Pre-trial Stage Research Articles

The social role and procedural independence of the investigator in the criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation

The subject of the study is the social role and procedural independence of the investigator in the criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation as a key subject conducting criminal proceedings in the pre-trial stages. The authors consider the relationship between the investigator, the prosecutor, the head of the investigative body, the interrogator, and other participants in criminal proceedings, as well as problematic definitions and ensuring the procedural independence of the investigator. The methodology of research have been based on a set of general scientific methods and techniques used by legal science. According to the results of the study, the social role of the investigator in criminal proceedings has been determined, which is considered as one of the fundamental elements of his/her procedural independence. It has been concluded that the social role of the court and the investigator in the criminal process is comparable in terms of their defense of public interests and the importance of their participation in the implementation of criminal law. Therein, the court recognizes an exclusive function – the administration of justice. It has been noted that the absence of norms on the procedural independence of the investigator does not allow determining the place of the investigator in ensuring the balance of interests and mutual responsibility of the individual and the state, since the investigator can only be held liable as a representative of the state if he/she is independent in adopting them at his/her discretion.

Settlements in corporate bribery cases: an illusion of choice?

Despite prosecutors’ difficulties in proving corporate bribery, nearly all enforcement actions end with a settlement at the pretrial stage. Compared to court proceedings, settlement-based enforcement provide prosecutors with flexibility to reward offenders’ self-reporting and cooperation, and reach quicker conclusions to complex cases. In this article, we explain, such enforcement needs regulation to minimize potentially harmful side-effects. When the difference between a court and settlement sanction exceeds a certain size, the alleged offender accepts a settlement regardless of actual responsibility of misconduct. For the prosecutor, the option of offering a lenient settlement means weaker incentives to ascertain the material facts of the case. Society receives less information about the blameworthy act, little opportunity to evaluate the sanction, and less reason to expect sanctions to deter bribery. We show why such consequences result in under-deterrence of bribery and weaker rule of law. The use of settlement may have a self-escalating effect because the enforcement mode can reduce the predictability of the law, while a defendant’s inclination to accept a settlement offer depends on the predictability of the law. Our results suggest that United Kingdom’s current escalation of enforcement of corporate bribery laws will lead to a mixture of settlements and court decisions, while in the United States firms will continue to negotiate settlements as if there were no opportunity to have their cases tested in court.

ВИДИ КРИМІНАЛЬНИХ ПРОЦЕСУАЛЬНИХ ВІДНОСИН НА ДОСУДОВОМУ РОЗСЛІДУВАННІ... МІЖ СЛІДЧИМ ТА ІНШИМИ СУБ’ЄКТАМИ КРИМІНАЛЬНОГО ПРОВАДЖЕННЯ

The article is devoted to the study of problematic issues related to the types of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation stage between an investigator and other parties to criminal proceedings. The purpose of the article is to classify the types of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation stage between an investigator and other parties to criminal proceedings. Based on a systematic and comparative analysis of the legal provisions of the current CPC of Ukraine and the by-laws regulating pre-trial investigation, the author proves that at the pre-trial investigation stage, there is a variety of criminal procedural relations between its subjects. The nature of these legal relations is different. Some of these legal relations have only their own peculiarities and specific features, which are determined by the legal status of their subjects, procedural functions performed by certain subjects in criminal proceedings, their procedural interests, stages of pre-trial investigation, etc. This diversity of criminal procedural legal relations at the pre-trial investigation stage allows classifying these relations according to certain criteria with a view to improving the criminal procedural status of their subjects, and to enhance the efficiency of pre-trial investigation and strengthening criminal procedural guarantees of participants to criminal proceedings in achieving the goals and fulfilling the tasks of criminal proceedings. The author substantiates that based on the results of the analysis of doctrinal approaches to the classification of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation stage according to such criteria as: the task of criminal proceedings, procedural interest of criminal proceedings subjects, procedural functions of criminal proceedings subjects; sources of regulation of criminal procedural relations, content of criminal procedural relations, the most productive for studying the problems of procedural status of investigators and enhancing. The author offers her own classification of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation between the investigator and other subjects of criminal proceedings.

