Legal and organizational bases of execution of preventive measures by criminal executive inspections

2020 ◽  
pp. 42-51
Author(s):  
Ольга Васильевна Коростылёва
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Systematic Analysis ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Organizational Issues ◽  
Executive Authority ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation

В статье рассматриваются правовые и организационные вопросы, возникающие при исполнении мер пресечения, которые в соответствии с уголовно-процессуальным законодательством исполняют уголовно-исполнительные инспекции Федеральной службы исполнения наказаний (ФСИН России). Автор исследует исторически сложившиеся традиции исполнения мер пресечения и выявляет несоответствие в задачах, возложенных на ФСИН России, в связи с необоснованным расширением круга обязанностей сотрудников уголовно-исполнительных инспекций, вынужденных исполнять, кроме наказаний без изоляции от общества и иных мер уголовно-правового характера, еще и меры пресечения. В этой связи в теоретическом и прикладном аспектах актуальность и определенный интерес представляет статья, посвященная рассмотрению практики применения мер уголовно-процессуального принуждения уголовно-исполнительными инспекциями. Существенной новизной настоящей работы является отражение современных проблем применения следующих мер пресечения: домашний арест, запрет определенных действий, залог при возложении на подозреваемого/обвиняемого соблюдать запреты в соответствии с ч. 6 ст. 105.1 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации, основным контролирующим органом - федеральным органом исполнительной власти, осуществляющим правоприменительные функции, функции по контролю и надзору в сфере исполнения уголовных наказаний в отношении осужденных, а именно - уголовно-исполнительными инспекциями. Определяющее значение в обосновании позиции автора играет тот факт, что согласно руководящим нормативным правовым актам исполняемые сегодня уголовно-исполнительными инспекциями меры пресечения, за исключением домашнего ареста, не имеют должного законодательного закрепления. Кроме выделенных проблем, автором предложены пути их решения, которые были получены в ходе системного анализа действующего уголовно-процессуального и уголовно-исполнительного законодательства. The article deals with the legal and organizational issues that arise in the execution of preventive measures, which, in accordance with the criminal procedure legislation, are executed by the criminal Executive inspections of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia. The author examines the historical traditions of execution of preventive measures, and identifies inconsistencies in the tasks assigned to the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia in connection with the unjustified expansion of the range of duties of employees of criminal Executive inspections, forced to perform, in addition to punishments without isolation from society and other measures of a criminal legal nature, also preventive measures. In this regard, in theoretical and applied aspects, the article devoted to the review of the practice of applying measures of criminal procedural coercion by criminal Executive inspections is relevant and of some interest. A significant novelty of this work is the reflection of modern problems of applying the following preventive measures: house arrest, prohibition of certain actions, bail when assigning a suspect / accused to comply with prohibitions in accordance with Pt. 6 of Art. 105.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the main controlling body-the Federal Executive authority that performs law enforcement functions, functions of control and supervision in the field of execution of criminal penalties against convicted persons, namely, criminal Executive inspections. The author's position is based on the fact that according to the guiding normative legal acts, the preventive measures implemented by the criminal Executive inspections today, with the exception of house arrest, do not have a proper legislative basis. In addition to the identified problems, the author suggests ways to solve them, which were obtained in the course of a systematic analysis of the current criminal procedure and criminal enforcement legislation.

Features of the election of such preventive measure as house arrest in relation to minors

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-157
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Manohina
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
A Minor

In the article, the author turns to the study of the peculiarities of choosing such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Due to the fact that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not precisely define cases when a court must elect a house arrest in relation to minors, in practice there are often difficulties in which cases to choose such a preventive measure as detention, and in which house arrest. In the work, the author attempts to determine the essence of such a preventive measure as house arrest and the peculiarities of his election in relation to minors, and also considers the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which minors cannot be subjected. The positions contained in the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the practice of the application by the courts of legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest and bail” are analyzed. The author expresses the opinion that it is inadvisable to choose such a preventive measure as house arrest for minors. Based on the study, the author makes recommendations on the possibility, at the discretion of the court, to make adjustments to the prohibitions and (or) restrictions to which a minor suspect or accused will be subjected to whom such a preventive measure as house arrest is chosen.

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.

House arrest in the system of procedural preventive measures against minors (in genesis)

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 133-139
Author(s):  
Ol'ga Tuchina
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
The Russian Federation

To implement the norms of international law into the practice of Russian legal system while choosing a preventive measure against an accused minor or a suspect, to decide on the most humane preventive measure is the issue of great importance. This position is reflected in Art. 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code providing the fundamental foundations of criminal procedure provisions concerning preventive measures against minors. When making a decision on restraint measures related to isolation from society, the possibility of applying an alternative, more humane preventive measure should be taken into account. The article describes the ratio of house arrest to detention. It has been justified that in the system of preventive measures house arrest should be recognized as a measure not related to isolation from society, and as a more common alternative to detention. The legislator periodically attempts to improve the procedural situation of minors involved in criminal procedure. Problems are connected with unstructured placement of norms regarding juvenile suspects and accused in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Secondly, it is linked with the absence of features of house arrest of minors. All this makes the author state that despite the large-scale judicial and legal reform, the legal regulation of preventive measures against minors needs to be further improved. The subject of the study is a scientific analysis of the sources of criminal procedure legislation on the legal regulation of house arrest in the system of preventive measures against minors. The purpose of the study is to provide scientific analysis of the features of house arrest applied to minors and to form an author’s position on this issue. Research methods cover systemic analysis, structural, logical, and comparative scientific methods. The results achieved are the analysis of the system of preventive measures against minors with the identification of the specifics of house arrest, the recognition of this measure as a preventive means not related to isolation from society, and the formation of the author’s version of the norm of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation governing this preventive step.

