Judicial Control of Plea Agreements and the Right to Appeal: A Comparative Analysis of Common Law and Civil Law Models

The article is devoted to the study of practical problems of exercising the right to an effective remedy in criminal proceedings in a court of first instance. An analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights has made it possible to state that the right to an effective remedy is enshrined in the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which in turn obliges the State parties to introduce mechanisms for effective legal protection of human rights and freedoms at the national level. An analysis of the domestic regulatory framework suggests that the ineffectiveness of the right to an effective remedy is due to the failure of the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine to fulfil one of its main tasks - ensuring due process of law. The absence of proper regulation of the procedure for appealing against decisions, actions or omissions during the preparatory proceedings by the participants of the court proceedings is the main cornerstone that falls apart the entire mechanism for exercising the right to an effective remedy at this stage of the proceedings, as provided for in part 2 of Article 303 of the CPC. Based on the theoretical works of scholars and analysing the doctrinal provisions on the interpretation of the concept of "effective remedy", the author offers her own solution to the identified gaps and shortcomings in the practical implementation of the right to an effective remedy at the stage of preparatory court proceedings and court proceedings on the merits of criminal proceedings. The first way is to regulate at least a certain list of issues which may be subject to appeal at the stage of preparatory court proceedings at the level of law, based on the analysis of case law, scientific developments, the essence of the issues which may be subject to appeal, the consequences and expediency of their resolution at this stage of proceedings, and to leave all other complaints for consideration by the court. The second way is to provide for issues that cannot be appealed at this stage of the proceedings, such as, for example, the issue of appealing against procedural actions that entail inadmissibility of evidence, since this issue will be the subject of consideration in the trial on the merits, and all other complaints filed should be considered without delay. The article also draws attention to the urgent need to address the problem of appealing against the denial of a motion to close criminal proceedings, as this leads to a violation of the rights of the accused, since he or she is unable to effectively defend his or her interests. To solve this problem, it is proposed to amend the legislation, namely: to supplement Article 380 of the CPC of Ukraine with a provision that would allow a separate appeal against the refusal to satisfy the motion to close the criminal proceedings, and to clearly define the terms and procedure for appealing against such a refusal. Keywords: criminal proceedings, court proceedings, remedy, effective protection of rights, protection of rights, human rights, legal protection.

This article analyzes the conditions and legal ramifications of application of videoconference in various forms of criminal legal proceedings, highlighting practical issues emerging in arrangement of participation of parties in criminal proceedings via videoconference calls. As a product of digital technologies, videoconference is examined not only as a formal means of communication used by parties to a legal proceeding, but also as one of the means of exercising the right to a fair trial. The object of this research consists of communication and procedural relations arising between the parties to a legal proceeding with application videoconference. The subject of this research covers the entire complex of fairly recent norms for the Russian criminal procedural regulation governing application of videoconference on various stages of criminal proceedings on a case. The article contains practical recommendations by indicators that should be considered in determining optimal forms of participation in a criminal proceeding, as well as actions of parties that must be undertaken if during application of videoconference, the rights of the defendant are violated or the standards of fair trial are not being met. The article complies answers to the most topical questions on videoconference calls, taking into the consideration practical experience of the author, as well as relevant case law of the Russian courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The conclusion is made that application of videoconference is allowable in legal proceedings of the courts of first instance and courts of appeal in criminal cases heard in special order, cassation instance, supervisory instance, in execution of sentence, as well as within the framework of judicial control at pretrial stage in a criminal case, but only if procedural guarantees could be provided to all parties of the proceedings. In a trial by jury such technology is unacceptable.

