scholarly journals Analysis of the project “On amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation to provide the victim, suspect, accused with the possibility of reconciliation”

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 362-367
Author(s):  
N.V. Mashinskaya ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Alternative Methods ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals Transformation of Criminal Proceedings against Minors in Contemporary Russian Criminal Procedure: Towards the Twentieth Anniversary of the Adoption of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-166
Author(s):  
Vyacheslav V. Nikolyuk ◽  
◽  
Elena V. Markovicheva
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Theoretical Basis ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Scientific Discussion ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation

Introduction. In the Russian criminal process, criminal proceedings against minors have historically taken shape as a complicated procedure. Twenty years of operation of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation have shown sufficient efficiency of legal regulation of criminal procedural relations having to do with the investigation and consideration of this category of criminal cases. But in the process of law enforcement, a number of problems were identified that required resolution through the adjustment of the current criminal procedure law. This article is devoted to the analysis of the most significant changes in the normative regulation of criminal proceedings against minors during the period of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. A critical understanding of the process of transformation of the relevant norms will contribute to the development of an updated regulatory model of criminal justice involving minors. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The theoretical basis of the study consisted of both Russian and foreign scientific works in the field of criminal procedural law, specifically those devoted to both complicated proceedings in general and the specifics of juvenile criminal proceedings. The use of a formal legal research method allowed us to identify patterns in the transformation of criminal proceedings against minors. Results. The article reveals the most significant transformations of the normative regulation of criminal proceedings against minors. Some changes and additions made to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation during the period of its validity are analysed. Further, he main directions for further scientific discussion on the legal regulation of criminal procedure relations with the participation of minors are outlined. Discussion and Conclusion. Although criminal proceedings against minors show sufficient efficiency and compliance with international law, there is a need to systematise the criminal procedural norms governing the participation in criminal proceedings of all minors, regardless of their procedural status. The authors propose, within the framework of the updated criminal procedure law, to systematically consolidate the norms governing the legal status of not only the underage defendants, but also the juvenile victims and witnesses.

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 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 Features of Obtaining, Evaluating and Using of Testimony of a Person Questioned in a Criminal Case of an Accomplice

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 102-113
Author(s):  
V. S. Shadrin ◽  
B. B. Bulatov
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Criminal Investigations ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation

Under Article 56.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, an individual in whose respect the criminal case was separated into a separate proceeding due to the conclusion of a pre-trial cooperation agreement among the participants of the Russian criminal proceedings has appeared. This results in intensification of the discussion of the legal status of not only this individual, but also of a number of other actually existing similar participants. They include, inter alia, a convicted person questioned in the case of his accomplice previously allocated to a separate proceeding due to suspension for one reason or another and subsequently resumed; the person against whom the criminal case has been dismissed, etc. All of them are united by the fact that they are involved in criminal investigations against the accomplices to testify against their wrongful actions. This kind of testimony is of considerable specificity, as it is given by persons with the privilege against self-incrimination and interested in the outcome of the case. This predetermines significant nuances of the procedure of obtaining, evaluating and using such testimonies.

scholarly journals Criminal Procedure Code of Russia: Twenty Years Later (2001–2021)

