PROBLEM ASPECTS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL NORMS OF PROTECTION OF THE VICTIMS FROM CRIME

2020 ◽  
pp. 72-76
Author(s):  
Яна Валерьевна Самиулина
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Effective Mechanism ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Selection Of

В настоящей статье предпринята попытка исследовать отдельные проблемные аспекты института потерпевшего в российском уголовном процессе. В этих целях подвергнуты анализу правовые нормы, регламентирующие его процессуальный статус. Раскрываются отдельные пробелы уголовно-процессуального законодательства в сфере защиты законных прав и интересов потерпевшего. Автор акцентирует внимание на том, что совершенствование уголовно-процессуального законодательства в части расширения правомочий потерпевшего по отстаиванию своих нарушенных преступлением прав следует продолжить. На основании проведенного исследования действующего законодательства в части регламентации прав потерпевшего от преступления предлагается расширить перечень получаемых им копий постановлений, указанных в п. 13 ч. 2 ст. 42 УПК РФ. Автор предлагает включить в перечень указанной законодательной нормы право получения потерпевшим копии постановления об избрании конкретного вида меры пресечения, избранного в отношении подозреваемого (обвиняемого). Для создания действенного механизма защиты интересов потерпевших от преступления юридических лиц предлагаем ч. 9 ст. 42 УПК РФ изложить в следующей редакции: «в случае признания потерпевшим юридического лица его процессуальное право в уголовном процессе осуществляет представляющий его профессиональный адвокат». This article attempts to investigate certain problematic aspects of the institution of the victim in the Russian criminal process. For this purpose, analyzed the individual norms governing his procedural status. Separate gaps of the criminal procedure legislation in the sphere of protection of the legal rights and interests of the victim are disclosed. The author emphasizes that the improvement of the criminal procedure legislation in terms of the extension of the victim’s authority to defend his rights violated by the crime should be continued. On the basis of the study of the current legislation regarding the regulation of the rights of the victim of a crime, it is proposed to expand the list of decisions received by him, referred to in paragraph 13, part 2 of article 42 Code of Criminal Procedure. The author proposes to include in the list of the indicated legislative norm the right to receive the victim a copy of the decision on the selection of a specific type of preventive measure, selected in relation to the suspect (accused). To create an effective mechanism for protecting the interests of legal entities victims of a crime, we offer part 9 of art. 42 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation shall be reworded as follows: «if a legal entity is recognized as a victim, his procedural right in criminal proceedings is exercised by the professional lawyer representing him».

scholarly journals Forms of Interaction between an Investigator and Bodies of Inquiry at the Initial Stage of Pre-Trial Proceedings

Lex Russica ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (3) ◽  
pp. 70-79
Author(s):  
Yu. G. Torbin ◽  
A. A. Usachev ◽  
L. P. Plesneva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
To Receive

Despite the prolonged use of certain forms of interaction between the investigator and investigative agencies at the initial stage of pre-trial proceedings, the criminal procedure legislation still lacks some aspects of their implementation. This makes it necessary to study the current situation and substantiate the theoretical and practical provisions concerning interaction between an investigator and investigative agencies in the context of verification of the report of the crime in the light of the planned digitalization of domestic criminal proceedings. The author suggests that the forms of interaction, the application of which is expedient at the initial stage of pre-trial proceedings, include two procedural forms (giving written instructions to an investigative agency about carrying out operational search activities, obtaining explanations, obtaining assistance in carrying out investigative and other procedural actions) and two organizational forms (joint planning and formation of an investigative and task force). In order to increase the efficiency of criminal procedure at the initial stage of pre-trial proceedings, to ensure clarity of the language of criminal procedure law and its compliance with law enforcement, the auther proposes to amend Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by supplementing it with the right of authorized officials and bodies to give to investigative agencies mandatory written instructions for obtaining explanations, and to receive assistance from the investigative agency in carrying out verification actions. At the same time, the paper demonstrates the author’s approch to excluding obtaining explanations from the general list of procedural actions specified in Part 1 of Article 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and conducted by authorized subjects of verification of the report of the crime. Also, the paper analyzes the importance of introduction of electronic document circulation into criminal proceedings from the point of view of efficiency of interaction between the investigator and investigative authorities at the initial stage of pre-trial investigation.

scholarly journals On the Right of the Accused Parties to an Appeal of Interim Court Decisions Made at the Pre-Trial Stage: Protection of Private and Public Interests

