The idea of reviewing criminal court rulings and the first experiences of its implementation emerged

From the very early stages of development, the state resolves social conflicts related to the crime committed. However, decisions made as a result of such conflicts begin to be challenged by their participants, which shows that there is an objective need for the right to appeal and review court decisions. This suggests that the right to appeal and review court decisions is objectively required. It is important to bear in mind that at the initial stages of statehood development, there is no procedural separation of appeals from other forms of verification of court decisions. The search for the effectiveness of such an audit is directed towards identifying the officials vested with the authority to carry out it, the subject of the appeal, the means of verification and its results. Further development of the idea under consideration has led to the emergence of various forms of verification of court decisions. Verification of court decisions in criminal cases is also objectively conditioned by the nature of criminal proceedings due to the impossibility of excluding court errors, including the limited cognitive abilities of a person. The close relationship between verification and the nature of social relations is indicated by the fact that, having emerged a few thousand years ago, such verification still exists today and will not be necessary in the future no matter how civilisation develops. Public relations give rise to certain types of miscarriages of justice (in establishing factual circumstances, in applying legal rules or in factual and legal matters at the same time), depending on which there is a differentiation in the way court decisions are checked, which is a response to the nature of the miscarriage of justice. Of course, the ways of verifying judicial acts are different because judicial errors are different. A generalisation and analysis of the history of verification of court judgments make it possible to identify their typological, repetitive and characteristic features which serve as grounds for classification. Such grounds are the entities authorised to carry out the audit, the means of verification, justification and argumentation at a higher authority and the types of decisions it makes. The first experiences with the idea of verifying criminal court decisions are extremely diverse. While many of the trends in the development of such verification are repeated, its morphological forms are different. At the stage of historical development under consideration, there is no close relationship between the individual states, so that the verification of court decisions in each state is formed with a small number of borrowings. This experience is interesting because it is unique for each state in a particular historical period. The formation and institutionalisation of court review is determined by the spatial, temporal, cultural, legal and other characteristics of individual states. On the one hand, various countries are aware of the need to create national judicial systems, and on the other hand, each state does this independently, using its own approaches.

Keywords

Authors

References