Justification of criminal procedural solutions: problems and ways to overcome them

The relevance of the study of validity is due to the significance of this category for criminal procedure science and practical law enforcement. Reasonableness is a category that causes a lively discussion in the scientific community, which encourages us to look for modern means of establishing the necessary circumstances for making a procedural decision, as well as to develop more effective procedures for verifying and evaluating incoming information. Reasonableness is also one of the areas of concern for law enforcement. Thus, the cancellation or modification of court decisions, as well as decisions of investigators and investigators, for the most part occurs precisely because of their lack of validity. The reason for scientific discussions and practical questions is seen in the lack of knowledge of this category, too straightforward approaches to its assessment. We believe that the continuation of the research will allow us to find more successful solutions in terms of legislative regulation of reasonableness as a requirement for procedural decisions, as well as to gain new scientific knowledge that expands the understanding of the potential of reasonableness in criminal proceedings.

The goal is to form a new approach to determining the validity of procedural decisions, based on differentiation and different standards applied to different types of procedural decisions.

The objectives of the study were to study the features of procedural decisions, the grounds for their adoption, to clarify the differences and their causes in the degree of reliability of the conclusions recorded in the procedural decision, the feasibility of maintaining a unified approach to the validity as a single and unchangeable feature of any procedural decision; analysis and generalization of scientific points of view; the study of criminal procedure legislation, in terms of regulating the presentation of requirements for procedural decisions and the assessment of their consistency, the formation of their own position on these issues, the presentation of author's proposals.

Methods: dialectical, analytical, comparative, concretization, formalization, modeling, deduction, generalization.

Results:

1) three standards of validity of procedural decisions are proposed:

– general procedural;

– lowered;

– elevated.

2) the criteria for determining the applicable standard for process decisions are:

– directly aimed at implementing the purpose of the criminal process;

– contributing to the execution of the appointment of criminal proceedings.

3) classification of procedural decisions based on the specified standards.

Decisions with a reduced standard of reasonableness include decisions of the investigator, the inquirer and the judge on the conduct of an investigative action.

Decisions with a general procedural standard of reasonableness include decisions that are binding, but do not have a preliminary character, which can be based on both evidence and other information that gives rise to a firm belief in the need to make this particular decision in order to maintain the balance of probability that the event described in the decision with a high degree of probability can occur. Such decisions are made, for example, when choosing a preventive measure [10].

Decisions with an increased standard of reasonableness should include those decisions that are binding, have a pre-judicial significance, and are made only on the basis of acceptable evidence that excludes the possibility of making any other decision other than this one. In this case, the degree of validity of the decision should be so high as to be beyond reasonable doubt, excluding gaps in both the law and the system of evidence.

4) ways to improve the evidentiary activities of the court, preliminary investigation bodies and participants in criminal proceedings, aimed at removing certain restrictions on the use of various categories of information (for example, those that do not have the form of procedural evidence) to substantiate the conclusions contained in the procedural decision. The same direction makes it easier for the parties to provide information that can be used by the authorities to make a procedural decision.

1. Akhmedov U.N., Sitnikov K.A. [Legality and validity as the key requirements for a criminal procedural decision]. Vestnik Voronezhskogo instituta MVD Rossii = Bulletin of the Voronezh Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2019;(3):173–179. (In Russ.)]

2. Belyaev M.V. [The validity of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings]. Rossiiskii sud'ya = Russian judge. 2018;(3):20–24. (In Russ.)]

3. Budylin S.L. [Standards of proof in bankruptcy. On the grounds of the ruling of the Judicial Board for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 04.06.2018 No. 305-ES18-413]. Vestnik ehkonomicheskogo pravosudiya = Bulletin of Economic Law. 2018;(11):130–157. (In Russ.)]

4. Gladysheva O.V. [Legality and validity of decisions of the bodies of investigation]. Ugolovnoe pravo = Criminal law. 2003;(1):64–66. (In Russ.)]

5. Gladysheva O.V., Potapenko S.V., Sementsov V.A. [Criminal procedural means of ensuring property and personal non-property rights]. Krasnodar: KubGU; 2020. (In Russ.)]

6. Gladysheva O.V., Sementsov V.A. [Criminal procedural law. The general part and pre-trial proceedings. A course of lectures.] 2nd ed., reprint. and add. Moscow, 2013. (In Russ.)]

7. Karapetov A.G., Kosarev A.S. [Standards of proof: analytical and empirical research]. Vestnik ehkonomicheskogo pravosudiya Rossiiskoi Federatsii = Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation. Appendix to the Monthly Journal. Special Issue. 2019;(5):3–96. (In Russ.)]

8. Nikitina S.V. [Procedural form and validity court decisions in pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases]. Yuridicheskii Vestnik Kubanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Legal Bulletin of the Kuban State University. 2021;13(1):72–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31429/20785836-13-1-72-79 (In Russ.)]

9. Sementsov V.A. [Investigative actions in pre-trial proceedings]. Moscow, 2017. (In Russ.)]

10. Boldt E.D., Boyd C.L., Carlos R.F., Baker M.E. The Effects of Judge Race and Sex on Pretrial Detention Decisions. Justice System Journal. 2021. DOI: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85100834443&doi=10.1080%2f0098261X.2021.1881665&partnerID=40&.

11. Borodinova T.G., Borodinov V.V. The adversarial system in criminal procedure: Norms and implementation. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering. 2019;8(12):4039–4042. DOI: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85074150532&doi=10.35940%2fijitee.L3627.1081219&partnerID=40&md.

12. Fungwacharakorn W., Tsushima K., Satoh K. Resolving counterintuitive consequences in law using legal debugging. Artificial Intel-ligence and Law. 2021. DOI: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85103677121&doi=10.1007%2fs10506-021-09283-7&partnerID=40&md5.

13. Gulchehra T. The importance of the participation of a lawyer with the judiciary and law enforcement in criminal proceedings. European Journal of Molecular and Clinical Medicine. 2020;7(2):2169–2173. DOI: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85096984927&partnerID=40&md5=9c4852f7ff69c4a068c381834bd5d7b.

14. Maegherman E., Ask K., Horselenberg R., van Koppen P.J. Test of the analysis of competing hypotheses in legal decision-making. Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2021;35(1):62–70. DOI: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85090015942&doi=10.1002%2facp.3738&partnerID=40&md5=d7529041.