2020 ◽  
pp. 47-52
Author(s):  
Polina O. Gertsen ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Public Interests ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The article examines the problem of determining the list of participants on the part of the prosecution, endowed with the right to appeal the interim decisions made at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. Currently, the appeal and revision of interim decisions are carried according to Chapter 45.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. However, Chapter does not take into account the specificity of the preliminary investigation stage, in particular, the subject composition of its participants. As a result, the list of the subjects entitled to appeal of the interim court decisions at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings remains controversial. The article discusses the right of the investigator and the head of the investigative body to file an appeal as well as the right of the victim to initiate proceedings in the court of appeal in defense of private interest. Drawing on the analysis of literature and practices of appealing interim court decisions, the author identifies the problems of theory and practice, including: 1) the prosecutor’s right to appeal is not sufficient to ensure tp protect public interests; 2) the controversial right of the investigator, or the head of the investigative body to file a complaint with the court of appeal; 3) there is no legal obligation of state bodies to notify the victim about the initiation of a petition before the court for a preventive measure or an investigative action, which may prevent the victim from exercising their right to appeal. The author proposes: 1) to supplement the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation with a list of subjects for filing (presenting) a complaint of interim decisions, including the investigator as the main participant in the process at the stage of preliminary investigation; 2) to legislate the investigator’s obligation to notify the victim about the initiation of a petition before the court for the application of a preventive measure, placement of the accused in a hospital for an examination, etc., as well as the obligation of the court to send the victim copies of decisions on these petitions.

scholarly journals International Standards of Preventive Measures and Their Implementations in the Legislation of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 623-630
Author(s):  
Dmitrii Ivanov ◽  
Michail Kulikov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Selection Of

The goal of this research is to identify problems arising during the implementation of international standards for the selection of preventive measures into Russian criminal procedure legislation. The authors specify the concept of international standards of criminal court proceedings, present the specific features of their incorporation into constitutional norms as well as rules in different branches of law. The importance of preventive measures in the general mechanism of legal regulation is shown. The authors prove the necessity of systemic changes in the part of Russian legislation that deals with the legal regulation of preventive measures with the purpose of creating an integrated mechanism of criminal prosecution and protection against it. Key findings of research include: 1) Russian criminal proceedings, including its part regulating the selection of preventive measures, should fully correspond to international standards; 2) international standards are implemented in Russian criminal procedure legislation both indirectly, though constitutional clauses, and directly, through the improvements in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; 3) preventive measures should only be selected if there are sufficient grounds for them, and these grounds are not the at the discretion of officials involved in criminal proceedings, they are real evidence in the materials of a criminal case that is necessary and sufficient for selecting a specific measure from the measures included in the law; 4) circumstances that are taken into consideration when selecting a preventive measure, if they potentially provide for a stricter measure from their general list, should be explicitly laid down in the law, and contrary to this, the list of circumstances that could improve the position of a person is not exhaustive; 5) to give a person an opportunity to defend their position, the possibility of selecting the preventive measure of detention is only feasible for the accused, and should be excluded for the suspect; 6) since the proper behavior of a person, from the position of the prosecution, is to give testimony that proves their involvement in a crime, the corresponding indication that this is necessary to ensure such behavior should be removed from the law when selecting the preventive measure of recognizance not to leave; 7) the supervision of the command staff of a military base over military personnel should not be substituted with an actual deprivation or limitation of the freedom of movement within the territory of the base; 8) when there are no grounds for selecting detention, the court should have a possibility to select any other preventive measure from those included in the law. From the methodological standpoint, this research is an analysis of international normative legal acts and generally recognized principles and norms of international law regulating preventive measures as well as the problems of their implementation in Russian criminal proceedings. The following methods were used: comparative legal, historic legal, sociological, interpretation of law norms, a number of logical methods. The obtained data was used to formulate key conclusions, which made it possible to correctly use a number of terms, and determine the necessity of a systemic improvement of Russian legislation through the introduction of mechanisms that ensure the rights, liberties and lawful interests of a person when selecting a preventive measure.

