nazarov-a-d_disser

c) shortfalls and gaps in legislative regulation of criminal law and criminal procedural law –related issues;

d) improper organization of investigative work («working for statistics», «inhuman treatment towards investigators from higher-level administration», «absence of clear scientific organization of investigator`s work, etc.);

e) issues of corruption within investigation;

6. Identify the frequency of omissions made by officials conducting initial inquiries and investigation and the level at which such mistakes get revealed? Use the following scheme(numbers) to identify the frequency (1 – «most frequently» - going down to – 2, 3, 4, 5 и 6 – «the least frequent»):

As a result of self-control of officials conducting initial inquiries and investigation;

function of the prosecution?

а) prosecutor doesn’t have enough of authority when it comes to monitoring the preliminary investigation;

b) significant number of officials of the prosecution office don`t have any experience in preliminary investigation;

c) issues of corruption within activities of the prosecution office;

d) Improper organization of prosecutor`s work («working to obtain higher statistics», «absence of constant interaction with investigators and interrogators», etc.);

e) conduction of the procurator`s powers under conflicting conditions that exist between investigative body and prosecution office;

b) authority to conduct certain investigative activities and full authority to investigate certain type of crimes;

c) right of attendance during investigative activities (inspection, interrogation, particularly – of accused individuals, etc.);

d) authority to request at any time criminal case file for further examination, giving written guidance, also authority to require immediate actions to be taken by investigative bodies to eliminate violations of law;

e) authority to grant investigator`s applications for remand in custody during the trial or to grant the application for the extension of the remand in custody (not submitting the case file to the court in order to obtain the judge`s permission for the remand in custody or the extension of such remand in custody in cases when there is no evidence of required «consent» or «approve» of the prosecutor);

f) authority to dismiss the cases at the pre-trial stage;

g) authority to extend the duration of the preliminary investigation with the right of examination of all the criminal case files;

the departmental control?

а) yes, the prosecutor is able to better ensure the protection of the rights because he doesn`t belong to investigative department;

b) yes, as a rule, the prosecutor is more qualified as a lawyer in comparison to the head of the investigative department;

c) no, since the prosecutor occasionally examines case files during the investigation (mainly the prosecutor`s supervision is done by examination of the copies of all the procedural documents that were submitted by the investigator. On the contrary, the head of the investigative department is able to directly examine criminal case files;

d) departmental control and prosecutor`s supervision are considered to be less effective in comparison with judicial control. Since the court doesn’t belong to the prosecution and exercises control power during the trial with all the parties present, with recording judicial proceedings;

e) all various forms of control and supervision are equally important and effective;

10. What are the reasons, to your mind, that reduce the effectiveness of the departmental control?

а) the head of the investigative body doesn`t have enough of authority to exercise his departmental control power over preliminary investigation; if the answer is yes, then, what are those functions that the head of the investigative body lacks the most?

b) the head of the investigative body doesn`t always have the necessary qualification and knowledge, and experience in departmental control;

c) there is a corruptive issue within the work of the head of the investigative body;

d) improper organization of departmental control («work for the higher statistics (for quantity not for quality)», «solidarity among the staff: which implies, for example, that the investigator and his chief work in the same department» etc.);

e) conduction of departmental control under conflicting conditions between investigative bodies and prosecution office;

347

11.What are the ways to strengthen procedural independence of the investigator?

а) deprive investigators of the local area level (“raion” level) of procedural independence, but remain it in the hands of the investigators of the regional level;

b) limit the procedural independence of the investigators of the local area level in the same way as it has been done to the inquiry officials. Meanwhile remain procedural independence in the hands of investigators of other levels;

c) no need to bring changes into the institute of procedural independence of the investigators;

d) limit the procedural independence of the investigators of all levels in the same way as it has been done to the inquiry officials;

13.What are the reasons that reduce the effectiveness of the judicial control:

а) judges don`t have enough of competency to exercise judicial control over preliminary investigation, but judges need to have enough of authority to exercise such control function:

1. The judge must examine all the evidence, that proves involvement of an individual in criminal activity:

2. The judge must examine all the evidence, that proves the correct crime qualification (description of the crime) that a person has been charged with;

3. The judge must state what actions need to be taken by the investigator, the interrogator, the prosecutor in order to eliminate violations of law;

b) the judges don`t take the judicial control as an important function («when the “doors are closed(secretly)” the decision is made the way faster», giving higher importance to the examination of the case on the merits rather than performing the controlling duties (arrests, etc.));

c) the judges don’t have enough of grounds for making decisions within their judicial control function;

d) the judges proceed from the idea that all the applications and(or) positions of the prosecution are considered to be justified;

e) the judges agree with positions of prosecution, grant their applications only because they don`t want to be suspected of any relations with the suspects, as if there are corruption and bribes involved;

f) shortfalls in legislation regarding judicial control;

