Classification of Measures of Restriction: From a “Mixed” Criterion to a Connection with the Object of Restriction
https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2020.112.3.154-165
Abstract
Achieving the aims of criminal proceedings is impossible without coercion, which significantly restricts human rights and freedoms, including constitutional ones, and, therefore, it is permissible only if there are grounds and in the manner prescribed by the criminal procedure legislation. The grounds, conditions and procedure for applying measures of restriction in criminal proceedings largely depend on the correct systematization of criminal procedure legislation, which may be the basis for a systematic interpretation of the text of the law. Combining other measures of procedural coercion in Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not have clear criteria, which is fraught with the erroneous use of procedural coercion against participants in criminal proceedings. The purpose of the paper is to assess the directions of possible improvement of the legislation regarding the systematization of procedural coercion measures. Measures of procedural coercion should be structured and systematized in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on clear and uniform grounds, including coercive measures, which are not measures of restriction. Currently, there are no such grounds in relation to other measures of procedural coercion, united in Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which impedes their reasonable application. The contents of Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation should be revised taking into account logical and legal ties. As a result of the research the author developed the ideas on logical connections as one of the main bases for the classification of the norms governing the use of procedural coercion, affecting its legality and validity.
About the Author
E. V. Mandzhieva
Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena V. Mandzhieva, Adjunct of the Faculty of Scientific and Academic Staff Training
ul. Zoi and Aleksandra Kosmodemyanskikh, d. 8, Moscow, 125171
References
1. Bratus’ N. S. Yuridicheskaya otvetstvennost’ i zakonnost’. — M., 1976. — 216 s.
2. Bulatov B. B. Gosudarstvennoe prinuzhdenie v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. — Omsk, 2003. — 320 s.
3. Bulatov B. B., Nikolyuk V. V. Mery ugolovno-processual’nogo prinuzhdeniya (po glave 14 UPK Rossii). — M., 2003. — 180 s.
4. Vasil’eva E. G. Mery ugolovno-processual’nogo prinuzhdeniya. — Ufa, 2003. — 136 s.
5. Vershinina S. I. Gosudarstvennoe prinuzhdenie v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: normativno-pravovaya priroda i mekhanizm funkcionirovaniya : dis. ... d-ra yurid. nauk. — Tol’yatti, 2017. — 417 s.
6. Gromov N. A. Ugolovnyj process Rossii. — M., 1998. — 552 s.
7. Davydov P. M. Mery presecheniya v sovetskom ugolovnom processe : avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — L., 1953. — 35 s.
8. Davydov P. M., Yakimov P. P. Primenenie mer processual’nogo prinuzhdeniya po Osnovam ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva Soyuza SSR i soyuznyh respublik. — Sverdlovsk, 1961. — 117 s.
9. Enikeev Z. D. Mery processual’nogo prinuzhdeniya v sisteme sredstv obespecheniya obvineniya i zashchity. — Ufa, 1978. — 72 s.
10. Efremova S. V. Obosnovannost’ sledstvennyh dejstvij kak garantiya prav i svobod uchastnikov processa : dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — Samara, 2004. — 182 s.
11. Zhogin N. V., Fatkullin F. N. Predvaritel’noe sledstvie. — M., 1965. — 367 s.
12. Zinnatullin Z. Z. Ugolovno-processual’noe prinuzhdenie i ego effektivnost’. — Kazan’, 1981. — 135 s.
13. Kapinus N. I. Mery presecheniya v rossijskom ugolovnom processe // Sledovatel’. — 2001. — № 8. — S. 21— 40.
14. Kapinus N. I. Processual’nye garantii prav lichnosti pri primenenii mer presecheniya v ugolovnom processe : dis. ... d-ra yurid. nauk. — M., 2001. — 547 s.
15. Kovriga Z. F. Ugolovno-processual’noe prinuzhdenie. — Voronezh, 1975. — 175 s.
16. Kornukov V. M. Mery processual’nogo prinuzhdeniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. — Saratov, 1978. — 136 s.
17. Lejst O. E. Sankcii i otvetstvennost’ po sovetskomu pravu. — M., 1981. — 240 s.
18. Livshic Yu. D. Mery processual’nogo prinuzhdeniya v ugolovnom processe : avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 1958. — 18 s.
19. Marks K., Engel’s F. Polnoe sobranie sochinenij. — M., 1961. — T. 20. — 827 s.
20. Mihajlov V. A. Mery presecheniya v rossijskom ugolovnom processe. — M., 1996. — 304 s.
21. Ozhegov S. I., Shvedova N. Yu. Tolkovyj slovar’ russkogo yazyka. — M., 2006. — 944 s.
22. Petruhin I. L. Priroda ugolovno-processual’nogo prinuzhdeniya // Sud i primenenie zakona. — M., 1982. — S. 63—737.
23. Petruhin I. L. Svoboda lichnosti i ugolovno-processual’noe prinuzhdenie. — M., 1985. — 238 s.
24. Pisarev A. V. Proizvodstvo sledstvennyh dejstvij, ogranichivayushchih pravo grazhdan na lichnuyu neprikosnovennost’ : avtoref. dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. — Omsk, 2002. — 23 s.
25. Ryzhakov A. P. Mery presecheniya. — M., 1997. — 176 s.
26. Ugolovnyj process / pod red. K. F. Gucenko. — M., 2001. — 608 s.
27. Fojnickij I. Ya. Kurs ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva : v 2 t. — SPb.,1996. — T. 2. — 607 s. (Reprintnoe vosproizvedenie izdaniya 1910 g.).
28. Cokolova O. I. Teoriya i praktika zaderzhaniya, aresta i soderzhaniya pod strazhej v ugolovnom processe : avtoref. dis. ... d-ra yurid. nauk. — M., 2007. — 417 s.
29. Chel’cov M. A. Sovetskij ugolovnyj process. — M., 1951. — 511 s.
30. El’kind L. S. Celi i sredstva ih dostizheniya v sovetskom ugolovno-processual’nom prave. — L., 1976. — 143 s.
31. El’kind P. S. Sushchnost’ sovetskogo ugolovno-processual’nogo prava. — L., 1963. — 171 s.
Review
For citations:
Mandzhieva E.V. Classification of Measures of Restriction: From a “Mixed” Criterion to a Connection with the Object of Restriction. Actual Problems of Russian Law. 2020;15(3):154-165. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2020.112.3.154-165
Views:
2033
Email this article 