Bostock: A Clean Cut into the Gordian Knot of Causation

Regardless of merit, most individual employment discrimination claims die a fast death at summary judgment. Judges apply the fine mesh net created by McDonnell Douglas v. Green, and most cases are caught in its trap. This dated, obfuscatory Supreme Court case creates a complex and flawed binary approach to causation: either discrimination or an innocent reason caused an adverse employment action. For decades, all three levels of the federal judiciary have wrestled with McDonnell Douglas, creating snarls and knots in construing causation. Because of this causal confusion, the ideal of equal opportunity in employment is on life-support. Judges and practitioners must take note of Bostock v. Clayton County, a stunning Supreme Court case that lays a new foundation to clear this causal confusion. In this Article, I argue that Bostock creates a new mixed-motive paradigm that, if correctly applied, should transform individual discrimination law in this country by allowing juries to hear more cases. Bostock explicitly recognizes what the social sciences have long known: decision-making in the workplace is often complex, and both discriminatory and innocent reasons may be “but-for” causes of an employer’s adverse action against an employee. Tort law labels these “multiple sufficient cause” cases. In the first work of its kind, I apply the causation standards in Bostock to create a taxonomy of causation scenarios that should guide lower courts in their analysis of individual discrimination cases at pre-trial stages. As Bostock borrows its causation standards from tort law, this Article examines the nuances of that discipline to determine the legitimacy of Bostock’s causation discussion. I conclude that while Bostock conforms to tort law, the riddle of causation persists in that and almost every discipline. Still, Bostock’s causation logic is sufficient to guide courts into the future on firm ground. In the first comprehensive work of its kind, this Article assists courts by applying Bostock at each stage of litigation through jury trials. Bostock can help revive the ideal of equal opportunity in employment. I conclude the paper with tandem principled suggestions. First, I posit that the Court or Congress could create a burden-shifting scheme in multiple sufficient cause cases. Second, such a burden shifting of proof would pave the way for an allocation of fault scheme, similar to that found in tort law, whereby the plaintiff would recover those damages that correlate to the employer’s percentage of discriminatory causation.

Стандарты реализации права на обжалование и пересмотр промежуточных решений, вынесенных на досудебном этапе уголовного судопроизводства

Under Article 46 of the Russian Constitution, everyone is guaranteed judicial protection of his or her rights and freedoms. This right must also be realised in criminal proceedings, including during the pre-trial stage of the proceedings. At the same time, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has not formulated in sufficient detail how the right to judicial protection should be realised in the course of the court's interlocutory ruling and its review. In searching for standards for the implementation of the right to appeal and review of interlocutory decisions rendered at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, the authors refer to the provisions of the European Convention as interpreted by the ECHR as legal provisions correlating with the human rights enshrined in the Russian Constitution. For this purpose, more than 50 ECHR judgments and the positions of contemporary domestic and foreign legal scholars have been studied. The authors identified a list of standards of the Convention applicable in case of violation of the right to appeal and interlocutory review, which include the standards guaranteeing protection of fundamental individual rights: Article 5 (right to liberty and security of person), Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Art. 1 Protocol No. 1 (right to protection of and respect for property) as well as the rules laying down the minimum requirements for appeal or review procedures: Article 5(4), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 13 (right to an effective remedy). An analysis of the ECHR legal positions laid down the requirements for an appeal or review procedure against a court decision on "deprivation of liberty" (remand in custody, house arrest, prohibition of certain actions, placing a person in a hospital for forensic medical or forensic psychiatric examination). Such a procedure must meet minimum fair trial standards and be urgent and effective. The authors also substantiate the identification of general and specific standards of effective remedy in relation to the procedure of appeal and review of interlocutory decisions rendered at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. Thus, the procedure will be effective if it is accessible, sufficient and expeditious and if the appeal and review of the interlocutory decision can result in the reversal of the appealed decision and the "rectification of the disputed situation". Private standards apply to cases of appeal and review of specific interlocutory decisions that are made in secret, e.g. an order to monitor and record telephone conversations, obtain information on connections between subscribers and subscriber devices, etc. In such cases, the moment the right to an effective remedy arises is linked to the moment when the person becomes aware (is notified) of the procedural actions taken. On the basis of the analysis of the ECHR legal positions, proposals for improving the criminal procedure legislation were formulated. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Институт следственных судей: генезис и трансформация правовой модели