14. What is your opinion on creating the position of the judge with investigative functions for performing judicial control at the pre-trial stage:

а) such can be done as the system of judicial bodies, that are considered to be the judicial control instance;

b) such can be done but only in order to provide certain judges with judicial control duties (experienced judges that perform control duties only);

c) there is no need for establishment of such position;

15. If you consider yourself as a supporter of such idea to establish the position of the judge with the investigative function, then what shall be included in the competence of such judges:

а) dealing with issues concerning detention, house arrest, bail;

b) dealing with issues concerning conduction of investigative and other procedural activities that deal with restriction of constitutional rights;

c) responding to complaints, such has to be done in compliance with article 125 of criminal procedural law code of Russian Federation;

d) conduction of interrogation at the pre-trial stage in order to obtain evidence that will be submitted to the Court of the 1`st instance;

e) dealing with issues regarding preparation for the trial or preliminary hearing;

16. Do you think that the court, by performing judicial control, should not only examine lawrelated issues, but also factual issues (correctness of crime qualification (description), evidence that proves involvement in the crime activity, etc.):

а) yes, in all cases of judicial control;

b) yes, but only in cases of detention and extension of duration of detention;

c) court doesn`t have to examine factual issues stated above;

17. What are the factors that keep the prosecutor, interrogator, investigator and the judge from applying house custody, bail and other preventive measures to suspects and defendants:

а) seriousness of the offence committed;

b) belief based on experience and intuition that the suspect or defendant will escape from the trial and investigation, or commits a new crime, or will hinder interrogators and investigators from doing their job;

c) belief based on experience and facts that the suspect or defendant will escape from the investigation and the trial or commits a new crime, or will hinder interrogators and investigators from doing their job;

d) trying to avoid personal responsibility for incorrect application of the preventive measure;

e) shortcomings in the control procedure regarding house custody and other preventive measures that are not connected with the isolation from the society;

f) concerns about the chiefs’ suspicion for being involved in bribery, corruption;

18. Do you think that it is necessary to include the provision into the criminal procedural law code of Russia concerning the opportunity to appeal against the decision about involving an individual into the process as an accused. Such appellation can be done within the judicial control to the court:

351

а) yes, but only regarding the law-related issues (determining whether or not that decision was

b) yes, such can be done for both law-related issues and facts-related issues (determining whether or not there were grounds for accusation, the correctness of crime qualification(description));

supervision:

а) yes, because the court doesn`t belong to the prosecution, therefore, it can better ensure the respect for civil rights;

b) yes, because the court makes its decision during the trial in the presence of the parties, and, moreover, there is the recording of the trial protocol, etc.;

c) no, because the courts only formally examine case files within their judicial control function (since the investigators and interrogators submit certified copies of documents), on the contrary, the prosecutor examines the case files in details:

d) both the judicial and the prosecutor`s supervision have low effectiveness in comparison with the departmental control, because the head of the investigative body is able to quickly examine the case files and quickly reverse unjust, illegal actions, decisions of the investigator;

e) both judicial control and prosecutor`s supervision are of equal effectiveness;

f) all forms of supervision and control are equally important and effective;

20. What is your opinion on revival in Russia of the following institution: the possibility of the court to send the criminal case back in order to conduct additional investigation. Such investigation needs to be done in order to eliminate incompleteness, subjectivity of examination of the facts related to the criminal case:

а) there should be the revival of such institution;

b) there is no need for the revival of such institution;

c) in fact such situation occurs in cases when the court sends the criminal case back to the prosecutor to eliminate some issues, after that the prosecutor returns the case files to the investigator to conduct the additional investigation;

21. What are the reasons that keep the investigators, interrogators from dismissing the cases, when there are grounds for such dismissal such as reconciliation with the victim, defendant remorse:

а) the criminal justice can only be administered by the courts:

b) sending the case to the court implies better and more effective work rather than dismissing the case. Moreover, in cases of dismissal the head of the investigative bodies will be asking about the reasons for such dismissal;

22. Do you think it is possible to appoint a prosecutor that will be responsible for the supervision during the investigation of the case and will be prosecuting during the trial?

а) yes, such is justified for all the categories of offences;

b) yes, such is justified but only for a certain category of offences (complicated, «well-known cases» etc.);