Problems of the legal status of the prosecutor on criminal private accusation cases

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 123-132
Author(s):  
Pavel Titov
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
A Charge

Introduction. Relevance of the research topic. Criminal proceedings are generally based on public law, which involves the participation of a prosecutor in criminal cases, who performs two main functions: criminal prosecution and supervision of the procedural activities of the preliminary investigation bodies. In cases of private prosecution, however, taking into account the specifics of initiating criminal prosecution, the lack of stages of initiation of criminal proceedings and preliminary investigation and the collection of the bulk of evidence by a private prosecutor, the Prosecutor cannot perform the same functions as in cases referred to public prosecution. Problem statement. Science did not use to pay much attention to the powers of the Prosecutor for criminal cases of private prosecution. Even in scientific works directly dealing with the issue, only concise norms of the criminal procedure law, without their detailed disclosure and specification, were mainly reproduced. Goals and methods. The aim of the research is to develop an optimal theoretical model of the prosecutor’s participation in criminal cases of private prosecution and to formulate a list of their powers. The work is based on the dialectical and materialistic method, which involves a comprehensive study of phenomena, their interactions being taken into account. Such methods as formal and legal, analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction have also been used. Results and key conclusions. The author makes suggestions about possible theoretical models of the Prosecutor’s participation in the category of cases under consideration, points at their defects and, as a result, suggests his own conceptual model. Attention is drawn to the fact that the attorney cannot go over to the side of the prosecution and should not be granted rights attributed exclusively to the private Prosecutor: to formulate a charge, to define people to be brought to justice, to petition for reconciliation with the accused. The Prosecutor in the cases of private prosecution procedure should preserve neutrality. At the same time, their participation is intended to make up for the characteristic features of the victim, which make it difficult for the latter to defend their right for justice and to be protected from crime. The paper formulates procedural rights the Prosecutor in a private prosecution case should be provided with and gives reasons for the Prosecutor’s necessity to give an opinion on the case, disclosed to the court and the parties at the end of the judicial investigation. It is stated, that the Prosecutor for private prosecution performs functions that are neither criminal prosecution nor supervision of the investigation bodies. They exercise supervision over the legality of the actions of the participants in criminal proceedings on behalf of the defense and prosecution in order to ensure the validity of the decision.

scholarly journals Legacy of M. S. Strogovich and Modern Problems of Functional-Legal Construction of Criminal Pre-Trial Proceedings

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 495-513
Author(s):  
Yu. V. Derishev
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Scientific Heritage ◽  
125Th Anniversary ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Definition Of

In November 2019, the world legal community widely celebrated the 125th anniversary of Professor M. S. Strogovich, who, according to his scientific colleagues and students, was a scientist who was “ahead of time”.This article provides a retrospective and comparative analysis of the positions of M. S. Strogovich and his colleagues on certain problems of domestic criminal proceedings, in particular its pre-trial phase, in the context of the direct influence of the scientist's scientific heritage on the development of modern criminal procedure law. The Author of the article particularly interesting views of the scientist and his participation in discussions related to defining the essence and purpose of the preliminary investigation, the implementation of the functions of preliminary investigation in relation to criminal prosecution, the problems of implementation of the principles of presumption of innocence and the adversarial nature of pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases, and, finally, the General Manager of the “investigative case” in modern Russia.M. S. Strogovich consistently adhered to the idea of the need to develop and strengthen procedural guarantees of individual rights, guarantees of justice, and this can be seen in this article. Thus, defining the essence of the criminal process as a system of actions of the relevant officials and the procedural legal relations that arise in connection with them, which in itself was a serious “scientific courage” of those years, M. S. Strogovich particularly defended the position that all participants in criminal proceedings are subjects of the rights granted to them and the duties assigned to them, and they should not be considered objects of unilateral power of officials. This idea has become widespread and generally accepted as the basic definition of domestic (Soviet and Russian) criminal proceedings.The article analyzes M. S. Strogovich’s scientific steps on the conceptual turn from revolutionary-radical ideas about the construction of criminal proceedings to its classical canons and traditions of the Russian criminal process, On the basis of which the conclusion is made about the indispensable use of the scientist's legacy in modernьRussian procedural studies.The research of M. S. Strogovich’s legacy carried out in the article will fully allow to rethink the modern system of criminal proceedings in a new way, can be used as a kind of key to finding solutions to law-making and law enforcement problems, for the further development of the national science of criminal procedure law.

