Introduction: the paper analyzes some problems of participation in criminal proceedings of officials of the prosecutor’s office, caused by not quite clear regulation of these issues at the level of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law “On the Prosecutor’s Office in the Russian Federation”, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, Orders and Instructions of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation. There is an ambiguity in the use of the names of officials of the prosecutor’s office who perform various criminal procedural actions, the lack of a clear division of their procedural powers, forms and principles of interaction. The purpose of the study is to identify the forms of participation of officials of the prosecutor’s office in criminal proceedings, to identify the shortcomings of the legal regulation of procedural statuses, to determine the prospects for the development of the criminal procedure legislation in terms of the registration of the procedural status of officials of the prosecutor’s office. In the course of the research, the methods of both formal-legal and system-structural analysis and synthesis of legal phenomena are used. The results are presented in the form of delegeferenda proposals, taking into account the difference in the procedural statuses of officials of the prosecutor’s office involved in criminal procedural activities in pre-trial and judicial proceedings, on whose basis a model of procedural differentiation of officials of the prosecutor’s office has been developed. The main conclusion is that the procedural statuses of the prosecutor and the state accuser provided for by the current Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are not sufficient to cover all forms of participation of officials of the prosecutor’s office in criminal proceedings. In this regard, the proposal is justified to further consolidate the procedural statuses of the superior prosecutor and other participants from the prosecutor’s office.
Introduction: criminal prosecution is a specific legal concept that means a certain type of law enforcement activity. Having introduced this concept into legal use, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation pointed to the purpose of this activity – the exposure of a suspect accused of committing a crime (Paragraph 56 of Article 5), its compliance with the scheduling criminal proceedings (Part 2 of Article 6), types (Chapter 3) and subjects (Chapter 6). The content of this activity, the methods of its implementation indicate that the criminal prosecution coincides with the procedural activities of the inquirer, investigator and prosecutor, that is, it is carried out through the performance of each of the named persons of their powers. This allows us to put forward and substantiate the thesis that a preliminary investigation is a criminal prosecution carried out in the procedural form of a proceeding or inquiry, that is, an activity aimed at identifying and exposing a person, a suspect, or an accused of committing a crime, whose efficiency depends on a properly organized procedural interaction of the entities carrying out this activity, which together form the prosecutorial power of the state. The purpose of the study: to identify the reasons for the lack of effective cooperation of the criminal prosecution authorities and suggest the ways to eliminate them. The objectives of the study: to characterize the role (function) of the bodies, inquiry, investigation, prosecutor’s office in pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case, to formulate and base the conclusion that pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case are a form of criminal prosecution as a common type of criminal procedural activity for the inquirer, investigator and prosecutor. The dialectical, logical, systematic, structural-functional and other general scientific research methods were used in the preparation of the paper; as well as the comparative-legal, formal-legal and other specific scientific methods. Results: the paper shows that the reform of the preliminary investigation bodies, which resulted in the removal of investigators from administrative subordination to the prosecutor, the redistribution of powers between the prosecutor and the head of the investigative body in favor of the latter, did not lead to the expected increase in the procedural independence and independence of the investigator, but had a negative impact on the level of legality of pre-trial proceedings. The amendments made to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in 2007 and later proved to be insufficiently thought out; they are not logical and do not conform well with other norms of criminal procedure law. The shortcomings of the legal regulation of the procedure for exercising the powers of the head of the investigative body and the prosecutor, their interaction with the investigator and among themselves, were only partially corrected by Law No. 404-F of December 28, 2010. Conclusions: the need to improve the efficiency of interaction of the investigator with the head of the investigative body and the prosecutor requires a serious revision of a number of norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
According to the Federal Law No. 376 as of October 30, 2018 the system of criminal procedure participants is complemented by a person, whose case is allocated into separate proceeding because of conclusion of pre-trial cooperation agreement with him/her. According to the amendments introduced into the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), such person can be considered as a separate participant of criminal proceeding only in situations where he/she is involved in procedural actions with respect to him/her crime accomplices. A person has a procedural status of suspect, indictee, defendant within the criminal case, in which this person concluded a pre-trial cooperation agreement. The adoption of this Law can be regarded as a reaction on Constitutional Court Decision No. 17 as of July 20, 2016 Case of checking Article 56 parts 2, 8, Article 278 part 2 and chapter 40.1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russian Federation in relation with complaint of Mr. D.V. Usenko. By this decision the federal legislator was obliged to introduce amendments into the CPC of the RF concerning the participation of an indictee in separate proceeding because of conclusion of pre-trial cooperation agreement with him/her, in trial of main case in order to testify against his/her crime accomplices.