One of the most important features of a democratic legal state is the provision of human and civil rights. The state, guaranteeing everyone the protection of their rights and freedoms, ensures the possibility of obtaining such protection in the event of a person’s appeal to court. The right to review cases and appeal court decisions is one of the main principles of justice in Ukraine. If a court decision contains a judicial error, it must be corrected before this decision enters into legal force. The system of correction by the state of errors and violations made by its bodies creates a reliable guarantee and protection of both the interests of the participants in the case and the state and public interests combined with them. The means of putting this system into effect is primarily the right of the parties to appeal the decision of the first instance, regardless of its correctness. This right is a dispositive right of the participants in criminal proceedings, which they can freely use. Criminal proceedings are carried out by courts of general jurisdiction, whose powers include both resolving the issue of guilt (innocence) of a person in committing a crime in the process of considering a criminal case on the merits, and judicial control over compliance with the lawfulness of the activities of law enforcement agencies during their inquiry and pre-trial investigation. Appeal proceedings are a stage of criminal proceedings during which the appellate court checks the legality and validity of decisions and rulings of the court of first instance that have not entered into legal force. It is the appellate proceedings that make it possible to correct judicial errors in the shortest possible time, contribute to improving the quality of the work of courts of first instance and guide judicial practice in strict accordance with the requirements of the law. The article, based on a comparative analysis of the provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation and judicial practice, examines the features of the implementation of the right to appeal in criminal proceedings. The main problematic issues related to determining the circle of persons entitled to appeal, requirements for appeals and compliance with the provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation at the stage of accepting appeals are analyzed.

Provision of Immediate Conduction of a Medical Examination of a Person as a General Duty of a Judge for the Protection of Human Rights in Aspect of Article 206 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine

Urgency of research. According to Articles 2, 17, 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the human being, his rights and freedoms are recognized as the supreme value, and observation and protection of these rights and freedoms is a duty of the State; every citizen is guaranteed judicial protection of his rights. Criminal proceedings, which from a social point of view serve as a tool to protect the rights of victims of crimes, are based on a public-law basis. The initiation of criminal proceedings, preliminary investigation and trial are the responsibility of the competent public authorities. At the same time, in the case of unlawful or unjustified prosecution of a person, the harm caused to him is compensated at the expense of the federal budget in the framework of the rehabilitation procedure. At the same time in Russian criminal proceedings there is the so-called private prosecution: for some offenses criminal prosecution is initiated and carried out only by the victim, who is granted the status of a private prosecutor. The state in cases of private prosecution is represented only by the court, which resolves the criminal-legal conflict between the victim and the accused. Problem Statement. Since state bodies do not prosecute cases of private prosecution, the question arises whether rehabilitation of defendants, against whom the case was terminated or acquitted, is admissible. Currently, the legislation provides rehabilitation in cases of private prosecution only in cases where the court of first instance issued a verdict of guilty, which was subsequently overturned by a higher court. At the same time, the question of whether the accused, against whom there was no conviction and the criminal prosecution was terminated in the court of first instance, is entitled to compensation is not resolved. On the one hand, the accused, being subjected to criminal prosecution, has undergone certain negative consequences. On the other hand, it is not clear whether the private prosecutor should be considered «guilty» of making an unsubstantiated accusation. There is a clear competition between two constitutionally guaranteed rights: the right of the victim to protection from crime, including through independent appeal to court to bring the perpetrator to criminal liability, and the right of the person to compensation of damage caused by unjustified criminal prosecution. Objectives and methods of research. The purpose of the study is to establish the grounds for the emergence of a person’s right to rehabilitation and to compensation for harm caused by unjustified criminal prosecution, to determine the subject and the procedure of compensation for harm. Research objectives: to analyze the legislation on rehabilitation in cases of private prosecution; to systematize the normatively enshrined grounds for the right to rehabilitation in this category of cases; to clarify the possibility of compensation in cases where the criminal prosecution was carried out only by a private prosecutor; to determine the procedure for compensation. The methodological basis of the study was the method of dialectical materialism. General scientific methods of scientific knowledge were used: logical, systematic, functional, induction and deduction, analysis and synthesis, as well as special methods: comparative-legal, formal-legal. Results and key conclusions. In cases of private prosecution it is necessary to distinguish occurrence of the defendant’s right to rehabilitation in the criminal procedural sense (when the court of first instance rendered a guilty verdict, which was subsequently overturned by a higher court), and the right to compensation for damages (when the criminal prosecution was carried out by a private prosecutor and was terminated by the court of first instance). At the same time, the right to compensation arises only if the victim’s actions are malicious and if they constitute crimes such as slander or knowingly false denunciation. In other cases, the victim exercises their constitutional right to access to justice and to protection from crimes.

