Judicial control and supervision are the most important guarantee of the observance of the interests and rights of the individual. They are designed to ensure the impartiality and soundness of criminal proceedings. Let us further consider in detail how judicial constitutional review is carried out.
General information
In the field of the protection of freedoms and human rights, a preliminary role is played by preliminary judicial control. It applies to all preparatory stages of the process. This allowed us to move from stating the violations committed to preventing them at the stage of initiating a case and investigation. Previously, preliminary judicial control was aimed at the results of the investigation, as well as at the trial stage in the first instance. In 1992, Art. 220.1 and 220.2 in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. They allowed for judicial control over the legality and validity of the decision to detain a suspect.
These articles provided an opportunity to carry out verification at the investigation stage. In the current Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the powers of the authorities are significantly expanded. Along with traditional duties and rights, the court can monitor compliance with laws and ensure the rights of persons involved in criminal proceedings in the initial stages. The established requirements are expressed in the competence of authorities in the field of restriction of freedom of suspects / accused, within the framework of allowing investigative structures to carry out various procedural actions in relation to detained entities.
Specificity
Given the above, judicial constitutional review must be considered both as a way of exercising powers, and in the form of a criminal procedure function. In the first case, we are talking more about the legal ability to actively influence the actions and decisions of other branches of the system. It must be said that the study of areas such as "judicial control" and "justice" leads to the confirmation of the conclusions on strengthening the human rights functions of the authorities through criminal, civil, constitutional, administrative proceedings to ensure the protection of freedoms and interests of legal entities and individuals. Along with this, parity between the branches of the system is maintained. Justice acts as the main, but not the only regulatory mechanism.
Classification
Judicial control of the executive branch is carried out in various forms. They evolved historically and are presented today as follows:
- Appeal of procedural decisions (actions) relating to the interests of participants in criminal proceedings at the preparatory stages. This opportunity is secured by Art. 123 Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Judicial control of the validity and legitimacy of inaction / actions, as well as decisions that could harm the freedoms and rights of the parties to the process or create obstacles for citizens to access justice in the preliminary stages. This feature is set in Art. 125.
- Judicial immunity in respect of certain categories of persons at the pre-trial stage in criminal proceedings. It is established by Art. 448-450 Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Judicial control of the legality and validity of decisions in the course of international cooperation in criminal proceedings. It is provided for in paragraph 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
- Application for a preliminary meeting. This feature is set in Art. 217.
Explanation
Any subject whose freedoms and rights have been infringed or violated by the investigator, interrogating officer or prosecutor should have a procedural right to appeal such actions / omissions.The procedure for considering such appeals differs in both theoretical and practical value. It allows you to start an appeal against detention without waiting for the arrest of a person, that is, during his detention as a suspect. The activities of judicial control are multifunctional. It is expressed, inter alia, in decisions taken by the authority.
System feature
Judicial state control includes various aspects and focuses on the interweaving of various social problems. The presence of the institution in question in the system indicates their importance and complexity. The need for the subsequent formation of ideas, approaches, and views on the implementation of the judiciary in criminal proceedings and its prospects in society is becoming increasingly relevant. The accessibility of the institute acts as an indicator of democracy, legal culture, and legal awareness of citizens. Monitoring the judiciary over the course of the investigation, the decisions of the prosecutor, the structures conducting the investigation, and verifying the validity of restrictions on the freedoms and rights of individuals in criminal proceedings are specific work.
It is aimed at ensuring the protection of the interests of the parties to production, prevention of violations. Judicial control bodies are called upon to restore the unreasonably or unlawfully infringed upon the freedoms and rights of citizens participating in the criminal process. The institute under consideration is reflected in the form of both independent, special productions, which have a certain focus and a separate material and legal base for regulation, and as consolidation of new procedures in the regulatory acts within the framework of the main process of the case.
Verification of coercive measures
According to articles 10, 118 and 123 (part 3) of the Constitution, as well as by virtue of articulating them 243 and 15 of the CPC, the court does not act as a criminal prosecution body and is not a party to the prosecution or the defense. Along with this, the authority, solving its direct tasks, forms the appropriate conditions for the parties to exercise their procedural obligations and rights. To protect the freedoms and interests of the parties to the proceedings and conduct the proceedings within a reasonable time in accordance with applicable standards, she (including on her own initiative) is obliged to check the validity of the applied interim measures, in particular, the preventive measure in the form of detention.
The court should facilitate the timely consideration of the issue of extending the period of detention of a person until the end of the period established in the previous decision. In the latter case, the authorized body is not relieved of the obligation to hear the views of the parties, and the participants themselves cannot be deprived of the opportunity to bring their arguments. This does not mean that the court accepts the tasks of the prosecution, since the factual and legal grounds for choosing a preventive measure do not concern the support or recognition of the charges against the detainee as justified. They are associated with the need to provide conditions for subsequent proceedings. Another understanding of the provisions present in the norms of the CPC could lead to a violation or violation of the rights of the parties to the process.
