Criminal Appellate Proceedings through the Prism of a Social Project: Synergy of the Society’s Request and Legislative Regulation

Public relations, developing in the process of judicial decisions reviewing in criminal cases on appeal, arise on the basis of criminal procedure law rules with great socio-projective potential, which means activities aimed to create specific images of the future and certain details of programs and plans being developed that often result in a new or modernized social object with an original mechanism and unique means of regulation of public relations. The institution of criminal appellate proceedings has been formed in the process of a long evolution, during which many options for reviewing court decisions were tested and rejected. It also acts as an object of social design, which will help ensure the effectiveness of law enforcement and implementation of the objective of criminal proceedings, enshrined in Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. As the result of designing appeal proceedings in criminal cases, a set of scientifically grounded functional proposals can be developed. They can have a positive impact on the review in the court of appeal, since the latter should be able to satisfy the social interest (need) of interested parties, meaning not the satisfaction of the appeal, but the administration of justice in the full sense of the word.

1. Aleksandrov AS, Nikitchenko II. Interrogation in the court of appeal. Magistrate Judge. 2013;10:5‑9. (In Russ.).

2. Aleksandrov RA, Gusarov DA. On an assistant judge as a full participant of criminal proceedings and its procedural functions. Russian Judge. 2019;4:30-34. (In Russ.).

3. Boronina LN, Senuk ZV. Fundamentals of project management. 2nd ed. Yekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House; 2016. (In Russ.).

4. Chupilkin YuB. The main reasons accusatory russian justice. Siberian Criminal Process and Criminalistic Readings. 2017;2(16):154-159. (In Russ.).

5. Davydov MI, Gladyshev PS, Golovshchinsky KI, Shishkin EA. Workload rationing in federal courts of general jurisdiction and federal arbitrazh courts: An Expert Report by the Higher School of Economics. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics; 2019. (In Russ.).

6. Dikarev IS. The apology of revision in criminal proceedings. Rossijskaja Justitsia [Russian Justice System]. 2012;11:34-37. (In Russ.).

7. Fedorova NV, Minchenkova OYu. Approaches to the value assessment of social projects. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie [Knowledge. Understanding. Skill]. 2019;1:192-200. (In Russ.).

8. Kataeva VI. (Sventa Yarvik). Social design. 2nd ed. Moscow: Synergy University Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

9. Kleandrov MI. The Judicial Corps of Russia: Improvement of the formation mechanism. Moscow: Norma: Infra‑M Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

10. Kostanov Yu. Persuade the Court! Navigator on the criminal process. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix; 2024. (In Russ.).

11. Lenkov RV. Social forecasting and design. Moscow: TsSP and M. Publ.; 2013. (In Russ.).

12. Lukov VA. Social design. 7th ed. Moscow: Publishing House of the Moscow University of the Humanities: Flinta Publ.; 2007. (In Russ.).

13. Martyshkin VN. Russian judges should not have conveyor production: optimization of load of judges as remedy of participants of legal proceedings and justice improvement of quality. Eurasian Advocacy. 2021;1(1):98-105. (In Russ.).

14. Moiseenko ZhN. Project life cycle: conditionality of division into phases, the main characteristics of the project life cycle. Forum molodykh uchenykh [The Young Scholar Forum]. 2021;6(58):538-542. (In Russ.).

15. Nikolyuk VV, Bezrukov SS, Divaev AB. The Crisis of faith in fairness of criminal proceedings. A relevant study or scientific «spam» (Reflections on the article by I.A. Antonov). Part 1. Magistarte Judge. 2021;11:22-29. (In Russ.).

16. Paneyakh E, Titaev K, Shklyaruk M. The trajectory of a criminal case: an institutional analysis. St. Petersburg: Publishing House of the European University in St. Petersburg; 2018. (In Russ.).

17. Panicheva A. Is the review of criminal cases in the 2nd instance appellate? Criminal Law. 2015;4:101-104. (In Russ.).

18. Panokin AM. Verification of judicial decisions in criminal cases: history and modernity. Moscow: Norma: Infra‑M Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

19. Shakhanov VV. Metaphenomena in Law: the Structure, Elements, Methodological Aspects, Optimization of Interaction between Theoretical and Meta-Theoretical Levels. Lex russica. 2021;74(1(170)):57-66.

20. Smirnova IG. Axiological risks of digitalization of criminal proceedings: problem statement. Russian Journal of Criminology. 2023;17(3):236-242. (In Russ.).

21. Suverov SE. The socio-projective potential of law. Dr. Sci. (Law) Diss. Khabarovsk; 2012. (In Russ.).

22. Tonkov EN, Chestnov IL. Tonkov EN, Chestnov IL. Perspectives of the Dialectical Sociology of Law in the Postmodern era: In lieu of a preface. In: The Sociological School of Law in the context of modern jurisprudence. St. Petersburg: Alethea Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

23. Trunov AP. Overcoming Accusatorial Bias of Russian Justice. Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. 2022:17(6):122-132. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17803/1994- 1471.2022.139.6.122-132.

24. Tsvetkov YuA. The games that the judges play. Deconstruction of justice and judicial activity in the paradigm of legal realism. Moscow: Unity-Dana Publ.; 2023. (In Russ.).

25. Tukkel IL, Surina AV, Kultin NB. Management of innovative projects. St. Petersburg: BHV-Petersburg Publ.; 2017. (In Russ.).

26. Volkov V, Dmitrieva A, Pozdnyakov M, Titaev K. Russian judges: A sociological study of the profession. Moscow: Norma: Infra‑M Publ.; 2023. (In Russ.).

27. Zhuikov VM. Judicial independence: some problems. Zakon. 2019;10:122-136. (In Russ.).