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.

scholarly journals On Criminal Procedure and Criminalistic Measures of Counteracting Crimes Against Legal Entities

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-105
Author(s):  
Olga Aivazova ◽  
Galina Vardanyan ◽  
Irina Smirnova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Entity ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Entities

The article discusses some aspects of proving in cases of crimes against legal entities. The criminalistic description of the victim represented by a legal entity determines specific details of applying criminalistic and criminal procedure measures aimed at the identification, investigation, detection and prevention of such crimes. Under the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, one of the elements of ordering criminal proceedings is the protection of rights and legal interests of organizations that became victims of crimes. Part 1 of Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation details this guideline for the first time by giving legal entities, viewed as independent subjects of criminal procedure legal relations, the right to be recognized as victims of criminal actions if the crime inflicted damage on their property or business reputation. Nevertheless, the imperfections in the regulation of legal entities’ participation in criminal proceeding, and the insufficient attention to the specifics of realizing their rights and legal interests in comparison with the physical persons of a similar procedural status give rise to numerous problems. The complex of such problems has a negative impact on the effectiveness of investigating this category of crimes and, as a consequence, on the ability of criminal proceedings to produce the intended result. The literal interpretation of Part 1, Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation points out that the consequences of such crimes must include the infliction of two types of damage simultaneously — «to property and to business reputation», which can hardly be considered a good de­finition from the standpoint of juridical technique. Quite naturally, the investigation and court practice shows that law enforcers, while collecting proof on the character and size of damage inflicted on legal entities as a result of a crime, usually limit themselves to proving material damage, and even this damage is not proven in full (the common omission being losses of expected income). As for the damage inflicted on business reputation of a legal entity, its establishment during criminal proceedings is still problematic and, in practice, there is usually a gap in proving it. The authors point out that incomplete character of evidentiary information regarding the infliction of damage on the business reputation of legal entities is inadmissible and present their recommendations for resolving this problem, including the use of specialist knowledge and the improvements in the tactics of specific investigatory actions aimed at obtaining criminalistically relevant information on the case.

scholarly journals Application of preventive measures in the criminal process: current issues

2020 ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
V.S. Suslova ◽  
O.I. Tyshchenko
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

The article is devoted to the research of topical issues of application of the institute of preventive measures in criminal proceedings on the basis of the analysis of normative provisions of the current criminal procedure legislation and law enforcement practice. It is emphasized that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine 2012 (hereinafter - the CPC of Ukraine) provides for an updated system of preventive measures, unlike the CPC of 1960. Attention is drawn to the degree of restriction of human rights and freedoms in the application of preventive measures. The purpose of this article is to analyze topical issues regarding the grounds and procedural order for the application of preventive measures in criminal proceedings and to offer optimal ways of solving them. The author has come to the conclusion that at this stage criminal procedural legislation in terms of regulation of preventive measures needs improvement. The article investigates the types and reasons for choosing preventive measures, which determined the author's position on the need to consolidate at the legislative level the definition of the term "preventive measures". The scientific positions of different authors on the issues related to the application of preventive measures are analyzed, in particular, the views of the processional scientists on the concept of "preventive measures". This made it possible to demonstrate the existence of a rather wide range of scientific proposals for defining this concept at the legislative level. Attention is drawn to the fact that, in practice, the right of a person to liberty and personal integrity when choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention is quite often unduly restricted. The materials of the case law, legal provisions of the ECtHR, Letter of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on Civil and Criminal Matters "On Some Issues of Preventive Measures During Pre-trial Investigation and Proceeding in the Procedure Provided by the Criminal Procedure" Code of Ukraine of 04.04.2013 are used.

scholarly journals Restriction of the access to justice for consideration of the criminal procedure dispute in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
pp. 58-69
Author(s):  
Tatiana Topilina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Soviet Space ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

This article analyzes the problems of implementation of the right of access to justice for consideration of the criminal procedure dispute in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The author carefully examines the legislation of the countries of post-Soviet space on filing a complaint against actions (omissions), as well as decisions of the prosecuting agency in pretrial proceedings. The subject of this research is the norms of the Russian and foreign legislation that regulate the right of access to justice in criminal proceedings. The object is the legal relations arising in the context of implementation of the right of access to justice. The article employs the universal systemic method of cognition; comparative-legal, formal-legal, and statistical methods; as well as logical analysis of the normative legal acts. It is indicated that restriction of the access to justice for consideration of the criminal procedure dispute in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is also established by the practice developed in law enforcement for evaluation of the complaint prior to its consideration involving  the parties with the possibility of making a decision on whether to remit or reject the complaint in the absence of legislatively specified grounds, which directly affects the number of addressed complaints. The conclusion is made on the need to specify the grounds for remitting the complaint of an applicant filed in accordance with the Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, for the purpose of excluding the possibility of decision made by the court that is not based on the law on remitting or rejecting the complaint for consideration (the Article 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

scholarly journals RULES-PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: LAW AND THEORY

