Criminal Procedure Code Research Articles

Unjust Deprivation of Liberty During the Criminal Process: The Romanian National Standard Compared to the European Standard for the Protection of Individual Freedom in Judicial Proceedings

The provisions of international documents that guarantee the fundamental right to freedom and security are transposed into Romanian legislation both in the Constitution and in the Code of Criminal Procedure. In this context, the present study aims to analyze the national standard of protection of individual freedom in judicial proceedings compared to the standard established by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Through documentation, interpretation, and scientific analysis as the main research methods, this paper emphasizes the possibility of establishing, through domestic legislation, a level of protection higher than that imposed by the conventional standard. From this perspective, by regulating a right to repair the damage suffered in the situation of unjust deprivation of liberty as a result of ordering a preventive measure, the national standard of protection established by the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure is higher than the European standard. This study concludes with a proposal to expand the current procedural framework configured by the provisions of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure (with the amendments made in 2023) regarding the special procedure for repairing the damage suffered as a result of the illegal or unjust deprivation of liberty during the criminal process.

AS DIFICULDADES DA EFETIVA IMPLANTAÇÃO DO JUIZ DE GARANTIAS NO JUDICIÁRIO BRASILEIRO

The Law 13.964, of December 24, 2019, known as the Anti-Crime Package, introduced into the current Brazilian Code of Criminal Procedure the institution called the judge of guarantees, aiming to provide greater impartiality in judgment throughout all phases of criminal prosecution, as there will be one judge for the inquisitorial phase (police/investigation) and another judge for the procedural phase, thus improving the accusatory system in the legal framework. This institution gained special prominence after the judgment by the Supreme Federal Court (STF) of the four Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality (ADIs 6298, 6299, 6300, and 6305). From these rulings, it was defined what is constitutional and what is unconstitutional in Law No. 13.964/2019, as well as being considered a mandatory rule establishing a deadline for the implementation and operation of the judge of guarantees throughout the country. The issue to be analyzed will be whether the Brazilian legal system is prepared for the implementation of the judge of guarantees? The general objective will be to understand the structural, budgetary, and staffing difficulties, as well as the legislative competence dialectic regarding the implementation of the judge of guarantees in the Brazilian judicial system, for its effective implementation within the deadline established by the Supreme Federal Court. The specific objectives are to assess the obstacles and difficulties in the physical structures of courts and judicial divisions, point out budgetary difficulties, and the challenges related to the number of court and division staff. The methodology will follow the deductive method, using bibliographic research, with an exploratory objective, qualitative approach, basic nature, and systematic literature review, encompassing academic articles, books, and legal documents.

Analysis Of Differences In Evidence In District Court Decisions And Supreme Court Decisions: A Case Study On The Judicial Review Process

A judicial review (PK) is a legal mechanism given to parties who are dissatisfied with a decision that has permanent legal force, either in the District Court or the Supreme Court. In Indonesia, a PK application can only be submitted once, as regulated in Article 268 paragraph (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and often involves new evidence (novum) as a basis for requesting a judicial review. The objective to be achieved in this study is to analyze the differences related to the evidence in the District Court decision and the Supreme Court decision in the review process. The method used in this study is juridical normative where the legal material used covers the theory, concept, legal principles and some regulations in accordance with the discussion of research. The method of data collection used is literature study where secondary data are used such as books, laws and related journals. The results of this study indicate that the difference in evidence in conducting judicial review becomes one of the considerations for the acceptance or rejection of PK by the Supreme Court. However, in fact, the specification of the quality of evidence is still not clearly explained where it will only create a blur of norms. Therefore, it is not surprising when the Supreme Court rejected many of the judicial review considering that there was no eligibility for the quality of the evidence received

Az anyanyelv használatának joga és annak érvényesülése a magyar büntetőeljárásokban

