编号 1 (2025)

In order to effectively fulfil state tasks in the field of activities of criminal justice authorities, a legislative definition of a reasonable correlation between public and private principles is required both in criminal procedure legislation and in the same-name area of self-realisation of the subjects of criminal proceedings. Purpose: to study formation patterns and establish scales (proportions) of interaction between state (public) and private interests in criminal proceedings. Methods: formal and dialectical logic, comparison, description, interpretation, historical and interpretation of legal norms. Results: the research reveals a methodologically and substantively justified disparity in the ratio of legal means and methods of ensuring public and private interests in criminal proceedings in Russia. The existing imbalance of public and private principles, reflecting primarily the official nature of the activities of state bodies authorised to carry out criminal proceedings, has objective prerequisites rooted in the history of the formation of the national criminal justice system. The presence, precisely in the rank of exception, of legal means of protecting private interests in the public branch of Russian law, and specifically in criminal procedure law and in the relevant field of state activity, is strictly dictated by our belonging to the continental legal system and the mixed nature of Russian criminal proceedings.

The drafters of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation attempted to implement the idea of restructuring criminal proceedings following the Anglo-Saxon model. To this end, the principle of adversarial proceedings was introduced into the Code at the pre-trial and trial stages. As a result, the judicial proceedings were brought into conformity with the constitutional rule on the mandatory exercise of any justice based on adversarial principles (Part 3 of Article 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). The content of pre-trial proceedings, where the investigator was a full-fledged “master” of the case, remained unchanged in principle. The situation in which the adversarial nature declared in the General Part of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation was not ensured in pre-trial proceedings by an appropriate procedural mechanism, led to further reform of the Code and constant additions and amendments to it. This did not lead to substantive changes in the existing continental criminal procedure of mixed type and its transfer to the Anglo-Saxon adversarial form, but revealed the main criterion for reforming the current and creating future criminal proceedings, which is the balance of public and private interests. Methods: the research is carried out using dialectical, general scientific (logical, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction) and specific scientific (formal-legal, interpretation of legal norms) methods. Results: the balance of public and private interests is the main factor in improving the current and creating prospective national criminal procedure legislation. The article substantiates its content and the need to enshrine it in Chapter 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as a principle of criminal proceedings with the proposal of the wording of the relevant norm.

There are four types of criminal procedure acts in pre-trial criminal proceedings: acts of application of law, procedural appeals, procedural acts of dispositive nature and procedural agreements. In the current criminal procedure legislation, there is only one example of the latter type of procedural acts, namely a pre-trial co-operation agreement. Such a limited scope of contractual relations in criminal proceedings is explained by its public law nature; however, this does not mean that this type of criminal procedure acts has no prospects for development. To make them real it is required to develop a theory of criminal procedure agreements. The purpose of the study is to develop, based on analysing the regulation of a pre-trial cooperation agreement, general provisions that could constitute a theoretical basis for the regulation of criminal procedure agreements. In particular, it is necessary to define parties of procedural agreements, their subject matter, guarantees of the rights and legitimate interests of participants of procedural agreements at the conclusion stage, the limits of appealing against the refusal of authorities to conclude procedural agreements. The dialectical method serves as the methodological basis of the research. In addition, the general scientific methods of analysis, synthesis and systematic approach are used, as well as special legal methods, primarily logical-legal and legal interpretation. Results: the study shows that the obligations under a procedural agreement for each of its participants imply the performance of actions only in the interests of the opposing party; the conclusion of a procedural agreement requires the participation or control of the authorities conducting criminal proceedings; the participation of entities defending the rights and legitimate interests of a party to a procedural agreement shall act as a mandatory procedural guarantee of the legality of its conclusion; the decision of an official to refuse to conclude a procedural agreement shall be subject to appeal in the manner prescribed by law.

The development of modern technologies that penetrate all spheres of public life, including criminal proceedings, the digitalisation of criminal proceedings raises the issue of whether the technologies introduced and the changing interaction between participants in criminal proceedings are compatible with private and public interests realised in the course of criminal proceedings. The purpose of the article is to analyse the compliance of the process of implementation of modern digital technologies with private and public interests in criminal proceedings. Methods: comparative-legal, system analysis, synthesis, prognosis. The author concludes that from the perspective of private and public interests in criminal proceedings, a number of technologies introduced in criminal proceedings fully correspond to both, as they facilitate the possibility for participants in criminal proceedings to exercise their rights, increase their awareness, and they optimise and rationalise the process of criminal proceedings for the state. However, a number of technologies are mainly in the public interest, as they optimise the activities of persons responsible for criminal proceedings, i.e., judges, investigators, prosecutors, and facilitate the work of authorised participants in the process. Artificial intelligence-based decision-making technologies in their current form do not serve either private or public interests, because they lack the emotional intelligence so necessary for resolving legal conflicts.

