The role of the court in establishing the truth: to collect evidence or to return a criminal case for further investigation?

The article explains that returning criminal cases for further investigation is needed. In accordance with Part. 4 Art. 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (RF CPC), the "guilty" verdict cannot be based on assumptions; it is delivered only if during the trial the defendant's guilt in committing an offense is established by the evidence the court has examined. However, not every criminal case provides solid adequate evidence, sufficient for an unambiguous conclusion, to the court. Т1ю situation is complicated by the fact that the RF CPC, unlike the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure of 1960, allows the judge neither to return criminal cases that were poorly investigated to the prosecutor, nor to make criminal proceedings participants work. It is also known that in 2009 the legislator deprived prosecutors of most of their powers to supervise investigation bodies, which further reduced the quality of the preliminary investigation and the quality of the evidentiary material. As a result, to resolve the question of guilt or innocence, the court is forced to make expert studies, additional inspections, sometimes collecting more evidence than a preliminary investigation body, performing the function it does. Under such circumstances, it appears that returning criminal cases for further investigation is urgently needed, and it will not be a sign of prosecutorial bias. The author states that society and the state grow more stable when the tasks of criminal justice are solved. The tasks involve the punishment of the guilty, the justification of the innocent, the protection of the rights of victims, the restoration of violated rights, etc. It is extremely difficult to identify the "guilty" and "exculpatory" evidence in its pure form rather than in theory before assessing the whole bulk of it; one fact, depending on its connection with other evidence, can both convict and acquit the defendant. In case of a lack of evidence or in the presence of low-quality evidence it is far more preferable to require an investigation body to finish its work according to the norms of the current RF CPC rather than to make a controversial procedural decision that can have a negative impact on the state of the rule of law, as it sometimes happens today. Russian judges' conscience and decency should not be denied, and the court's task is to deliver a fair and reasoned verdict that can be made only after examining sufficient adequate evidence. A hierarchical and institutional judicial system will allow to properly control the validity of decisions on returning criminal cases for further investigation.

Keywords

Authors

References