In the article the author emphasizes the relative independence of criminal procedural proving in judicial proceedings, its specific structure and the circle of subjects who carry out such activities. It was established that at the doctrinal level there are many approaches to the interpretation of the concept of subjects of proving and their classification, which is due to the lack of clear instructions in the legislation. It is emphasized that the concepts of “participants of judicial proceedings” and “subjects of proving of criminal proceedings in the court of first instance” only partially overlap in scope and do not completely exhaust each other. Taking into account the author’s approach to the understanding of criminal procedural proving in criminal proceedings in the court of first instance, its subjects are proposed to be understood as state bodies and persons who have a certain material or procedural interest in judicial proceedings and carry out cognitive-practical and logical-intellectual actions regarding the formation, research and evaluation of evidence, as well as their further use for the purpose of establishing circumstances relevant to criminal proceedings, defending the legal positions of the participants in judicial proceedings and making legal, justified and motivated court decisions. Taking into account the role of subjects, their duty and function in proving, three groups of subjects of proving in judicial proceedings in the first instance are distinguished: 1) the subject who administers justice and is entrusted with the duty of correctly solving a criminal case, adoption of a legal, justified and motivated court decision (court); 2) subjects who are legally required to prove the circumstances of criminal proceedings (prosecutor, victim – private prosecutor); 3) subjects to whom the law has given the right to participate in the proving process (accused, defense counsel, legal representative, victim, civil plaintiff, civil defendant, their representatives, representative of the legal entity in respect of which proceedings are being conducted, a third party in respect of whose property is being decided issue of arrest).

The article examines the problems associated with a possible change in the institution of judicial control in criminal pre-trial proceedings. It is stated that judicial control can be more effective if its efforts are focused on decisions which are consistent with the role of the court in adversarial criminal proceedings. The focus of judicial control is not just to ensure the legality of actions of the inquiry and investigative bodies, but also to guarantee the equality of the prosecution and defence parties during pre-trial proceedings. The author conducts a comparative legal study of foreign criminal procedure legislation, where in recent decades there have been significant changes in the court’s control function due to the introduction of a new participant to the criminal process - an investigating judge. The article analyses the approaches of foreign legislators to the essence and role of the institute of investigating judge in criminal proceedings, disclosure of powers and functions of an investigating judge, and also the procedure for acquiring the status of an investigating judge. It is determined that in France, an investigating judge performs investigative and judicial functions, and a judge for the control of liberties and detention performs judicial control functions. Currently, in Belgium, investigating judges are essentially pre-trial investigation bodies, but attached to courts of first instance. In Spain, the investigating judge exercises judicial control over measures of procedural coercion, considers complaints against decisions and actions of pre-trial proceedings. In Germany, the so-called ‘district judge’ actually exercises the powers of an investigating judge as an ‘inquiring judge’. They are directly involved in proving, introducing an element of competition into the process and strengthening the reliability of judicial evidence. The author concludes that this activity differs from the national model by more detailed regulation, including in the interests of the defence, with a general focus on the protection of individual rights, exclusion of accusatory bias and availability of effective guarantees for this.

The scientific article highlights issues related to the support of prosecutors of a public claim in the court of first instance in criminal proceedings on the facts of possession of property committed by abuse of official position. The legal nature of such an act is outlined as a complex crime in terms of structure with many legal elements: from the object and subject of the encroachment to the method of commission and form of guilt. Particular attention is focused on the fact that proving the existence of the elements of a crime is impossible without the effective use of appropriate, admissible and reliable evidence obtained in accordance with the procedure established by law. The focus of the study is the role of the prosecutor in the court of first instance, which must not only present the court with the evidence collected to prove the guilt of the person, but also actively substantiate its procedural significance. The main sources of evidence in such criminal proceedings are described in detail, as well as their complementary nature. It is substantiated that it is a comprehensive approach to the use of these sources that allows for effective proof of the elements of a crime. The following features of the pre-trial investigation of such economic crimes are highlighted, within the framework of which the prosecutor must interact with the investigator in a certain part of the relevant examinations, conducting document reviews, searches, interrogations, and collecting evidence. The importance of involving specialists in the fields of economics, finance, and IT during investigative actions is emphasized. At the same time, it is emphasized that officials, as subjects of this crime, often use various mechanisms to conceal the facts of unlawful possession of property. The example of judicial practice shows that the effectiveness of maintaining claims in court largely depends on the ability of the prosecutor to correctly explain the case materials, cite the fact of actual possession of property, substantiate the presence of direct intent and a useful motive, and also adequately respond to the line of defense. A number of practical recommendations for prosecutors are proposed to ensure the formation of a high-quality system of evidence. It is summarized that the successful maintenance of public prosecution in cases of misappropriation of property, through detention by official position, requires from the prosecutor not only deep knowledge of criminal substantive and procedural legislation, but also a high level of analytical thinking, the ability to work with a large amount of heterogeneous evidence and combine it into a coherent and convincing system of evidence.

