scholarly journals On Criminal Prosecution against Deceased Persons

2018 ◽  
pp. 34-39
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Clear Idea

The criminal proceedings against deceased persons are becoming increasingly relevant, however, the current criminal procedure law does not give a clear idea of the procedural status of such participants in criminal proceedings. The only mention is contained in paragraph 4 of part 1 of Article 24, as well as in part 8 of Article 42 and part 2 of Article 318 of Criminal Procedural Code (CPC) of the Russian Federation, and then only in connection with the death of the victim and private prosecutor. The structure of the corpus delicti developed in the criminal law dictates the coordination of the relevant elements in the structure of the subject of evidence provided for in Articles 73, 421, 434 of the Russian CPC. The article discusses the interaction between these elements within the legal framework of the crosssectoral mechanism of criminal law regulation, the summary of procedural succession of dead persons, opportunity of criminal proceeding regards dead accused, suspect persons, issues of court conviction of dead persons, issues of rehabilitation of deceased participants in criminal proceedings. The authors conclude that criminal prosecution against deceased persons is unacceptable. Furthermore, in any case criminal prosecution must concern crimes committed in the visible past. Historical matters must not become an object of a criminal proceeding.

Forced to sexual activities: legal positions of Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and Republic of Kazakhstan

2019 ◽  
pp. 175-189
Author(s):  
Ardak Alimkhanovna Biyebayeva ◽  
Aigul Mailybayevna Kalguzhinova ◽  
Vera Anatolievna Chunyaeva
Keyword(s):  
Juvenile Justice ◽  
General Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Sexual Activities ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation

The relevance of the study is due to the importance of finding effective and at the same time humane measures to combat crime against minors that meet the generally accepted principles and norms of international law. The purpose of the study is to consider the international legal norms that form the basis of standards in the field of implementation of the rights of minors involved in the criminal proceedings orbit. We consider some aspects of the fair juvenile justice standards implementation in the Russian criminal procedure legislation. We analyze the provisions of the key normative acts in the field of juvenile justice, their application practice, as well as doctrinal approaches to the prospect of further improvement of the criminal procedural form of legal proceedings against minors. On the basis of the analysis, we highlight the proceedings features in the criminal cases category: criminal prosecution can be initiated only after reaching a certain age; expanded the subject of proof; the production involves additional participants; the establishment of additional grounds and conditions for the use of coercive measures related to the restriction of freedom; confidentiality, which determines the characteristics of the trial; expansion of the range of issues resolved by the court in sentencing. It has been concluded that the existing domestic criminal proceedings the order of proceedings in criminal cases in juvenile, despite the peculiarities that distinguish it from the general procedure, it is impossible to recognize the self-differentiated procedure.

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 Criminal Liability for Knowingly Unlawful Sentence, Decision or Other Judicial Act

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-102
Author(s):  
Pavel Metelsky ◽  
Nadezhda Verchenko
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
The Public ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Considerable Complexity

Introduction. The publication is devoted to the corpus delicti, provided for by Art. 305 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which, being, in fact, a special type of official abuse, stands out as the direct object of a criminal assault and a special subject, since it can be committed exclusively by professional judges. The main features of the objective and subjective parties, qualifying signs of the offense are revealed, some problems that arise when applying this criminal law are outlined. Purpose. The goal is to analyze the design features of the crime and issues that arise when applying this rule. Methodology. The method of a formal legal analysis of the norms of the criminal law and theoretical provisions on problems directly related to the application of this rule was used. Results. The public danger of a criminal act that undermines the very foundations of justice is obvious, in connection with which it stands out as an independent crime by all the Russian Criminal Codes, starting in 1922, the history of criminal responsibility for its commission can be traced in our country in general since the 16th century. The current criminal law prohibition is characterized by considerable complexity, due to both the blanket nature of the disposition of the norm itself and the presence of discrepancies in the understanding of the signs embodied in it. Conclusion. The implementation of criminal liability for this crime involves the establishment of not only circumstances directly related to the corpus delicti that lie in the criminal law field. The subject of an infringement, a judicial act, must be subjected to procedural review without fail, after which, subject to the consent of the Higher Qualification Collegium of Judges of the Russian Federation, in fact, and the mechanism of criminal prosecution is “launched”. That is, a truly “multi-way” combination of actions is necessary, carried out in several stages, and the problem itself to some extent becomes interdisciplinary, going beyond only criminal law.

scholarly journals Examination and subsequent evaluation of criminal case materials by the prosecuting attorney as the basis for effective organization of the judicial inquiry

2020 ◽  
pp. 249-261
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Anatol'evna Zayceva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Prosecution ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Effective Organization ◽  
Fundamental Consideration

