Criminal Procedural Guarantees for the Classified Information Protection

The paper is devoted to the protection of classified information in criminal proceedings in Russia. The authors analyze the state of the institution of witness immunity in relation to official, professional and other types of secrets. A number of aspects of the investigator’s interrogation of persons possessing official secrets without a court order have been identified as unsettled. In addition, it was concluded that there are contradictions between the duty of persons possessing classified information to maintain secrecy and the duty to give testimony during criminal proceedings. The paper examines the theoretical component of the possibilities and methods of overcoming witness immunity in criminal proceedings. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not sufficiently regulate the protection of official, professional, business and personal secrets. The paper substantiates the need to increase the effectiveness of ensuring official secrets in domestic criminal proceedings and the inadmissibility of arbitrary declassification of information related to classified information, at the discretion of the investigator (inquiry officer). The authors insist on the introduction of judicial control over the activities of the investigator (inquiry officer) in the event of the interrogation of a person possessing information classified as classified information, in the absence of permission for interrogation from the body or official responsible for maintaining official secrets.

1. Volosova N. Yu. Ugolovno-protsessualnyy institut svidetelskogo immuniteta: teoriya, zakonodatelnoe regulirovanie i praktika: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — M., 2015. — 426 s.

2. Dikarev I. S. Svidetelskiy immunitet v ugolovnom protsesse // Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava. — 2012. — № 3. — S. 76–81.

3. Epikhin A. Yu. Institut bezopasnosti uchastnikov ugolovnogo protsessa: sravnitelnyy analiz zakonodatelstva zarubezhnykh stran // Aktualnye problemy ekonomiki i prava. — 2008. — № 1. — S. 139–145.

4. Epikhin A. Yu. Kontseptsiya bezopasnosti lichnosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. — Syktyvkar, 2000. — 164 s.

5. Epikhin A. Yu. Obespechenie bezopasnosti lichnosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. — Syktyvkar, 2004. — 167 s.

6. Epikhin A. Yu. Povyshenie ugolovno-pravovoy zashchishchennosti imushchestvennykh i inykh prav poterpevshego // Sovremennoe pravo. — 2014. — № 6. — S. 110–113.

7. Epikhin A. Yu., Mishin A. V. Dopros poterpevshego, svidetelya pod psevdonimom v dosudebnom i sudebnom proizvodstvakh (ugolovno-protsessualnye i kriminalisticheskie aspekty) // Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya «Ekonomika i pravo». — 2019. — T. 29. — № 4. — S. 480–486.

8. Zavidov B. D., Orlova A. A., Popov I. A., Surygina N. E., Shumilin S. F. Pravovoe polozhenie uchastnikov ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva. Kommentariy zakonodatelstva: osnovnye polozheniya, problemy i novatsii (postateynyy) // SPS «KonsultantPlyus», 2004.

9. Kovalenko E. V., Maznyak V. K., Tarnovskiy A. A. Problemy polucheniya dostupa k svedeniyam, sostavlyayushchim zhurnalistskuyu taynu v khode predvaritelnogo rassledovaniya // Sbornik statey VII Mezhdunarodnogo nauchno-issledovatelskogo konkursa. — Penza: Nauka i prosveshchenie, 2002. — S. 123–126.

10. Morozova O. S. Nekotorye osobennosti ugolovno-protsessualnogo statusa svidetelya // Sibirskoe yuridicheskoe obozrenie. — 2023. — № 3. — S. 323–332.

11. Sidorova N. V. Pravovoe regulirovanie pokazaniy svidetelya v rossiyskom ugolovnom protsesse: istoriya, sovremennoe sostoyanie: dis. … kand. yurid. nauk. — Ekaterinburg, 2004. — 269 s.

12. Trefilov A. A. Ugolovnyy protsess zarubezhnykh stran. T. 1: Ugolovnyy protsess Shveytsarii. — M., 2016. — 1020 s.

13. Alfini J. J., McCabe C. Mediating in the Shadow of the Courts: A Survey of the Emerging Case Law // Arkansas Law Review. — 2001. — Vol. 54. — No. 2. — URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2690503.

14. Banisar D. Silencing Sources: An International Survey of Protections and Threats to Journalists’ Sources // SSRN Electronic Journal. — November 8, 2007. — URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1706688; URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1706688.

15. Chesney R. State Secrets and the Limits of National Security Litigation // George Washington Law Review. — 2007. — Vol. 75 (5). — Wake Forest University Legal Studies Paper No. 946676. — URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=946676/.

16. Donohue K. L. The Shadow of State Secrets // University of Pennsylvania Law Review. — 2010. — Vol. 159. — P. 77–216. — Georgetown Public Law Research Paper. No. 10-10. — URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1566982.

17. Mendelson D., Wolf G. Health Privacy and Confidentiality. Chapter 23 // Tensions and Traumas in Health Law / I. Freckelton, K. Petersen (eds.). — Sydney, 2017. — URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2952275.

18. Miller A. R. Confidentiality, Protective Orders, and Public Access to the Courts // Harvard Law Review. — 1991. — Vol. 105. — No. 2. — P. 427–502. — URL: https://doi.org/10.2307/1341696.

19. Nasu H. State secrets law and National security // The International and Comparative Law Quarterly. — 2015. — Vol. 64. — No. 2 (April). — P. 365–404.

20. Setty S. Litigating Secrets: Comparative Perspectives on the State Secrets Privilege // Brooklyn Law Review. — 2009. — Vol. 75. — URL: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol75/iss1/4/.