Aim: The goal of this study is to review Hungarian and international legal instruments in order to assess the relevant standards in this field. Enacting proper legal regulations, however, does not necessarily mean that the requirements of language assistance are also enforced in practice. Another goal, therefore, is the review of the relevant caselaw. Methodology: This study reviews the relevant standards through the review of the relevant Hungarian legal regulations, as well as of the applicable human rights and EU legal instruments. The practical enforcement of the right to language assistance is analysed through the caselaw of the Hungarian Constitutional Court and regular courts. Findings: The present Hungarian Criminal procedure code defines the right to language assistance and the use of translator and interpreter in details. The European Convention on Human Rights and the relevant Directive of the EU also regulate this right. After examining the relevant legal standards it becomes apparent that the present Hungarian legal regime provides more rights and offers a higher level of protection than what is required by the European standards. The consistent jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court considers the right to use mother tongue a crucial element of the equality of arms, an essential part of the right to fair trial. The caselaw of courts show that though there are some cases in which appeals also concern the use of mother tongue, the vast majority of these claims are not relevant for the merits of the case. Value: The right to translation and interpretation is one of the main principles of criminal procedure. The right to language assistance is crucial for ensuring fair trial. In summary, the enforcement of the right to use one’s mother tongue meets the standards provided for in legal regulations and the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, but in this field continuous analysis is required in order to ensure compliance at all times.

Historical and Current Perspectives on the Criminal Codes as Guarantees of Legal Security in Slovakia

The author describes two crucial periods in Slovak legal history from the perspective of the principle of legal security in criminal law. Firstly, the 19th-century Criminal Code, known as the Csemegi Code, is at the center of attention as it ended the centuries-long legal insecurity resulting from the lack of criminal law codification. The author analyses its leading principles as the safeguard of legal security. In contrast, the second part of the article focuses on the second codification of criminal law in Slovak legal history, the Criminal Code of 1950. The author demonstrates how the totalitarian regime destroyed the principle of legal security in criminal law in Slovakia, only slowly rebuilding it after the death of Joseph Stalin through amendments in 1956 and new legislation in 1961. The current Slovak Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code have been in effect since 2006. In conclusion, the author draws attention to how the latest changes in criminal law codes caused turbulences and worries over the principle of legal security in Slovakia.

Reimbursement of earnings or income lost by the party as a result of appearing before a court or a public administration authority

The Article 86.3 of the Act on court costs in civil cases (which also applies in administrative cases and cases tried before administrative courts) establishes the upper limit of compensation for earnings or income lost by a person who appeared before a civil court, administrative court or public administration authority. A similar solution is provided for in Article 618b § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in relation to the maximum amount of compensation for lost earnings that may be awarded to a witness in criminal proceedings. Unless specific provisions do not provide otherwise, this amount is currently (2024) PLN 82.31, which is much lower than the average daily wage of a person receiving the minimum wage and, as such, in most cases, does not compensate for the actual loss suffered by the party, witness or expert who appeared before the court or public administration authority. The applicable provisions specifying the maximum amount of compensation for lost earnings or income are considered inconsistent with the Constitution. For now, however, the Constitutional Tribunal has not recognized them as such, so these provisions are in force. Nevertheless, some judges do not apply them, assuming that they have the right to omit provisions that, in their opinion, are inconsistent with the Constitution. By doing so, they expose themselves to disciplinary liability. Is a regulation establishing an upper limit on the reimbursed income or earnings justified and necessary? Should judges ignore the provisions that set such a limit at too low a level? The author of the paper tries to answer these questions.

Selected victim protection measures in ordinary criminal proceedings

The victim becomes a participant in the criminal proceedings not because he or she has consciously made such a decision. It is almost always that the victim becomes a participant against their will, which is caused by a direct violation or threat to its legal interest by a criminal offence. This is reflected in the legal definition of the victim contained in Article 49 § 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter CPC) . Cezary Kulesza notes that this definition contains the following elements: subjective (natural or juridical person) and objective, relating to the legal interest infringed by the criminal offence to the extent defined by that provision, but also a provision of substantive criminal law (Kulesza, 1995, p. 17–18). The victim's participation in criminal proceedings makes the victim a participant in those proceedings, whether natural or juridical person, and that participation is limited to fulfilling the role assigned to them by the criminal procedural law (Tylman, 2003, p. 47). The legislature attributes three roles to the victim: in the pre-trial proceedings, the victim is a party (Article 299 § 1 CPC), in the judicial proceedings, the victim may be an auxiliary prosecutor (Article 53 CPC), incidental or subsidiary, and in the course of the entire criminal proceeding, also a testimonial evidence source (Article 177 § 1 CPC, Article 185a § 1 CPC, Article 185c CPC). The status of a party to pre-trial proceedings is acquired by operation of law and does not require the victim to take any action. The situation is different in judicial proceedings, where acquiring the status of auxiliary prosecutor requires a certain effort to by the victim, namely expressing the will to act in that capacity.

