Search

The absence of a full-fledged scientific and theoretical study of the criminal procedure notion of «party» in conjunction with the normative and definitional imbalance of this notion in the current sectoral legislation forms polar positions in its interpretation and enforcement in law enforcement practice, which leads to a serious deformation in understanding the mechanisms of organizing criminal proceedings in the Russian Federation. Purpose: to formulate the problem and justify its negative impact on the emerging state law enforcement practice within public law form of the organization of national criminal proceedings. Methods: empirical methods of comparison, description and surveys; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic. Results: the study shows that there are serious problems in the regulatory definition of the notion of «party» in the national criminal procedure and in the regulation of its enforcement. The establishment of mandatory elements for ascertaining the presence of the prosecution and defence at a particular stage of criminal proceedings, which consists in the individualisation of the functions performed by a particular party in adversarial process (i.e. with the indispensable participation of an independent party represented by the court), is largely ignored by the legislator in other criminal procedure norms, despite the use of the notion of «party» in them to describe the regulated criminal procedure legal relations.

Introduction. Investigation of criminal cases is associated with the need to apply measures of criminal procedural coercion. Coercion and restriction of constitutional rights of citizens in varying degrees is inherent in most investigative actions. Recognising the necessity of application of procedural coercion to achieve the goals of criminal proceedings, the need for effective measures of legal control over the legality and validity of the application of law-restricting measures is substantiated.Materials and methods. The research is based on the analysis of the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, CPC of the Russian Federation, as well as scientific publications on the investigated problem of Russian scientists. The research is carried out in retrospect of formation of procedural guarantees of ensuring human rights and freedoms in the domestic legislation. The comparative legal analysis of domestic and foreign legislation is carried out.Analysis. The issues of law enforcement related to the means and ways of realization of human rights in criminal proceedings are studied. Each of the components of the mechanism of ensuring individual rights in criminal proceedings, which only in their totality function as a balanced mechanism, is analyzed. Accuracy, logicality, certainty of legislative prescriptions, which allow to adequately implement the legal regulation of relations, are important factors in the effectiveness of criminal procedural activity. The role of prosecutor’s supervision, departmental and judicial control in the implementation by citizens of their rights and legitimate interests in criminal proceedings is revealed.Results. Problems in the legal regulation of criminal procedural legal relations and the potential risk of violation of human rights, indicate the need for further improvement of the prescriptions of the CPC of the RF, the practice of their application, which must necessarily be associated with the creation of additional mechanisms aimed at ensuring the constitutional rights and legitimate interests of participants in the process.

The article determines that, at first glance, the legal regulation of the activities of an advocate in criminal proceedings is well regulated, complies with international standards and does not require any adjustment. The article determines that, at first glance, the legal regulation of the activities of an advocate in criminal proceedings is sufficiently regulated, complies with international standards and does not require any adjustment. However, as practice shows, many problems arise in the implementation of criminal procedural law based on conflicts and gaps in it. Among them, a major place is occupied by the problems of defense, representation and other types of professional legal assistance to participants in criminal proceedings by an advocate. The article examines the state of legal regulation of participation of an advocate in criminal proceedings to provide professional legal assistance to the participants of such proceedings. The authors analyze the absence of the right of the victim and his/her representative to engage an expert in criminal proceedings on contractual terms, other restrictions on the rights of the victim and his or her representative to collect evidence, the right to review the pre-trial investigation materials before its completion, no right to receive a copy of the notice of suspicion and indictment, no right to file a request to the investigating judge for temporary access to things or documents, as well as the right to appeal against a preventive measure applied to a suspect/accused on the grounds of its leniency, etc. The article also analyzes the rights of a representative of a civil plaintiff or a civil defendant in criminal proceedings in relation to the rights provided for by the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the author draws attention to the need to provide representation for another owner or possessor of property in legal relations regarding the right to file a petition to cancel the arrest of property in whole or in part, and considers the procedural status of a witness’s advocate and a whistleblower’s advocate. The article proposes amendments to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the context of legal regulation of participation of an advocate in criminal proceedings to provide professional legal assistance to the participants of such proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of procedural status of participants in criminal proceedings is considered. According to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, participants in criminal proceedings are parties to criminal proceedings, persons who take part in criminal proceedings. A comparison of this definition with specific norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which refer to participants in criminal proceedings, shows that the law includes not only persons involved in criminal proceedings, but also the subjects of criminal procedural activity themselves, i.e. officials and bodies that conduct (investigate) criminal proceedings, etc. The procedure for recognizing a person as a subject of criminal procedural relations established by law is of great importance for ensuring the legality of criminal proceedings and allows to properly protect the interests of persons involved in this field of activity. Ambiguity of understanding and extended interpretation of the reasons for involvement in criminal proceedings, failure to establish a clear procedure for acquiring the relevant status violate the orderliness of procedural activities, which thus reflects on the legitimate interests of the participants in criminal proceedings. Therefore, a formal approach to determining the circle of participants in criminal proceedings should be followed. This approach is able to give such positive results as certainty, stability of the procedural provision, predictability of the behavior of participants in criminal proceedings and the results of their actions, as well as to create a logical and consistent system of mechanisms for the exercise, protection and protection of their rights and legitimate interests.

