scholarly journals Legal Basis of Rehabilitation in Criminal Proceedings

Author(s):  
Gulom Mahammatovich Shodiev ◽  

This article discusses the legal basis of rehabilitation in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Uzbekistan. The most constructive theories of the institution under discussion are discussed, their advantages and disadvantages are emphasized. The article also analyzes the volume of rehabilitation in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-208
Author(s):  
A. V. Boyarskaya

The subject of study is the criminal-legal basis for an expedited procedure for adopting a court ruling when the accused person agrees with the charge. These issues are relevant, since in July 2020 the substantive legal basis of the expedited procedure in Russia was changed and now this procedure can only be applied in criminal cases of small and medium gravity.The aim of this work is to study the substantive legal basis of an expedited procedure of litigation from the point of view of the changes were made to it. The author expresses the thesis that the legislators did not quite reasonably link criminal-legal grounds of the expedited procedure with the system of categories of crimes.The methodology. The author used general scientific methods (dialectical, historical, methods of formal logic, system analysis) as well as method of formal legal interpretation of Russian Criminal Code and judicial decisions of Russian courts.The main results, scope of application. The criminal and legal basis of certain criminal procedure is a package of criminal law standards, for the implementation of which a certain criminal and procedural form is intended. The parameters of the substantive basis of criminal proceedings are set with the signs that shall be indicated in the Code of Criminal Procedure and may change. It directly refers to the expedited procedure for adopting a court ruling, by Chapter 40 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code. Initially, it was assumed that the application of this procedure is permissible in criminal cases concerning crimes the punishment for which does not exceed 5 years imprisonment in accordance with the Russian Criminal Code. The expedited court proceedings began to be applied in criminal cases concerning crimes, the punishment for which does not exceed 10 years imprisonment in accordance with the Russian Criminal Code, since 2003. The Russian Supreme Court made an attempt to reduce the application of court proceedings provided by Chapter 40 of the Russian Criminal Procedure Code in 2019. It turned out to be successful. Legislators have changed the basic criterion that determines the substantive basis for an expedited procedure for adopting a court ruling. Now the system of categories of crimes is this basis. The system of categories of crimes presented in Article 15 of the Russian Criminal Code is not stable enough and is based on a set of provisions of this Code, but the sanctions for many crimes are not scientifically and practically grounded in this Code. In addition, the classification of crimes enshrined in Article 15 of the Russian Criminal Code is based on such a criterion as the nature and degree of public danger of the crime. These categories are among the most complex in the science of criminal law.Conclusions. The use of categories of crimes as a criterion for determining the criminal legal basis of the expedited procedure for making a court decision significantly complicates the application of the expedited procedure.


2021 ◽  
pp. 32-37
Author(s):  
Р.О. Абдульдинов ◽  
T.A. Khanov

The article discusses certain issues related to the protocol form of pre-trial investigation of criminalcases. A hypothesis is tested that defines protocol proceedings as a simplified (accelerated) form of pre-trialinvestigation used in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Kazakhstan. A comparative analysis of theprotocol form of pre-trial preparation of materials has been carried out. This form was in force in the 1959Criminal Procedure Code of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. The simplified procedure for pre-trialproceedings was introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 1997.The accelerated procedure for pre-trial investigation has been in force in the criminal procedurelegislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan since 2014. The authors came to the conclusion that the protocolform is a full-fledged procedural production of the pre-trial investigation. This form practically does notcontain elements of simplification, and the introduced changes and additions have brought to naught theaccelerated procedure. This led to the fact that most of the cases are terminated due to violation of thetimeframe for the investigation.


Author(s):  
V.V. Djafarov ◽  

The article considers problems of substantiating certain types of decisions in the criminal process. The author’s views are based on recent changes in the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the existing experience of the Russian Federation. The article focuses on provisions of the current criminal procedure code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The author refers to Russian proceduralists whose works are devoted to the problems of studying the validity of procedural decisions at the pre-trial stage. The author indicated types of decisions, which are not recognized as criminal procedural, but for which justification should be a mandatory criterion according to the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The article provisions justify the need to enshrine the definition of «reasonableness» in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a mandatory requirement that must be met when taking decisions by the prosecuting authorities.