The dispute about the law in the claim about the appeal of notarial deeds or the refusal to execute them

The article is devoted to the disclosure of the concept and essence of the dispute about the right during the consideration and resolution of a civil case on challenging notarial actions or refusal to perform them. It is noted that historically, for a long time, appeals against a notarial act or refusal to perform it were considered as undisputed cases and were resolved in a civil process by way of a separate proceeding. But with the adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine and its implementation, this category of civil case was classified as disputed, and therefore was already considered by the procedure of legal proceedings. The change in the order of consideration of the case led to the fact that both theoreticians and practitioners began to understand differently the nature of the «dispute about law» in this category of civil case, which had consequences not only in terms of the validity of classifying it as a case of legal proceedings, but also in the field civil jurisdiction. The author argues that when filing a lawsuit to challenge notarial actions or refusal to perform them, a civil law dispute arises, which arises not only from notarial procedural legal relations, but also from civil legal relations. Civil legal relations are the main legal relations, and notarial procedural legal relations are derivatives arising on the basis of the former and ensuring their implementation. That is why a civil law dispute arises between the person whose rights and interests are affected by the notarial act and the notary, as parties to this case, which is burdened by notarial proceedings. The peculiarity of this civil law dispute based on a claim to challenge a notarial act or refusal to perform it is that only one party claims material or non-material benefit, and the other does not. This is what distinguishes a claim for contesting notarial actions or refusal to perform them from other claims, where a dispute about civil law, which is burdened by notarial proceedings, arises between two subjects who simultaneously claim material or non-material benefit, which is behind the realization of the subject objective civil law. In connection with the encumbering of subjective civil law by notarial proceedings, when filing a lawsuit to challenge notarial actions or refusal to perform them, the purpose of civil proceedings is also complicated: in addition to the protection of subjective civil rights, freedoms and interests, judicial control of legality is carried out notarial activity.

Procedural decision of the detective to start a pre-trial investigation: some problematic issues

The article is devoted to problems related to the legal regulation of the detective’s procedural decision to initiate a pre-trial investigation. It was noted that although the legislator did not define the adoption of a separate procedural decision of the detective to start a pre-trial investigation, such a decision is embodied (enveloped) not in a procedural document, but in a procedural action - entering information about a criminal offense into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. The problem of improper legislative regulation of the interaction between the detective and the head of the detectives department regarding the adoption of the specified procedural decision is outlined. The departmental acts of the ESBU and the NABU in relation to the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine were studied, on the basis of which it was concluded that the adoption of a procedural decision by the detective to start a pre-trial investigation is preceded by an order from the head of the detectives department to consider a statement, notification of the commission of a criminal offense in accordance with Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (although such an order is not expressly provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine). Particular attention was paid to the legislator’s uncertainty of such interaction in case defective learns on his own about circumstances which are likely to indicate that a criminal offence has been committed, in connection with which possible options for such procedural interaction were considered: a) independent entry of information by the detective into the Unified Register of Pre­Trial Investigations with immediate notification of the head of the prosecutor’s office; b) notification by the detective to the head of the detectives department about the independent detection of signs of a criminal offense without independently entering such information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations. The opinion that the last option of interaction is correct is substantiated. The scientific discussion is continued regarding the issues related to the literal interpretation of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the duty of the detective to enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations on the basis of the submitted application, notification of the committed criminal offense regardless of their content. The current practice of investigative judges is analyzed, based on which the formed approaches to understanding the grounds for making a procedural decision to start a pre-trial investigation based on statements and reports of the commission of a criminal offense are highlighted. The solutions of the outlined problematic aspects by making changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine are proposed.

Legal consequences of the statement of provocation by the defense party: scientific and practical aspects

