Betsukov Albert Zadinovich Biography

According to part, the instructions of the head of the investigative can be appealed to him by the head of the higher investigative body. The appeal of the instructions does not suspend their execution, with the exception of cases when the instructions relate to the withdrawal of the criminal case and transfer him to another investigator, attracting a person as the accused, qualifying a crime, the volume of the prosecution, the election of a preventive measure, the proceedings of investigative actions, which are allowed only by the court decision, as well as sending the case to the court or its termination.

At the same time, the investigator has the right to provide the head of the higher investigative body with the materials of the criminal case and written objections to the instructions of the head of the investigative body. The head of the investigative body should only act as the organizer of the work of the investigator, which carries out resource and methodological support of the investigation.

But in criminal procedural science, many famous lawyers advocate the processing of the procedural powers of the heads of the investigative authorities. In particular, G. Khimicheva claims that it is inappropriate to deprive the head of the investigation department of procedural powers. The constant increase in the regular number of investigators of the internal affairs bodies and the insufficiently high level of their professionalism does not allow the prosecutor to fully fulfill the functions of the leadership of the investigation.

She considers an undoubted advantage of the procedural control of the head of the investigation department of his immediate proximity to the control object, creating the necessary conditions for a continuous verification of compliance with the requirements of the law and emergency response to identified violations and miscalculations. Statkus and A. Liquids, noting the high role of departmental control in ensuring the legality of the activities of the investigative departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, indicate the need to improve it.

For this, in their opinion, the head of the investigating authority is advisable to provide the powers that would allow him not only to effectively monitor the investigation process, but also to eliminate the identified violations of the law with his power. The head of any department must be endowed with the right to cancel the decision adopted by his subordinates if it contradicts the law.

However, it is a mistake to approach the solution of the problems of the preliminary investigation exclusively from departmental positions. Popov correctly considers the control of the head of the investigative department procedural, that is, public, national, but not departmental, since its legal nature, essence and meaning, form, methods and means are procedural. This circumstance gives a preliminary investigation a special specificity that distinguishes it from the usual activity on the basis of the principles of organization and activities of the executive branch.

The preliminary investigation carried out by divisions of executive bodies remains a strictly procedural, pre -trial procedure, initial, preliminary, preliminary in relation to the trial itself. The existing problems of the preliminary investigation are mainly due not to the imperfection of control and supervision of it, but by the departmental and procedural doom of the investigator to the powerless position when imposing the most time -consuming tasks of criminal proceedings.

The strengthening of the procedural independence of the investigator is incompatible with the broad procedural powers, which are now endowed with the head of the investigative body. Their intervention in the procedural activity of investigators is unacceptable. Changes made in Art. However, the status of the investigator did not strengthen this, since almost all procedural means of influence of the prosecutor on the investigator were transferred to the head of the investigative body.

The investigation of the investigator with independence in resolving various issues during the investigation is a necessary condition for fulfilling the duties assigned to him. Without freedom of choice, the investigator cannot carry out his criminal procedural duties. The introduction of judicial control over a preliminary investigation caused at one time active opposition from the prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

The following arguments were brought against judicial control: “To resolve the issue of the legality of the arrest, the prosecutor’s complaint is enough, the judge will bind himself by the decision by the investigation” [5, S. However, the legislative process in Russia in the late XX centuries invariably followed the idea of ​​reforming the judicial system and legal proceedings, one of the results of which was currently valid court control over the preliminary investigation.

Judicial control over the investigation is carried out in three forms: 1 preliminary permit; 2 subsequent within the stage of investigation; 3 subsequent in the judicial stages of the process. The subsequent control within the stage of the investigation is the consideration and resolution of complaints about illegal and unreasonable decisions and actions of the investigator, which violated the constitutional rights of citizens.Subsequent control in the judicial stages of the process is the detection of violations committed during the investigation, during the trial and at subsequent trials of the process.

The result of such a control may be the issuance of an acquittal or a private determination of violations of the rule of law discovered by the court. It is proposed to appeal only violations of constitutional rights in cases where this prevents the transfer of the case to court. Lazareva claims that “Lazareva proposes to distinguish between his two forms: preventing the restriction of citizens' rights and restoring violated rights.

