nazarov-a-d_disser
.pdf143
The subjects of self-scrutiny, as well as the court adjudicating the case on the merits, are not special subjects, although in some cases they eliminate their own mistakes.
Other not unimportant participants of error eliminating activities are defense lawyers and legal representatives. However, they may not be considered special subjects.
4. Special methods of co-organization of subjects’ activities.
All special subjects error eliminating activities are in coordination and subordination relations, expressed in their procedural interaction. In addition, appropriate error elimination mechanisms are arranged in a certain sequence reflecting the controlling character of the stage (or phase) with respect to the preceding stage (or phase).
5. Special goal.
The specialized criminal procedural mechanism for dealing with errors allows us to say that criminal proceedings are not only criminal procedural activities aimed at detection and investigation of crimes, just accusation and punishment of the guilty and rehabilitation of the innocent. It is also a criminal procedure for identifying, correcting and preventing investigative and judicial errors. Accordingly, this activity is correspondent to the special goal of criminal proceedings, i.e. the elimination of investigative and judicial errors.
Thus, we believe it important, along with classically defined in the theory of criminal procedural law goals of criminal proceedings (defining the truth in the case, protection of crime victims, accusation and just punishment of the guilty, rehabilitation of the innocent, general and special prevention, etc.), to talk about the special goal mentioned above, i.e. the identification, correction, prevention of investigative and judicial errors.
To conclude, criminal-procedural mechanism of dealing with investigative and judicial errors is taken the integrated system of the above components, each of which on its own and they all together are necessary for achieving the purpose of criminal proceedings and compliance with its principle of legality.
In our opinion, it is necessary to define two main mechanisms, specifically addressing the error elimination, and two accessorial mechanisms, not specifically predesignated for, but facilitating error elimination.
The main mechanisms:
a)the mechanism of control and supervisory activities of error elimination at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings, and
b)judicial mechanism of error elimination.
The accessorial mechanisms:
a) self-scrutiny mechanism associated with the adoption of procedural decisions and assessing the admissibility of evidence in the activities of authoritative subjects, and
144
b) the mechanism of facilitation to error elimination on the part of the defense lawyer and other subjects without authority.
The mechanism of control and supervisory activities for error elimination at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings includes judicial review, the prosecutor's supervision and institutional control.
The judicial mechanism of error elimination consists of judicial review of the criminal case and judicial supervision.
The judicial review of the criminal case comprises adjudicating the case and its resolution on the merits in the court of the first instance and appeal instance. Moreover, judicial examination in the trial court does not have a specifically defined (assigned) goal of eliminating errors meaningfully defining and co-organizing all activities at this stage of proceedings (although objectively supposing identifying, correcting and preventing errors).
Judicial supervision is a review by higher courts of judgments of lower courts under cassation procedure, supervisory procedure (judicial inspection), with the higher court providing clarifying directives to lower courts and other law enforcers on the issues of criminal proceedings.
Accessorial mechanisms (though they are essential) are sort of ‘embedded’ in the criminal procedural activity in general and may therefore only be considered as conditions facilitating the normal conduct of criminal proceedings through inner self-scrutiny (self-test) or external participation (assistance), including in the framework of basic mechanisms.
For the purposes of this research, the main attention in the following chapters is given to examining the mechanism of control and supervisory activities and judicial mechanism of eliminating errors.
145
CHAPER 3. THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE MECHANISM OF ELIMINATING
ERRORS AT THE STAGE OF PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
The theory and practice conventionally considers the control and supervisory activity of the prosecutor, the judge, the head of the investigative agency, the head of the inquiry unit and the head of the inquiry agency to be one of the main instruments in the detection, prevention and correction of errors at pretrial stages268.
This activity includes the procedural mechanism (organization) of judicial review, prosecutorial supervision and institutional control, as well as certain (non-procedural) organizational and managerial aspects of the control and supervision activity.
The mechanism of the control and supervisory activity of the elimination of investigative errors in Russian pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases is quite different from similar arrangements in other countries, resulting in:
-the distribution among the judiciary, the prosecuting authorities and the bodies of inquiry and investigation of control-supervisory powers functionally uniform for each of these authorities: in judicial review, the prosecutor's supervision and institutional (basically, interdepartmental) control, respectively;
-interdependence and complementarity of judicial review, prosecutorial supervision and institutional control (functionally and substantively);
-procedural independence of control-supervisory authority: complete independence for the court, relatively complete for the prosecution and investigation bodies, restricted for the inquiry agencies.