The article examines the legal consequences of the defense’s declaration of provocation of a crime. Based on the analysis of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights and the Supreme Court, the opinion was formulated that the declaration of the commission of a crime as a result of provocation by the defense gives rise to the corresponding obligations for the defense and the prosecution, as well as the court. It was analyzed that as a result of the influence of the precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights, the practice of the Supreme Court began to form regarding the position of the defense on provocation of a crime, according to which the contradiction of the position of the defense, i.e. when the applicant denies the fact that he committed a crime and at the same time declares that he was provoked to commit it, is the basis for the court’s refusal to verify such an application, citing the relevant reasons in the decision. Based on the study of the principle of adversariality of the parties in criminal proceedings, the thesis that it is the defense party that is obliged to prove the presence of provocation, to indicate which facts and circumstances confirm this with reference to specific evidence examined at the court hearing, is substantiated. In turn, the prosecutor, supporting public accusations, except for the circumstances specified in Art. 91 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, guided by the standard of proof «beyond a reasonable doubt», is obliged to prove the absence of provocation of the crime. Failure to prove «beyond a reasonable doubt» the absence of provocation is equivalent to proving its presence and causes legal consequences in the form of an acquittal by the court. It has been proven that when one of the arguments of the defense side was the presence of provocation of a crime, the court is obliged to properly evaluate both the arguments of the defense side and the arguments of the prosecution regarding the presence or absence of such provocation. According to the results of the analysis of the decisions of the Supreme Court in which the lower courts did not evaluate the arguments of the defense about provocation, or formally evaluated them formally, it was concluded that this is a significant violation of the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prevented or could have prevented the court from adopting a legal and justified court decision.

Constitutionality Use of Arrest Powers at the Pre-Charge Stage in Jordanian Criminal Procedure: Critical Analysis

Only in exceptional circumstances should one use a detention decision, as it is a serious matter. Authorized bodies such as the primary investigation authority and the relevant court issue detention decisions. While there are justifications for detaining someone, it does restrict the defendant's freedom and goes against the presumption of innocence. This study examined the purposes and justifications for detention, along with how the Jordanian Code of Criminal Procedure handles it. The study discovered specific reasons and justifications for detention, despite it being a temporary restriction on the freedom of an accused person without proven guilt. The Jordanian legislator outlines these in Article (114) of the Code. The study also found no conflict between detention and the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is a principle of proof, meaning the burden of proving guilt lies with the prosecution. It doesn't guarantee that a detained person is innocent.

Legal principles of pre-trial investigation war crimes

The modern legal principles of the activity of law enforcement agencies regarding the investigation of war crimes have been defined. It is emphasized that war crimes are complex in terms of their mechanism of commission, which is characterized by consequences in the form of significant destruction of civilian infrastructure objects, a large number of unidentified dead; instruments of commission, which neither pre-trial investigation bodies nor forensic experts have encountered before; by persons of criminals who change their locations, including those who are in the territory of another state, etc. It is noted that in Ukraine since the declaration of the legal regime of martial law by the Decree of the President of Ukraine, significant changes have taken place in the criminal procedural legislation, which established a special regime of pre-trial investigation and trial under martial law conditions, provided for in Section IX-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. It is noted that the pre-trial investigation of war crimes requires considerable expenditure of resources, including human resources, due to which employees of various law enforcement agencies, including units of the National Police, are involved in carrying out certain procedural actions. Legal problems in the activities of the National Police of Ukraine regarding the organizational features of the pre-trial investigation that need to be resolved at the legislative and departmental levels are highlighted. Proposals are made to improve the legislation on the regulation of the term “war crime” in the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The requirements regarding the procedure for collecting evidence of war crimes for the purpose of further transfer of materials for consideration by the International Criminal Court have been updated. Attention is focused on the fact that the principles, subjects and forms of interaction at the national and international levels during the pre-trial investigation of war crimes should be properly regulated. During the writing of the article, the methods of dialectics, comparative legal and systemic analysis, and formal logic were used.

Проблемы разграничения законности, обоснованности и мотивированности приговора в теории и практике уголовного судопроизводства

This article examines the problems associated with defining the concept of a justified verdict, its relationship with the properties of legality and motivation of a court decision. The conclusion is formulated that modern judicial practice has actually turned the property of the validity of a sentence into an appendage of legality. Violation of the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, in turn, is a universal basis for canceling or changing a court decision. Thus, in the practice of appellate courts, the identification of violations of the law committed by the court of first instance, as a rule, precedes the verification of issues of the validity of the verdict, which the court may generally leave without consideration, and the cassation courts, contrary to the requirements of the law, actually verify the validity of the verdict. In this case, the sentence is canceled (changed) due to a legal basis (the only legal one, according to the letter of the law) significant violations of the criminal and (or) criminal procedural law. The authors associates the appearance of such collisions with the confusion in judicial practice and in procedural science of the concepts of legality, validity and motivation of a sentence. However, such a mixture directly contradicts the requirement of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which distinguishes the subject of appeal (legality, validity and fairness of the sentence) and cassation (literally according to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation — only the legality of the sentence) proceedings. Based on the results of the study, the authors proposed her own vision of the content of the concepts of legality, validity and motivation of a court decision, and their significance in rendering a legal verdict. Key words: sentence, properties of the sentence, legality, validity, motivation.