The judicial reform in Russia goes on and many provisions of the Concept of Judicial Reform of 1991 have been implemented. However, the institutions of investigating and penitentiary judges, provided by the Concept as a specialization of justices of the peace, have not yet been introduced. Academic and public discussion about the institution of investigative judges has intensified since 2014. Nowadays, there are several procedural models of this legal institution. However, the legal status of the investigating judge appears to be insufficiently developed. Using comparative and formal legal methods of research, the author examines the legal experience of postSoviet states that declare the formation of the institution of investigating judges in their judicial system to conclude that an investigating judge in many states has become a participant in criminal proceedings, but the institution of investigative judges has not been segregated into a separate judicial body, so the legal status of the investigating judge has not formed. In this regard, the author examines the institution of investigative judges of the Republic of Kazakhstan, in which it has undergone a significant transformation: from an investigating judge as a procedural figure to separate specialized investigative courts. Having studied the experience and recommendations of international expert organizations, the Republic of Kazakhstan is developing the idea of the institution of investigating judges in some possible perspective directions: finalization of the legal status of a judge of a specialized investigative court, harmonization of judicial and procedural legislation. Projecting the Kazakh model of a specialized investigative court onto the Russian judicial system, it is proposed to introduce specialized investigative courts in the Russian Federation with functionality that predominantly involves the exercise of judicial control functions. At the same time, the author notes that judicial control takes place both at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings and at the stage of execution of the judicial verdict. In this regard, it seems expedient to further build up the competence of a specialized investigative court and, on its basis, create a specialized investigative and penitentiary court, which in the future can become the basis for the formation of a national human rights court, the creation of which was proposed at a meeting of President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin with members of the Council under the President of the Russian Federation for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, held in December 2020.

Digitalization of civil proceedings in the USA: consolidation of the procedure for electronic disclosure of evidence (“e-discovery”)

The article notes that electronic disclosure of evidence (“e-discovery”) refers to the disclosure of evidence during the pre-trial stage of court proceedings, such as civil proceedings (litigation) or government investigations, when the requested information is in electronic format. Electronic information is considered different from paper because of its immaterial form, volume, transience and impermanence. Electronic information is usually accompanied by metadata, which is not present in paper documents and which can play an important role as evidence. The main document that allowed the digitalization of US civil proceedings was the amendments of 2006 and 2015 to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing the conduct of Court proceedings in US federal Courts. It is emphasized that one of the most hotly contested aspects of electronic disclosure of evidence has become the problem of electronic data security. The destruction of emails and other electronic data is as egregious and punishable by the court as the destruction of other documentary evidence related to a civil lawsuit. The decision in the case “Zubulake v. UBS Warburg” 2005 established important practices regarding “e-discovery”. In addition, this decision showed that various specialists can be involved in the project of electronic disclosure of evidence: lawyers of the parties, forensic experts, IT managers and office managers. In this regard, the comparative analysis of the above issues is of particular importance.

Challenging the decision of the financial commissioner in court: distribution of the burden of proof

This article discusses evidentiary activities with an insurance (financial) company contesting the decision of the financial commissioner, adopted by him at the request of a consumer of financial services at the pretrial stage of resolving an auto insurance conflict. Comparative legal analysis, system-structural analysis, and synthesis make up the methodological basis of the study. The relevance of the study, because of the legal nature of cases challenging the decision of the financial commissioner, reflecting a qualitatively “new” format of the mechanism for protecting the rights of this participant in auto insurance legal relations in the Russian Federation, is because proving in any civil case makes up the “core” of all judicial activities to resolve civil law conflict. The author evaluates implementing the legally established paradigm of adversarial litigation in the consideration and resolution of this category of cases, because the subject of judicial review is the decision of a public competent person, who, as a general rule, is charged with proving the legality and validity of his decision. The article explores the feasibility of implementing an “active” role of the court in implementing this mechanism for protecting the rights of insurance companies.