The specificity of this mechanism is determined by the technical features of the organization (which is continental as to its historical form) of Russian pre-trial proceedings as a whole. In contrast to the German type of such organization, Russian pre-trial proceedings do not have the prosecutorial sovereignty over the investigation and is characterized by the separation of functions between the inquiry and the preliminary investigation, the prosecutor's supervision over the whole investigation and the prosecutor's sovereign guidance only of the inquiry. In contrast to the French type, they do not have judicial preliminary investigation, which is structured on the principle of instances (with no prosecutorial control and almost complete absence of external judicial control). So, there is every reason to talk about the Russian form of pre-trial proceedings and, consequently, of the specific Russian error elimination mechanism corresponding thereto,
268 The author mainly studies the mechanism of control and supervisory activities of the preliminary investigation stage, although in some ways he refers to the functioning of this mechanism at the stage of a criminal case as well: the overall effect of this mechanism at both these steps is identical.
146
which should be developed in the framework of the three models: "dynamic judicial control", "permanent prosecutor's supervision" and "heteropolar institutional control".
§1. Judicial review in the mechanism of error elimination
On the whole, Russian criminal proceedings are structured in accordance with the continental model, which is characterized by two types of preliminary investigation organization
– ‘French’ and ‘German’. The former is defined as the judicial model of the preliminary investigation organization when the investigating judge (having a status of the judge) carries out complete preliminary investigation. The latter is the police-prosecutorial organization of the preliminary investigation with the police conducting the investigating under the strict supervision of the prosecutor and the judge only performs the judicial review269.
The institute of judicial review is extensively presented in the Concept of the judicial reform in Russia270 and it received sufficient presentation in the Model Criminal Procedure Code for the CIS countries271.
The issues of judicial review in criminal cases has received serious consideration in the studies conducted by N.A. Kolokolov, N.I. Gazetdinov, N.G. Muratova, N.N. Kovtun, A.P. Guskov, V.A. Azarov, I.Y. Tarichko, T.Z. Zinatullin, I.S. Dikarev, O.V. Himicheva, etc.272.
269For more detail see: The course of criminal proceedings / ed. Doctor of Jur. Sc., Professor L.V. Golovko. M.: Statut, 2016. P.184–191.
270The concept of judicial reform in the Russian Federation / Comp. S.A. Pashin. M.: The Republic, 1992. pp. 91–92.
271Glavyuk I. International model regulation of judicial review function in pre–trial criminal proceeding. Access from reference legal system ‘Consultant Plus’.
272Sviridov M.K. Correlation between the functions of resolution of criminal cases and judicial control in court activities // Legal issues of strengthening Russian statehood: Coll. Art. / Ed. Y.K. Yakimovich. Tomsk: Publishing house of Tomsk University, 2001. Vol. 7. P.3–6; Sviridov M.K. The nature of the judicial control over preliminary investigation // Bulletin of Tom. Univ. Tomsk, 2008. №311. P.119–122; Trubnikova T.V. Judicial review at the pre– trial stages of judicial proceedings: the legal nature and place in the criminal proceedings system // Bulletin of Tom. State. Univ. Ser. Economy. Jurisprudence. Annex: Materials of scientific conferences, workshops, schools held at TSU. Tomsk, 2003. №4. Pp. 49–51; Kolokolov N.A. On law, the court and justice: Sel. M., 2006; Judicial review in criminal proceedings: textbook for university students enrolled in the specialty ‘Jurisprudence’ / [I.A. Davydov et al.]; ed. N.A. Kolokolov. 2nd ed., rev. and ext. M.: UNITY–DANA: Legislation and Law, 2009. 