Protection of citizens’ rights from criminal encroachments by criminal law and criminal procedure methods is the task of state bodies and officials. It is solved through criminal prosecution of suspects and defendants. The victim, endowed by criminal law and criminal procedure law with the right of criminal prosecution has the right to protect his or her rights and interests, including through the right to an effective investigation. The death of the victim does not suspend or eliminate the need to investigate and resolve the criminal case, since the purpose of criminal proceedings is to bring to criminal responsibility the person who committed the crime, to impose a fair punishment (or to release the innocent from criminal responsibility), to protect and restore the victim’s rights. Whether the victim’s rights are lost due to his death, whether the institute of legal succession in criminal proceedings is sufficiently regulated, what rights and to whom are transferred from the deceased victim, what are the features of protection of personal non-property rights of the victim through criminal proceedings. These issues are the subject of discussions in science and have not yet been resolved at the legislative level. The purpose of the study is to identify the problems of succession in criminal proceedings and their resolution in the doctrine regardless of what property or personal non-property rights of the deceased victim are protected, as well as to determine the impact on the status of the successor of the deceased victim of the moment of the victim’s death and the connection of the victim’s death with the crime. Methods: empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic; specific scientific methods: legal-dogmatic and interpretation of legal norms. Results: the study reveals the need to regulate the transfer of rights of the deceased victim to his close relatives, close persons or relatives, and in their absence to persons on the prosecution side through the institute of criminal procedure succession. The regulation of procedural rights of the legal successor of the victim should not be affected by the following circumstances: whether the victim died as a result of a crime committed against him or not in connection with it, or when the crime was committed against the property or personal non-property rights of the already deceased victim, protected by the state in the form of fundamental rights and freedoms enshrined in Chapter Two of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

The article, devoted in general to evidence in criminal proceedings, focuses on the problem of standards of proof and their role in ensuring the fairness of court decisions. The article studies the correlation of the concepts of “standard of evidence” and “standard of proof”, raises the question of criteria for assessing the sufficiency and reliability of evidence. Particular attention is paid to the interaction of the standard of proof with the subjective element – the judge’s inner conviction, which plays a key role in shaping the final decision. The paper analyses the contradictions that arise in applying these standards in the context of acquittal and defamation judgements, and discusses the safeguards for establishing the truth of a judgement in balancing procedural formality and judicial discretion. Purpose: the study of standards of proof, their content, the possibility of application in Russian criminal proceedings. Methods: general scientific methods (system and structural-functional analysis, synthesis, induction and deduction), as well as specific scientific (special) methods: comparative-legal, formal-legal, interpretative. Results: based on the conducted research, the author offers recommendations for improving legal mechanisms aimed at minimising judicial errors and strengthening confidence in the justice system.

Every human activity, including judicial proceedings, is driven by interests. These interests can be private and social, state and public. They often do not align and may contradict one another. The challenge lies in finding their balance. The public interest represents a rational compromise between social and state interests. Achieving this balance depends on the nature and quality of the state and its ability to provide conditions for the coexistence of various conflicting private and social interests through mutual adaptations that optimise sustainable interactions among different social forces. Purpose: to identify the optimal relationship between the forms of state governance on one hand and the public interest on the other, so that a reasonable balance of public and private principles is observed; to determine the place and role of public and private interests in contemporary criminal proceedings; to formulate the basic requirements for the mechanism of criminal proceedings, which would meet the correct proportions of public and private elements in it. Methods: structural-functional analysis, comparative-historical, institutional, typological, evolutionary, genetic, and formal-legal methods. Results: the best conditions for balancing public and private interests can be created under a form of governance such as a republic-polity (in the Aristotelian sense), where all subjects of political action perform coordinated functions beneficial to the common good, and authorities take into account the rational interests of all categories of citizens. In the realm of criminal proceedings, this form of governance corresponds to the principle of strict legality (officiality) in criminal prosecution. Contemporary “Western” left-liberal democracies operating within a postmodern paradigm have proven incapable of ensuring this principle. The fate of criminal proceedings increasingly depends on relativistic notions held by authorities regarding what constitutes a crime; the positions of prosecutors and investigators concerning the expediency of criminal prosecution; and agreements made between victims and defendants in the name of restoring “public peace”. This significantly complicates the achievement of both private and general crime prevention goals. However, the balance of interests in criminal proceedings is not the same as reconciliation or “public peace”. It primarily represents a process and outcome of a fair procedural struggle among parties endowed with sufficient legal subjectivity; this interconnected status ensures that every interest, including private egoistic interests, is directed toward and objectively contributes to the common cause of justice. A fair balance of interests in criminal proceedings can be ensured if all evidence is collected by the parties solely within adversarial judicial procedures, including during preliminary investigations; if preliminary investigation authorities assume a neutral function of objective investigation rather than accusation; if the burden of proof is flexibly dependent on the actual capability of participants in proving specific facts of the case (objective “feasibility of proof”); and if the termination of criminal cases “by mutual consent” is permitted only for excusable (exculpatory) offences, whose social danger depends on the perception of the victims.

