Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Crime and Criminal Law » Comparative Criminal Law and Enforcement: Russia - Criminal Procedure, The Criminal Investigation, Fair Trial And Independent Judiciary, The Admissibility Of Evidence

Comparative Criminal Law and Enforcement: Russia - The Criminal Investigation

detention procuracy suspects procurator

The criminal investigation in serious cases is divided into two stages: an informal inquest (doznanie), performed by the police (militsiia), and a formal preliminary investigation ( predvaritel'noe sledstviia), usually conducted by a legally trained investigator (sledovatel') who works for the Ministry of Internal Affairs but is subordinate to the procuracy. Less serious cases are investigated by the police and their reports are submitted in writing directly to the courts, bypassing the formal preliminary investigation. The investigator's role is similar to that of investigating magistrates in France or Spain, who are, however, part of the judiciary. The modern European trend, however, is to entrust the public prosecutor with the formal criminal investigation, this change having been made in Germany in 1974 and Italy in 1988.

The activity of the police during the inquest is supposed to be limited to arresting suspects, securing the crime scene, and taking initial statements from available suspects and witnesses. The police should inform the procuracy within twenty-four hours of the arrest of a suspect and the case should then be turned over to the investigator who decides whether to initiate a formal criminal investigation. The investigator's actions are limited by strict rules of evidence-gathering laid down in the CCP. All investigative acts are meticulously documented in writing and collected in an investigative dossier that follows the case into the courts and serves as a repository for vital evidence during trial and appeal. The procurator has forty-eight hours after notification to either issue an order of preventive detention or release the suspect.

Most suspects against whom a preliminary investigation is initiated remain in custody in preventive detention facilities until trial. Although the maximum time for pretrial detention is fixed at two months, many extensions are available up to a maximum of eighteen months. Detention is authorized if there is fear the defendant will not appear for trial, will destroy evidence, commit more crimes, or just because of the seriousness of the offense. A Special Rapporteur for the United Nations has found that Russia's eighteen-month limit on pretrial detention violates Article 9(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and that the rate of detention is excessive (from 30 to 50 percent of persons facing at least one-year imprisonment). The figure in France, for comparison, is around 10 percent. The population in Russia's preventive detention centers rose from 238,000 in 1994 to about 300,000 in 1999.

Article 22(2) of the Constitution states that deprivation of liberty, including preventive detention, is only possible with a "judicial decision" and that such decision must be taken within forty-eight hours of arrest. Unfortunately, the Russian legislature has never enacted legislation implementing this constitutional protection. A halfway measure was enacted on 23 May 1992, which provided for the first time in modern Russian history a mechanism to appeal the procurator's decision on preventive detention to the courts. A detained person's petition for release must be conveyed to the court and procurator within twenty-four hours. Documents relevant for the decision of the case must be transferred to the court within an additional twenty-four hours (Art. 220.1 CCP). The judge must then decide the issue within three days of receiving the aforesaid documents (Art. 220.2 CCP). Although judges began granting such motions for release, officials of the procuracy and the Ministry of the Interior, which controls the police and prisoner transport, flouted the law and often refused to produce the prisoner or the papers required to decide the issue within the statutory time limit. They would also often re-arrest persons released by judges before they could leave the courtroom. On 14 June 1994, President Yeltsin himself violated the Constitution by issuing an edict on "immediate measures to defend the population from banditry and other manifestations of organized crime" that allowed detention of suspects for up to thirty days without charges.

To protect suspects against being coerced to confess to crimes, a recurrent problem in Soviet times, a constitutional right to counsel from the moment of arrest or detention was introduced (Art. 48(2) Const. RF). In addition, Article 51 of the Constitution guarantees the right not to testify against oneself, and the Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the police, procurator, or investigator must advise a suspect of the right to remain silent and of the right to counsel before commencing an interrogation. Counsel will be appointed for the indigent. Unfortunately the police routinely coerce suspects into "waiving" their right to counsel. Even where investigators try to supply a suspect with appointed counsel, lawyers sometimes refuse to represent indigent defendants because of the low pay for court-appointed lawyers. If suspects refuse to give a statement they are often tortured. There have been estimates that around 40 percent or higher of all suspects are tortured, usually through beating, but also by asphyxiation or electric shock. Police give other inmates in the pretrial detention facilities special privileges to beat, rape, or otherwise force suspects into confessing. Just the veiled threat of torture induces suspects to confess, even sometimes to crimes they did not commit.