Russian judge ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 10-15
Author(s):  
Eldar K. Kutuev ◽  
◽  
Vadim S. Latypov ◽  

In this article, the authors attempt to analyze the types of counteraction provided against persons who assist in the administration of justice and determine the possible consequences of such impact. Such concepts as “assistance”, “counteraction”, “abuse of rights”are considered. The author argues for the need to ensure the safety of this category of persons by introducing an independent Chapter in the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation devoted to measures to ensure the safety of participants in criminal proceedings and other persons, similar to the procedural legislation of the Republic of Belarus.


2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-86
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Kvastek

This paper will analyse the position of the injured party in an investigation conducted by the public prosecutor's office, which was implemented in the Republic of Serbia in 2011. After we have given the definitions of the injured party and the difference with the term victim, as a criminological category, we will discuss whether the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code (2011) takes a step back when it comes to the position of the injured party in criminal proceedings. First of all, the ability of the injured party to become a subsidiary prosecutor was limited, as it was prescribed that the injured party can take over criminal prosecution only after the confirmation of the public prosecutor's indictment, so the opportunity to acts as a subsidiary prosecutor does not exist in the manner in which it existed under the Criminal Procedure Code from 2001 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Then, we shall demonstrate how the position of the injured party was exacerbated in relation to deferred prosecution, as the injured party cannot submit an objection to the higher public prosecutor to re-examine the decision not to prosecute and the injured party's consent is not needed for this decision. The research conducted among deputy public prosecutors and attorneys for the purposes of this paper confirms the presumption that the Criminal Procedure Code in force downgraded the injured party's impact on the criminal proceedings.


Author(s):  
Veljko Ikanović

The author deals with the new position of the injured party in criminal proceedings, persons who may refuse to testify and exceptions from the direct presentation of evidence due to the unavailability of witnesses after the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Republika Srpska from 2021. Starting from the current regulation of this matter, pointing to the solutions in the comparative legislation, the analysis of these changes indicates the consequences of such inconsistent and in some institutes unnecessary and erroneous standardization of this sensitive matter. Attention is drawn to the contradiction between the decision on the privileged witness and juvenile legislation, which is in line with the conventions protecting their position, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In that sense, the legislator is critically pointed out the shortcomings of certain solutions and suggests appropriate changes and additions in order to eliminate the problems that may arise during their practical application.


2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160
Author(s):  
Andrіy Shulha ◽  
◽  
Tetyana Khailova ◽  

The article deals with the problem of specialist’s participation in the scene examination, which is carried out before entering information into the Unified Register of the pre-trial investigations. The essence of the problem is that the current criminal procedural law of Ukraine recognizes the specialist’s participation only in the pre-trial investigation, the litigation and the proceedings in the case of the commission of an unlawful act under the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine states that a specialist in criminal proceedings is a person who has special knowledge and skills and can provide advice and conclusions during the pre-trial investigation and trial on issues that require appropriate special knowledge and skills. In other cases, the specialist has no procedural status. In addition, Part 1 of Article 237 of the CPC of Ukraine «Examination» states that the examination is conducted to identify and record information on the circumstances of the offense commitment. It is an act provided by the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. However, there are the cases in the investigation, when a report is received, for example, about a person's death, other events with formal signs of the offense, which must first be checked for signs of a crime, and only then the act can be considered as offense. In this case, a specialist takes part in the scene examination. However, the current criminal procedure law in accordance with Part 1, Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine determines the legal status of a specialist only as the participant in criminal proceedings. The paragraph 10, part 1 of Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine defines the criminal proceedings as pre-trial investigation and court proceedings or procedural actions in the case of the commission of an unlawful act. Therefore, when the inspection of the scene is based on the uncertain status of the event (there is no clear information that the event contains signs of an offense), the specialist’s participation is not regulated by law. The authors propose to consider the specialists as «experienced persons» in cases mentioned above and to include their advices to the protocol of the scene examination, as the advices of other scene examination participants.


Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  

The article is devoted to the issues of formulating the definition of such a criminal procedural concept as «procedural costs». Emphasizing the importance both for science and for law enforcement of clarity and clarity when formulating the definition of criminal procedural concepts, the authors point out that the formulation of this concept present in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is far from being improved. Having studied the opinions on this issue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a number of procedural scholars, the authors propose their own version of the definition of the concept of «criminal procedural costs» with its allocation in a separate paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


2020 ◽  
pp. 377-386
Author(s):  
Я. Ю. Конюшенко

The purpose of the article is to define the prosecutor's supervision over investigative (search) actions as a legal guarantee of human rights, as well as problematic issues in its implementation and to make proposals to improve the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine. The article defines doctrinal approaches to the concepts of "prosecutor's supervision over compliance with the law during the pre-trial investigation" and "prosecutor's procedural guidance of the pre-trial investigation" in the context of investigative (search) actions. The author came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in terms of regulating the functions and powers of the prosecutor during the pre-trial investigation. Based on the study, it is proposed to consider procedural guidance as one of the forms of prosecutor's supervision over the pre-trial investigation, which is implemented directly by the prosecutor or a group of prosecutors who are appointed to carry it out in a particular criminal proceeding. The author also emphasizes the existence of forms of supervision of the highest level prosecutor on the legality of these actions, which are implemented through the demand and study of information on the progress and results of pre-trial investigation, criminal proceedings and certified copies of court decisions and study of compliance with criminal procedure. A number of problematic issues during the prosecutor's supervision in pre-trial criminal proceedings are outlined, which relate to the relationship between the prosecutor's supervision and judicial control over the legality of investigative (search) actions; subjects and subject of supervision of the prosecutor in this sphere; providing the prosecutor-procedural manager and prosecutors of the highest level with instructions and instructions during the investigative (search) actions. To address these issues, it is proposed to amend the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine. The study of the materials of criminal proceedings and the survey of the subjects of criminal proceedings indicate the existence of a number of problematic issues that exist during the implementation of the prosecutor's procedural guidance of investigative (search) actions in the context of human rights.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-165

The article aims to examine one of the elements of the formal mechanism of maintaining court practice unity in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries – referring a case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Similar to the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the grounds for referring a criminal case and the procedure of its application are provided in the legislation of Estonia, Italy and Lithuania. At the same time, the Ukrainian legislator has established a number of special features, however, the wording of the relevant articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is not perfect. The article provides answers to such questions as how forceful the provisions of criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine are, to what extent of effectiveness the Supreme Court exercises its legal authority regarding the unity of court practice in criminal proceedings, and whether the controversies in legal positions of the structural divisions of the Supreme Court have been successfully avoided. In order to achieve the stated aims, parts 2 and 3 are devoted to the examination of the grounds for referring a case in criminal proceedings of Ukraine and European countries. Part 4 outlines the shortcomings of the content of some articles of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concerning the procedure of the referral of a criminal case to the highest division of the Supreme Court. Part 5 provides the analysis of the validity of decisions made by the boards of judges at the Supreme Court on the referral of criminal proceedings to its higher judicial divisions – the joint chamber of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. On the basis of the study of the judgements of boards, the judicial chambers of the Criminal Cassation Court and the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, in part 6 the question is answered on whether the Supreme Court of Ukraine managed to perform its duty on the assurance of court practice unity in such an area as criminal proceedings. Keywords: exclusive legal problem, development of law, formation of uniform law enforcement practice, the Supreme Court, criminal proceedings, Ukraine.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document