The penetration of information technologies and systems into all spheres of society and the state also affects the criminal justice system. The issues of its susceptibility to the trends of the era of computerisation, informatisation and digitalisation are related to many factors: the growing number of crimes committed with the use of information and communication technologies or in the sphere of computer information, the need to change the information environment of law enforcement and judicial bodies, the readiness and ability of the state to ensure the necessary level of information security of participants in criminal proceedings. The most vulnerable to these factors are the privacy and personal data of participants in criminal proceedings. Although the law of criminal procedure has in recent years established a number of additional procedural guarantees for their protection (non-disclosure of data on the verification of the crime report, the possibility of testifying under a pseudonym), unfortunately, this is insufficient at present. The article analyses the development of legislation on personal data, the concept of personal data, their correlation with the concept of citizens’ privacy, specific ways of personal data protection in criminal proceedings (inadmissibility of disclosure of preliminary investigation data, testimony under a pseudonym, closed court sessions).

The distinction between private and public interests and the search for a balance between them in the system of criminal procedure regulation are in one way or another connected with all other theoretical and practical problems of criminal proceedings and criminal procedure policy. The issues of the relationship between public and private interests have always been at the epicentre of scientific discussions and acute ideological confrontation. Purpose: to show that in criminal proceedings, the overriding publicity of which has never been questioned, the protection of the legitimate private interests of participants in criminal proceedings and other persons dependent on those proceedings has always constituted a public interest as well. Methods: the historical method allows us to trace the dynamics of the formation of scientific ideas about the relationship between public and private interests in criminal proceedings; the concrete legal method consists in comparing these ideas with the requirements of the law in force in different historical periods; the method of structural-system analysis and synthesis is used to substantiate the author’s position on the subjects representing each of the analysed interests in specific legal relations, on the content of these interests and their correlation in each case. Results: the article formulates a conclusion about the conditionality of dividing the interests protected in criminal proceedings into public and private ones, since the public beginning of the entire criminal procedure presupposes equal protection of each legitimate interest, no matter who is its bearer in a particular situation. This approach allows ensuring the protection of society and each person from both crimes and abuses of power that pose an equal threat to public interests.

The actual task of Russian state studies and jurisprudence remains the opposition to the ideological and theoretical constructions of Russian classical anarchism. Purpose: to establish the most significant features and disadvantages of P.A. Kropotkin’s interpretation of the correlation of state and law on the example of Medieval Europe. When writing the article, the author applies interdisciplinary and class approaches. General scientific and specific scientific methods are used: historical, problem-theoretical, formal-logical, textual. Materials: monuments of law, other historical sources, foreign and national historiography. The analysis shows that P.A. Kropotkin’s works are characterised not only by a pronounced anti-exploitation pathos, but also by an equally pronounced tendentiousness. Results: aprioriism, anti-statism and antilegism, radical localism, Eurocentrism, diffusionism, cyclism and catastrophism, clothed in the form of postulates, predetermined P.A. Kropotkin’s one-sided interpretations of the interaction of the medieval European state with positive and customary law. In the first case, it took a purely causative form, and in the second, it was predominantly conflictual. These are the key flaws of P.A. Kropotkin’s correlation concept.

The inviolability of housing is the most important constitutional right. Violation of the inviolability of housing entails criminal liability. The crime is classified as a minor offence. However, under certain circumstances, this crime may have a very high degree of public danger. In this regard, the issue of the influence of various factors on the degree of public danger of violating the inviolability of housing is relevant. Purpose: to determine, based on the analysis of criminal legislation and modern judicial practice, the influence of various circumstances on the degree of public danger of violating the inviolability of housing; to interpret the basic concepts used in Article 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; to develop recommendations for qualifying the crime; to make proposals for amending the current legislation. Methods: dialectical, comparative legal, logical and legal, systemic interpretation, analysis. Results: the conducted study establishes that the purpose of illegal entry into a home and some of the methods of its commission significantly increase the degree of public danger of the act, and also that the elements of the crime provided for in Article 139 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation do not cover all possible types of violation of the inviolability of housing. It is proposed to fill the gap by introducing amendments and additions to the legislation on administrative offences.