A person’s petition to ensure his or her safety during the criminal proceedings is the primary means of initiating the public law mechanism of procedural protection. The analysis of criminal procedure legislation suggests that not all parties to criminal proceedings have a de facto right to make such a petition. For example, obstacles to applying protective measures against an expert under the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are often related to the specific procedural status of the expert and the procedural rules for the conduct of certain investigative actions involving him. Purpose: to assess the effectiveness of the public law mechanism for ensuring the expert’s security, the availability of procedural protective measures for this participant in the criminal procedure. Methods: system analysis and synthesis, as well as specific scientific methods are used. The study concludes that the criminal procedure mechanism for ensuring the expert’s security is declarative and that the expert’s procedural interaction with the authorities is useless in providing protection. Some amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are proposed, including the expert’s right to file a petition to ensure his safety and to refuse to participate in criminal proceedings if it is not possible to ensure his protection by other measures.

The article analyzes problems of ensuring the rights of a victim when choosing preventive measures in criminal proceedings. The position has been argued, according to which the victim, his representative and a legal representative have the right to participate in hearing of a motion for the application of preventive measures by an investigating judge or a judge and to appeal the decisions made by the court. It has been established that when adopting the judgement on preventive measures, the rights and legitimate interests of the victim are affected, including those related to the need to protect his personal safety from threats by the suspect or to ensure compensation for material damage caused by the crime, in that case he, his representative and the legal representative have the right to bring to pre-trial investigation bodies, a prosecutor and an investigating judge notice, their position regarding the selection, extension, change, cancellation of this or that preventive measure against the suspect, as well as to appeal the decision. Herewith, the possibility of an appeal cannot depend on whether the victim directly participated in the court hearing. Likewise, the victim and his representative have the right to become familiar with those materials on the basis of which the decision is made. When an investigating judge considers a motion for the application of preventive measures, the victim, his representative, and the legal representative must have the right to file a motion, including the one on the detention of the suspect, on cancellation or replacement of this preventive measure with another, to participate directly in the court consideration of a motion submitted by them or other participants in the petition process, to appear before the court and present their position and arguments, to appeal the decision of the investigating judge to the court of appeal. Proposals are made regarding the expediency of eliminating legislative conflicts by making appropriate normative corrections, namely to supplement Part 1 of Art. 193, Parts 1 and 2 of Art. 331 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Part 3 of Art. 315 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, provisions that will provide the right to a victim, his legal representative and a representative to apply for the choosing, change, cancellation, extension of the preventive measure against a suspect, an accused, as well as to appeal the relevant decision of an investigating judge, a court in the appeal procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the article is to study the legal essence of restricting the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings in criminal procedure, the specific goals of their restriction, the list of rights that may be subject to restriction, grounds, criteria, conditions, as well as limits of restriction. The article uses methods of system analysis, synthesis and generalization. Results: the author concludes that the system of restricting the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases includes: objectives, grounds, conditions, criteria and limits of restriction; the powers of officials provided for by the criminal procedure law to restrict the rights of participants in proceedings; procedural rights of participants in criminal proceedings, the exercise of which is aimed at ensuring that coercive measures are not applied to them; procedure and terms for restricting the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings, which vary depending on which right is subject to restriction; control over the restriction on the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings (procedural control, prosecutorial supervision, judicial control). The specific purpose of restricting rights in pre-trial proceedings is to ensure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. The limits of restriction on the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings are determined by the specific purpose of legal restriction, the nature and specificity of the investigative or procedural action, in the exercise of which the rights are restricted by the discretion of the official, who decides on the specific restriction, which is formed on the assessment of the actual situation, the characteristics of the person whose rights are subject to restriction. Any restrictions on rights are exercised only on the basis of a procedural decision by an official (inquirer, investigator, court) in accordance with the law and if there are grounds for it. The most significant restrictions on the rights of participants in criminal proceedings are permitted only by a judicial decision.

