Allowable limits for restricting the action of criminal proceedings principles (based on the presumption of innocence principle)

The aim of this article is to determine the limits of restriction of the principles of the criminal procedure in conditions of differentiation of its form. Having analyzed the content and procedure for the principle of the presumption of innocence in a special order of court decision with the consent of the defendant with the charge against him, the authors achieve this aim. Attention is paid to different interpretations regarding the constituent elements of the presumption of innocence principle. A conclusion is made that it is particularly significant not only to clearly define the essence and content of the principle of the criminal procedure, but also to define its provisions that guarantee its action and do not contradict the principle itself, do not distort its essence. The authors are critical of interpreting the presumption of innocence principle as a principle of proof, of interpreting the presumption of innocence as a subjective right of the individual. Analysis of the literature on the topic, the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation allowed them to conclude that the presumption of innocence is an objective legal provision that determines the legal status of the person being prosecuted. It is stated that the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation do not deal with the subjective right of a person, but with the obligations of society in relation to that person, which follows from the public nature of criminal proceedings. A conclusion is drawn that prescriptions of law can not conflict with social relations they regulate. It is alleged that limitations on the action of the principles of the criminal procedure should be justified and should provide for guarantees for the protection of rights and interests that need to be protected. It contradicts the public interest to find a person guilty of committing a crime without directly examining the evidence of this in court, as provided for in the special order of making a court decision in case of a plea agreement. Not denying the possibility of different conditions for prosecuting a person, the authors note that these conditions should not exclude the possibility of establishing reliable knowledge about the circumstances of the committed socially dangerous act, of making an equitable decision on this basis. It is noted that it is necessary to question the defendant on the merits of the charges when hearing a case in the special order of making a judicial decision. The following limits are formulated for restricting the action of the principles of criminal proceedings: the procedure for investigating and resolving a criminal case should not change the essence of the principle; norms can not conflict with regulated social relations; restrictions must be justified and must provide for guarantees for the protection of rights and freedoms.

Keywords

Authors

References