В статье выявлены проблемы оценки достоверности доказательств, полученных в ходе проведения вербальных и невербальных следственных действий, а также особенности формирования показаний несовершеннолетних. Автор считает, что для подтверждения достоверности источников информации, полученной при расследовании преступлений, совершенных с участием несовершеннолетних, необходимо использовать специальные знания. Представлен перечень признаков, свидетельствующих о недостоверности заключения эксперта и специалиста. Цель: разработать общие рекомендации по криминалистическому обеспечению участия несовершеннолетних в вербальных следственных действиях, позволяющих обеспечить высокий уровень достоверности их показаний, а также тактические рекомендации по использованию специальных знаний в ходе получения достоверных доказательств несовершеннолетних. Методы: эмпирические методы сравнения, описания, теоретические методы формальной и диалектической логики. Результаты: выявлены пробелы в правовой регламентации участия несовершеннолетних в вербальных следственных действиях, сформулированы криминалистические рекомендации по обеспечению получения достоверных показаний несовершеннолетних.

Every year the workload of the Russian judicial system increases, especially at the level of justices of the peace, which necessitates the search for effective models of organizing such judicial bodies. Despite its rich history, there are currently shortcomings in the legal regulation of justice of the peace. It is in dire need of modernisation, due to insufficient material and technical support, chronic funding shortages and increasing workload. The solution to these problems is a priority area of legislative activity, but a more decisive and multifaceted approach is needed, including, in particular, reforming procedural rules for certain categories of cases. Purpose: to study foreign experience in the organisation and legal regulation of courts similar to Russian justices of the peace, as well as a historical analysis of the evolution of the institution of justices of the peace in these countries in order to enrich the national legal doctrine by integrating theoretically grounded foreign practices. Methods: comparative-legal, logical-legal, system analysis, historical. Results: the article reveals significant differences in the organisation and legal regulation of analogues of the Russian institution of justices of the peace in foreign countries; the article concludes that the Russian model of justice of the peace is a unique system that has no direct foreign analogues, with its inherent features and problems. The article offers recommendations aimed at further improvement of Russian legislation and practice of justices of the peace.

The article explores the prospects for automating human activity in the application of law. The purpose of the study is to analyse the theoretical possibility of automating the law enforcement process through the use of modern information technologies and new approaches to the formation of law. The research methodology includes systematic approach, abstraction, analysis and synthesis. The author provides a list of fundamental problems that hinder automation of law enforcement, arising from the specifics of modern law, the process of its creation and application. Such problems include the lack of a single official database of sources of law, the imperfection of natural language, the need to use additional information about the world and society, etc. In addition, the article proposes possible solutions to these problems based on the application of machine learning and the introduction of machine-readable law. In particular, the author considers the use of neural networks for recognising printed text, vector models for organising semantic search through normative texts, large language models for performing cognitive operations and storing information about the world and society, computer vision systems for evaluating facts of objective reality. The author concludes that modern technologies and new approaches to the formation of law potentially allow, if not to achieve full automation of law enforcement, then significantly approach this goal.

In 2016, the Permanent Court of Arbitration issued a landmark arbitral award on the territorial dispute between China and the Philippines over the South China Sea (hereinafter – SCS), which almost completely rejected China’s territorial claims as inconsistent with existing principles and norms of international law. However, the decision was not unilaterally accepted by the academic community, which raised questions about both the correct legal qualification and a full-fledged “crisis of international law”. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the essence of the 2016 arbitral award, as well as its academic assessments in the context of the discourse on the “crisis of international law”. To achieve this purpose, the author uses general scientific methods (dialectical, logical, systemic), which apply the tools of formal logic to analyze the arbitral award on the dispute as a complex system, as well as specific scientific and special research methods (formal-legal method, method of legal hermeneutics), which allow a detailed examination of both the legal essence of the award and its legal assessments in the academic literature. Results: although the 2016 award failed to bring full legal certainty to the parties’ relations regarding the SCS, it is, nevertheless a valuable precedent for the general practice of international law of the sea and will serve as a further legal guideline in settling similar disputes. Assessments of the arbitral award as having no real legal significance and as an example of a crisis in the entire system of international law seem untenable and indicate nihilistic tendencies in the international legal consciousness.