Copyright of Cuestiones Políticas is the property of Revista Cuestiones Politicas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Justicia (0124-7441) is the property of Universidad Simon Bolivar and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article presents the results of the study of psychological characteristics of professional interaction of participants in the criminal process: investigators or investigators (depending on the type of crime), forensic specialists, victims accused of various types of criminal offenses (murder, theft, hooliganism, traffic accident). The empirical base of the research was formed on the material of psychological examination of participants of 90 situations of crime scene or incident examination and further actions on disclosure of 4 types of crimes: murder, theft, hooligan actions, traffic accident. The study surveyed 315 people, including employees of the OVD - 180 people (90 persons investigators, criminologists 90 people) are the victims — 70 persons, suspects — 65 people). On the basis of the data obtained, a three-factor model of the psychological mechanisms of PV used by investigators in interaction with a group of victims, as well as a three-factor model of the psychological mechanisms of professional interaction of a group of victims in case of theft, was constructed. The conducted research allowed to reveal experimentally the structure of professional competences of investigators (investigators) and forensic specialists, as well as contradictions of the inquiry stage for each professional group in the process of professional interaction.

Legal assistance to the participants in criminal procedure is represented as a complex phenomenon, including the features of international legal assistance, qualified legal assistance, as well as the activities of public authorities in criminal proceedings and professional lawyers (attorneys, advocates, representatives) to assist physical and legal persons to protect, safeguard and realize their rights and interests. Legal assistance in case of threat to life, health, rights of participants in criminal proceedings is considered. The activity of certain subjects of criminal proceedings aimed at explaining the rights of crime victims is analyzed. The grounds for applying security measures are determined. Proposals for improving part 3 of article 11 of the RF Criminal Procedure Code are made: “3. In case there is a threat of causing physical, property, moral damage or other harm prohibited by criminal law to rights and legitimate interests of the victim, witness or other participants in criminal proceedings as well as their close relatives, relatives or close persons, the court (judge), the prosecutor, the head of the investigative agency, the investigator, the preliminary investigation agency take security measures, provided by part 9 of article 166, part 2 of article 186, part 8 of article 193, paragraph 4 of part 2 of article 241 and part 5 of article 278 of this Code as well as other security measures provided by the RF legislation, in respect of those persons within twenty-four hours on the basis of these persons’ written (oral) statement or on their own initiative within their competence”.

Criminal environment’s counteraction is considered as purposeful, active and intentional influence of its representatives on participants in criminal proceedings. It is directed at persons who, due to their professional duties, are involved in detection and investigation of crimes as well as court proceedings, or who possess evidentiary information (witnesses, victims, etc.). Counteraction may be expressed in different ways: discrediting operatives, investigators and judges; pressure on persons involved in the investigation and the trial through bribery, blackmail, threats to life and health of themselves and their family, etc. The administration of justice becomes inefficient due to the variety of forms and purposes of counteraction. The importance of operational units’ awareness of the activities of criminal environment representatives is shown. The importance of revealing the facts of unlawful influence on witnesses and victims of crime, who subsequently acquire procedural status of witnesses and victims, in order to prevent such facts is also stressed. It is proposed to suppress the counteraction of criminal environment by following ways: 1) identifying (with the help of informants and by crime detection actions) the persons attempting to influence the preliminary investigation; 2) documenting the suspects actions aimed at illegal influence on participants in criminal proceedings for the purpose of conducting the procedural actions and decision making; 3) “in cell” (using an agent) crime detection actions against detainees and arrestees throughout the whole process of covert operation; 4) creating investigative team to develop a common mechanism to neutralize criminal environment’s counteraction to crime investigation.