Reasoning of Judicial Decisions in Criminal Proceedings

Based on the analysis of the doctrine of criminal procedure law, the positions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the authors, using dialectical, sociological and formal logical methods, identify the main requirements for reasoning of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings. The importance of reasoning of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings is considered. The results of the study make it possible to conclude that a reasoned court decision allows participants to the process to understand and evaluate the reasons for its issuance. The reasonableness of the court decision is an indispensable condition for a fair trial and fair justice in general. Proper reasoning of a judicial decision allows ensuring the right to appeal it to a higher court. The reasons, for which the decisions were made, as well as the rationale for their adoption, allow you to appeal these arguments and conclusions of the court.

The most common cases of violation of the most important rights of participants in criminal proceedings when making court decisions and reasoning them are: unreasoned refusal to attach evidence; unreasoned detention; unreasoned disclosure of testimony of witnesses absent from the court session; unreasoned «secrecy» of witnesses; unreasoned decisions on complaints of ill-treatment, illegal methods of investigation.

The content of the reasoning of the court decision depends on its nature. The highest degree of reasoning and persuasiveness should be the final court decisions that resolve the criminal law conflict in essence, as well as decisions that most significantly affect the most important constitutional rights of citizens. The reasoning of court decisions increases the degree of public confidence in the court and the transparency of justice.

1. Belyaev MV. Sudebnye reshenie v rossiyskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: teoreticheskie osnovy, zakonodatelstvo i praktika: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. [Judicial decisions in Russian criminal proceedings: Theoretical foundations, legislation and practice. Dr. Sci. (Law) Dissertation]. Moscow; 2019. (In Russ.).

2. Belyaev MV. O motivirovannosti sudebnykh resheniy v ugolovnom protsesse [On the reasoning of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravookhranitelnaya praktika [Legal science and enforcement practice]. 2018;2(44):116-124. (In Russ.).

3. Burdina EV, Vishnyakova IA. Motivirovannost kak svoystvo sudebnykh aktov po grazhdanskim delam [Reasoning as an element of judicial acts in civil cases]. Ogarev-online. 2013;8. (In Russ.).

4. Vasyaev AA, Knyazkin SA. Motivirovannost sudebnykh resheniy — standart Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Reasonableness of court decisions: The standard of the European Court of Human Rights]. Advokat [Advocate]. 2013;6:15-20. (In Russ.).

5. Kachalov VI, Kachalova OV. Zaklyuchenie pod strazhu v kachestve mery presecheniya: obosnovannost primeneniya i prodleniya [Detention as a preventive measure: The validity of the application and extension]. Moscow: Delovoy Stil Publ.; 2019. (In Russ.).

6. Kachalova OV. Sudebnye resheniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve i sotsialnye zaprosy obshchestva [Judicial decisions in criminal proceedings and social demands of society]. Sudya [Judge]. 2020;8:57-60. (In Russ.).

7. Kachalova OV, Belyaev MV. Verdikt prisyazhnykh zasedateley i sotsialnye zaprosy obshchestva [Jury verdict and social demands of society]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Tomsk State University Journal]. 2017;416:176-180. (In Russ.).

8. Lupinskaya PA. Resheniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Ikh vidy, soderzhanie i formy [Decisions in criminal proceedings. Their types, content and forms]. Moscow: Yurid. lit. Publ.; 1976. (In Russ.).

9. Muravin AB. Problemy motivirovki protsessualnykh resheniy sledovatelya: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Problems of justification of procedural decisions of the investigator: Cand. Sci. (Law) Thesis]. Kharkiv; 1987. (In Russ.).

10. Muratova ND. Pravovaya kultura protsessualnykh resheniy [Legal culture of procedural decisions]. Vestnik of the Orenburg State University. 2011;3:106-111. (In Russ.).

11. Polyakov SB. Pravonarushitel — organ sudebnoy vlasti? [The offender is a judicial authority?]. Rossiyskiy sudya [Russian Judge]. 2010;9:26-30. (In Russ.).

12. Sultanov AR. Motivirovannost sudebnogo akta kak odna iz osnovnykh problem spravedlivogo pravosudiya [Reasonableness of a judicial act as one of the main problems of fair justice]. Zakon [Law]. 2014;8:114-118. (In Russ.).

13. Tuzov NA. Motivirovanie i preyuditsiya sudebnykh aktov [Justification and prejudice of court rulings]. Moscow: Russian Academy of Justice Publ.; 2006. (In Russ.).

14. Shadarova AN. Razvitie kontseptsii motivirovannosti sudebnykh resheniy v praktike Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Development of the concept of reasonableness of judicial decisions in the practice of the European Court of Human Rights]. Pretsedenty Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [Precedents of the European Court of Human Rights]. 2016;5:3-8. (In Russ.).