2020 ◽  
pp. 21-31
Author(s):  
Alexander M. Baranov ◽  
◽  
Pavel G. Marfitsin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Individual Article ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Principle Of Legality

The study aims to formulate the proposals aimed at optimizing the Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (CPC of RF), which enshrines the principles of criminal justice. The authors of the given article examine the content of the rules-principles, i.e. legislative regulations that express and enshrine the principles of law. It is stated that we should distinguish the rules-principles and rules-beginnings, rules containing general permis-sions and prohibitions and rules-definitions because of the first receive development and logi-cal expression in the second. Attention is drawn to the fact that when discussing the nature of the court procedure we should bear in mind that principles make up the content exclusively of legal awareness. At the stage of drafting of the rules, the principles-ideas become regulatory and legal in nature. The developers of the CPC of the RF are criticized, as they did not take advantage of the scientifically valid system of principles of the criminal proceedings. The authors ask why among the rules-principles reflected in the Chapter 2 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, there was no place for many provisions, previously traditionally recognized as such; why the fundamental provisions of the regulation in other laws, including the Constitution of the Rus-sian Federation, were not enshrined in the CPC of the RF. Based on the analysis of the scien-tific literature and the provisions of the criminal procedure law, the authors conclude that one of the obvious omissions of the developers of the CPC of the RF is the non-inclusion of the provision on equality of all before the law and the court in the number of rules-principles. Objections were raised against the absence of other provisions in the CPC of the RF, previouslyconsidered fundamental for criminal proceedings, namely, publicity (officiality) of criminal proceedings, as well as comprehensiveness, completeness, the objectivity of investigation of all the circumstances of the case. Besides, the authors concluded that the contents of separate articles of Chapter 2 of the CPC of the RF, and, in fact, such independent principles, designated by the legislators as "Respect for the honour and dignity of the individual" (Article 9 of the CPC of the RF); "Immunity of the individual" (Article 10 of the CPC of the RF); "The sanctity of the dwelling" (Article 12 of the CPC of the RF); "The secrecy of correspondence, tele-phone and other negotiations, postal, telegraph and other communications" (Article 13 of the CPC of the RF) can be combined into one group, in Article 11 of the CPC of the RF "Protec-tion of human rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings”. Critical assessment is given to the content of Article 7 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, which is reduced to a formal prohibition for the court, prosecutor, investigator, investiga-tive body and interrogator to apply federal law or other rules contrary to the CPC of the Rus-sian Federation. The current version of Article 7 of the CPC, which enshrines the fundamental principle of legality in criminal proceedings, is inconsistent with modern theoretical views on the essence, content and meaning of the principle of legality in law. The authors conclude that the content of the rules-principles, their system, enshrined in Chapter 2 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, are imperfect and need to be adjusted under the fundamental theoretical developments.

scholarly journals SOME ASPECTS OF THE PROSECUTOR'S PARTICIPATION IN REHABILITATION (IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION)

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 747-752
Author(s):  
A.I. Shmarev
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals CLOSED COURT HEARING AS AN INDEPENDENT SECURITY MEASURE FOR PARTICIPANTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 286-290
Author(s):  
R.M. Ramazanov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Security Measures ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Court Judge ◽  
Independent Form ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Hearing

The publicity of the trial in the Russian criminal trial has been one of the important provisions for several decades and is expressed in the realization of the right of citizens to be present in court when considering and resolving a criminal case. However, an open criminal court may be limited if the grounds listed in Part 2 of Art. 241 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are established as an exception to the general condition of the trial. One of these grounds is a closed court hearing, which is considered as an independent form of ensuring the safety of participants in the process and their loved ones. The creation of safe conditions for citizens to participate in the court session allows the court to establish and verify the evidence collected in the case (Article 73 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). At the same time, security applies not only to participants from the defense or prosecution, other participants in the process, but also in relation to the court (judge). A closed hearing is one of several security measures (part 3 of article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). The decision of the matter and the holding of a trial in private can only be determined if there are strictly established procedural grounds. Such a decision should be motivated.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document