Historical overlook on the birth and formation of the institute of departmental procedural control in predictional criminal court proceedings in Russia

The authors submit to a detailed analysis the historical milestones of the origin and formation of the institution of departmental procedural control in criminal proceedings in Russia. Taking the generally accepted classification as the basis for constructing a preliminary investigation and highlighting seven periods of the formation of the institution of departmental procedural control, the principles for establishing a particular institutional model of a concrete historical period are reflected. As the main method in the process of writing this article, the general systemic method of cognition was used, which made it possible to comprehensively consider and analyze the process of origin and formation of the institution of departmental procedural control in pre-trial criminal proceedings in Russia. In addition, the authors argue that the institution of departmental procedural control of judicial control in the Russian Federation is quite young and its mechanisms need in-depth study. It is concluded that, through the analysis of statistical data, law enforcement practice, as well as the opinions and developments of scientists-processes, made it possible to identify the optimal ways to solve existing problems and directions for improving criminal procedure legislation.

The Special Issue: Transmission and Detection of Food and Environmental Pathogens

To progress towards a full comprehension of the risk caused by pathogenic microorganisms transmitted via food and environmental routes, extensive information on the prevalence, the mechanisms of contamination, and the survival of pathogens is required, particularly to assist with the development of effective systems to reduce contamination, and to formulate procedural control measures, such as the implementation of food safety criteria [...]

FEATURES OF THE ORGANIZATION OF PROCEDURAL CONTROL OVER THE LEGALITY OF DECISION-MAKING ON THE INITIATION OF A CRIMINAL CASE

Статья посвящена ведомственному и процессуальному контролю, осуществляемому руководителем следственного подразделения на первоначальном этапе досудебного производства. Рассматриваются вопросы о необходимости расширения полномочий руководителя следственного подразделения по реализации процедуры обжалования постановлений прокурора по отмене законных и обоснованных решений следователей на стадии возбуждения уголовного дела. The article is devoted to the problems of departmental and procedural control arising for the head of the investigative unit at the initial stage of pre-trial proceedings. The author also considers the issues of the need to expand the powers of the head to implement the procedure for appealing against decisions of the prosecutor to cancel the legal and well-founded decisions of investigators at the stage of initiating a criminal case.

Procedural Control Versus Resources as Potential Origins of Human Hyper Selectivity

In the current review, we argue that experimental results usually interpreted as evidence for cognitive resource limitations could also reflect functional necessities of human information processing. First, we point out that selective processing of only specific features, objects, or locations at each moment in time allows humans to monitor the success and failure of their own overt actions and covert cognitive procedures. We then proceed to show how certain instances of selectivity are at odds with commonly assumed resource limitations. Next, we discuss examples of seemingly automatic, resource-free processing that challenge the resource view but can be easily understood from the functional perspective of monitoring cognitive procedures. Finally, we suggest that neurophysiological data supporting resource limitations might actually reflect mechanisms of how procedural control is implemented in the brain.

Real World Performance Evaluation of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Background: The aim of this research is to describe the performance over time of transcatheter aortic valve implantations (TAVIs) in a high-volume center with a contemporary, real-world population. Methods: Patients referred for TAVIs at the University Hospital of Verona were prospectively enrolled. By cumulative sum failures analysis (CUSUM), procedural-control curves for standardized combined endpoints—as defined by the Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 (VARC-2)—were calculated and analyzed over time. Acceptable and unacceptable limits were derived from recent studies on TAVI in intermediate and low-risk patients to fit the higher required standards for current indications. Results: A total of 910 patients were included. Baseline risk scores significantly reduced over time. Complete procedural control was obtained after approximately 125 and 190 cases for device success and early safety standardized combined endpoints, respectively. High risk patients (STS ≥ 8) had poorer outcomes, especially in terms of VARC-2 clinical efficacy, and required a higher case load to maintain in-control and proficient procedures. Clinically relevant single endpoints were all influenced by operator’s experience as well. Conclusions: Quality-control analysis for contemporary TAVI interventions based on standardized endpoints suggests the need for relevant operator’s experience to achieve and maintain optimal clinical results, especially in higher-risk subjects.

Conclusion

This chapter summarizes the main arguments, discusses the theoretical and practical implications of the findings, and outlines avenues for future research. Moreover, this chapter discusses the normative-theoretical implications of pluralist accountability for international organization legitimacy and demonstrates why pluralist accountability is not a panacea for the (re)legitimation of international organizations. This normative assessment proceeds in two steps. First, I argue that in the absence of vertical accountability in light of human rights violations in global governance, pluralist accountability is an important means of procedural control that restrains the exercise of authority. In a second step, I demonstrate the legitimacy-enhancing potential of pluralist accountability in comparison with vertical accountability. I evaluate pluralist accountability in terms of two criteria, namely, participation and transparency. The book concludes by pointing out potential limitations of pluralist accountability in terms of the danger of “multiple accountability disorder” and the degree of legalization.