847 p.; Gazetdinov N.I. On the relationship between the concepts of judicial review, judicial supervision and justice. Access from reference legal system ‘Consultant Plus’; Muratova N.G. Judicial control in criminal proceedings: issues of theory, legislation and practice. Kazan, 2004; Muratova N.G. Loopholes in the legislative model of judicial control in criminal judicial proceedings // The X anniversary International research and practice conference ‘Tatishevskiy readings: current issues of science and practice’ Proceedings (April 18–21, 2013). ch.III. Togliatti, Volzhsky University n. Tatischev, 2013. P.230–237; Kovtun N.N. Judicial review in the criminal proceedings of Russia. Nizhniy Novgorod, 2002; Guskova A.P. Procedural–legal and organizational preparation for the hearing in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Orenburg, 2002; Azarov V.A., Tarichko I.Y. Judicial review function in the history, theory and practice of Russian criminal proceedings. Omsk, 2004; Zinatullin T.Z. On the relation between the concepts of ‘case resolution’ and ‘administration of justice’ // Judicial power in Russia: Law, Theory, Practice. M., 2005; Voronin O.V. Prospects for improving existing forms of control over preliminary investigation // Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, and practice: monthly legal journal. 2008. №11. P.19–22; Dikarev I.S. Justice and judicial control in criminal proceedings: the correlation of concepts // State and law. 2008. №2. P.45–51; Himicheva O.V. Conceptual foundations of procedural control and supervision at pretrial stages of criminal proceedings. M., 2004; Kurysheva N.S. The appeal of actions (inaction) and decisions of officials involved in criminal proceedings. M.: Jurlitinform, 2011; Adilshaev E.A. Judicial authorization in the criminal proceedings of Russia. M.: Jurlitinform, 2013; Himicheva O.V., Plotkina Y.B. Application of preventive restrictions at the discretion of the court at the stage of preliminary investigation. M.:
147
The utmost importance of judicial review has been stressed by L.V. Golovko saying that
‘the more developed judicial control is in one country or another, the less chance we have to see any analogues, even distant, of referral the case to further investigation due to substantial violations of the criminal procedural law in the respective procedural system’273.
Judicial review is one of the most debated institutions in criminal proceedings.
Until now the legal literature has not had a uniform point of view on the problem of the relations of prosecutor's supervision and judicial authorization when opting for individual measures of criminal procedure compulsion and conducting some investigation actions. Some scientists see the improvement of the preliminary investigation quality in perfecting the prosecutor's supervision regarding the court activities during preliminary investigation as something unnecessary274. Others, on the contrary, support the exclusion of prosecutorial supervision and strengthening of the court position at the pretrial stages of criminal proceedings275. I.L. Petruhin, being an active supporter of judicial review, believed that the prosecutor's supervision is unnecessary in conjunction with judicial review276.
Most researchers, the author of this work among them, support the necessity of judicial review while maintaining and improving the prosecutor's supervision. A.B. Solovyev, N.A. Yakubovich noted that ‘in itself the idea of judicial review over the compliance with ... the requirements of the law deserves to be supported as being an additional guarantee of legitimacy’277.
The Institute of judicial review in Russia is historically prerequisite and objectively necessary in Russian criminal proceedings278.
If currently the institute of judicial review is addressed from the point of view of its social importance, it should be noted that it is in line with the international practice of judicial authorization of activities related to restricting constitutional rights and freedoms of an individual in criminal proceedings and the judicial procedure for such authorization is democratic and
Jurlitinform, 2012; Khapaev I.V. The custody as a preventive restriction in Russian criminal proceedigns. M.: Jurlitinform, 2013; Zakotyanskaya A.F. Appeal and review of court decisions in the course of pre–trial proceedings. M.: Jurlitinform, 2013; Tsurluy O.Y. Basics of judicial procedure of processing complaints at pretrial stages of criminal proceedings. M.: Jurlitinform, 2013; Sementsov V.A., Avakov O.O. Areas of judicial activity at the pre–trial stages of criminal proceedings. M.: Jurlitinform, 2013 etc.
273Golovko L.V. The origins and prospects of the institute of further investigation of criminal cases in the post–Soviet territory // State and law. 2009. №11. P. 63.
274Kokarev L.D. Three pillars of Justice // Serving the Truth: The scientific heritage of L.D. Kokorev: Coll. Art. Voronezh, 1997, pp. 300–306; Barabash A.S. Prosecutor – the investigating judge // Criminal justice: the connection of times: mater. int. sc. conf. St.Pb., 6–8 October 2010 St.Pb., 2010. P.41–50.