THE APPLICATION OF PRE-TRIAL DETENTION AS A MEASURE TO ENSURE THE PRESENCE OF THE ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ACCORDING TO THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEURE OF KOSOVO

One of the fundamental prerequisites for the progression of criminal proceedings is the participation of procedural subjects in the criminal procedure. Based on this fact, the primary responsibility falls on the justice authorities, who are obliged to ensure the presence of the accused in the procedure. Pre-trial detention is considered one of the most severe measures to secure the presence of the accused in the criminal procedure because it significantly restricts the freedom of the accused, a measure that can only be determined in accordance with the conditions specified by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Within the scope of this work, we will elaborate on the general concepts of pre-trial detention, the conditions for its imposition, its duration, the continuation of pre-trial detention, and the rights of pre-trial detainees. The Code of Criminal Procedure has envisaged the implementation of pre-trial detention in accordance with international standards. The rationale for applying measures to ensure the presence of the accused in the criminal procedure lies in achieving the goal of preventing the delay of the criminal procedure and ensuring access to justice.

COMPLAINT AS A LEGAL REMEDY, THEORETICAL AND PRACTICAL ASPECTS

In criminal procedure, a "remedy" refers to a legal solution or course of action that is available to individuals who believe their rights have been violated during the criminal justice process. Remedies are designed to protect the rights of defendants and ensure that the criminal justice system operates fairly and in accordance with the law. Of course, the complaint as a regular legal remedy can be exercised within the specified legal deadlines and in the previous legal procedure. It's important to note that not all legal remedies follow these exact stages, and the specific procedures can vary based on the legal system and the type of case. Additionally, some legal issues may be resolved through administrative processes or through negotiation without ever entering the formal legal system. The judgments issued by the court, with which the party is dissatisfied and which have not yet taken the final form, are struck with legal means. The legal remedies are regulated by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and serve to exercise the legal remedy in case of dissatisfaction with the court's decision, therefore we can rightly conclude that the legal remedies are a kind of guarantee for the respect of the rights of the parties in the procedure. The purpose of this paper is to find, through research methods, how these legal remedies are regulated, the changes that have occurred in criminal legislation, their application in practice, where through comparative, statistical, normative and other methods, it will be more easy for us to reach correct conclusions. With the conviction that this work will bring innovation and be a summary for all those readers who intend to study this field in the future.

Legal personality of officials of the prosecution authorities in criminal proceedings

In modern criminal procedural science, there is no doubt that the prosecutor and subordinate prosecution officers are participants in criminal proceedings. Separate disputes arise only when discussing the issue of classifying the prosecutor as a party to the prosecution. At the same time, the role and functions of officials of the prosecution authorities in criminal proceedings are not so obvious and unambiguous. Although Part1 of Article37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation assigns the functions of supervision and criminal prosecution to the prosecutor, the heads of the prosecution authorities and the employees subordinate to them do not always pursue these goals, and officials of the prosecution authorities do not always act in the status of a prosecutor or public prosecutor. Analyzing the current norms of criminal procedural legislation and comparing them with the actual legal personality of prosecutorial employees entering into relations with participants in criminal proceedings, the author substantiates the conclusion about the necessity to distinguish between two fundamentally different legal statuses of the prosecution officials. The first one is the official status of the prosecutor as the head of the prosecution authority, allowing him to exercise state powers to supervise the preliminary investigation bodies without accepting the additional procedural status of a participant in legal proceedings. The second one is the criminal procedural status acquired by an official of the prosecution authority, including a prosecutor, for a certain period (stage, phase) of criminal proceedings to carry out one of two procedural functions – criminal prosecution (acquires the status of a public prosecutor) or law enforcement function, protection of the interests of an individual, society and the state (acquires the status of other prosecutor or a prosecutor representative).