The subjective right to appeal in the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings

The subjective right to appeal in the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings

Legal regulation of documentary inspection and audit at the pretrial stages of criminal proceedings

Legal regulation of documentary inspection and audit at the pretrial stages of criminal proceedings

Криминальная ситуация в сфере правосудия

Introduction. The content of the criminal situation, along with crime (its state) characterizes the attitude of the authorities (primarily law enforcement agencies) to criminal offenses. Purpose. To establish the current state of the criminal situation in the field of justice. Methodology. A systematic approach, a statistical method, and a questionnaire were used. Results. Criminality in the sphere of justice is a statistical set of crimes provided for in Chapter 31 (Articles 294-316) of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Criminal Code of the Russian Federation). The volume of such crime consists of two arrays: 1) crimes provided for in chapter 31 “Crimes against justice” and 2) persons identified for their commission. The general dynamics of crime in the field of justice is characterized by an upward trend. Crimes against justice are characterized by a low level of unsolved crime. There is a decrease in the number of victims of crimes, however, such a decrease occurs against the background of a tendency to increase the relative number of victims per convicted criminal. This indicates a decrease in the effectiveness of the criminal justice system. At the pre-trial stage of its activity, violations of the law are characteristic, which restrict access to justice for victims of crimes. The analysis of judicial practice allows, based on the criteria of intensity and prospects of law enforcement, to distinguish four groups of norms contained in Chapter 31 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation: 1) intensively applied norms with positive dynamics; 2) relatively frequently applied norms with negative dynamics; 3) relatively rarely applied norms with uncertain (unstable) dynamics; 4) practically non-applicable norms. An objective assessment of the criminal situation in the field of justice is impossible without taking into account public opinion, since more than one and a half million Russian citizens face relevant problems every year. The survey of 922 citizens gives grounds to conclude that judicial statistics do not reflect the state of the criminal situation in the area under consideration. Conclusion. The assessment of the criminal situation in the field of justice should be comprehensive and take into account the state of crime, the characteristics of law enforcement activities to combat crimes against justice and taking into account public opinion about the problems of such a fight. Currently, the most problematic is the non-application of the norms contained in Articles 299-302, 304, 305, 310, 311 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Rola prokuratora w postępowaniu przygotowawczym przed międzynarodowymi trybunałami karnymi

In the process of creation of international criminal tribunals not only criminal procedure sui generis was designed but also for the first time detailed powers of prosecutor had to be adapted to specificity of their functioning. Procedure of international criminal tribunals creates new foundations to the position of prosecutor. The role that is played by this organ in international justice system depends mainly on the position of the tribunal itself. The creators of international tribunals applied legal instruments from several legal systems choosing solutions that seemed most appropriate for organs of international justice. In the consequence such procedure constitutes an amalgamate of common law institutions and solutions used in continental legal systems. In the negotiations during creation of the International Criminal Court for many years the best solutions were discussed and designed. Several questions regarding the shape of procedure had to be answered. The answers influenced not only the powers of prosecutor but also the role of tribunal. The place of prosecutor as an organ of the tribunal was the first issue of fundamental importance. International military tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo did not create prosecutor as an independent organ. Prosecutors acted only in the name of the victorious governments. It was only with creation of ad hoc tribunals – International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda – that prosecutor became an independent organ, equipped with his own powers. At the time being, in the procedure before the International Criminal Court independence of prosecutor is the fundamental element of his status and is protected equally to independence of judges. Secondly, the choice between opportunity and legality of prosecution had to be made. It was agreed that prosecutor should take actions only in the most severe situations regarding most serious violations of international criminal law when specific circumstances indicate that they are in the interest of an international organ of justice. Perpetrators of international crimes are usually too numerous to be brought to justice before an international organ. In such situation it is accepted that prosecutor should initiate criminal proceedings only when he sees the procedure to be in interests of international justice. The issue of initiation of procedure was equally crucial. Each tribunal offers to prosecutor such powers, although in the ICC it was one of the most disputed solutions. In the consequence prosecutor plays an important role in the functioning of international justice. Not only he can initiate procedure proprio motu but also chooses situations and perpetrators that should be brought to justice before international tribunals. The shape of pre-trial stage constitutes an amalgamate of different criminal justice systems – both elements of common law and continental legal systems have been employed in order to create procedure most fitted to the specificity of situations that have to be dealt with by international tribunals. Such institutions as disclosure of charges and documents come from common law. Continental legal systems provided solutions of confirmation of indictment and active role of Pre-Trial Chamber in the pre-trial stage. In the consequence system of checks and balances was created – prosecutor conducts the pre-trial stage but most important decisions have to be confirmed by a judicial organ. This article presents powers of prosecutors of international criminal tribunals during the pre-trial stage of proceedings. It focuses on such institutions as power to initiate of proceedings and its limitations, preliminary examination of a case, authorization of investigation, conditions of such authorization and powers of prosecutor to act on a territory of states. Many procedural issues concerning the role of prosecutor have been explained during the judicial activities of ad hoc tribunals. It can be expected that in the jurisprudence of the ICC problems concerning the role of prosecutor of international tribunal will be further developed.