scholarly journals Prosecutor’s Decision as a Cause for Initiating Criminal Proceedings: Problems of Improving the Legislation

Legal Concept ◽  
2019 ◽  
pp. 131-139
Author(s):  
Natalia Solovyova ◽  
Altyn Ilyasova
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Compliance With The Law

Introduction: in the paper the authors reveal the essence of one of the causes for initiating a criminal case, the socalled fourth cause with the title “the prosecutor’s decision to send relevant materials to the preliminary investigation body to resolve the issue of criminal prosecution”; actual problems associated with the implementation of the powers of the Prosecutor’s office at the stage of initiating a criminal case; the essence of the supervisory powers of the Prosecutor’s office (Prosecutor) at the stages of criminal proceedings. Addressing this topic is due to the main purpose – the consideration of the concept of “prosecutor’s decision as a cause for initiating a criminal case” in the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, as well as the study of topical problems of implementing the powers of the Prosecutor’s office (prosecutor) when considering the issue of ensuring compliance with the principle of legality at all the stages of criminal proceedings. Methods: the methodological framework for the study was the general scientific method of cognition, including the principle of objectivity, consistency, induction and deduction. In the context of this method and in connection with it, the general logical methods of theoretical analysis and specific scientific methods (comparative law, technical and legal analysis, concretization, interpretation) were used. Results: considering the concept of “prosecutor’s decision as a cause for initiating a criminal case”, the authors drew attention to the role of the prosecutor in making the relevant decision on the activity management of the preliminary investigation body, indicated, that in criminal procedure law of this state the most important function of the Prosecutor’s office (prosecutor) is the supervision over compliance with rule of law by all the bodies and officials, by virtue whereof, in practice, the implementation of two mutually exclusive powers of the Prosecutor’s office (prosecutor) can lead to the imbalance in the full implementation of the principles of criminal procedure at all procedural stages. Conclusions: as a result of the study, the authors come to the conclusion that in order to implement fair justice at the stages of criminal proceedings, it is necessary to make appropriate changes in the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, since the combination in one body of powers to initiate criminal proceedings (in particular, sending a corresponding resolution to the preliminary investigation body to resolve the issue of criminal prosecution) and the powers to supervise over compliance with the law by the preliminary investigation bodies is impossible in practice; it requires additional research and appropriate changes.

scholarly journals Tactics of presenting evidence by a prosecutor in a judicial investigation

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 179-185
Author(s):  
Elena V. Pavlova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Public Prosecutor ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Considerable Difficulty ◽  
The Public ◽  
Complete Independence ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
A Charge

The article deals with individual issues of the tactics of participation of the prosecutor the public prosecutor in the basis of the part of the judicial investigation in criminal cases, which is connected with the presentation of evidence of the prosecution. It is noted that at present in the matter of determining the order of examining evidence by the parties, a unified position has been formed of both theorists and practitioners. They recognize the complete independence of the parties to determine this procedure in accordance with the tactics chosen by them. At the same time, the author draws attention to the fact that theoretical and methodical works still do not pay enough attention to the content and essence of this activity of the prosecutor in court, despite their obvious importance. His activity in the judicial investigation largely depends on the importance of tactical methods of presenting evidence and the ability to apply them. If he does not have the appropriate professional baggage, he will have considerable difficulty in the adversary process. The author sets out his own position regarding the content of evidence presented by the prosecutor the public prosecutor, proposes to include a definition of the relevant concept in the terminological apparatus of science of criminal procedure law and to fix it in the criminal procedure law. A derivative of it is the definition of the notion of tactics for the presentation of evidence by the prosecutor the public prosecutor. Conclusions are formulated on the need to intensify the development of up-to-date recommendations on the tactics of presenting evidence of a charge in a judicial investigation in criminal cases on crimes certain types

CURRENT ISSUES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST MINORS IN THE CONTEXT OF MODERN REALITY

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 152-164
Author(s):  
Svetlana V. Verkhoturova ◽  
Oksana V. Pavlenko
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Made In