The article is devoted to the analysis of theoretical approaches, normative provisions and the practice of their application regarding the justification and motivation of court decisions in the process of criminal procedural proving in the court of first instance. The problem of the ratio of justification and motivation of court decisions in the context of national legislation and practice of the ECtHR is considered. It is emphasized that the justification and motivation of court decisions is a component of the court's use of evidence as an element of criminal procedural proving in the court of first instance. It is suggested that the justification and motivation of court decisions should be considered as a logical-intellectual and practical activity of the court, which is carried out within the scope of the proving process and consists in citing in the motivational part of the court decision references to legal norms, the set of evidence and arguments laid as its basis, proper and sufficient motives and grounds for its adoption, answers to significant arguments of the parties in the criminal proceedings, which collectively confirm the correctness of the adopted decision and ensure its persuasiveness. A proper definition of the category «rejection of prosecution evidence» is proposed as an activity of the court in the process of justifying and motivating an acquittal, which consists in the absolute exclusion of certain evidence provided by the prosecution from the process due to their non-compliance with the criteria of propriety, credibility and admissibility, in particular, obtaining them in violation of rights and human freedoms. In other words, rejection of evidence at the stage of making a court decision is a complete disregard for their informational value (content) and all conclusions of the prosecution based on this evidence. Under the category of «motives for disregarding certain evidence» it is proposed to understand the legal and factual explanations of the court reflected in the court decision (sentence or resolution) as to why exactly this evidence cannot be used as a basis for justifying the court decision. Key words: court decision, court of first instance, proving, use of evidence, rejection of evidence, justification of court decision, motivation of court decision.

The article is devoted to the issue of general provisions conducting procedural actions of a cognitive orientation, which are carried out in the court of first instance during the criminal trial. It is argued that the isolation of such provisions contributes to the interpretation of the norms of criminal procedural law that determine their conduct, makes it possible to apply criminal procedural law by analogy, and to overcome gaps in the regulation of procedural actions of a cognitive orientation in the criminal trial. The general provisions conducting procedural actions of a cognitive nature in the the criminal trial are proposed to be understood as a set of rules and conditions provided for by the criminal procedural law or those arising from it, regarding the conduct of all or most of these actions. Such rules ensure the epistemological efficiency of the procedural actions in question, and the conditions – the exercise of powers by the court, the exercise of rights by the parties and other participants in the the criminal trial during their conduct. The criteria for distinguishing these rules and conditions are comprehensiveness and uniqueness. Taking into account these criteria, the following provisions for conducting procedural actions of a cognitive orientation in the court of first instance are considered general: 1) the presence of grounds for conducting procedural actions of a cognitive orientation; 2) the place and time of their implementation; 3) the choice of these actions and the determination of the sequence of their implementation depends on the position of the parties to the criminal proceedings and is subject to approval by the court; 4) the plurality of participants in conducting procedural actions of a cognitive orientation; 5) organization of implementation and control by the court over compliance with the procedural order for performing such actions; 6) recording the course and results of conducting procedural actions of a cognitive orientation. It is concluded that the general provisions of conducting procedural actions of a cognitive nature in the court of first instance, on the one hand, are characterized by a clearly expressed adversarial principle and increased dispositivity in the study of evidence, which, however, do not exclude the subsidiary activity of the court, and on the other hand, it, as the body conducting the trial, is entrusted with the organization of implementation, control over compliance with the procedural form of implementation and recording the course of such procedural actions. It is stated that despite belonging to the same legal system and a common historical form of criminal proceedings, the legal regulation of evidence using procedural actions of a cognitive orientation in the court of first instance in the criminal procedural law of European states is characterized by peculiarities. Such peculiarities are due to the manifestation of the principles of adversarial nature, dispositiveness, publicity, as well as comprehensive, complete and impartial clarification of the circumstances of the case at the central stage of criminal proceedings. At the same time, such general provisions of procedural actions of a cognitive orientation as the presence of grounds for their conduct, place and time of execution, as well as recording the content and consequences of their implementation remain unchanged, regardless of the normative model of evidence during the trial of criminal proceedings.

