revina ◽  
◽  
Olesya S. Pashutina ◽  
Irina N. Chebotareva ◽  
◽  
...  

Based on the analysis of the legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, individual decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the article examines the factors that determine the participation of backup advocates in criminal proceedings. The article analyzes the criteria for the validity of the refusal of the accused/defendant from the defense-backup in the criminal proceedings. Attention is focused on the inadmissibility of duplication of the functions of the defense that violates the constitutional right of the suspect, the accused to freely choose a lawyer. Methods for resolving the designated legal conflict are proposed.


Author(s):  
Svetlana Vladimirovna Nikitina

The subject of this research is the problems caused by the absence of explicit regulations in the criminal procedure law on the rules for establishing facts by the courts necessary for decision-making, as well as recommendations for their solution. These problems include thee difficulties in determining the proper and acceptable procedural behavior of the court and the parties to criminal proceedings in pretrial stages, intricacies of making a procedural court decision in cases of failure of proof, ambivalence of the court's approaches demonstrated by the legislator and the highest judicial bodies (the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ) pertinent to regulation of judicial activity in pre-trial stages, etc. Special attention is turned to the procedure of establishing facts by the court in pretrial stages in view of the special legal and social significance of the procedural decisions made by the court, which restrict the constitutional rights of the citizens and require most full guarantees of their justness. The result of the conducted research is reflected in the author’s recommendations for solution of the indicated issues. The conclusions lies in theoretical provisions on the possible legislative approaches towards determining the judicial activity in pre-trial proceedings based on the following principles: personalization (differentiation of the form depending on procedural status of the actors), simplification (no excessive formalization), variability (presence of several variants of the procedure, the application of which depends on the procedural situation and the purpose of activity of the court), application of actions regulate by the Criminal Procedure Code among other procedural acts available to the court and parties to the court hearing.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 651-665
Author(s):  
Irina N. Chebotareva ◽  

The article discusses the waiver of procedural rights as a particular legal phenomenon. The rationale for studying the waiver of rights in the Russian criminal procedure doctrine arises from the expansion of the spheres of disposition and adversarial nature in present-day Russian criminal procedure. In order to form an overall picture of the ‘waiver of rights’, the article describes its distinctive features and elements that characterize it. Additionally, the theoretical aspects of the waiver of rights in present-day Russian criminal procedures, as well as the legal regulation of a waiver, are analyzed. A waiver of subjective rights is understood as an expression of a legal person’s will in terms of failure to behave as provided for by objective law, which is characterized by voluntariness, awareness, and freedom of choice. It is asserted that any non-realization of rights by a subject is not considered a waiver. The difference is demonstrated in the understanding of the concept ‘waiver of rights’ in the approaches of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, as well as in the interpretation of the rules of criminal procedural legislation, which regulates a person’s ability to waive the rights granted to them by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The article states that the disposition principle of legal regulation, applied by the legislator to participants in criminal proceedings defending their personal interests, presupposes the legislatively established possibility of a person to refuse to exercise the right unless it violates the more important public interest. Attention is given in the article to the necessity of guarantees that ensure voluntariness, awareness, and freedom of choice in case of a person’s waiver of their rights.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 362-367
Author(s):  
N.V. Mashinskaya ◽  

The problem of legislative regulation of the procedure for reconciliation of the victim with the suspected, the accused until a certain time was only a subject of discussion in the scientific literature. At the same time the state’s need to find measures that can eliminate the consequences of crimes without the use of ordinary criminal procedures has actualized the work on introducing alternative methods of settling the criminal-legal conflict into criminal proceedings. Given the urgent need to apply this procedure in practice, the Interregional Public Center “Judicial and Legal Reform” has developed and posted on its website a draft federal law “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation to Provide the Victim, Suspect, and Accused with the Possibility of Reconciliation.” To implement the procedure for reconciliation in criminal proceedings, the drafters of the bill propose to include a new chapter in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). The author of the article critically evaluates the attempt due to the inconsistency of a number of novels, their uncertainty and inconsistency with the norms of the criminal procedure law. To eliminate the existing shortcomings, it is proposed to provide a separate article defining the procedural status of the conciliator and to include the specified rule in Ch. 8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. As a guarantee of the right of the victim, suspect, accused to reconciliation, the introduction of an appropriate addition to the criminal procedure norms governing the legal status of the named participants in criminal proceedings is considered.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 101-111
Author(s):  
K. A. Korsakov ◽  
V. V. Konin ◽  
E. V. Sidorenko

In the Russian legal system, the understanding that justice should be not only timely, but also fast enough has matured for a long time. The delay in the investigation of a criminal case and its consideration by the court allows the guilty to avoid the deserved punishment in some cases, which calls into question the principle of inevitability of punishment on the one hand, and hinders the right to access justice, on the other hand. The term reasonable time for legal proceedings has emerged as a requirement of international law to be tried without undue delay. The right to a reasonable period of criminal proceedings is regulated by Article 6.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, but this norm is not fully implemented to date, as evidenced by the decisions of the European court of human rights issued on complaints of violation by the Russian Federation of the provisions of the European Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms. At the same time, the available research considers the requirement of reasonable terms in criminal proceedings from the standpoint of criminal procedure law, which is not fully justified. The article attempts to consider the problematic issues of reasonable terms of criminal proceedings from the perspective of criminology, as a science that has incorporated theoretical and practical issues of fighting crime, as well as the problems of criminalistic criteria in criminal proceedings.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document