The subject of this article is the activity of the prosecuting attorney in the maintenance of public prosecution. The research methodology includes dialectical, logical, formal-legal, and hermeneutical methods. The legal framework for this research is comprised of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, criminal procedure legislation, as well as local normative acts regulating the questions of participation of prosecutors in the judicial stages of criminal proceedings. Emphasis is made on the questions of theoretical and applied nature, related to consideration of criminal case materials by the prosecutor. The article explores the positions of scholars regarding prosecutor’s preparation for the legal proceedings, specificity of prosecutor's work at the stage of preparing for maintenance of state prosecution in court. The conclusion is formulated that the effectiveness of maintenance of prosecuting attorney depends on the level of his preparation to the legal proceedings, which includes examination of criminal case materials. The author highlights two key stages of preparation of the prosecutor to maintenance of public prosecution: examination and subsequent evaluation of criminal case materials; participation in the preliminary hearing and fundamental consideration of criminal case .The author believes that activity of the prosecutor is aimed at formation of inner conviction and maintenance of prosecution in court.

scholarly journals Corpus Delicti and the Subject of Proof: to the Discussion of the Relationship Between the Concepts

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-501
Author(s):  
Svetlana Kornakova ◽  
Ekaterina Zavgorodnevа
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Key Features ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Logical Criterion

The authors analyze the opinions of scholars about the correlations between the categories «corpus delicti» and «subject of proof». The main object of their criticism is the idea, supported by some scholars, that the elements of corpus delicti equal the circumstances to be proven that are included in the key fact. The authors use the logical criterion to demonstrate that this claim is unsubstantiated. The circumstances stated in Clauses 1 and 2, Part 1, Art. 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation characterize the key features of corpus delicti only conditionally. In this connection, the key fact is the aggregate of factual circumstances that constitutes the basis of corpus delicti. In the logical aspect, the qualification of a crime is a syllogistic inference, according to which, if the essential features of the action under investigation coincide with the features of the concept of a specific crime as described in criminal law, then this crime becomes the concept of this action. According to the authors, from this standpoint it is possible to discuss not the equivalence of circumstances to be proven and corpus delicti, but only the equivalence of their essential features as determined by criminal law. They point out the specific character of criminal law and process terminology that also does not make it possible to equate the categories «corpus delicti» and «subject of proof». The significance of the existence of a formulated subject of proof in criminal procedure law and its interconnection with corpus delicti is demonstrated. It is concluded that proof in a criminal case is based on certain knowledge, which performs a methodological function. In this connection, the subject of proof, in the gnoseological sense, is a program of criminal procedure activities determined by the lawmaker. The norms of criminal law determined the parameters of criminal procedure proving, so the subject of proof is based on the criminal law characteristic of the action but does not equal it. The circumstances of the case, determined in the process of proving, are correlated with the norms of criminal law with the purpose of possible criminal law qualification of the action. Corpus delicti, determined in the criminal law, and the subject of proof, formulated in the criminal procedure law, ensure strict certainly and specification of the process of proving carried out by the preliminary investigation bodies and the court.

scholarly journals Improvement of the Procedure of Application of Compulsory Measures of Educational Impact

2019 ◽  
pp. 106-114
Author(s):  
K. A. Tabolina ◽  
Z. R. Dzheyranova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Educational Impact ◽  
Specialized Knowledge ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
A Minor

The article is devoted to the problem of improvement of the procedure of application of compulsory educational measures in criminal proceedings against minors. The lack of proper regulation of the procedure for the application of compulsory educational measures and the existing legislative gaps determine the need for amendments and additions to the criminal law and criminal procedure law. It is proposed to grant the right to resolve the issue of termination of criminal prosecution and initiation of a petition for the application of a coercive measure of educational impact before the court to the prosecutor dealing with the criminal case brought before him with conviction or indictment. In order to resolve the question of the possibility of rehabilitating a minor through the use of compulsory educational measures, it is necessary to study his psyche using the specialized knowledge, which presupposes an expert opinion in the case. Exemption from criminal liability of minors under the rules of Article 90 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation should be treated as the duty rather than the right of the law enforcement agent. Approaches to the solution of the problem connected with execution of compulsory measures of educational impact have been formulated.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL PROSECUTION: THE PROBLEMS OF DEFINITION

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 142-145
Author(s):  
K. A. Talalaev
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Historical Process ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of

The author of the article uses historical and comparative legal research methods and studies the term criminal prosecution. The term criminal prosecution is compared with other similar concepts in the article. The author examines the historical process of formation of this concept. The author of the article will outline the content of the discussion about the term criminal prosecution. The modern definition of this term is not correct in the criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation. The author proposes a new definition of the term. Criminal prosecution is the procedural activity of the prosecution in order to expose a person of committing an act prohibited by the criminal law.