International criminal procedures Introduction From the Nuremberg trials and onwards, the need to develop a new procedural system for any new international criminal tribunal has been acknowledged. Such a procedural system would be sui generis in the sense that it would depart from any one domestic system or legal tradition. But, inevitably, it would have elements from the major domestic legal systems of the world, also enhancing the perceived legitimacy of the tribunal and its proceedings. In this chapter we will focus on the procedures that have developed for the ICTY, ICTR and ICC and consider how they blend elements from different legal traditions. Different legal traditions There is a significant distinction in the criminal procedures of two major domestic legal traditions: the common law tradition (or Anglo-American tradition) and the civil law tradition (or Continental or Romano-Germanic tradition). While these traditions go beyond the system of criminal procedures, the common law model is said to be ‘adversarial’ or ‘accusatorial’ and the civil law model ‘inquisitorial’. No domestic system represents a pure model, however, and there are considerable differences between systems belonging to the same tradition. Moreover, some systems, e.g. in Scandinavia, do not really belong to either of the two traditions. In spite of shortcomings, we will here use the terms ‘adversarial’ and ‘inquisitorial’ to describe in a general sense differences attributed to the two traditions, but also, on occasion, resort to the common law and civil law labels.

The legal systems of Iran and the United States exhibit fundamental differences in criminal security measures and judicial oversight. These differences are also evident in the general challenges governing such measures. This research, using descriptive, analytical, and comparative methods, examines the challenges related to criminal security measures and judicial oversight in Iran and the United States, presenting findings derived from the study. One of the core challenges lies in the discretion granted to judges in issuing criminal security measures, which stems from the legislators' reliance on broad and ambiguous concepts such as "disrupting public order." In both countries, there are no precise and defined criteria for ensuring "proportionality" in issuing such measures. Consequently, diverse measures are issued under similar circumstances, undermining the integrity of the criminal justice system and eroding public trust. In Iran, the lack of use of lighter measures, such as those based on personal recognizance, is considered a significant issue, leading to an overreliance on bail and detention orders. In the United States, discrimination in pretrial detention decisions is prominently observed, with a disproportionate number of detention orders issued against minorities and African Americans relative to their population. Regarding financial security measures, the prevalent reliance on monetary bail has effectively transformed such measures into a commercial mechanism, contradicting the higher objectives of criminal justice proceedings.

The article is devoted to law-making acts of the judicial branch of power on the example of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - ECHR) and the Supreme Court (hereinafter - SC) on determining the presence or absence of provocation of a crime by law enforcement agencies or persons involved by them. The choice of these courts is justified by the authors from the point of view that the resolution of legal issues by the ECHR and the SC is of significant importance for criminal proceedings - the performance of procedural actions, and the adoption of procedural decisions by pre-trial investigation bodies, prosecutors, and courts of first instance and appeal. The authors of the study focus on how the ECHR and the Supreme Court define provocation of a crime, citing, in particular, examples from Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, Ramanauskas v. Lithuania, Malinas v. Lithuania, Milinene v. Lithuania, Sequeira v. Portugal, Furcht v. Germany, Chokhonelidze v. Georgia, and others. The provisions of these judgments, along with the provisions of the procedural legislation of Ukraine, are considered in the article as objective factors, compliance with which should indicate the legitimacy of law enforcement agencies. At the same time, focusing on the provocation of a crime, the authors emphasise that the recognition of law enforcement agencies' actions as provocative also depends on the subjectivity of the court's position based on the assessment of evidence provided by the parties to criminal proceedings. It is established that the subjectivity of the ECHR and the SC is of a different nature. In particular, the consistency and coherence of the ECHR's position on provocation of a crime has been consistent and unchanged since 1998, while the SC has adopted diametrically opposite legal opinions in a short period of time. The authors come to the conclusion that the activities of courts, which are legally obliged to establish justice, to observe the principles of criminal proceedings such as the rule of law and legal certainty, in terms of changing approaches to the assessment of evidence should be strictly regulated at the legislative level.

