On the two truths in the criminal procedure

In simplified or conciliatory proceedings, based on the exceptional importance of the accused pleading guilty, the presumption of innocence is not refuted even by an enforceable conviction made in a simplified trial. This conclusion follows from the provisions of Article 90 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which provides that the circumstances established by the sentence the court renders in accordance with Art. 226.9, 316 or 317.1 of the Code can not be recognised by the court, the prosecutor, the investigator, the inquirer without additional verification. In other words, such sentences are not vested with a prejudicial force, unlike sentences imposed in the general procedure of the trial, as well as court decisions that have come into force as part of civil, arbitration or administrative proceedings. Why is it so? Clearly, the reason is because the conclusions about the circumstances of the criminal case established in such sentences are questionable and, accordingly, can not be understood as true. However, such sentences do not cease to be acts of individual sub-regulatory regulation that fix the final stage of the implementation of the norms of the criminal law and the criminal procedure law in relation to a specific controversial legal relationship. In a word, such sentences must mean that the relevant norms "worked", completed the ordering of social relations, which would give grounds for asserting the legal certainty of the results of law enforcement. A contradiction, obviously, arises here: on the one hand, with regard to conclusions about the circumstances of the criminal case, the question of legal certainty "freezes"; on the other hand, the criminal legal dispute is considered resolved.

Keywords

Authors

References