On the issue of the status of a representative of a regional bar association in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (149) ◽  
pp. 288-290
Author(s):  
S.V. KRAUSE ◽  
◽  
V.N. LARIONOV ◽  
D.A. MOKHOROV ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Bar Association

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.

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.

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 Judicial legal positions in the context of conflicts related to the formation of the procedural status of persons against whom acts of criminal prosecution are actually implemented

2019 ◽  
pp. 114-119
Author(s):  
Sergey Grachev
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

The article considers the grounds for the emergence of the procedural status of a suspect in a criminal case. The rights and obligations of the specified person, including the right to protection are analyzed. Subject to the requirements of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation the conclusion about the necessity of legislative consolidation of the procedural status of the person whose rights and lawful interests are affected carried out in relation to proceedings for verification of a crime report in accordance with article 144 of the Criminal procedure code and equating it to the status of a suspect, since during the pre-investigation check he has the right to protection from the criminal prosecution actually carried out against him.

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".

scholarly journals On Regulatory Criteria for Classifying an Organization as a Non-State Expert Institution

2020 ◽  
pp. 123-126
Author(s):  
Olga N. Nadonenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Expert System ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legislative Regulation ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

The current legislation formalizes three elements of the expert system in Russia: state and non-state expert institutions and experts who do not work in expert institutions. As follows from this triad, the defining concept is “expert institution”. The concept “state expert institution” is legally enshrined in Federal Law No. 73-FZ of May 31, 2001, but there is currently no legislative regulation of the criteria for classifying an organization as a “non-state expert institution”, which gives rise to a number of law enforcement problems. For instance, for an investigator, determining the status of an organization entails the implementation of the provisions of Article 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation under Clause 1.2 or Clause 4. Therefore, in the author’s opinion, it is extremely important to pass a law regulating the criteria for classifying an organization as a state or non-state expert institution, or a non-expert institution.

Ensuring the Rights and Legal Interests of the Victim when Checking the Crime Report: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the Criminal Procedure Codes of the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China

2021 ◽  
pp. 128-133
Author(s):  
Irina G. Smirnova ◽  
◽  
Ekaterina V. Alekseeva ◽  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
People’S Republic Of China ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
People's Republic Of China ◽  
Republic Of China ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Procedure Codes

The article presents a comparative legal analysis of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and the Criminal Procedure Code of the People’s Republic of China, which regulate the rights and powers of the victim within the framework of the stage of initiating a criminal case. The authors highlight several significant differences in the legal regulation of this issue. The differences are: the obligation to comply with the rules of jurisdiction in China at the stage of filing a statement of a crime, which is not required under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation; compulsory fingerprinting of a person when filing a crime report with a public security agency implemented in China; the existence of several types of preliminary checks (the list of activities carried out as part of these checks in China is open); intensive development of IT technologies and their introduction into the life of society, including for the fight against crime and ensuring law and order in society, in China.

USING RESULTS OF STING OPERATION IN CRIMINAL CASES PROVING

2021 ◽  
pp. 132-136
Author(s):  
Кирилл Иванович ЛАРИН
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Sting Operation

В статье рассматриваются проблемные вопросы, связанные с использованием в качестве доказательств результатов оперативного эксперимента. Предлагается отказаться от проведения оперативного эксперимента по инициативе оперативных подразделений и допустить его проведение исключительно в рамках рассмотрения сообщения о преступлении, на основании поручения следователя Следственного комитета в порядке статьи 144 УПК РФ. The article deals with problematic issues associated with the use of the results of an operational experiment as evidence. It is proposed to refuse to conduct an operational experiment on the initiative of operational units and allow it to be conducted exclusively within the framework of considering a report on a crime, on the basis of an order from an investigator of the Investigative Committee in accordance with Article 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document