275Kozhevnikov I. To streamline the powers of the investigator // Rus. justice. 1997. № 12. pp. 22 – 24.
276Solovyev A.B. Tokarev M.E., Haliulin A.G. et al. op.cit. P. 67.
277Solovyev A.B., Yakubovich N.A. Preliminary investigation and prosecutor's supervision in the light of the judicial reform // Legitimacy. 1995. № 8. P. 5.
278Kovtun N.N. The genesis of the idea of judicial review in the criminal proceedings of Russia. Access from reference legal system ‘Consultant Plus’.
148
transparent to a greater extent than prosecutorial and departmental procedures (the procedure of the court hearing with the participation of the parties, taking the minutes of the court session, etc.).
The institute of judicial review in Russia has an interesting history of formation and development.
The Law of the RF of 23 May 1992 supplemented the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR with Articles 220–1 and 220–2, which regulated the procedure of appeal to the court and the judicial review of the legality and validity of the arrest, as well as the extension of detention. However, the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the RF of March 23, 1999 №5–P defined these articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF as not complying with the Constitution of the RF as they deprived the persons involved whose constitutional rights had been violated of the right to appeal to the court with respect to actions and decisions of the inquiry agency, the investigator or the prosecutor related to a search, seizure of assets, suspension of proceedings in a criminal case and extension of the preliminary investigation period. And prior to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF coming into force such situations had to be regulated in accordance with the direct effect of the Constitution of the RF.
The introduction of the institute of judicial review into criminal proceedings has, beyond any doubt, been contributing to improving the quality of the preliminary criminal investigation, detection, timely correction and prevention of investigative errors during pretrial proceedings. Moreover, until the early 90s it was only the prosecutor who was, in practice, the only guarantor of the proper enforcement of laws by the inquiry bodies and investigators. He actively interfered with the investigation of criminal cases in order to prevent and eliminate violations of the law.
In our opinion, it is essential to meaningfully define such kinds of judicial activity as
‘judicial review’, ‘judicial inspection’ and ‘judicial supervision’ to avoid confusion within the boundaries of these activities and have certainty in the stages thereof in the administration of justice in criminal cases.
The Criminal Procedure Code of the RF does not set forth the notion ‘judicial supervision’, though virtually it is regulated by detailed procedures for controlling judicial instances (cassation, supervision).
Exercising judicial supervision the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation according to Article 19 of the RF Law on The Judicial System of the Russian Federation gives explanations on issues of court practice which are compulsory for the courts of general jurisdiction, as well as for other law enforcement agencies involved in the criminal proceedings.
Thus, the notion of judicial supervision, in our opinion, includes higher courts’ review of judgments of lower courts per cassation, supervisory procedure (judicial revision), as well as the
149
highest court providing clarifications to lower courts and other law enforcers with regard to criminal proceedings.
It should also be noted that the court, administering justice, performs the judicial inspection279 of the case file during the trial thereof on the merits and per appeal procedure, studies the evidence. Moreover, in the course of such inspection (especially during the trial) it may eliminate errors of the previous stages of criminal proceedings.
The notion of judicial review, in our opinion, is only applicable to the verification activities of the court at the pretrial stages of criminal proceedings and when listing the court session280. Judicial review applies to a relatively limited number of investigative and other procedural actions and is, above all, reduced to the judicial review of the legality and validity of actions affecting the constitutional rights of an individual.
Section 50 Part 1 of Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF (‘the court hearing is a procedural form of justice administration in the course of pre-trial and trial proceedings in a criminal case’) implies that the controlling activity of the court at pre-trial stages in the form of adversarial hearings281 is also the administration of justice in criminal cases.
The legal basis for courts exercising control functions directly at the stage of preliminary investigation in criminal cases is the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The analysis thereof has allowed us to speak about the currently really existing three main types of judicial review at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings282.
For the sake of convenience, we call the first type of review ‘arrest’283, the second –
‘procedural’, the third – ‘the control over complaints’.
The ‘arrest’ control is provided for in Article 22 of the Russian Constitution, which states that the arrest and detention shall be allowed only by court decision.