This article examines the current theoretical and practical issues of criminal proceedings against minors in the light of recent changes in the criminal procedure legislation. The research was conducted using formal-logical and dialectic methods, as well as the comparative-legal method when analyzing criminal and legal proceedings against minors. The authors conclude that a number of existing criminal procedure norms regulating the preliminary investigation and consideration of criminal cases in court against minors do not meet international standards and require further improvement. This article draws attention to the procedural errors of investigators (inquirers) and judges that are allowed in the process of investigation and consideration of criminal cases in court in relation to minor suspects, accused persons, defendants. The lack of sufficient legal regulation in the criminal procedure law is called the main reason for the mistakes made in the criminal proceedings against minors. In order to solve the identified problems, the authors propose to make appropriate additions to the current criminal procedure law.

scholarly journals INTERROGATION OF THE VICTIM, THE WITNESS UNDER A PSEUDONYM IN PRE-JUDICIAL AND JUDICIAL PRODUCTIONS (CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND CRIMINALISTIC ASPECTS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 480-486
Author(s):  
A.Yu. Epikhin ◽  
A.V. Mishin
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Practice ◽  
Current State ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Practical Recommendations

Ensuring the safety of victims, witnesses in a criminal case allows to carry out the main objectives of criminal prosecution. Interrogation as one of the main investigative actions allows to record important information of evidentiary nature in the case. Currently, there is a sufficient number of proven forensic recommendations for tactics of interrogation of the victim, the witness in pre-judicial production. At the same time, interrogation of such participants of criminal proceedings under a pseudonym in preliminary investigation and, especially in court session, in terms of criminalistics is poorly studied. The article discusses problematic issues of the current state of the organization and tactics of interrogation under a pseudonym of the protected person in pre-judicial and judicial criminal case productions. The authors have proposed variable tactical solutions on production of interrogation of this type, practical recommendations for the persons conducting proceedings, as well as formulated proposals aimed at improving the effectiveness of the law enforcement of the criminal procedure law. The data of generalization of investigatory and judicial practice in the Republic of Tatarstan have been used.

scholarly journals Necessity to Reject Pre-Trial Inquiry as a Procedural Form of Investigation

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 80-92
Author(s):  
O. A. Malysheva
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Independent Form ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Right

A comparative legal analysis of procedural forms of inquiry and preliminary investigation leads to a conclusion about their similarity, as well as the similarity of procedural statuses of an investigator and interrogator (a person conducting an initial inquiry). This shows that the State distributes forces and resources in the field of criminal justice irrationally. At the same time, the existence of two similar forms of investigation does not lead to an improvement in the legality and quality of criminal cases investigation. On the contrary, this contributes in some cases to their deterioration (reasonable timing of proceedings in criminal cases, compensation of damage caused by crimes to victims), as confirmed by the data provided in the paper. The consolidation of similar procedural forms of investigation in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation proves that the national historical experience of the organization of investigation of crimes under the 1864 Charter of Criminal Proceedings is ignored. This means an unreasonable refusal to reform criminal proceedings, the necessity and directions of which were identified by the 1991 Concept of Judicial Reform of the RSFSR . The consequences are manifested in the narrowing of procedural guarantees of the right to protection of persons whose criminal cases are investigated in the form of an inquiry; in the forced violation of the rule of law by interrogators during investigation of criminal cases when initiating a criminal case on a non-obvious crime; in delaying proceedings in criminal cases initiated and investigated initially by interrogators and then for a number of reasons referred to investigators for further investigation, etc. These problems cannot be solved by constantly improving the legal regulation of the procedural form of inquiry. The written above testifies futility of the procedural form of inquiry, justifies the necessity of its elimination from the Russian criminal proceedings as an independent form of investigation.

scholarly journals CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FUNCTIONS AND POWERS OF THE PROSECUTOR AS FACTORS DETERMINING THE SPECIFICS OF PROSECUTOR's SUPERVISION IN PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-132
Author(s):  
A.A. Nasonov
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Main Function ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Scientific Discussion ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
The Law

The article analyzes the opinions of scientists expressed during the scientific discussion that unfolded around the issue of criminal procedure functions of the Prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings. Provides additional arguments in favor of supervision of execution of laws as the main function of the Prosecutor under the Law on the Prosecutor determines other types of prosecutorial activities (criminal prosecution, the preliminary investigation, etc.) that are supportive in nature. These types of Prosecutor's activities are not only ways to specify Prosecutor's supervision in criminal proceedings, but also means of implementing the criminal procedure function of the prosecution, which exists according to the concept of the current criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, focused on the adversarial process, along with the function of protection and the function of resolving criminal cases. The article also addresses the issue of granting additional powers to the Prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings. It is proved that the decision to grant additional powers to the Prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings should create opportunities to maintain the necessary balance in pre-trial proceedings between Prosecutor's supervision, departmental control and judicial control. Evidence is given that the harmonious existence of Prosecutor's supervision and departmental control in pre-trial proceedings will allow us to count on overcoming existing violations of the law in the investigation of crimes, which currently remain many.