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Impact

Introduction. 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma on November 22, 2001 by Federal Law No. 174-FZ. The development of criminal procedure legislation in these years was not always consistent, often characterized by chaotic and hasty measures. Nevertheless, the main factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, as well as the key trends in the legal regulation of criminal procedure legal relations, have remained fairly stable for twenty years. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The object of the study is the norms of criminal procedure law that have emerged and developed during the period of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation since 2001. The methodological basis of the study is the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which allowed us to study the subject of the study in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and modelling) and private scientific methods of knowledge (formal legal, historical-legal, and comparative-legal). Results. Among the variety of various factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, there are several main ones: 1. The impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal proceedings. Having ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in 1998, Russia voluntarily assumed obligations in the field of ensuring citizens rights and freedoms, as well as creating the necessary conditions for their implementation. Among the most important criminal procedure norms and institutions that have emerged in the system of criminal procedure regulation under the influence of the positions of the ECHR, the following are notable: a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, the rights of participants in the verification of a crime report, the disclosure of the testimony of an absent witness at a court session, and alternative preventive measures to detention. 2. Optimisation of procedural resources and improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. From the very beginning of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there was a special procedure for judicial proceedings, which is a simplified form of consideration of criminal cases, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In 2009, this procedure was extended to cases with concluded pre-trial cooperation agreements (Chapter 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), and in 2013, the institute of abbreviated inquiry appeared in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Chapter 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). 3. Social demand for increasing the independence of the court, and the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings. Society’s needs to improve the independence of judges, increase public confidence in the court, transparency and quality of justice led to the reform of the jury court in 2016 (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 190-FZ). As a result of the reform, the court with the participation of jurors began to function at the level of district courts, the jurisdiction of criminal cases for jurors was expanded, the number of jurors was reduced from 12 to 8 in regional courts and 6 in district courts. However, practice has shown that sentences handed down by a court on the basis of a verdict rendered by a jury are overturned by higher courts much more often than others due to committed violations, which are associated, among other things, with the inability to ensure the objectivity of jurors. In the context of a request for an independent court, Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the independence of judges (Federal Law of 2 July 2013 N 166-FZ) was adopted. 4. Reducing the degree of criminal repression. In the context of this trend, institutions have emerged in the criminal and criminal procedure laws that regulate new types of exemption from criminal liability. In 2011, Article 281 “Termination of criminal prosecution in connection with compensation for damage” was adopted, concerning a number of criminal cases on tax and other economic crimes (Federal Law of 7 December 2011 N 420). In 2016, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced rules on the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine (Federal Law of 3 July 2016 N 323-FZ). 5. Digitalisation of modern society. The rapid development of information technologies and their implementation in all spheres of public life has put on the agenda the question of adapting a rather archaic “paper” criminal process to the needs of today, and the possibilities of using modern information technologies in the process of criminal proceedings. Among the innovations in this area, it should be noted the appearance in the criminal procedure law of Article 1861 “Obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices” (Federal Law of 1 July 2010 N 143-FZ), Article 4741 “The procedure for using electronic documents in criminal proceedings” (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 220-FZ), the legal regulation of video-conferencing in criminal proceedings (Federal Law of 20 March 2011 N 39-FZ), and the introduction of audio recording of court sessions (Federal Law of 29 July 2018-FZ N 228-FZ), etс. Currently, the possibilities of further digitalisation of criminal proceedings, and the use of programs based on artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings, ets. are being actively discussed. Discussion and Conclusion. The main factors determining the vector of development of modern criminal justice should, in our opinion, include the impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal justice; optimisation of procedural resources and the need to improve the efficiency of criminal justice, social demands for strengthening the independence of the court, adversarial criminal proceedings; the needs of society to reduce the degree of criminal repression, and digitalisation of modern society.

scholarly journals Problems of legal regulation of the stage of exciting a criminal case

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 116-120
Author(s):  
M.A. Mityukova ◽  
◽  
N.A. Shishkina ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation

The lack of sufficient legal regulation of criminal procedural activity at the stage of initiating a criminal case causes the constant appeal of theorists and practitioners to the study of this stage. At the same time, the legislator has not yet made the necessary changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. This study analyzes the methods of verifying reports of a crime, in particular, the problems of proper process fixing of received objects and documents when using such methods of collecting evidence as reclamation and presentation. Based on the analysis of theoretical provisions and investigative practice, problems are posed and conclusions are drawn about the need to fix the possibility of seizure in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when checking a crime report. The issues of the legal status of participants in the stage of initiating a criminal case at the stage of receiving and registering reports of a crime, during the production of investigative actions are also studied. Conclusions are drawn about the need to make changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation aimed at consolidating the legal status of the applicant, the victim, eyewitnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals Detention and Remand in Custody: Comparative Legal Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 145-153
Author(s):  
I. V. Karavaev
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Federal Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Difference

The paper analyzes the legal regulation of detention in custody of persons confined on suspicion of committing a crime, as well as of persons in respect of whom a measure of restriction in the form of remand in custody was chosen. The norms of the Federal Law “On detention in custody of suspects and accused of committing crimes”, as well as the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation relating to these relations are considered. The differences between the two types of custody are investigated: “detention” and “remand in custody”. The author identifies six fundamental criteria underlying the difference between the two types of custody: the grounds for the detention; a person or body authorized to decide on detention in custody; duration of custody; custodial facility; legal status of persons in custody; grounds for release. It is concluded that it is necessary to revise the Federal Law "On detention in custody of suspects and accused of committing crimes", changing its structure on the basis that the law actually regulates two independent processes: taking into custody when detaining a person and detention in custody when choosing a measure of restriction in the form of remand in custody.

scholarly journals REASONABLE TIME OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: CRIMINALISTIC CHARACTER

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 101-111
Author(s):  
K. A. Korsakov ◽  
V. V. Konin ◽  
E. V. Sidorenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Reasonable Time ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

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