To the question of possible directions of modernization of conciliatory criminal procedural procedures

The rapid development of legislation related to the peaceful settlement of criminal law disputes creates the need to create a scientific basis for legal construction in this direction. To date, several basic models of conciliatory criminal procedure procedures have been identified. Firstly, this is a mediation model, which involves the participation of an official or unofficial mediator in achieving reconciliation between the victim and the accused, as well as the development of other conditions for the termination of criminal prosecution. The mediator should contribute to the unofficial reconciliation of the victim with the accused, especially in cases of minors, where the question is raised of replacing punishment with a measure of compulsory educational influence. Anthropological and psychological factors are important in mediation, reconciliation must be real and accompanied by repentance of the perpetrator and have an educational effect. At the same time, the compensatory factor has a subsidiary value and is the subject of agreement between the parties. In the conciliatory procedure of «transaction», which is embodied in Article 28.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the main goal is to compensate for the material damage caused by the crime in full. The legal composition of the material basis of a «transaction» is limited to material compensation. Therefore, the scope of this conciliation procedure should be limited to crimes against other people's property of small and medium gravity, as well as tax crimes and some crimes of an economic nature.
The purpose of this work is to classify the types and identify the main patterns of development of conciliation procedures as grounds for determining possible directions of their modernization. The objectives of the study include identifying differences in the types of conciliation procedures, allocation of classification criteria, establishing the absence of the necessary components of each of them, which require replenishment in the subsequent legal construction. The main methods of achieving the set goals and solving problems, along with dialectics, logical and formal legal methods of cognition and evaluation of the data obtained, were the method of comparative jurisprudence and the systematic method, which made it possible to implement a comprehensive, intersectoral approach.
The results of the study were the author's proposals regarding promising directions for the development of conciliatory criminal procedural procedures related to the concentration of powers for their application by the prosecutor and the investigating judge.

1. Abshilava G.V. Conciliation procedures in criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2012. (In Russ.)

2. Aleksandrov A.S., Andreeva O.I., Zaitsev O.A. On the prospects for the development of Russian criminal justice in the context of digitalization. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2019;(448):199–207. DOI: 10.17223/15617793/448/25. (In Russ.)

3. Aleksandrov A.S., Bopkhoev Kh.V., Kukhta A.A. The use of coercive measures against minors suspected or accused of committing crimes. Nizhny Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod Academy; 2008. (In Russ.)

4. Aleksandrov A.S., Zaitsev O.A. Prospects for the development of contractual mechanisms in “economic criminal proceedings”. Ustoichivyi ehkonomicheskii rost I 80 arvo: sbornik materialov k XVI Ezhegodnym nauchnym chteniyam pamyati professora S.N. Bratusya = Sustainable economic growth and law: a collection of materials for the XVI Annual Scientific Readings in memory of Professor S.N. Bratus. Moscow: Publishing house “Jurisprudence”; 2021. (In Russ.)

5. Andreeva O.I. Limits of the manifestation of dispositivity in criminal proceedings. Tomsk: TSU Publishing House; 2000. (In Russ.)

6. Golovko L.V. Alternatives to criminal prosecution in modern law. Moscow: Law Center Press; 2002. (In Russ.)

7. Golovko L.V. Institute of Criminal Law Mediation and its prospects in the Russian Federation. Zakon = Law. 2009;(4):127–135. (In Russ.)

8. Dikarev I.S. Dispositivity in the criminal process of Russia. Volgograd: Volga Publishing House; 2005. (In Russ.)

9. Zhalinskii A.Eh. Selected works: In 4 volumes. Volume 2. Criminal Law. Moscow: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics; 2015. (In Russ.)

10. Zhestovskaya D.A., Tuzov A.G. From protecting the public interest to protecting the victim's interest. Ugolovnaya yustitsiya = Criminal justice. 2018;(11):46–51. DOI: 10.17223/23088451/11/9. (In Russ.)

11. Korshunov N.M. Convergence of private and public law: problems of theory and practice. Moscow: Norma: INFRA-M; 2011. (In Russ.)

12. Korshunov N.M. Private and public law: problems of formation of the foundations of the modern theory of convergence. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law. 2010;(5):66–72. (In Russ.)

13. Levchenko O.V. A conciliatory and compensatory method of resolving criminal cases of crimes committed in the sphere of economic activity. Mezhdunarodnoe ugolovnoe pravo i ugolovnaya yustitsiya = International criminal law and criminal justice. 2021;(6):6–9. DOI: 10.18572/2071-1190-2021-6-6-9. (In Russ.)

14. Levchenko O.V. Participation of the prosecutor in pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case (experience of comparative legal research). Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2022. (In Russ.)

15. Markovicheva E.V. The role of the mediation institute in speeding up criminal proceedings. Rossiiskii sud'ya = Russian judge. 2010;(3):26–28. (In Russ.)

16. Muratova N.G. On the problems of criminal procedure contracts. Pravosudie v Tatarstane = Justice in Tatarstan. 2011;(4(48)):36–38. (In Russ.)

17. Sviridov M.K. Trends in the development of Russian criminal procedure legislation. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Bulletin of Tomsk State University. 2012;(358):52–56. (In Russ.)

18. Sidorenko Eh.L., Karabut M.A. Private beginnings in criminal law. St. Petersburg: Law Center Press; 2007. (In Russ.)

19. Smirnov A.V. Russian criminal procedure: a new model is needed. In: Kolokolov N.A., editor. The apparatus of the investigative power. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2016. (In Russ.)

20. Sychev P.G. Criminal proceedings on crimes in the sphere of economic and entrepreneurial activity. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2020. (In Russ.)

21. Terekhov E.V. The powers of the prosecutor to resolve a criminal case in the Republic of Austria. Zakonnost' = Legality. 2011;(3):65–69. (In Russ.)

22. Churilov Yu.Yu. The use of conciliation procedures in criminal proceedings contrary to the interests of the parties. Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo = Criminal proceedings. 2009;(2):9–10. (In Russ.)

23. Sherstnev V.B. Optimization of the procedure for termination of a criminal case (prosecution) in connection with compensation for damages in full. Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravookhranitel'naya praktika = Legal science and law enforcement practice. 2020;(1(51)):103–110. (In Russ.)

24. Sherstnev V.B. The criminal procedure mechanism of pre-trial settlement of simple criminal law disputes: the current state and direction of improvement. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoi akademii MVD Rossii = Legal Science and Practice: Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2019;(3(47)):207–210. DOI: 10.36511/2078-5356-2019-3-207-210. (In Russ.)

25. Shmoller K. Reform of the Austrian criminal justice system (preliminary conclusions). Article 2. New in the inquiry. Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo = Criminal proceedings. 2017;(1):37–42. (In Russ.)

26. Aleksandrov A.S., Zaytsev O.A., Muraev P.P., Ruchkin V.A. The Institutional Basis for Implementing “Smart Technologies” in the Legal System of Fighting Crimes. Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2021;(155):1195–1203. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-59126-7_130.