PRIVATE LAW / JUS PRIVATUM
PUBLIC LAW / JUS PUBLICUM
Based on statistics and survey results the author highlights that there is a markedly lower quality of criminal justice as compared with arbitrazh (commercial) disputes. The comparison is based on six indicators: the distribution of cases among judges, the capabilities of the information system, the policy of the use of telecommunications technologies, the observance of procedural deadlines, adherence of the court to timelines and the use of mediation procedures. The selected parameters have been developed by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice and reflect not only the organizational but also the procedural features of each of the types of proceedings under consideration.
The author supports the concept of judicial law, and, therefore, the study is devoted to finding unreasonable differences in the quality of justice in some types of justice. These include: automated distribution of cases in courts of general jurisdiction which is affected by the will of operators to the extent in which it is implemented in arbitrazh courts; lack of necessary “e-justice” tools in "Pravosudie" Stat Automated System (GAS "Pravosudie"); insufficient use of video-conferencing by the courts of general jurisdiction, unwillingness to conduct an electronic case and remote formalization with cases; continous consideration of criminal cases in comparison with arbitrazh and other cases; disrespect of the courts of general jurisdiction for the time of the proceedings’ participants; refusal of the court to promote amicable settlement of criminal disputes. Fully aware of all the differences between criminal and arbitrazh proceedings on many grounds: both the existence (or absence) of formalized pretrial proceedings and qualitative characteristics of the parties and their representatives and the specific weight of the cases dealt with by the courts in the total scope of all legal cases in the country, the author nevertheless considers that according to the indicators applied by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice all types of domestic proceedings are still comparable, and the apparent differences in accessibility and quality of justice are not unavoidable.
CRIMINAL LAW SCIENCES / JUS CRIMINALE
HISTORY OF LAW / HISTORIA LEX
COMPARATIVE STUDIES / COMPARATIVE STUDIES
From the second half of the 20th century the revisionist movement has spread among scientists, public and political figures. Publicists and scientists are known for criticizing the testimonies of concentration camp prisoners and their executioners, as well as denying the possibility of mass extermination of prisoners in terms of the technical capabilities of gas chambers.
Attempts to reinterpret historical events often border on extremism and pose a threat to national security, leading to a significant deterioration in international relations. At the international level, a number of acts have been adopted indicating that the Holocaust is a fact established by the verdict of the Nuremberg Tribunal, and calling on states to reject any denial of the Holocaust. International organizations that oppose attempts to rewrite history include the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and UNESCO.
At the national level, responsibility for denying and justifying the Holocaust has been established in a number of states. The first group includes states that are responsible for denying and approving the Holocaust and other crimes committed by the Nazis (Germany, France, Austria, Israel). The second group includes states that equated Nazi crimes in their legislation with crimes of communism (Hungary, Czech Republic, Lithuania). The third group consists of states that prohibit the denial and justification of any genocide (Switzerland, Luxembourg). Some states (for example, the United States) refused to introduce such bans, citing freedom of speech and belief.
In 2014, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation introduced article 354.1 "Rehabilitation of Nazism", which sets forth responsibility for denying the facts established by the Nuremberg Tribunal verdict. At the same time, the legislator should not selectively approach the protection of historical events. It would be fair to criminalize the denial of genocide and other international crimes recognized by the international community, regardless of any criteria relating to the perpetrators.
The paper is devoted to a comparative legal analysis of some norms of the criminal procedure laws of the CIS countries concerning evidence and establishment of evidence in criminal procedures. The paper analyzes the legal definitions of the concept of "evidence" in the CIS countries codes. It is noted that the wording used in article 74 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation is less specific than the content of the relevant norms in the legislation of other CIS countries. In particular, the replacement of the phrase "this data is established", which was used in the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code, with the phrase "evidence is" in part 2 of article 74 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which led to an illegal identification of the sources of evidence and the evidence itself, is critically evaluated.
Some features, advantages and disadvantages of the norms of criminal procedure laws of the CIS countries containing a list of sources of evidence are revealed. The conclusion is made about a clear advantage in this respect of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, part 2 of article 74 of which contains a complete and universal list of sources of evidence. At the same time, the need to include in this list, along with the testimony of the suspect and the accused, such a source of evidence as the testimony of the defendant is argued.
The paper analyzes the legislative consolidation of the concept of "evidence" in the criminal procedure codes of the CIS countries, which allowed us to critically evaluate the definition given to this concept by the Russian legislator. According to the author, the absence of the purpose for the establishment of evidence in article 85 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, namely the purpose for establishing the circumstances listed in article 73 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, as a lawful, reasoned and just resolution of the case, is a significant shortcoming of the Russian criminal-procedural law that requires special legal address.
RECOMMENDED BOOKS AND REVIEWS / INDEX LIBRORUM
ISSN 2686-7869 (Online)