scholarly journals Seizure of Property as a Way to Ensure Compensation for Damage Caused by a Crime: Theory and Practice

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-210
Author(s):  
Dmitriy Aleksandrovich Ivanov ◽  
Marina Vladimirovna Sokolova ◽  
Oksana Leonidovna Podustova ◽  
Pavel Vladimirovich Fadeev ◽  
Alexey Yurievich Molyanov
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
Theory And Practice ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Crime Theory ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Identifying Property

The authors consider the theoretical provisions and analyze practical examples of the activities of the investigative bodies to seize property in pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases. The relevance of this topic is determined by the fact that one of the priority activities of the preliminary investigation bodies at present is to ensure the rights and legitimate interests of citizens against criminal encroachments. The possibility of compensation to victims of harm caused by a crime in criminal procedure law is a guarantee of protection of these rights and contributes to the implementation of the purpose of criminal proceedings. Based on the results obtained, the authors conclude that it is necessary to further improve the law enforcement practice and the norms of criminal and criminal-procedure legislation in order to improve the efficiency of solving problems of identifying property that can be seized. In this connection, it is proposed to amend Part 3 of Article 104.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, providing for the possibility of confiscation of property, regardless of the awareness of the causal relationship between the committed act and the presence of money or other property.Keywords: Criminal proceedings; Measures of procedural coercion; Investigator; Inquirer; Civil claim Penyitaan Properti sebagai Cara untuk Memastikan Kompensasi atas Kerusakan yang Disebabkan oleh Kejahatan: Teori dan Praktik AbstrakPenulis mempertimbangkan ketentuan teoritis dan menganalisis contoh praktis dari kegiatan badan investigasi untuk menyita properti dalam proses pra-persidangan dalam kasus pidana. Relevansi topik ini ditentukan oleh fakta bahwa salah satu kegiatan prioritas badan investigasi pendahuluan saat ini adalah memastikan hak dan kepentingan sah warga negara terhadap perambahan kriminal. Kemungkinan pemberian ganti rugi kepada korban kerugian yang diakibatkan oleh suatu tindak pidana dalam hukum acara pidana merupakan jaminan perlindungan terhadap hak-hak tersebut dan turut menunjang terlaksananya tujuan proses pidana. Berdasarkan hasil yang diperoleh, penulis menyimpulkan bahwa perlu lebih meningkatkan praktik penegakan hukum dan norma-norma peraturan perundang-undangan pidana dan acara pidana untuk meningkatkan efisiensi penyelesaian masalah identifikasi harta benda yang dapat disita. Sehubungan dengan itu, diusulkan untuk mengubah Bagian 3 Pasal 104.1 KUHP Federasi Rusia, yang mengatur kemungkinan penyitaan properti, terlepas dari kesadaran akan hubungan sebab akibat antara tindakan yang dilakukan dan adanya uang atau properti lainnya.Kata Kunci: Proses pidana; Tindakan paksaan prosedural; Peneliti; Penanya; Klaim sipil. Наложение ареста на имущество в целях обеспечения возмещения вреда, причиненного преступлением: теория и практика АннотацияАвторами рассматриваются теоретические положения и анализируются практические примеры деятельности органов расследования по наложению ареста на имущество в досудебном производстве по уголовным делам. Актуальность данной темы определяется тем, что одним из приоритетных направлений деятельности органов предварительного следствия в настоящее время является обеспечение прав и законных интересов граждан от преступных посягательств. Возможность возмещения потерпевшим вреда, причиненного преступлением, в уголовно-процессуальном праве является гарантией защиты данных прав и способствует реализации назначения уголовного судопроизводства. На основе полученных результатов авторы приходят к выводу о необходимости дальнейшего совершенствования правоприменительной практики и норм уголовного и уголовно-процессуального законодательства в целях повышения эффективности решения задач по установлению  имущества, на которое может быть наложен арест. В связи с чем предлагают внести в ч. 3 ст. 104.1 УК РФ изменения, предусматривающие возможность конфискации имущества, вне зависимости от осведомленности о причинно-следственной связи между совершенным деянием и наличием денег или иного имущества.Ключевые слова: Ключевые слова: уголовное судопроизводство, меры процессуального принуждения, следователь, дознаватель, гражданский иск