APPLYING THE ATTORNEY GENERALS PRINCIPLE OF OPPORTUNITY IN ECONOMIC CRIMES: A STUDY ON DIGNIFIED JUSTICE THEORY FOR NATIONAL WELFARE

The concept of the oportunitas principle, originating from the now-obsolete Article 8 of Law No. 15 of 1961, has endured through subsequent legal frameworks in Indonesia. This principle has evolved to grant the Attorney General, the highest Public Prosecutor, exclusive authority for its implementation, aligning with the current Prosecution Law and the guidelines of the Criminal Procedure Code. The oportunitas principle allows the Attorney General to refrain from prosecuting certain criminal cases to safeguard the public interest, with a formal decision document issued to ensure legal certainty and emphasize the prohibition of future prosecution in cases dismissed in favor of the public, particularly regarding economic crimes that impact the national economy. Harmonizing this principle with the evolving legal landscape reflects a delicate balance between societal needs and legal frameworks, helping to prevent the misuse of power. The dynamic nature of the oportunitas principle underscores its vital role in the Indonesian legal system, providing a nuanced perspective on the intersection of justice, public interest, and prosecutorial discretion.

Məhkəmənin hökm və ya qərarlarına yeni açılmış hallar üzrə baxılması üçün əsaslar

This research article conducted the grounds of proceedings on newly found circumstances, which are a type of particular proceedings in the criminal process of the Republic of Azerbaijan. According to newly found circumstances, the review of judgments and decisions of the court, which led to the issuance of a legally binding judgment or decision, and which were present during the investigation and trial of the case, but happens due to discovery of new unknown cases by the person who conducted the investigation or the court on the merits of the case. Chapter 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan is devoted to the proceedings of newly opened cases. The first article - 461 of that chapter is dedicated to the grounds for considering court judgments or decisions in newly found circumstances. However, the specified article did not establish a legal understanding of the newly found circumstances. In this regard, we would suggest that Article 461 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan to be amended regarding proceedings on newly opened cases and that institution to be given the following legal meaning: "Proceedings on newly found circumstances, the legally binding judgment of the court or other cases that make it possible to change any final decision are those cases that were not determined before - neither during the preliminary investigation nor at other stages of the criminal proceedings". Keywords: newly newly found circumstances, judgement, Supreme Court, the right to appeal, new verdicts, cassation instance.

Особливості проведення слідчих (розшукових) дій (допиту) в умовах воєнного стану

The article is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of conducting investigative actions (interrogation) caused by the introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine. The article analyzes the legislative innovations that were established in connection with the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation into the territory of the state, in particular, the possibility of using as evidence by the court the video recording of the statements that were given to the prosecutor, the investigator in the conditions of martial law, as well as recording the course and results of the interrogation of the victim, suspect or witnesses (with the participation of a defense attorney) using available technical means of video recording, which are aimed at increasing the level of protection of citizens’ rights. The significance and relevance of the question of interrogating a witness, or victim in the mode of a video conference is outlined. The need to regulate the interrogation is substantiated so that the court is empowered, in exceptional situations, with the possibility of a "departure" from the principle of immediacy of the examination of testimony during the trial, enshrined in Article 23 of the Criminal Procedure Code, under the condition of mandatory observance of due process guarantees. The duty of the court tomonitor the interrogation to prevent possible extraneous influence on the interrogated subjects is characterized. The specific properties of the interrogation of a minor and the need, to avoid a possible psychological injury to the child, to observe all the guarantees and rights of a minor are substantiated. The child’s right to free secondary legal assistance, which provides for the protection and representation of interests in courts, other state bodies, and local self-government bodies, before other persons, as well as drafting procedural documents, is analyzed. Gaps and problematic aspects are singled out, which negatively affect both minors and the results of criminal proceedings in general.

О необходимости законодательной регламентации процессуальной правосубъектности участников уголовного судопроизводства

The article deals with the problem of the lack of norms in the law on the regulation of criminal procedural legal personality (legal capacity) of participants in legal proceedings. The gap currently available does not allow for a uniform solution of many practical issues related to the possibility of independent implementation by the subjects of the process - mainly minors - of the rights and obligations granted to them by law. After studying the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, it was concluded that the individual acquired full procedural capacity upon reaching adulthood. The paper substantiates the need to introduce a definition of procedural legal capacity into the law, differentiation in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation of the scope of legal capacity of participants of different ages (full, partial), as well as determining the list of rights that a partially capable participant can exercise independently, and which with the help (or with the consent) of a legal representative. The study used foreign legislation regulating criminal proceedings and the Model Code of Criminal Procedure for the member States of the Commonwealth of Independent States.