Difficulty in work
Judicial control of the validity and lawfulness of the application of the preventive measure to the accused in the form of detention and house arrest, as well as extending their period, is fraught with some problems. Some authorities released the subjects on the grounds of expediency. At the same time, they noted that the measures applied are reasonable and lawful. However, it is worth saying that the meeting should only consider such factual information as relates to the need for temporary isolation of the accused / suspect from society.
The problem of accurately establishing the content of such categories as “substantiation” and “lawfulness”, and the use of coercive measures subordinates all other issues that judicial control allows. It is the central element of a potential or existing dispute between the parties. Judicial control is carried out precisely for its resolution. As a result of the efforts of the authorized instance, it is possible to a certain extent to resolve the conflict of interests in the field of enforcement of compulsory procedural measures.
Nuances
In the analysis of judicial control, we can conclude that not only the validity and lawfulness of its application, but also the emergence of new circumstances that are taken into account when appointing it, can serve as a reason for appealing the decision to choose a preventive measure in the form of detention. For example, the previously existing grounds for arrest may disappear, however, new information about the personality of the subject may appear, according to which his detention becomes inappropriate and unreasonable. It must be said that the assertion that any arrest of an innocent is illegal is a false judgment. The CPC allows this measure to be applied to accused / suspects who are presumed innocent under Art. 49 of the Constitution.
Institutional Tasks
It should be emphasized that judicial control does not consist in analyzing the presentation of investigative structures about the need to detain a suspect / accused, but in a direct examination of evidence that confirms the advisability of choosing a measure. The official in the process of studying the materials must make sure that the guilt of the subject brought to him by the investigators is proved by at least one of the available episodes, and the documentary evidence is attached to the case.
Forms of verification at the investigation stage
The provisions of the Concept on judicial control were reflected and developed in the codified CPC. His analysis allows us to distinguish the following forms of verification at the investigation stage:
- The permission of the court to perform actions relating to the restriction of the constitutional rights of the subject
- Checking the legality of the decision to inspect the home, seizure, search, personal search, if these measures were carried out in urgent circumstances, in accordance with the decision of the investigator. After their implementation, the authorized employee must notify the court of them in a timely manner.
- Consideration of complaints of inaction / actions, decisions that may harm the freedoms and rights of participants in investigative measures.
Challenging
In Art. 125, part 1 says that not all actions / omissions or decisions of the prosecutor, investigator or inquiry officer are subject to appeal in court. It is possible to challenge only that which violates or may cause harm to the freedoms and rights of citizens participating in procedural measures. The Constitution provides for a fairly broad list of them. Rights and freedoms directly or indirectly realized in criminal proceedings are enshrined in Art. 17-54. It is necessary to file a complaint with a district court located within the territory of the investigation. In practice, however, it is often necessary to conduct them outside the place of the preliminary investigation. In such cases, the rules of Art. 152 Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint, however, will be examined at the place of the preliminary investigation.
Subjects of law
3 categories of participants in investigative measures can file a complaint:
- Side of the charge. It includes both bodies and persons whose inaction / actions or decisions are disputed (prosecutor, investigator, interrogating officer), and those who have the right to file a complaint (civil plaintiff, victim (victim), their representatives).
- Side of protection.All its participants have the right to file a complaint about actions / inaction / decisions of bodies and persons carrying out investigative measures or exercising control over their conduct.
- Other participants in criminal proceedings. These include, for example, specialists, witnesses, translator, experts, witnesses. The ability to file a complaint for these individuals is enshrined in Art. 56-60 Code of Criminal Procedure.
If the first part of Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is interpreted literally, then an individual has the right to challenge inaction / action / decision. An organization (legal entity), however, can also take this opportunity. This is allowed if she acts as a victim or civil plaintiff. The basis for recognition of a legal entity as such is damage to business reputation or damage to property.
Conclusion
Researchers studying the institute of judicial control note that it has undergone a number of significant changes since its inception to the present. Specialists distinguish several stages of its development:
- Pre-reform time. In the period from 1550 to 1864 the establishment and improvement of the institute took place.
- Reform of the judicial system of the 19th century. This stage lasted until 1917.
- Reform of control bodies 1917-1936
- Soviet time. In the period from 1936 to 1991, control bodies were created and developed according to the Constitution of the USSR.
- New time. From 1992 to 2002, criminal procedural legislation was introduced that enshrined the control powers of the courts.
Currently, the work of the authorities covers a wide range of issues. The main task of the courts in the framework of control is to ensure the observance of the freedoms and rights of participants in proceedings enshrined in the Constitution. Not all citizens are aware of the existence of such a function at the authorities. In this regard, the legislator allows the exercise of control on its own initiative of the court. In fact, this work is the direct responsibility of the authorized authority.
