Relationship of judicial control functions and justice in criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation

The article deals with the problem of goal-setting for judicial control and its features at the pretrial and trial stages. The author traces the functional relationship of judicial control and justice to reveal the contradictory requirements of the criminal procedure law to procedural decisions, judicial impartiality and independence of judges on the one hand and general principle of legal certainty on the other. The author raises the question concerning the improvement of the system of subjects and criminal procedure functions. The article concludes about the need to change the order of judicial control over the legality of procedural decisions in criminal cases. 1. The author describes the main direction of development of criminal justice in recent decades - from assigning the investigation to the prosecution authorities, due to which judicial decisions began to cover the pre-trial stage to the expansion of the so-called prosecutorial function on the judicial power, from which the reforms were always trying to protect it. The expansion of judicial control has become another point of contact between investigative and judicial authorities, which once again confirms their common nature as of representatives of the state authorities responsible for the criminal proceedings. 2. The ability to repeatedly challenge the judgment is a further guarantee of the objectivity of the decisions made in the case. At the same time, the appeal of the final decision that has entered into force cannot be infinite. 3. The study of the relationship between judicial control and justice leads to the conclusion about the deep contradictions between the functions of the court. The establishment of the defendant's guilt corresponds to the goal of restoring the rule of law and justice and naturally combines with the principle of legal certainty. When judicial control is carried out, the goal of judicial proceedings comes in conflict with the principles above. 4. There is a mechanism to create barriers in the courts of cassation and supervisory instances where complaints are rejected only for the reason that the question they contain has already been considered by the lower court. To control the flow of complaints on criminal cases the current criminal procedure legislation provides several "filters" of judicial control. One of them is a two-step grievance procedure due to which not all complaints are dealt with in the cassation and supervisory instances. The main purpose of the order is not the objective and impartial decision to correct judicial errors, but the optimization of the judicial system. This causes the responses to complaints based on the compilation of previous court decisions with the standard output. The solution could be a singular mandatory consideration of criminal cases on complaints at all levels of judicial control with the participation of the parties.

Keywords

Authors

References