51 tbsp. of the Russian Constitution proclaims the right of a citizen not to testify against himself, as well as his spouse, close relatives. The list of the latter is established by federal law. Consider further Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with comments. 
Relevance of the issue
In the practical application of Part 1 of Art. 51 of the Constitution, a number of problems arise. During the investigation of crimes and their subsequent consideration in court, an unequivocal solution to the emerging issues was not developed. In this regard, in some cases there is a significant violation of the interests and rights of citizens, in other situations, evidence is recognized as inadmissible, which is why the materials are returned for further investigation. It is worth noting here that the Decision of the Plenum of the Armed Forces adopted on October 31, 1995 did not clarify most of the issues that arose.
The problem of subject composition
First of all, when considering part 1 of Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation it is necessary to establish persons who should clarify the contents of this article. The fact is that the norm sets forth the common right of people not to testify against their loved ones, spouses / spouses and themselves. The legislator in Art. 51 the concept of "no one is obligated" is used to give relevant evidence. However, specific entities are not named. The procedural branches in which it is possible to exercise the law are not called. 
Criminal proceedings
Take advantage of 51 tbsp. Constitutions are primarily witnesses. In publications explaining the Basic Law, it was argued that the principle of witness immunity was introduced into criminal procedures. His right to refuse to testify also extends to the victim. This is due to the fact that the legislation formulates uniform rules for their interrogation. Along with this, it was emphasized that to clarify 51 Art. the suspect and the accused are not necessary. This was due to the fact that they do not impose an obligation to testify. This position expresses the opinion of many lawyers. In this regard, the explanation in the plenary resolution of the Supreme Court that Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation should be explained to the suspect, the defendant and the accused, it is perceived as an expansive interpretation of the norm. However, this act is binding. In this regard, in pursuance of the requirements of the Armed Forces, the investigator must explain Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation to the suspect, accused, victim and witness. 
General cases
According to some lawyers, Art. 51 of the Constitution should be clarified upon receipt of an explanation. This, in particular, applies to citizens whose involvement in the crime is checked. In addition, clarifications should take place during the execution of the protocol when confessing. The “Miranda Rule”, the analogue of which is the considered domestic norm, is read to the person upon his first contact with the police. At the same time, the reports of confession and explanations act as evidence of another category. They cannot be formalized in conditions when the subject is not aware of his rights. Along with this, the lack of clarification under Art. 51 of the Constitution in the preparation of these documents should not imply the mandatory recognition of these acts as unacceptable. This is because the witness immunity guaranteed by the Basic Law must be ensured during the proceedings. 
The moment of entry into force of the norm
The question of its definition turned out to be very relevant in practice. For example, in one of the regional courts, the defender, when reading out the testimony of the defendant, taken from him during preliminary investigation pointed to Art. 51. When studying the materials, it turned out that the person was initially interviewed as a witness. At the same time, there was no mark on clarification of the article in question. The presiding judge immediately recognized the defendant's first confession as unacceptable.
When proceeding with the study of further words of the accused, who at that time was a suspect, the defender again pointed to Art. 51. At the same time, the lawyer filed a motion to re-declare the testimony inadmissible, since the norm was not clarified to the subject. However, one of the lay assessors pointed out that at the time of the interrogation in the case (in November 1995), the plenary resolution of the Supreme Council was not published. Moreover, the need for clarification to the suspect of Art. 51 does not proceed directly from it. The other participants in the meeting agreed with this opinion. 
Is it necessary for all victims (witnesses) to clarify the norm?
There is no clear idea of this in practice. Based on the meaning of the article, the subject is not obliged to testify in the event that his words can personally expose him, close relatives, spouse. In other situations, such exemption does not apply. In order not to violate the rights of the victim and the witness, it is necessary to take into account the subject of their testimony. In some cases, this is not difficult. In other situations, certain problems may arise. For example, there is no need to clarify Art. 51 during the interrogation of witnesses during the investigative action. Explanations are required when receiving information from a person about a close relative or spouse. Thus, in all situations in which it is possible that there is at least a slight chance that the words of the witness / victim may turn against themselves, they should be familiar with the content of the article in question. 
Practical state of affairs
In many investigative departments and courts of art. 51 explain exclusively to close relatives of the suspect, accused, defendant. This is due to the literal perception of the content of the plenary Decree of the Supreme Council. Paragraph 18 of this act provides that the provisions of the norm must be familiarized with the spouse, close relatives before being questioned as victims or witnesses. According to lawyers, in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces only a special case of the implementation of Art. 51. In this connection, the opinion of some employees that the norm should be clarified only to those victims / witnesses who may become accused / suspects in the future becomes essentially false.
Registration of fact of acquaintance
There is no uniformity on this issue either. Practitioners use the following options:
- Clarification of the provisions of Art. 51 is carried out exclusively before the interrogation begins.
- Familiarization with the norm is carried out before the corresponding investigative action is carried out, during which evidence will be given.
It is believed that the second option is more preferable. The citizen should be explained his rights in each case of interrogation. Testimony can be carried out in practice with a long time gap. In this case, it is possible that the subject will forget about the explanations he had received earlier. Among the investigative actions, in the course of which the person should be familiarized with the right not to testify, include, in addition to interrogation, a confrontation, presentation for identification. 
Disclaimer of Liability
The law establishes a penalty for providing false information. In practice, it is widely believed that entities should not be warned of such responsibility. This is due to the fact that such an explanation to some extent neutralizes the right not to testify against relatives, the spouse or oneself and can act as psychological pressure on the witness. However, according to the law, it is impossible to refuse a warning about probable consequences for a subject.Reliability of information must be guaranteed in the interests of justice. In this case, a competent and consistent explanation of the law will be a compromise. The obligation to give truthful explanations, no one takes evidence from the witness. But in the case when his words can subsequently be used against him, his spouse or relatives, he can use his constitutional right and not testify.
Possible difficulties
The problem may arise due to the fact that quite often it is difficult to divide the subject of testimony in advance: "Be silent here, speak here." In some cases, information that at first glance does not threaten the subject can turn against him or his relatives, if not in this, then in a different situation. In addition, before interrogation, it is not always possible in all cases to guess what actual information will be communicated. In this regard, in each specific situation, judges and investigators should independently determine the procedure in accordance with which the clarification of criminal and constitutional norms will be made. Here, according to a number of lawyers, the matter is not only in the sequence of such familiarization. In ordinary cases, the Constitution should be clarified first, followed by criminal law. The key principle in complex cases is selectivity. It is also possible that a judge or investigator will not warn about the consequences giving false testimony. Clarification of Art. 51, as well as an indication in the note to Art. 308 of the Criminal Code that the subject is not liable for refusing to testify against himself, relatives or his spouse, does not relieve him of responsibility for providing false information.
