The principle of independence of judges is captured in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation relatively recently, yet, as the scientists claim, the formal formulation of the judge independence principle bears a generalized and «diluted» character and does not disclose the essence of the principle. The author carries out the study of the notion «independence», as well raises the issue of correlation of the notions «independence» and «self-efficiency» and of correctness of using these notions in regard to the court, in general, and to judges, in particular, because the RF legislation does contain the statements referring to self-efficiency and independence of the court and judges but gives no answer to the issue of their delimitation. The article is devoted to studying the legislation and scientists positions concerning the correlation and application of the notions « independence» and «self-efficiency» to the court and judges, expresses the authors position, offers the criteria of delimitation of the notion under consideration.

Дается оценка основных тенденций развития современной уголовно-процессуальной политики через призму ее соответствия провозглашенному в ст. 2 Конституции РФ приоритету прав и свобод личности и закреплению их в качестве высшей ценности. Авторы останавливаются на особенностях развития уголовно-процессуального регулирования таких вопросов, как недопустимость поворота к худшему, а также на изменениях законодательства в части реформирования действующей судебной системы, а именно-судов общей юрисдикции и инстанционного характера их деятельности. В результате проведенного исследования формулируются выводы о том, что как в первоначальной редакции УПК РФ, так и в ныне действующей прослеживается формальное соответствие процессуальной формы Конституции РФ. Однако приоритет публичного начала и публичного интереса не позволяет в должной мере обеспечить фактическое соблюдение прав личности в сфере уголовного преследования.

The article is devoted to the problematic issues of implementing the principle of equality of citizens in the regulations of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation on life imprisonment. In particular, the authors consider the existence of gender discrimination against men in Part 2 of Article 57 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which includes a legislative ban on sentencing all women to life imprisonment. A comprehensive study of this aspect is conducted. The rules of law that confirm the principle of equality of citizens and prohibit discrimination are analyzed. Researchers’ opinions on the presence (absence) of discrimination against men are revealed. The legal position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the European Court of Human Rights with regard to the rule of not sentencing women to life imprisonment, which violates the principle of equality of citizens, and prohibition of discrimination is considered. The authors’ position concerning the problem of the actual application of life imprisonment to men aged 18–64 years and ways to solve it are offered.

Compulsory measures of a medical nature are regulated by both criminal, procedural and penal legislation, though not to the full extent. In particular, many problems arise immediately after a court decision has been made in relation to a person who has committed a crime in a state of insanity, as well as on the appointment of these measures, and at the stage of a court decision execution. First of all, it is necessary to note the problem of the legal regime for the application of a preventive measure in the form of taking into and keeping in custody, as well as other procedural coercion measures when the decision on the appointment of compulsory medical measures to persons awaiting referral to a medical organization has been made. The application of compulsory procedural measures to the mentally ill seems unreasonable, bearing in mind the purposes of compulsory medical measures, non-counting the time of compulsory medical measures within the term of imprisonment, loss of the indictment period due to the termination of the criminal case. The application of procedural coercion by courts after the termination of a criminal case and appointment of compulsory medical measures against the persons waiting to be sent to a medical institution appear out of the objective need to control the behavior of such persons for a certain period. In this regard, there appears a problem of a time interval between a decision on the appointment of compulsory medical measures and the date when the person is delivered to the medical institution. It seems possible to solve this problem, if we eliminate the 5-day period when a copy of the court resolution is sent to the medical institution and make it possible for a medical institution to make a decision on accepting and treatment of the person in absentia. Another important problem is a competent authority to ensure the delivery of people for compulsory treatment. In practice, due to the incorrect application of the criminal procedure law, there is no clear idea of who should bring a person for compulsory treatment. Meanwhile, since compulsory medical measures are aimed at curing, improving the mental state of mentally ill people as well as preventing them from committing new crimes, health authorities seem to be the most suitable for this role. It seems possible to authorize the security service of psychiatric hospitals operating on the basis of the Federal Law “On ensuring the protection of psychiatric hospitals (hospitals) of a specialized type with intensive supervision” to deliver such persons to medical institutions, without involving criminal procedural forces and means, which seems to take into account the status and mental health of the persons as well as their rights and freedoms.

No abstract