279Of course, the court inspects the criminal case materials both through judicial review and in the course of judicial supervision (judicial revision). It is worth emphasizing once again that it i important to agree on the terms which would clearly identify: judicial review is court activities at pre–trial stages and in the appointment of the court session, judicial inspection is an activity of the court of the first instance and appellate court, judicial supervision is the court activities at the cassation and supervisory instances.
280It is worth mentioning that there are different views on the definition of the concepts of ‘judicial inspection’, ‘judicial supervision’, and ‘judicial control’ among scientists. For example, V.Z. Lukashevich at his time believed that the judicial control takes place at the stage of committal for trial. See: Lukashevich V.Z. Guarantees of the rights of the accused at the stage of committal for trial. – Leningrad: Leningrad University Publishing House, 1966. P.5.
281Judicial control function at pretrial stages can also be carried out in the form of judicial investigation and other procedural actions.
282It is worth mentioning that the same three types of judicial review were specified by other scientists. See, for example: Voronenkov D.N. Judicial review in the mechanism of separation of powers: monograph / ed. S.A. Komarov. St.Pb.: Publishing house of Jurid. Inst. (Saint–Petersburg), 2007. p.150.
283The author is aware that the term ‘arrest control’ is quite arbitrary, is slang to a certain degree, but this is the term that is perceived by practitioners and it is the best at reflecting the essence of court activities when choosing preventive restriction measures, e.g. detention, house arrest, and even a bail.
150
Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF specifies this form of judicial
review.
The procedure for judicial review of the detention, arrest, prolongation of detention, when the court hearing with the participation of the suspect, the accused, their legal representatives, defense lawyers, and prosecutors, investigates the factual and legal circumstances explaining the application of coercive procedural measures, in principle, allows to timely detect, correct and prevent investigative and even prosecutorial errors associated with the restriction of constitutional rights to freedom and personal inviolability.
From the very first days of its effectiveness, the procedure of judicial review of complaints from the detained, arrested and held in custody has had a number of problems of theoretical and practical importance.
Firstly, did the court, when checking such complaints, have to investigate the facts (evidence) confirming the validity of the arrest, detention, extension of detention or was it sufficient for the court to only check the legality of the procedural registration of coercion measures?
The analysis of articles 220–1, 220–2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF makes it possible to unambiguously conclude that the court was to be submitted all materials confirming the legality and validity of detention, arrest, prolongation of detention, and if necessary, explanations of the person conducting the investigation of case.
Therefore, the judicial inspection of the complaint is not limited to the verification of the procedure of arrest, detention, extension of detention. In practice, the trial elements (subpoena of the individuals concerned, hearing them, decisions on petitions and motions, etc.) were applied to investigate the fact which was the grounds for applying and preserving procedural coercive measures (i.e. the study of certain proof of a criminal offense and the guilt of the arrested, detained, held in custody). This is the study of the evidence for the fact of the crime the alleged detained, arrested was charged with that allowed the court to, professionally and in a timely manner, eliminate investigative errors related to violation of the constitutional right to freedom and inviolability of the person.
A.B. Solovyev, M.E. Tokareva, A.G. Haliulin, N.A. Yakubovich believed that ‘it would be more preferable to have a somewhat different procedure of judicial review which provides verification by the court of the legality and validity of the investigation authorities actions on the basis of documents; yet granting the judge the right, if necessary, to call the suspect (the accused), his legal counsel and representative and the prosecutor for questioning’284.
284 Solovyev A.B. Tokareva M.E., Haliulin A.G. et al., op. cit. P. 52.
151
We believe that the procedure for verification of complaints in accordance with Articles 220–1, 220–2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF was the most acceptable because it is the direct examination of evidence with regard to the election of the coercive procedural measures during the court hearing that provided greater objectivity, completeness, comprehensiveness, in comparison to simple reviewing a complaint submitted on the grounds of the materials provided.
Secondly, the legislator (Article 60 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR) did not provide for the possibility of re-involvement of a judge in the criminal case on the merits, if at the pre-trial stage the judge has verified the legality and validity of the application to the suspect, the accused of arrest, detention, as well as extension of his detention.
