2 Московский государственный юридический университет им. О.Е. Кутафина (МГЮА), г. Москва, Российская Федерация 3 Российский университет дружбы народов, г. Москва, Российская Федерация Информация о статье Дата поступления 10 декабря 2017 г. Дата принятия в печать 25 мая 2018 г. Дата онлайн-размещения 18 июня 2018 г. Ключевые слова Судебная защита; право на обжалование; суд присяжных; оглашение приговора; гласность; апелляционное производство; председатель Верховного Суда РФ; Уполномоченный по правам человека в РФАннотация. Оценка направлений дальнейшего развития механизмов судебной защиты в соответствии с конституционно-правовыми и международно-правовыми стандартами осуществляется авторами статьи через призму анализа законопроектов в области уголовного судопроизводства и реформы судебной системы РФ. Обоснован вывод о недопустимости ограничения права на судебное обжалование действий (бездействия) и решений органов предварительного расследования и прокурора путем введения обязательного предварительного рассмотрения таких жалоб руководителем следственного органа или прокурором в порядке, установленном ст. 124 УПК РФ. Критическому анализу подвергнут законопроект об оглашении только вводной и резолютивной части приговора по всем уголовным делам: реализация данного предложения существенно ограничит гласность уголовного судопроизводства и право обвиняемого и его защитника на обжалование приговора. Выявлены недостатки законопроекта, предполагающего упрощение процедуры рассмотрения апелляционных жалоб (представлений) на промежуточные решения, поскольку ликвидация судебного следствия повлечет ограничение действия принципа состязательности на стадии производства в суде апелляционной инстанции. Показано, что проводимая в настоящее время реформа производства в суде присяжных осуществляется в направлении усиления и усовершенствования механизма судебной защиты. Обобщены современные исследования, в которых сделан вывод, что хотя отдельные параметры эффективности деятельности коллегии присяжных заседателей могут меняться в зависимости от численного состава последних, однако в целом меньшее или большее число присяжных не оказывает решающего влияния на качество вердикта. Показаны положительные перспективы наделения председателя Верховного Суда РФ правом инициирования надзорного производства по уголовным делам, а также закрепления в УПК РФ права Уполномоченного по правам человека в РФ заявлять кассационные и надзорные ходатайства. Проведенный анализ законопроектов позволил авторам оценить направления совершенствования механизма судебной защиты в уголовном судопроизводстве РФ применительно к каждому из двух «измерений» судебной защиты -институциональному и функциональному.Abstract. Evaluation of the trends of judicial protection's development in accordance with constitutional and international legal standards is carried out through the prism of analyzing draft laws regulating court procedures and the reform of Russian court system. The

No abstract

The prerequisites for the research were formed by a complex collision between the legal nature of proceedings in the jury court and the standard sanitary and epidemiological restrictions. This collision was revealed in the course of the theoretical treatment of administration of justice in the pandemic period. The primary stage of judicial proceedings involving the participation of the jury was highlighted by the authors as a subject of the research – formation of the trial jury, where the said collision appears to be especially acute. The purpose of the study was to search for possible solutions to this collision; the objective – verification of the hypothesis stating that the pandemic situation has engendered a significant modification of the procedural form of trial jury selection. To resolve this problem, the normative approach, along with the method of legal comparative studies, was used: the criminal procedure legislation and the practice of its enforcement in the Russian Federation and a number of foreign countries was analysed. General logical methods were used: analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, abstraction and progression from the abstract to the concrete, etc. The result of the research is the identification of special approaches in the Russian and foreign models of court proceedings involving the participation of the jury, reflecting the intention to adjust the procedure of trial jury formation to the pandemic period requirements: telecommuted formation of the trial jury in full or in part; replacing verbal questioning of candidates to the jury with a written questionnaire; extending the questioning of jury candidates through the inclusion of specific issues concerning the epidemiological situation. The hypothesis proposed in the publication was confirmed, in particular, relative to the Russian court proceedings with the participation of the jury.

Using authentical law enforcement acts of Russian courts issued in 1912, 1918 and 1947, the paper illustrates the change in approaches in criminal procedural legislation to the form and content of a court decision (a sentence), the peculiarities of its introductory, descriptive-rationale and operative parts. Particular attention is paid to the differences substantiated by the principles of legal proceedings, the circle of participants, the stage structure of the process and other fundamental features of the criminal procedure of a particular historical period. The paper elucidates that the presentation in the narrative part of the verdict of the full text of the jury’s decision and the jury’s responses constitutes the specifics of the decisions reached by the jury in the post-reform period. It is noted that limited data on the personality of the criminal in comparison with the later stages is provided. It is shown that the defendant’s sanity determination was assigned to the jury, rather than to the presiding judge. The indication in the jury’s decision of two dates—the date of the jury’s decision pronouncement by the court and the date of public announcement—was pre-conditioned by the procedure for calculating the term assigned to appeal the verdict. Two sentences from the Soviet period illustrate the change in the size of the panel of the court and the way in which citizens participated in the administration of justice. The author highlights the lack of analysis of evidence in Russian sentences up to 1934. The paper provides for the assessment of the specified features of the court decisions. The author concludes that it is necessary to establish guarantees for the issuance of legal, reasonable and fair sentences, including sentences in reduced proceedings.

The article is devoted to integrated research of key milestones of criminological and criminal procedure aspects of knowing the personality of the defendant and to the identification of the existing problem of harmonizing these types of cognitive activities in the administration of justice. The authors stress the differences between the criminological and the criminal procedure interpretations of the personality of the defendant, which are also manifested in the interpretation of its structure. It is shown that the factor integrating the knowledge of the personality of the defendant during judicial proceedings is the inseparable unity of this knowledge with the process of proving. The limits of knowing the personality of the defendant in criminal proceedings are directly dependent on forms of knowing and vary under the influence of their differentiation. The article presents three levels of knowing the personality of the defendant in justice in the criminological and criminal procedure aspects: extended (proceedings in cases of minors and cases on using compulsory medical measures); ordinary (cases prosecuted in general and special procedures); differentiated (cases tried by juries). It is pointed out that the personality of the criminal is most thoroughly examined at the extended and ordinary levels of knowing, which is caused by the contents of the general and the special objects of proof, as well as the absence of any legislative limitations on the objects and means of proving the above-mentioned circumstances. Most problems connected with the limits of knowing the personality of the criminal arise when a case is tried by a jury, which is caused by the bifurcation of the object of this study on the conducted inquiry with or without the participation of the jury. Having chosen the substantive approach to solving this problem, the legislators identified the limits of knowing the personality of the defendant with the limits of the sphere (object) of the cognitive competence of jurors, and other information on the personality of the defendant is studied after the verdict. The authors analyze the problems of correlation between the criminological and criminal procedure aspects of knowing the personality of the defendant in trials by jury: the effectiveness of a substantive limitation of studying personal characteristics of the defendant by jurors and the opportunity to examine the facts pointing at the insanity of the defendant with the participation of jurors. The authors also describe the specific features of examining the personality of the defendant in the USA and in Austria. They conclude that it is necessary to widen the scope of examining the personality of the defendant in trials by jury.