Guskova and V. Emelyanov reasonably consider the procedure for issuing decisions on the production of investigative actions that limit the constitutional rights of citizens, the justice of a special form. The idea of ​​the feasibility of returning to the investigation court continues to sound. For example, Yu. Roshchin, L. Khatsukov propose to use the experience of the year and convey the investigation to the court, [19, S.

believed that the court could turn into a centralized department with a boss who is investigating the judicial investigators, arrests the powers of justice itself, and itself complies with the decisions of the bailiffs to the judicial department. Supporters of the expansion of the powers of the court were A. Babenko, B. Yablokov, [22, S. The latter considers the path of a significant expansion of the list of grounds for which a judicial appeal is preferred.

He proposes to include in it not only the basic actions and decisions of the preliminary investigation bodies and the prosecutor, which impede the movement of the criminal case, but also the appeal of the court to satisfy the application of the defense to conduct investigative actions to collect evidence. Indeed, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation does not contain a certain circle of cases when it becomes possible to appeal the investigator’s actions to the court.

It seems that this is right. It is impossible to foresee all possible cases of violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms of participants in criminal proceedings or cases of difficulty accessing citizens to justice. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation had previously provided certain assistance to the courts of general jurisdiction, indicating the main approaches to resolving legal conflicts of participants in criminal proceedings with the investigator.

Try the literature selection service. In these cases, control over the actions and decisions of the preliminary investigation bodies by the court, taking place only when considering the criminal case, that is, at the next stage of the proceedings, is not an effective means of restoring violated rights, and therefore the interested parties should be provided with the possibility of immediate appeal during the investigation with a complaint with the court.

” So, recognizing the actions and decisions of officials checked in accordance with Art. Effective control of detention is impossible without checking the proof of the commission of a crime. Petrukhin proposes not only to expand the sphere of judicial control over the preliminary investigation, but also to completely eliminate prosecutorial supervision in this area. We share his opinion that judicial control is a more reliable guarantor of personality rights in the preliminary investigation than prosecutor supervision.

The court is not connected by departmental interests, independent, is not responsible for the disclosure of crimes. At the preliminary investigation, it makes no sense to have a double barrier from errors and abuses and there is no need to ensure that different organs perform the same control functions. With well -set judicial control, prosecutor supervision becomes unnecessary.

Morshchakova should find a fairly complete expression. The implementation of judicial control over legality should be distinguished as a special principle of legal proceedings specified in other judicial and pro -production rules also because the “trial control over the investigation” is methodologically the essence of the term of the 20th century will then receive a fundamental substantiation.

The court formally does not responsible for quantitative or qualitative indicators of pre -trial production. Secondly, the court has a special legal status: this is the only body designed to administer justice. Finally, we must not forget about the features of the judicial procedure that no form of state activity possesses. The fundamental difference between the procedural control of the head of the investigative body, prosecutorial supervision and judicial control lies in the methods of activity of the relevant authorities.

The judicial procedure is characterized by strict legislative regulation, characterized by care and comprehensiveness. In the activities of the court, the principles of criminal proceedings are most fully implemented, which create the most favorable conditions for clarifying the actual circumstances of the case and establishing truth.The presence of only judicial control over the investigation of crimes will expand unreasonably narrowed boundaries of the investigator’s procedural independence and independence, will contribute to increasing the efficiency, speed of pre -trial production.

Khimicheva G. Pre-trial criminal proceedings: the concept of improving criminal procedure activities. Statkus V. Popov I. The legality and validity of the termination of criminal cases in the stage of preliminary investigation. Larin A. Jatiev B. On the contradictions in the Russian criminal process. Boykov A. Moscow - Kemerovo, Tokareva M. E Modern problems of legality and prosecutor supervision in the pre -trial stages of the criminal process.

Novitskaya I. Krasnodar, Solovyov A. Fedorov I. Application in the pre -trial stages of the criminal process of constitutional norms that allow restrictions on the rights and freedoms of man and citizen. Bozrov V. Khaliulin A. Lazarev V. Judicial power and its implementation in the criminal process. Voronezh, theory and practice of judicial protection in the criminal process.

Samara, Guskova A. Petrukhin I. Judicial power. Roshchin Yu. Theory and practice of choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention in cases of crimes attributed to the competence of the customs authorities of the Russian Federation. Maevsky V.