The original version of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF contained part 2 which provided for the above grounds for not allowing the judge to participate in the criminal case hearing in the court of the first and subsequent instances. However, this provision was deleted from the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF already adopted by the Federal Law of May 29,
2002 №58-FZ.
There has been an opinion, supported by M.E. Tokareva, that in the above situation it is advisable to speak ‘not about a particular judge but about the whole district, city court whose employees, as members of a single workforce, are linked through certain, not only formal, interpersonal relationships, are to a certain extent jointly responsible for the overall results and may not impartially treat errors of colleagues’285. In fact, M.E. Tokareva supported the idea of an independent institute of investigative judges separated from the system of judges hearing criminal cases on merits.
The legal literature, in particular in the papers of N.A. Kolokolov286, expresses a different point of view that there is no reason to doubt the impartiality of the judge who has adjudicated a complaint in accordance with Article 220–2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF when he will further consider the case on the merits. The argumentation is the fact that the judge, both listing a criminal case for a hearing and hearing it on the merits, has the possibility to elect a preventive restrictive measure of detention for the defendant, but this does not mean that when determining the sentence he will adjudicate a sentence of imprisonment for such defendant.
In our view, the psychology of judicial activity is such that the inner conviction to ‘arrest’ once formed may objectively dominate the judge in deciding on the punishment ‘associating’ it to real imprisonment.
285Tokareva M.E. Current issues of law and prosecutor's supervision at the pre–trial stages of criminal proceedings: dis. for Dr. Jurid. Sciences. M., 1997. P. 57.
286 Kolokolov N.A. Judicial control: some issues of history and modern reality. Kursk, 1996, pp. 77–78.
152
International legal standards of justice and the national legislation, primarily the Constitution of the RF, require that we take into account that judicial review at pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings is now a reality. But there are comments of scientists on the contradictory nature of judicial review (A.K. Sviridov), confusion of procedural functions of investigation and justice (A.D. Boykov), on the fact that the establishment of the investigative committee ‘have put all the public authorities into their inherent places: the court not interfering in the activities of the bodies carrying out the preliminary investigation would be completely free in the exercise of judicial functions; the prosecutor lacking procedural governance function could become an objective supervisor, and then there would be no need to discuss proposals for the introduction of a new procedural figure – the investigating judge, as the powers proposed to be provided to him are in fact the supervisory powers of the prosecutor’ (A.S. Barabash). Moreover, the experience of the Soviet criminal proceedings where the prosecutor, not the court, sanctioned the arrest, search, etc., carried out a comprehensive supervision of the preliminary investigation of criminal cases, was not all negative287.
When implementing judicial review it is very important for the court, the prosecutor to timely recognize and correct erroneous intentions of the inquirer (head of the inquiry unit, the body of inquiry), the investigator (head of the investigative body) arising for various reasons (prosecutorial bias in the investigation of the case, the desire to protect themselves from adverse effects in view of the unpredictability of the behavior of the suspect, the accused, etc.) and entail a decision on the detention of the accused or the extension of detention period.
The Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the RF of December 19, 2013, № 41 ‘On the application by courts of preventive restrictive measures of detention, house arrest and bail’ re-oriented the judicial system on the careful use of the arrest.
Therefore, there is a need to introduce additional procedural safeguards to be applies to the decision of the court on issues relating to the detention of the suspect, the accused and extension of his detention. This is particularly important because, despite the fact that the period of detention of the accused is counted in his term of imprisonment imposed as a punishment, the application of the procedural preventive restrictive measures can not be considered as a form of criminal liability. In accordance with Part 1 of Article 5 of the Criminal Code of the RF, a person is only subject to criminal responsibility for those socially dangerous actions (omissions) and socially dangerous consequences in respect of which his guilt has been proven. Moreover, part 1 of Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation sets forth that everyone charged with a crime is presumed
287 Sviridov M.K. Correlation between the functions of resolution of criminal cases and judicial control in court activities // Legal issues of strengthening Russian statehood. Is.7. Tomsk: TSU, 2001, pp. 5–6; Boykov A.D. The third power in Russia. Book Two – the continuation of reforms. M., 2002. P.32; Barabash A.S. The public origins of Russian criminal proceedign. St.Pb., 2009. P. 71–72.