Comparative legal analysis of the expertise in court under the criminal law of Ukraine and CIS countries

A comparative analysis of the expertise during the criminal proceedings in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Republics of Azerbaijan, Belarus, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and the Russian Federation has been carried out.
 Proposals were submitted to the domestic Criminal Procedure Code to increase the efficiency of the expertise in court. It is proved that in a situation of passivity of the parties to the criminal proceedings and the victim to make an informed decision in case it is necessary to establish certain circumstances of the offense, the court has the right to appoint an examination on its own initiative without any restrictions. The expertise appointed in court in respect of the expertise carried out in the pre-trial investigation may be additional, repeated or new. The expert is summoned to court for expertise, when: new circumstances have been established in the court proceedings that require research; several examinations were conducted at the pre-trial stage and experts came to the opposite conclusion; previously conducted expert research is incomplete.
 Expertise in court may be conducted by an expert (experts) who gave an opinion during the pre-trial investigation, or another expert (experts) appointed by the court, or both experts together. The expert who conducted the expertise during the pre-trial investigation, or the specialist to whom the expertise will be assigned, summoned to court, have the right to participate in the expertise of objects and documents, conduct court proceedings related to the subject of expertise, discuss issues and objects for expertise, to specify the term of expertise. After the examination, the expert must announce the opinion in court and may be questioned to supplement and clarify the opinion. The presiding judge at the request of the parties should provide an opportunity to study in detail the conclusion of the expertise conducted in court.

ПОНЯТИЕ И ЗНАЧЕНИЕ СОГЛАШЕНИЯ О ПРИЗНАНИИ ВИНЫ В УГОЛОВНОМ ПРОЦЕССЕ: МЕЖДУНАРОДНЫЙ И НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ АСПЕК

The article substantiates the relevance of the consideration and application of the Institute for the recognition of guilt, which is new to the domestic system of criminal proceedings. The situation is justified that the guilt agreements will facilitate the simplification and acceleration of procedures at the pre-trial preparation stage and in court. The application in practice of the Institute of Agreement between the prosecutor and the suspect, accused of recognizing guilt, is aimed at the fact that the prosecutor goes to some concessions to the side of protection in exchange for recognition by the accused of his guilt. The concession of the protection side can be to reduce the amount of charge and softening the punishment. The provisions on the confession of the guilt of the fault in the articles of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Regulations were analyzed, regulating the agreement on the recognition of guilt, some foreign countries - the United States, the United Kingdom, France and Russia. The definition of the Institute of Agreement on Wine Recognition, and not the transaction, as is the name of the specified institution in the legislation of some states. The importance of the Agreement on the recognition of guilt in the criminal and criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan is considered. The circumstances that must be taken into account by the prosecutor in addressing the issue of concluding an agreement on the recognition of guilt are determined. The provisions on the requirements for the form and content of the guilty recognition agreements are substantiated. Claims are identified and analyzed, which impede the conclusion of the Agreement on the recognition of guilt. Some conclusions are formulated related to the practice of the application of this institution in the National Criminal Procedure.

