Ways to improve cassation proceedings in the criminal procedure of Russia

The author justifies the position that the formulation of directions for further improvement of cassation proceedings should not be arbitrary, but should be connected with their tasks. Currently, cassation proceedings in the criminal procedure of Russia must solve the following tasks: 1) identify and correct violations of law made in the criminal case; 2) ensure stability of the sentence. To solve the task of identifying and correcting violations of law made in the criminal case, it seems necessary to resolve the issue of the possibility of broadening the object of verification in cassation proceedings. The author argues that today the validity of the sentence (while verification of the validity of the sentence is a means of resolving the question of the legality or illegality of the sentence) and its fairness (proportionality of the punishment imposed) should be included in the subject matter of verification in cassation proceedings. The next direction for improvement of cassation proceedings to ensure effective implementation of the task of identifying and correcting violations of law made in the criminal case is broader action of the audit principle in cassation proceedings. The author analyses the advantages of the audit principle and notes that the current version of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in Art. 401.16 fixes the right of cassation courts to check the criminal case in full, but not their obligation. The author justifies that this provision of law may negatively affect the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the parties. In this regard, he proposes to fix the obligation, not the right, of cassation courts to check the materials of the criminal case in the audit procedure in Art. 401.16 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. To solve the task of ensuring stability of the sentence, the author proposes to change the list of cassation grounds for cancellation or change of the sentence: 1) instead of "substantial violations of the criminal procedure law" to use the wording "fundamental violations of the criminal procedure law"; 2) instead of "significant violations of the criminal law" to refer to this foundation as "improper application of the criminal law". This proposal is justified in terms of its compliance with the provisions of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Keywords

Authors

References