The research relevance is determined by the need to improve the methodology of proof in criminal proceedings on the fact of violation of the laws and customs of war. The study addressed the disposition of Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, according to which the norms of international humanitarian and criminal law should be applied. The study aimed to determine the structure of the subject matter of proof in war crimes cases, to identify its features in view of the principle of complementarity, and to develop a forensic classification and characterisation of the relevant acts. The methodological toolkit included systemic and structural, comparative legal, and formal legal methods, content analysis of case law, and inductive analysis, which formulated theoretical generalisations based on the study of specific criminal proceedings. The practical basis of the study was determined by the analysis of decisions of national courts of first instance and appellate courts in cases involving war crimes on the territory of Ukraine. The study established that the process of proof has a dual nature. It covers, on the one hand, the circumstances stipulated by criminal procedural law, and, on the other hand, the facts that are key to qualifying acts as international crimes committed within the framework of an armed conflict and having a direct connection with it. In this context, the investigation of war crimes is characterised by an increased level of complexity, which can be conditionally differentiated into two groups. The first group includes circumstances of an objective nature that cannot be influenced by the pre-trial investigation authorities. The second group is formed by negative factors that can be influenced within criminal proceedings to minimise their consequences. In this aspect, typical elements to be established during the investigation of violations of the laws or customs of war were identified. The study substantiated the expediency of supplementing Article 438 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine with qualifying circumstances which specify its content. The scientific and practical significance of the results obtained includes the development of a unified approach to the analysis, verification and evaluation of evidence in war crimes cases, as well as to develop a forensic classification and forensic characteristics of such offences to form a unified methodology for investigating violations of the laws and customs of war

The purpose of the article is to reveal the essence and content of procedural costs in criminal proceedings initiated upon the fact of criminal offences committed by minors; to define the concept, essence and content of procedural costs in the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine; to study the problems of criminal proceedings and judicial proceedings in relation to minors; to consider the principle of procedural economy in criminal proceedings. A scientific discussion of the problem of unification of the provisions of the criminal and criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine with a view to ensuring a full pre-trial investigation, trial proceedings and determination of appropriate types of punishment for minor offenders has been presented. The concept of procedural costs in criminal proceedings in Ukraine was improved and methods of their implementation through the provisions of the national criminal procedural legislation were determined. The authors' understanding of the main distinguishing features of procedural costs is presented. The practice and legal positions of the Supreme Court regarding the limits and methods of covering the costs of proceedings have been considered. It has been established that the principle of procedural economy in the criminal justice system has been implemented by ensuring the smooth functioning of all court instances and the up-to-date comprehensive normalisation of investigative situations that may arise in the pre-trial investigation process and the selection of full investigative (research) and covert investigative (research) actions, with the aim of avoiding cases of repeated procedural measures to ensure the proper course of evidence. Results. It has been established that the procedural expenses in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine should be understood as the material damage provided by the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, caused by ensuring the needs of the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings, in particular, related to the process of evidence and realisation of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the parties and other participants in the criminal proceedings. The essence and meaning of the procedural costs are realised through the prism of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (in particular, Article 124, which regulates the peculiarities of the distribution of the procedural costs), which ensure the protection of the state and the persons who have been the victims of a criminal offence from possible material losses that may arise in the course of conducting pre-trial investigation and trial. The main distinguishing feature inherent in the content of procedural costs is the form in which the decision to recover them is made – a court verdict or a court ruling. It has been proved that in modern conditions, in the context of criminal proceedings against minors, the following issues remain to be solved as a matter of urgency 1) improvement of the norms of criminal procedural legislation in the part of criminal proceedings against minors under the conditions of the special legal regime of martial law; 2) improvement of the personnel provision of the judicial system with regard to the selection of candidates for the position of a judge who conducts judicial review of cases of minors; 3) improvement of the procedure for carrying out investigative (search) actions in criminal proceedings initiated due to the fact of commission of a criminal offence by minors; 4) establishment of international cooperation in the pre-trial investigation of transnational criminal offences committed in complicity with minors. It was concluded that, in order to maintain the economic cycle, it is necessary to ensure a balance between the procedural costs within the framework of criminal proceedings and court costs for legal proceedings and the funds that go to the state budget. This includes, in particular, the establishment of a mechanism for compensating persons who have committed criminal offences and the normalisation of types of punishment with an emphasis on material punishment. Special attention should also be paid to improving the work of the courts of first instance in order to avoid cases being reviewed in the courts of appeal and cassation.