О СУЩНОСТНЫХ СВОЙСТВАХ ПРИГОВОРА

Abstract

The article analyzes the features of the court sentence, which the science of criminal pro-cedure law traditionally defines as its external properties. The authors justify that such traits of the sentence as exclusivity, obligatory, verity and prejudicialness should be understood not as external, but as essential properties of the sentence. This is explained by the fact that the sentence as an individual act of a sub-regulatory regulation is an additional element of the legal criminal and criminal procedure regulation mechanisms, strengthening their impact on public relations. In this regard, the sentence a priori, regardless of the law-realization activities of the court, must have the properties of exclusivity, generally binding nature, verity and prejudi-cialness, because otherwise, the legal regulation will not achieve its purpose. This is the point of the sentence coming into force, and therefore, in the state of the final law enforcement decision, which means a certain resolution of the criminal dispute. The onset of the mentioned legal condition is associated with the launching of the principle of legal certainty, which ap-plies to the sentence only if there are such properties as exclusivity, generally binding nature, stability (irrevocability, cogency, invariability, and steadfastness), verity and prejudicialness. Prejudicialness and the related presumption of truth are not characteristic of any court deci-sion, but only the sentence, as they are based on the legal reliability of the court's conclusions, which is ensured by the course and the result of the trial, which includes the proof in the judi-cial investigation. Therefore, legal reliability is inherent only in the court's findings obtained during the trial, which is conducted in general order - without exemption from traditional fact-establishment procedures. In the case of the sentence, it should be a degree of legal reliability that allows it to be confirmed externally in the sentence by a legal symbol, i.e. the indication that it is ruled in the name of the Russian Federation. It is substantiated that the sentences, which were ruled in a special order, are illogical to confer on the property of stability because of the lack of legal reliability, which should not only be externally confirmed by the ruling on behalf of the Russian Federation but be also ensured by the entire course of the trial with a full-fledged judicial investigation. Such sen-tences, which were ruled in a special order, should not only be "blessed" by the symbol of legal reliability but should also be called in a different way, that will distinguish them from the sentences - full-fledged acts of justice, having all the necessary essential properties. It is argued that the reflection of the "conciliatory" nature of such a court decision, which is the result of compromise proceedings in the names of the above sentences, is appropriate. It is proposed to call it a "conciliation sentence" - as such it will represent a separate type of conviction.