Victim’s Participation in Adversary Procedure of the Russian Federation’s Criminal Procedure Code and Lessons for Vietnam

Abstract Some countries that mainly follow the inquisitorial system, such as Russia, France, and Vietnam, tend to absorb some features of the adversarial system. Using the Russian Federation as an example, this article raises questions including: How will the acquisition of adversarial elements affect the position, role, rights and obligations of the victim? Is the victim an independent party to participate in the adversary procedure? Do the adversarial activities of the victim and the other subjects exist at the pre-trial stages? In Vietnam, with the limitation of the victim to participate actively in the adversary procedure, it will be difficult for the victim to protect his or her legitimate rights and interests in the criminal proceedings. He/ she participates in the proceedings passively with the same role as witnesses. This article explores the role and position of the victim in the adversary procedure of the Russian Federation. While analyzing the rights and obligations of the victim in the adversary procedure, we found that the victim in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is eligible to participate in the adversary procedure as an independent party. The article discusses the significance of this study and proposes approaches to improve the victim’s participation in adversary procedure in Vietnam’s criminal justice system.

Can the Fight Against Crime Act as a Paradigm for the Legal Model of the Prosecutor's Activity?

The prosecutor plays a special role in counteracting crime, being the public officer whom the state made responsible for coordinating the activities of all law enforcement bodies, as well as for the legality and validity of criminal prosecution against persons who committed crimes. Today, alongside the legal model of the prosecutor’s activity provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation according to which the prosecutor performs the function of criminal prosecution nominally and is, in fact, removed from the participation in the pre-trial stages of the criminal process, there has also developed a rather autonomous real-life model of the prosecutor’s activities. In practice, the prosecutor still has an opportunity to influence the decisions regarding the initiation of a criminal case and indictment at the stage of preliminary investigation. The study of a prosecutor’s participation in the pre-trial proceedings, a survey of prosecutors, investigators and inquiry offices made it possible to conclude that rights and legal interests of the participants in the process are often sacrificed for the sake of indicators of the effectiveness of criminal prosecution and crime solving rates. The authors analyze the causes of this situation and reveal the drawbacks in the current normative model of the prosecutor’s activity. This analysis allowed them to conclude that there should be no conflict between such determinants of a prosecutor’s activity as counteracting crime and ensuring the rights of the participants of criminal proceedings if the legal model of the prosecutor’s activity is well-considered and carefully drawn. The lawmakers should see their task in finding a reasonable and clear balance between the abovementioned values; the absence of such a balance will inevitably result in a repressive approach to crime counteraction, which is absolutely unacceptable for the modern legal state. The authors describe the factors which, if taken into account, will make it possible to eliminate key problems of the legal model of the prosecutor’s work as well as the distortions and errors in its enforcement. They make a number of suggestions aimed at designing a model of the prosecutor’s activities that would contribute to effective crime counteraction without violations against rights and legal interests of persons in the sphere of criminal proceedings.

Suspect’s access to a lawyer at an early stage of criminal proceedings in view the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

Access to a lawyer at the pre-trial stage of proceedings is an essential component of the right to defense in criminal proceedings and the right to a fair trial. Access to a lawyer enables the accused to make a good decision for his her defence. At present, there is no doubt that prompt access to a lawyer constitutes an important counterweight to the vulnerability of suspects in police custody, ensures equality of arms and provides a fundamental safeguard against coercion. This study analyses a suspect’s right to access to a lawyer at the initial stage of criminal proceedings in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The first part of the article provides an analysis of the understanding of the right to a lawyer at the pre-trial stage as applied by the ECtHR prior to the Salduz case. This period in the ECtHR’s case law was characterized by a lack of precision as to the temporal limits of the right laid down in Article 6 § 3 (c) of the ECHR. The next part shows the changes brought about by the judgment in the Salduz case regarding the protection of suspects and ensuring their right to counsel. It is argued that the Salduz doctrine not only covered the suspect’s access to a lawyer at the initial stage of the pre-trial proceedings, but also stressed the obligation to inform the suspect of his or her rights, including the right to remain silent. An important element of the Salduz doctrine was the possibility to eliminate evidence obtained during an interrogation conducted at an early stage of the pre-trial proceedings in the absence of a defense counsel. Further, the paper argues that the standard set out in the judgment in the Salduz v. Turkey case was confirmed in a number of rulings. The fourth part of the paper draws attention to the erosion of the Salduz standard that occurred with the judgment in the Ibrahim and Others v. the UK case. The article also brings into focus recent judgments of the ECtHR which have reinforced the view expressed in the Ibrahim and Others v. the UK case concerning a test of fairness of a trial as whole. It is underlined in the conclusions that recent ECtHR’s case law does not provide any cause for optimism regarding legal assistance at an early stage of criminal proceedings.

