Gaps in the Regulatory Framework for Rehabilitation in Criminal Proceedings

The paper states that civil and criminal procedural legislation regulating rehabilitation does not have a strict division into general and special norms and should be applied simultaneously and comprehensively. Despite the fact that civil legislation specifies the application of only two preventive measures as grounds for the emergence of the right to rehabilitation — detention and travel restriction order. This right arises in the event of the illegal selection of all preventive measures provided for by the criminal procedure law. Such a basis for rehabilitation as the use of coercive measures also applies to persons directly in relation to whom investigative actions were carried out that restricted personal rights. In the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, it is advisable to establish such a circumstance, which excludes rehabilitation, as self-incrimination of the accused (suspect). Partial termination of criminal prosecution entails the right to rehabilitation only if it concerns a separate episode of criminal activity that was originally incriminated to the person. A reduction in the scope of the charge within the framework of one fact may entail the emergence of the right to rehabilitation only on condition that the original charge, due to its gravity, entailed the occurrence of such legal consequences that, in principle, could not have occurred if the charge had been brought in a reduced scope.

1. Vetrova O. A., Merkulov S. V. K voprosu o problemakh realizatsii instituta reabilitatsii v ugolovnom protsesse // Sovremennoe ugolovno-protsessualnoe pravo — uroki istorii i problemy dalneyshego reformirovaniya. — 2021. — T. 1. — № 1 (3). — S. 37–43.

2. Vorobev S. M. Pravovoe regulirovanie instituta reabilitatsii // Rossiyskoe pravosudie. — 2016. — № 4 (120). — S. 94–97.

3. Kolesnikova L. G. Klassifikatsiya osnovaniy prekrashcheniya ugolovnogo dela i ugolovnogo presledovaniya, vlekushchikh pravo na reabilitatsiyu // Zakon i pravo. — 2021. — № 1. — S. 124–127.

4. Makarova O. V. Pravovoe regulirovanie instituta reabilitatsii v rossiyskom ugolovnom protsesse // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2014. — № 5. — S. 30–36.

5. Muravev K. V. Optimalna li reglamentatsiya sistemy mer protsessualnogo prinuzhdeniya v Ugolovnoprotsessualnom kodekse Rossiyskoy Federatsii? // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. — 2018. — № 5. — S. 24–29.

6. Orlova A. A. Kontseptsiya reabilitatsii i organizatsionno-pravovye mekhanizmy ee realizatsii v rossiyskom ugolovnom protsesse: avtoref. dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk. — M., 2013. — 59 s.

7. Potetinov V. A. Institut reabilitatsii: nesovershenstvo zakonodatelstva, kak problema pravoprimenitelnoy praktiki // Biblioteka kriminalista. — 2015. — № 6 (23). — S. 102–106.

8. Prokhorov A. B. Dostup k pravosudiyu v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve lits, poterpevshikh ot zloupotrebleniya vlastyu // Advokatskaya praktika. — 2022. — № 5. — S. 36–42.

9. Fisenko D. Yu. Institut reabilitatsii v zakonodatelstve Rossiyskoy Federatsii: sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy // Vestnik Sibirskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. — 2021. — № 2 (43). — S. 134–140.

10. Khimicheva O. V., Sharov D. V. Nekotorye aspekty obespecheniya prav litsa pri zaderzhanii po podozreniyu v sovershenii prestupleniya // Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika. — 2018. — № 5. — S. 56–61.

11. Chornovol E. P. Yuridiko-fakticheskie osnovaniya vozniknoveniya obyazatelstv po vozmeshcheniyu imushchestvennogo i kompensatsii moralnogo vreda, prichinennogo nezakonnymi aktami publichnoy vlasti // Gosudarstvennaya vlast i mestnoe samoupravlenie. — 2014. — № 8. — S. 53–59.