scholarly journals Application of the results of 3D video modeling in averment on criminal cases: US and Russian legal framework

Author(s):  
Mariia Aleksandrovna Iurkevich

This article reviews most controversial issues pertaining to legal, organizational and actual possibility of using 3D video modeling in averment on criminal cases. The author analyzes the approach adopted in the US legal system towards application of video models of evidence in judicial proceedings, distinguishing between the main forms of 3D video models that exist in the US criminal procedure. Leaning on the analysis of particular judicial precedents and normative acts that regulate the questions of criminal proceedings in the United States, the author outlines the conditions (rules) for admissibility of 3D evidence. Applicable to the criminal procedure of the Russian Federation, the article formulates the legal framework for using video modeling in criminal proceedings, as well as gives a general description to the system of criminal procedural guarantees that ensure the rights of the individual in the context of using video modeling, and accuracy of information acquired from such evidence. The research employs the general philosophical method of materialistic dialectics, methods of analysis, synthesis, legal experiment, and comparative legal method. The scientific novelty consists in the fact that the author is one of the first to explore the question of using the results of video modeling in criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation. The analysis of the US law enforcement experience on the subject matter is of particular relevance due to accumulation of the vast practical experience in adapting video modeling technology to the needs of criminal justice of the XXI century. The doctrine of the national criminal procedure had not previously to determine the role of 3D video modeling in averment on criminal cases. The author's conclusions on the need to use the results of video modeling, including immersive reality, not only in expert activity, but also in criminal procedure (for example, in the course of hearing of arguments) are aimed at the transformation of criminal proceedings with regards to its optimization via digitalization.

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-101
Author(s):  
E. V. Smakhtin

The article deals with the peculiarities of the activity of courts in making judicial decisions in the context of a pandemic. First of all, we are talking about the wider use of digital and information technologies in criminal proceedings, which have previously been repeatedly recommended by forensic science for implementation in judicial practice. Some recommendations of criminalistics are currently accepted by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in its Decision dated April 08, 2020 № 821 and Review on certain issues of judicial practice related to the application of legislation and measures to counteract the spread of a new coronavirus infection (COVID-19) in the territory of the Russian Federation № 2, which provided appropriate explanations for their use in practice. In particular, we are talking about the possibility of using video conferencing systems for certain categories of criminal cases and materials that are considered urgent, although this is not provided for in criminal procedure legislation. It is concluded that it is necessary to change the current criminal procedure legislation, bring it into line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, federal constitutional laws, federal laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts, including orders of the Judicial Department under the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
E.F. Tensina

The article reveals the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, which establishes the freedom to dispose of material and procedural rights. The forms of manifestation of dispositive principles in the material and procedural aspects in the course of criminal proceedings are determined. Taking into account the nature of the claim of a private prosecution, various models of proceedings in criminal cases of a private prosecution and the peculiarities of the implementation of the provisions of the criminal procedure principle of the presumption of innocence are considered. The author critically assesses the legal constructions that allow the application of a special procedure for making a court decision in criminal proceedings of a private prosecution if the accused agrees with the charge brought. In particular, taking into account the provisions of the principle of the presumption of innocence, it is concluded that it is inadmissible to apply Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation when considering a criminal case of a private prosecution if it is initiated by filing an application directly with a magistrate in the manner prescribed by Art. 318 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation or when investigating a criminal case of this category in the form of an abbreviated inquiry, regulated by Ch. 32.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Mariia Aleksandrovna Iurkevich

Legal regulation of the use of video technologies in the Russian criminal procedure is conducted on the international and domestic levels. However, based on the primacy of international law recognized by the Russian Federation, the marker is the position of international community that is reflected in the normative legal acts of its special bodies, as well as on the doctrinal level. This article carries out the chronological analysis of the acts issued by international bodies and organizations pertaining to the use video conferencing in criminal proceedings. The subject of this research is the acts of international bodies and organizations that underlie the development of the national legal framework for the use of video conferencing in the Russian Federation. The analysis of normative acts that regulate the use of video conferencing in the Russian criminal procedure demonstrate that for the most part this question is being addressed in the international agreements ratified by the Russian Federation, rather than in the national legislation (considering the provisions of the Part 3 of the Article 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). Leaning on the acquired results, the author concludes that such tendency can be explained by a number of circumstances, namely lag in the rates of digitalization compared to the leading European practices, insignificant period of approbation of the results of using video technologies, as well as relatively short period of intensive implementation of such technologies due to the amendments in criminal procedure policy of the country, which now requires exhaustive normative regulation. The author believes that it is more appropriate to begin the analysis of normative acts that determine the legal framework for application of video conferencing in criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation with the general principles and norms of international law and international agreements, since their role in intensification of the process of digital transformation of criminal procedure in Russia cannot be overestimated.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 71-78
Author(s):  
I. V. Smolkova

The paper is devoted to the analysis of a new ground for recognition of a person as a suspect, introduced under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, namely, the initiation of a criminal case against the person. The ground under consideration has caused controversial debates among criminal process scholars. The author has carried out a retrospective analysis of the legislative regulation of this ground for giving a person the status of the suspect. The paper evaluates various doctrinal approaches to its merits and disadvantages. The author also demonstartes the need for the new ground for recognition of a person as the suspect in law enforcement on the basis of statistical data, according to which more than half of criminal cases in Russia are initiated against a particular person. The study at question reveals an interconnection between initiation of proceedings upon commission of a crime and a particular person. The conclusion is substantiated that the recognition of a person as a suspect in case of initiation of criminal proceedings against him is aimed at ensuring his right to protection from criminal prosecution. However, the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person entails the possibility of implementation of coercive criminal procedural measures against him. It is shown that suspicion forms the substantive basis of recognition of a person as the suspect. The author criticises the approach according to which the issuance of the order to initiate criminal proceedings against a particular person forms an allegation that he has committed an act prohibited under the criminal law. Under this approach the assumption is made that can later be either proven or refuted in the course of further investigation. The author criticises the practice of dividing criminal cases into a judicial perspective and lacking such a perspective, which entails violations of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals suspected in committing crimes.