Disadvantages of legal regulation of the teachers (psychologist) participation in the investigative actions are well known. They consist both in the absence of norms determining the general procedural position of this participant in the proceedings and in contradictory legal structures that regulate the involvement of a teacher (psychologist) to conduct investigations with the participation of minors. The possibility of ambiguous interpretation of legal provisions can have serious consequences both in the form of violation of the rights and legitimate interests of minor subjects of criminal proceedings, as well as in the form of loss of a minors evidence of admissible evidence. In this regard, it is necessary to determine the status of the teacher and the psychologist in the criminal process, understand his role (function) in the proceedings and designate the scope of rights that ensures the effectiveness of this activity. The article describes the contents of the study conducted by the authors of the theoretical and practical problems of the teacher and psychologists participation in the preliminary investigation of criminal cases during which minor witnesses, victims, suspects, defendants are engaged in the interrogation, confrontation, verification of evidence on the spot and other investigative actions accompanied by the need to respond to the questions of the investigator or the interrogator. Being subjected to psychological pressure, minors face the need in protecting their interests from the adult, unrelated to the criminal proceedings, not interested in its results and having an experience in working with children and adolescents, capable to reassure a minor, explain the essence of the investigative action, help to establish mutual understanding with the investigator and thereby significantly reduce the risk of minors psychological injury. The concept of a teacher, psychologist is justified as an independent participation in criminal proceedings, formulates proposals aimed at improving its procedural status.
The article is the review of the monograph of L.A. Shestakova «Implementation of juvenile justice concepts in the production of juvenile in the Russian Federation». The normative model of juvenile justice in the Russian Federation in the book suggested.
В статье рассматриваются актуальные проблемы допустимости показаний в качестве доказательств по уголовному делу. Обосновывается тезис о разделении в системе доказательств показаний свидетелей, потерпевших, обвиняемых и подозреваемых и протоколов допроса этих участников уголовного процесса по основанию наличия/отсутствия непосредственности восприятия информации субъектом, принимающим процессуальное решение, оспаривается возможность использования протоколов допроса в качестве доказательств в состязательном судопроизводстве.
The article analyzes the problems and prospects of development of pre-trial proceedings and its place in the criminal procedure system. Almost two decades have passed since the adoption and entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation a sufficient period to think about the prospects for further development of criminal procedure legislation. The period of comparison with the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR in order to demonstrate the advantages of the new law is completed, and the process of identifying and eliminating its shortcomings seems to be endless. The vast array of changes made to the criminal procedure act had transformed his face, but had they made it more perfect? What next-to continue to reform the criminal justice system, improving its institutions, or time dictates the need to develop a fundamentally different model of criminal proceedings? The article considers the proposals for reforming pre-trial proceedings from the standpoint of the theory of evidence, analyzes the project of introducing the figure of an investigative judge into the criminal process of the Russian Federation, and concludes that there is no alternative to moving in the direction of the development of competitiveness. The differences between the inquiry and the preliminary investigation are so insignificant that they allow us to raise the question of the unification of pre-trial proceedings in cases of crimes requiring preliminary investigation, and the absorption by the pre-investigation check of the current abbreviated form of inquiry in cases in which the investigation is not caused by an objective necessity. As a result in the Russian Federation the concept of judicial proofs data on the circumstances having value for business received in fair (competitive) procedure by the judge from the sources presented by the parties has to be formed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.