SOME QUESTIONS OF PROCEDURAL POWERS IMPLEMENTATION BY EMPLOYEES OF THE FEDERAL PENITENTIARY SERVICE OF RUSSIA WHEN MAKING PROCEDURAL DECISIONS AT THE STAGE OF INITIATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2020 ◽  
pp. 144-148
Author(s):  
Александр Валентинович Черезов
Keyword(s):  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Procedural Decisions

В статье рассматриваются актуальные проблемы реализации уголовно-процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений УИС в стадии возбуждения уголовного дела. В частности, рассмотрена проблема и дано определение компетенции органов дознания и предварительного следствия, предусмотренной УПК РФ. Исследован объем уголовно-процессуальных прав и обязанностей органов дознания и следствия, а также оперативных подразделений УИС в системе иных органов дознания и следствия. Проведен анализ порядка принятия решений уполномоченными должностными лицами ФСИН России при проверке сообщений о преступлениях, выражено мнение о том, что они вправе принимать только одно решение: о передаче сообщения о преступлении по подследственности и в исключительных случаях возбуждать уголовные дела в порядке, предусмотренном ст. 157 УПК РФ. Рассмотрены причины, на основании которых законодатель уменьшил полномочия оперативных подразделений ФСИН России как органа дознания. Рассмотрены актуальность применения ст. 157 УПК РФ в части возбуждения уголовных дел и проведения по ним неотложных следственных действий, а также роль начальников органов и учреждений УИС в их проведении. На основании рассмотренных проблем подведен итог о нечеткой регламентации процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений ФСИН России в уголовно-процессуальном законе и подзаконных актах на стадии возбуждения уголовного дела. The article deals with the actual problems of implementation of the criminal procedure powers of the criminal procedure authorities and institutions at the stage of criminal proceedings. In particular, we consider the problem and the definition of the competence of bodies of inquiry and preliminary investigation under code of criminal procedure. The volume of criminal procedure rights and obligations of operational divisions of the criminal investigation department in the system of other bodies of inquiry and investigation is studied. The analysis of the procedure for decision-making by authorized officials of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia when checking reports of crimes is carried out. The reasons why the legislator reduced the powers of operational divisions of the Federal penitentiary service of Russia as a body of inquiry are considered. The relevance of the application of article 157 of the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation in terms of criminal cases and conducting urgent investigative actions on them, as well as the role of the heads of criminal investigation bodies and institutions in their conduct, were reviewed. Based on the problems discussed, the author summarizes the lack of regulation of the procedural powers of the Federal Penitentiary Service bodies and institutions in the criminal procedure law and by-laws at the stage of initiation of a criminal case.

scholarly journals Procedural Discretion of the Court when Refusing to Initiate Criminal Proceedings

Legal Concept ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 144-150
Author(s):  
Ekaterina Azarova
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
System Analysis ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Judicial Discretion ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
The Russian Federation

Introduction: if we consider the content of procedural discretion of the court when refusing to initiate criminal cases, refusing petitions at the stage of preliminary investigation, these refusals are known to be able to be appealed in the district (federal) court (Part 5 of Article 144, Article 122, 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). In these cases, the judicial review raises a question not only for the defense, but also for the court itself, which is what the actions and decisions of the preliminary investigation bodies in such refusals are and whether there are signs of tort in their actions when making such decisions. The author of this paper sets the goal of research, which is to consider the content of procedural discretion of the court in case of refusal to initiate criminal proceedings. Methods: the methodological framework for the research is the dialectical-materialistic method of cognition, which includes the elements of system analysis, and specific scientific methods, such as the logical and legal ones. Results: based on the legal analysis, the content of judicial discretion in case of refusal to initiate criminal proceedings is revealed. The paper raises a question related to the consideration of judicial discretion as a guarantee of the court’s activity at the pre-trial stages of the criminal process. Conclusions: it is revealed that the scheme of judicial discretion in the event of a complaint about the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings should be based on the criteria of judicial discretion at the stage of trial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document