Implementation of the international legal standard of validity of suspicion when imposing a measure of restraint in the form of custody

The given article deals with the problems of implementation of the standard of validity of suspicion enabling the court to select a measure of restraint in the form of custody. Special attention is paid to the analysis of provisions of the Plenum resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of May 24, 2016 No. 23 "About introduction of amendments to separate resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in criminal cases”. This document updated the legal standard of validity of suspicion which courts are obliged to consider when imposing a measure of restraint in the form of custody or extension of the validity period of it. The author compares this standard with previous wordings which are contained in Item 2 of the Plenum resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 19, 2013 No. 41 "About practice of application by courts of the legislation on measures of restraint in the form of custody, house arrest and bail". The conclusion is drawn that courts have to estimate more critically the materials confirming the findings of preliminary investigation bodies. An ultimate goal of change of the standard of validity of suspicion is mitigation of policy of criminal procedure coercion, decrease of cases of selection of a restraint measure in the form of custody. It has been noted that a number of decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation deal with the standard of validity of suspicion when imposing a measure of restraint in the form of custody. The author gives the example of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation Ruling of July 12, 2005 No. 330-O "About refusal to consider the complaint of Moshnin Igor Aleksandrovich about violation of his constitutional rights under Article 108 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation". It is lawful to speak about various standards of validity and degrees of persuasiveness of the facts that confirm the validity of suspicion or procedural judgments about which the Soviet school of criminal procedure evidence did not know. The court has the duty to check the validity of suspicion of the person’s participation in the committed crime when considering the motion about a measure of restraint. Having studied court practice, the author points out some features of implementation of the international legal standard of validity of suspicion when imposing a measure of restraint in the form of custody.

Keywords

Authors

References