Introduction: at the present stage of state and law development, the formation of interstate relations of a new format takes place in the context of rather complex and contradictory processes, whose many participants, demonstrating different levels of resistance, become vulnerable to both traditional and new challenges and threats of modern history. One of these threats is extremist activity, which is a real threat to the constitutional order and national security of any state. In recent decades, such phenomena as xenophobia, separatism, religious fanaticism and terrorism, various nationalist sentiments that develop into an active movement and extremism of various etiologies have been actively developed. For Russia, as a multi-ethnic democratic state, these phenomena are particularly dangerous, since they undermine the peaceful coexistence of various ethnic and social groups. In addition, the development of information technologies makes it more accessible to carry out extremist activities among the general population. The social networks are increasingly used by the supporters of terrorism and extremism to conduct active propaganda and vigorous recruitment. In this regard, the authors of the paper set a goal to study the real state of the prosecutor’s supervision over the implementation of laws on countering extremism among migrant workers, as well as to develop new forms of coordinating activities of the prosecutor’s office to prevent and suppress acts of extremist activity in the context of modern political and economic challenges of the modern Russian state and the world as a whole. Methods: the methodological framework for this research is a set of methods of scientific knowledge, among which the main ones are the methods of synthesis, scientific generalization and comparative law analysis. Results: despite giving the Prosecutor General’s Office the power to block the sites containing extremist information and remove direct calls for extremist activity, the issue of combating this phenomenon remains particularly topical. In this regard, the importance of coordinating, organizing and implementing the effective control over countering extremist activities, and improving the activities of the law enforcement agencies headed by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation in the fight against extremism is increasing in every possible way. Conclusions: only joint, well-thought-out and well-coordinated activities, led by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation, will prevent the main threats and minimize the negative impact of extremist activities on all sides, aspects and areas of functional activity of the modern Russian state, which is thus fighting not only extremism in all its manifestations, but also related phenomena, including nationalism, chauvinism, separatism, xenophobia, religious and mono-ethnic fanaticism and terrorism, as the most dangerous form of extremism.

No abstract

No abstract

Introduction: the paper examines the problems of implementing the procedural relationship between the prosecutor and the investigator in the course of judicial control proceedings when applying the measures of procedural coercion in the form of detention. In the doctrine of criminal procedure, there are different positions of processualist scientists on improving the criminal procedure activities of the prosecutor and the investigator at the stage of deciding on applying a measure of restraint in the form of detention. The authors took a keen interest in the lack of a legitimate determination of the prosecutor’s opinion on the validity and legality of the request of the preliminary investigation bodies to choose detention in the course of judicial control proceedings. It is the written opinion of the prosecutor as a form of intervention at the pre-trial stages, especially in the course of judicial control proceedings when investigating the issue of choosing detention that contributes to the court’s taking a legitimate and reasoned decision. In this context, the authors set the goal of finding and improving the efficiency of the procedural model of relations between the prosecutor and the investigator on the issue of resolving a preventive measure in the form of detention in the course of judicial control proceedings. Methods: the methodological framework for the study is a set of methods of scientific cognition, among which the main ones are the methods of cognition, comparative law and historical analysis. Results: the authors analyzed the provisions of the criminal procedure norms of the Soviet period on this issue which helped to identify a number of shortcomings in that period and in the present one, which were inherited from the past. Conclusions: the existing procedural model of interaction between the prosecutor and the investigator in a detailed study of the problem of preventive measures in the form of detention, regulated by the current criminal procedure law, does not correspond to the current state policy in relation to the Russian prosecutor, who acts on behalf of the state at all stages of criminal proceedings. In this regard, the authors, based on the analysis of numerous positions of processalist scientists, as well as the judicial and investigative practice, proposed a procedural model of interaction between the prosecutor and the investigator during the judicial control proceedings, which can be applied in regulating the relationship between the prosecutor and the investigator when considering the issue of applying a measure of restraint in the form of detention.