scholarly journals House Arrest of the Accused (Suspect): Full Isolation and the Right to Walk

2020 ◽  
pp. 43-46
Author(s):  
Valentina N. Gaponova ◽  
◽  
Varsenik A. Vinogradova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

The article analyzes the changes in the legal regulation of the house arrest and the practice of its imposition. Particular attention is given to the controversial issue of the right of the accused under house arrest to leave the premises for a walk. The authors note that the Normative Transformation of House Arrest, which brought it closer to detention, set the law enforcement task to overcome the established stereotypes in the interpretation of specific provisions related to the essence of this preventive measure. First, it concerns the “regime” of isolation, specifically, the possibility of the accused to take walks. Today, when the house arrest implies ultimate isolation of the accused with the right to live in their home, the court’s permission for the accused to leave the place of residence is not based on the law. The authors conclude that the positive decision of the court is permissible only because of applying the law by analogy. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the responsibility of the state to take care of the health of persons whose possibilities in this part are limited due to the election of preventive measures with isolation from society.

scholarly journals Obtaining Samples for a Comparative Study: Theoretical, Normative and Law Enforcement Problems

2021 ◽  
pp. 17-29
Author(s):  
Elena Zaitseva
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Comparative Study ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right

The article analyzes the debatable aspects of the normative regulation of obtaining samples for a comparative study according to the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Attention is paid to the key problems in the regulation of this action, and to the difficulties that law enforcement employees face due to them. The author examines the questions of defining the legal nature of obtaining samples for a comparative study, and the possibility of using the operative search potential instead of the procedural method to obtain comparative samples. While analyzing the problems of setting the limits of compulsion for this action, the author stresses the incorrectness of some wording in the law (Art. 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). In the light of ensuring the right of criminally prosecuted persons to defense, the author also presents a critical assessment of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation reflected in the Definition of July 23, 2020 № 1856-0, in the part where obtaining samples for a comparative study is recognized as an action of urgent nature.

The Mechanism Of Implementation Of The Constitution Of The Russian Federation

2019 ◽  
pp. 36-51
Author(s):  
Anatolii Yugov ◽  
Sergey Belykh
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Cultural Development ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Legal Document ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Favorable Conditions ◽  
Scientific Ideas ◽  
Rational Mechanism

The Constitution, as the main universal and comprehensive legal document, establishes fundamental principles and defines the legal basis for development of public and state life in all politically significant spheres, serves as a guarantor of legitimacy and order, gives a boost to the development of society. The special political and legal nature of the constitution, the issues of its operation and the mechanism of its implementation are of great importance. In accordance to the authors’ approach, the mechanism of implementation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation includes the following components: 1) entry of the constitution into legal force; 2) its functions; 3) constitutional algorithm of unity and differentiation of public authority; 4) forms of implementation; 5) ways of implementation; 6) subjects of implementation; 7) objects of implementation; 8) institutions for modernization; 9) guarantees of implementation. The authors conclude that the modern scientific ideas of a rational mechanism of implementation of the Constitution of the Russian Federation contribute to solving the issues of economic and cultural development of the Russian society, help creating favorable conditions for proper law enforcement, strengthening legitimacy and order.

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 On jurisdiction in case of extradition of a foreign citizen by the Russian Federation: the problems of theory and law enforcement practice

2021 ◽  
pp. 27-35
Author(s):  
Alexander Fedyunin
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Scientific Analysis ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
General Scientific ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Specific Regulation

The subject of this research is the issues emerging in consideration of jurisdiction of the material on extradition of a foreign citizen by the Russian Federation. The article touches upon the peculiarities of national and territorial aspect of jurisdiction, and its specific regulation in the criminal procedure law. The article employs the general scientific and private scientific methods, such as scientific analysis, generalization, comparative-legal, formal-logical, which allowed to most fully reflect the essence and problematic aspects of the selected topic. The question at hand is of major importance for the theory of criminal procedure and law enforcement practice, as the mistakes in determination of jurisdiction of the material are a severe violation of the rights, including the convict, and entail the unconditional annulment of court decision. The analysis of the most common mistakes occurred in application of the norms regulating the jurisdiction of extradition of a foreign citizen convicted by the court of the Russian Federation, as well as theoretical issues associated with determination of the court that deals with the particular issue allows outlining the vector and finding solution to the indicated problems.

scholarly journals TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE CONCEPT «PROCEDURAL COSTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS»

Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Procedural Costs ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Article 5

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.

Specifics of some anti-corruption measures in Russia within the framework of public and state security

2020 ◽  
pp. 541-547
Author(s):  
Tatyana Plotnikova ◽  
Andrey Paramonov
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
State Security ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Illegal Acts ◽  
The Russian Federation

In the current difficult conditions for the economy of our state, corruption crimes represent a higher level of danger. It is necessary to reform anti-corruption activities in order to increase its effectiveness. One of the radical measures in the field of anti-corruption will be the abolition of the presumption of innocence for corrupt illegal acts. The presumption of inno-cence is a fundamental and irremovable principle of criminal law, which is enshrined in article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Violation of this principle is impossible for criminal proceedings, but modern circumstances require timely, prompt, and sometimes radical so-lutions. It is worth not to neglect the measures of “insuring” on the part of law enforcement agencies, since otherwise it will increase the share of cor-ruption crimes in law enforcement agencies. The content of paragraph 4 of article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is man-datory even if the presumption of innocence for corruption crimes is can-celed: “A conviction cannot be based on assumptions”. At the same time, the principle of differentiation of punishment will be implemented by assigning the term of imprisonment from the minimum to the maximum, depending on the severity of the illegal act.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document