scholarly journals Reflections on the Legal Classification of Participants in Criminal Proceedings

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 103-111
Author(s):  
V. S. Latypov ◽  
R. А. Ismagilov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Modern Period ◽  
Foreign Countries ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Procedural Code ◽  
The Russian Federation

In the paper, the authors attempt to analyze the legislative classification of participants in criminal proceedings. The work contains an analysis of the ratio between the concepts of "participant" and "subject" of criminal procedural relations. Having studied the approaches available in the theory of criminal procedure that existed during the period of the Soviet criminal procedure legislation and in the modern period, the authors conclude that it is unacceptable to identify the concepts of "participant" and "subject" of the criminal proceedings. A participant in a criminal proceeding is a person who has certain characteristics, including the existence of rights, duties and responsibilities, as set out in the relevant criminal procedure norm or group of norms.Having applied the method of comparative legal analysis of domestic and foreign criminal procedure legislation, procedural theoretical constructions of the Soviet and modern period, the authors conclude that the legislator made an error in the presented classification and system of participants in the criminal procedure. In addition to the main criminal procedure functions, the authors focus on the existence of other functions that are no less important for the emergence and development of criminal procedure relations. It is stated that there is a need to change the approach to the legislative classification of participants in criminal proceedings, taking as a basis the existing experience of individual foreign countries. The authors propose to change the structure of section II of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which makes it possible to avoid the currently existing procedural conflict related to the attribution of the investigator and the inquirer to the prosecution. It may also help to eliminate any doubts about the attribution of persons assisting in the administration of justice to the participants in the proceedings.

scholarly journals On legal succession in reconciliation of criminal cases of private prosecution

2021 ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Aminat Alkhazovna Batchaeva
Keyword(s):  
General Rule ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
The Subject ◽  
State Coercion ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The subject of this research is the criminal prosecution of cases established by the Part 2 of the Article 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which is carried out in private capacity and significantly modifies the rights and responsibilities of the parties to criminal proceedings. Pursuant to the general rule, the state authorities and officials do not carry out private prosecution cases. In view of this, close attention is given the procedural activity of private prosecutor, who is vested the right in application of measures of state coercion, but entrusted with responsibility on formulating, proving, and pressing charges in court. Retrospective analysis of the Russian criminal procedure legislation reveals that modern legislation has no legal succession of the centuries-long experience of classifying a range of offences as cases of private prosecution. The author believes that the list of cases of private prosecution can be extended by taking into account the provisions of the Criminal Law and Practice Statute 1864, Regulations of Punishments Imposed by Justices of the Peace, which enables reconciliation of the parties and entails unconditional termination of proceedings in certain categories of minor offences. This would ensure the effective implementation of criminal proceedings, restoration of social and legal justice, and accessibility of justice to general public.

On the Role of the Prosecutor in Initiating a Criminal Case and Initiating Criminal Prosecution

Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 85-94
Author(s):  
Т. Yu. Vilkova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Prosecution ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Special Competence ◽  
State Body

The paper shows that the consolidation of the functions of the prosecutor’s office of the Russian Federation at the constitutional level leads to the need to return to the question of the effectiveness and sufficiency of the prosecutor’s powers to independently initiate a criminal case, initiate criminal prosecution, and bring charges. The modern models of granting various subjects the authority to initiate and carry out criminal prosecution, to bring charges in criminal procedural comparative studies are identified and analyzed. They are: 1) a system of public prosecution, or a monocratic model, in which criminal prosecution is initiated exclusively by the decision of state bodies with appropriate special competence, primarily the prosecutor’s office (prosecutor’s monopoly); 2) an ex officio prosecution system, or a polycratic model, when the subject of criminal prosecution is any of the state bodies authorized to conduct proceedings in a case, there is no monopoly of one state body or official to initiate criminal prosecution; 3) a private prosecution system, when the subject of criminal prosecution is either the victim or his legal successors; 4) a “people’s” system charges, in which any private person has the right to initiate criminal prosecution, regardless of whether he is a victim or not. The conclusion is substantiated that Russia belongs to the states in which the polycratic ex officio model is combined with private prosecution in certain categories of cases, while, unlike most other states, the prosecutor is not among the officials authorized to initiate criminal proceedings and/or criminal prosecution. It is shown that the lack of powers of the prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings hinders the achievement of the purpose of criminal proceedings. It is concluded that it is necessary to return to the prosecutor the authority to initiate a criminal case independently.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document