Allpying the Method of Criminalistc Computer Modeling in Crime Investigation

The authors of this article reviewed certain issues, application features and development perspectives of criminalistic computer modeling in crime investigation. The article gives a more precise definition to the term “criminalistic computer modeling” and the strategy of automized crime investigation, reviews the existing programmed hardware-software complexes and forensic equipment, which use criminalistic computer modeling. Moreover, it outlines the possibility of using certain AI elements for building automized strategies to investigate particular types of crimes. Nowadays, forensics as a science needs to develop new tactics, methods and recommendations, as well as forensic equipment and software, based on modern computer technologies and the method of forensic computer modeling, including the use of AI elements, to make crime investigation more effective. This becomes particularly important during the pre-trial investigation stage, closely connected to the development of new forensic equipment and methods. In this regard, the issues of using criminalistic computer modeling in crime investigation demand special attention. The results of this research lead the authors to believe that the possibility of applying criminalistic computer modeling opens new prospects for using it in forensics, including the criminalistic methodology, which will increase the effectiveness of crime investigation and optimize the work of the investigator.

Criminal Procedural Interest in Domestic Pre-Trial Proceedings in Criminal Cases: Theoretical Foundations and the Problem of Determinism

Having analyzed some of the definitions of interest existing in the science of criminal procedural law, the author, highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of the definitions of interest proposed earlier by procedural scientists, formulates his own concept of criminal procedural interest. The author examines the issue of the relationship between private and public interests in the pre-trial stages of Russian criminal proceedings, determining their internal content. The author considers the issue of the appointment of criminal proceedings in the context of the balance of private and public interests in Russian pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases. In support of his arguments, the author refers to the positions of scientists on this issue, specific examples from law enforcement practice (judicial, prosecutorial and investigative). Based on the results of the study, the author concludes that in the current criminal procedure legislation, due to the increased attention to the interests of the individual, the public interest has not been adequately reflected, which will require not only scientific rethinking, but also legislative adjustment.

Administrative-Procedural Form and Stages as Elements of the Characteristics of the Administrative Process

The subject of research in this paper is the administrative-procedural form and stages of the administrative process. The purpose of the study is to analyze the essential characteristics of the administrative-procedural form and stages. It is stated that the evolution of the administrative process and administrative-procedural legal relations entailed changes in the administrative-procedural form, which were influenced by changes in the political system and the system of public administration in the Russian Federation. It is concluded that the improvement of the administrative process and its form ensures compliance with both the interests of the state and society, as well as the rights and legitimate interests of citizens. Attention is drawn to the fact that one of the characteristic features of administrative-procedural legal relations that distinguish it from other types of procedural legal relations – arbitration, civil, criminal, constitutional, is the administrative-procedural form, which is characterized by out-of-court, pre-trial and judicial procedures of proceedings in an administrative case, due to the specifics and features of its subject. The author notes that the administrative-procedural form is an external expression of administrative-procedural activity, and the stages are its internal content. At the same time, the stages of the administrative process are separate, but interrelated stages consisting of administrative procedural actions united by common tasks and intermediate and final administrative procedural decisions, procedural deadlines. Attention is drawn to a certain specificity of the stages of the administrative process, which consists in the fact that they cannot be clearly divided into judicial and pre-trial stages, as it is in the criminal process. The system of stages of the administrative process should be the same for all types of administrative proceedings, since this follows from the principle of self-similarity, when the particular comes from the general and corresponds to it. To determine the place of administrative judicial procedure in the administrative process, it is necessary to understand that the court, as a subject of administrative procedural legal relations, can enter into the process at different stages, and it is not the only subject of administrative procedural relations that makes legally significant procedural decisions. The methodological basis of the article is dialectical, formal-logical methods, formal-legal method and method of interpretation of law.