2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-220
Author(s):  
Nguyen Van Tien ◽  
Viktor Victorovich Pushkarev ◽  
Ekaterina Viktorovna Tokareva ◽  
Alexey Vasilyevich Makeev ◽  
Olga Rinatovna Shepeleva

In criminal proceedings of Vietnam, in contrast to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to separate physical, material and moral damage that may be caused by the crime or socially dangerous act prohibited by the criminal law, the rights and legitimate interests of natural or legal persons. The article is devoted to solving the problem of compensation for damage caused by a crime in pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases, based on the study of Russian and Vietnamese criminal procedure legislation, practice, and results of its application. The conclusions are subject to study and implementation in the law.Keywords: Compensation for harm; Investigation; Rights and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings Kompensasi untuk Kerusakan yang Disebabkan oleh Kejahatan di Republik Sosialis Vietnam dan Federasi Rusia Abstrak:Berbeda dengan Kode Acara Pidana Federasi Rusia, lebih baik dalam proses pidana Vietnam untuk memisahkan kerugian fisik, material, dan moral yang disebabkan oleh kejahatan atau tindakan berbahaya secara sosial yang dilarang oleh hukum pidana dari hak dan kepentingan sah orang atau badan hukum. Berdasarkan kajian undang-undang prosedur pidana Rusia dan Vietnam, praktik, dan hasil penerapannya, artikel ini dikhususkan untuk memecahkan masalah kompensasi atas kerusakan yang disebabkan oleh kejahatan dalam proses pra-persidangan dalam kasus pidana. Kesimpulan sedang dipelajari dan akan dimasukkan ke dalam undang-undang.Kata Kunci: Kompensasi untuk kerugian; Penyelidikan; Hak dan kepentingan sah peserta dalam proses pidana Возмещение вреда причиненного преступлением в социалистической республике Вьетнам и Российской Федерации АннотацияСтатья посвящена разрешению проблемы возмещения вреда, причиненного преступлением, в досудебном производстве по уголовным делам, на основе исследования российского и вьетнамского уголовно-процессуального законодательства, практики и результатов его применения. Выводы подлежат изучению и внедрению в законКлючевые Слова: возмещение вреда, расследование, права и законные интересы участников уголовного процесса, следователь, дознаватель


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-188
Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viktor I. Kachalov

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.


Globus ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (7(64)) ◽  
pp. 45-46
Author(s):  
M.G. Mkrtychev

This article analyzes the application of the institution of prejudice in criminal proceedings when considering cases of crimes in the field of economic activity. The position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the application of Art. 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The problems of using the institution of prejudice in criminal proceedings in criminal cases on crimes in the sphere of economic activity are considered on practical examples.


Author(s):  
K.D. Muratov

The idea of adversariality in criminal proceedings, carried away by its simplicity and originality in the context of public legal relations, after a certain period of time had passed the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, gradually began to be reasonably questioned. The study of procedural procedures, the recognition of objects and documents as material evidence, as well as the subjects of the collection and presentation of material evidence, allow a closer look at the legal relationship and powers of the parties in criminal proceedings in the field of their implementation both in pre-trial and in court proceedings. Investigative and judicial processes as historically established forms of criminal procedure should be adversarial. The author examines the importance of the adversarial nature of the parties in the formation of material evidence in criminal cases and their assessment by the parties when substantiating the conclusions in the case, shows their theoretical and legal significance, procedural and legal, preventive and prophylactic and informational and evidentiary value.


Author(s):  
M. A. Baranova ◽  

The article examines the compromise model of building criminal proceedings in Russia on the example of special proceedings provided for in Chapters 40 and 40.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. The dynamics of their application, emerging practical difficulties and incidents are monitored. The prospect of further use of special proceedings in criminal cases of serious and especially serious crimes is considered. Based on the analysis of specific criminal cases, it is proved that a significant reduction in the amount of punishment “guaranteed” by these proceedings is a legal fiction. Multiple negative features of their implementation are considered. The author substantiates the opinion that a special procedure for considering criminal cases for all serious and especially serious crimes, regardless of the forms of post-criminal behavior of the accused, is inadmissible.


Author(s):  
Elena Vyacheslavovna Panteleeva

The concept of “innocence” is an important category of criminal proceedings; alongside the concept of “guilt”, it is the central question resolved in the course of proceedings in criminal cases. However, this term remains poorly studied in theory and legislation. The article examines the instances, in which the concept of “innocence” is used in the text of the current criminal procedure law. Analysis of the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation that establish the circumstance in proof, regulate the questions of rendering verdict by jurors and court sentence, as well as prescriptions of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, reveals a number of issues related to the normative theory of innocence. The comparative study conducted on the Articles 73, 299, 339, 302 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation allows detecting contradictions in the scope of the concepts of guilt and innocence used therein. The author distinguishes between the factual and legal understanding of innocence, as well as substantiates the need for the existence of its specific type – presuming innocence. The arguments are advanced for the possibility of declaring the defendant not guilty based on the acquittal of the jury. For enhancing legal certainty, the author offers the original concept of innocence. The conclusion is made that the issues associated with the normative theory of innocence cause difficulties in law enforcement, and their resolution may affect the accuracy of establishing circumstances in proof, as well as the final court decision.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document