Ensuring the Completeness of Materials Submitted to the Court in Criminal Proceedings amid the Tension between Publicity, Investigative Secrecy, and Adversarial Principles

The paper examines the challenges of ensuring the completeness of materials submitted to the court by investigative bodies in criminal proceedings, considering the competing principles of adversarial proceedings on one hand and publicity alongside investigative secrecy on the other. Problematic situations caused by imperfect legislation are revealed using examples of judicial precedents. Specific solutions to the identified problems are proposed, namely, the establishment at the legislative level of the obligation of the prosecution (the prosecutor and/or the investigative body) to provide evidence (materials) to the court specifically at the court hearing. The investigative body may provide the court with some materials in a restricted access mode, i.e., without granting access to all trial participants, including in the electronic form (via the Interdepartmental Electronic Interaction System (SIEI) for the judge’s exclusive review). This approach aligns with the evolving concept of the «electronic criminal case», long debated in legal scholarship. While this might initially appear to restrict the principles of publicity and adversarial proceedings, it would allow the court making a decision to properly assess the merits of motions, ensuring not only investigative secrecy but also the legality and validity of judicial decisions. Materials submitted confidentially could effectively supplement those presented openly. In addition, in order to study a number of issues, in particular the financial status of a participant in criminal proceedings, it would be very useful for the court to use software tools available to it, such as the software tools of the State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP). Additionally, for certain matters, such as assessing the financial status of a trial participan, the court could leverage available digital tools, for example, State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP), to request and obtain relevant case-related information.

1. Andrienko Yu. A. Obespechenie sledovatelem bystroty i polnoty predvaritelnogo rassledovaniya: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Omsk, 2022. — 270 s. — EDN: ZCBWQR.

2. Garipov T. I., Morugina N. A. Analiz zarubezhnogo opyta primeneniya elektronnogo ugolovnogo dela v protsessualnoy deyatelnosti organov predvaritelnogo rassledovaniya i suda // Vestnik Kazanskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. — 2021. — T. 12. — № 4 (46). — S. 585–594. — DOI: 10.37973/KUI.2021.31.82.021. — EDN: PGLLSN.

3. Egorova R. E. K voprosu o sootnoshenii prava na razumnyy srok ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva i printsipa razumnogo sroka ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva // Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo Rossii: sovremennoe sostoyanie i perspektivy razvitiya: materialy Mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferentsii (g. Krasnodar, 9–10 aprelya 2020 g.) — Krasnodar: Krasnodarskiy universitet MVD Rossii, 2020. — S. 134– 138. — EDN: PEDICQ.

4. Iskakova E. F. Printsip nerazglasheniya tayny sledstviya i advokatskoy tayny v ramkakh ugolovnogo protsessa // Pravovaya pozitsiya. — 2023. — № 6 (42). — S. 58–65. — EDN: MDUWSX.