Article 23(2) of the Constitution requires a judicial decision for any invasions of the right to privacy in one's writings, telephone conversations, and postal or telegraphic communications, and Article 24 requires a judicial decision for invasions of the home. Despite this and comparable provisions in the European Convention of Human Rights, such searches and seizures may still be authorized by the procurator alone. To prevent crimes the 1995 Law on Operational Investigative Activities has also given the police broader powers than those enumerated in the CCP to engage in both open and secret investigative activities. The law includes provisions dealing with wiretapping, electronic interception of conversations, controlled deliveries and the use of undercover informants but lacks adequate guidelines for issuance of warrants, or notifying targets of the measures after they have been undertaken. Russia's failure to eliminate the procurator's power to authorize invasions of constitutionally protected citizens' rights, a power recognized as belonging exclusively to a judge in modern human rights documents, can be attributed to the procuracy's staunch opposition to all reforms aimed at undermining its power.

Created by Peter the Great in 1722, the procuracy came to be known as the "eye of the emperor" due to its exercise of oversight over all judicial and administrative bodies. Although the procuracy was stripped of these "supervisory" functions pursuant to the reforms of 1864, and restricted for the most part to the prosecution of criminal cases, the Bolsheviks resurrected the pre-1864 model of the procuracy in 1922, vesting it again with general powers to supervise the legality of acts of administrative officials and the courts. The Soviet procuracy was undoubtedly the most powerful institution in the administration of justice. When citizens complained of a violation of their rights, their remedy, ironically, was to appeal to the procurator, not a court, at a time when the procuracy itself was working closely with the Committee of State Security (KGB) in investigating, arresting, and prosecuting dissidents. The only success reformers have had in limiting the institutional power of the procuracy was the elimination of its oversight of the courts, which was accomplished by the Law on the Procuracy passed by the Supreme Soviet on 17 January 1992.

When the investigator determines that there is sufficient evidence to hold the accused to answer for trial he prepares an accusatory pleading and forwards it to the procurator for review. The accused and his counsel have, at this point, the right to full discovery of the entire contents of the investigative dossier. The procurator may dismiss the case, amend the pleading, or forward the case to the court for trial.

Comparative Criminal Law and Enforcement: Russia - Fair Trial And Independent Judiciary [next] [back] Comparative Criminal Law and Enforcement: Russia - Criminal Procedure

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

about 2 years ago

Pleasde see my blog

Promote Innocence not Lust
May you have an endearing and innocent Christmas, one that is absent of the corrupt vision and mission of Mr Gay World. All day I hear what you don’t think I hear, All day I hear please constitute s*x n with minors? All day I hear we rule the world, John Louis O Neil, Coenie Kukkuk and Werner Preller? All day I hear you will be torn down, all day I hear I should become Coenie’s lapdog and John”s boyfriend. All Day I hear they want to rule the German Empire and turn South Africa into s*exual deviance found by Telkom, rudirainbow@telkomsa.net. Apart from my sound trying to invite sin, lust, vanity and immoral principles into my frame of mind it is also manipulated into advertising that sounds kind when it is in reality inhumane. The gay community who are known to have a kind heart will have convulsions when they hear how they get embarrassed by the previous mentioned gay monopoly, this show by their direction does not even promote equality and relationship values as they are there to make money from s*x and not promote relationship values? Even the show I promoted with many technological issues to recreate a more classy experience they will fill with falsified content that includes dr*gs as well as illegal corruption and s*x with minors, however explained is a guise of what Kukkuk and O Neil want to create? Where will there be investment of our youth be if their malicious intent is further allowed? I proposed that Walt Disney come to South Africa as the funds that are being created is not well spent and promoted social responsibility and bursaries? Coenie wants Disney here for illegal s*x? I also imagined if I was allowed any control over the production that children see a Walt Disney show. Our lifestyle to have a pure after five and after nine policy to keep things polished if we are forced to be on show which we don’t. Their involuntarily substances given contradicts their movement. Please propose that the United Kingdom and America support the original Horaks to own the Mr Gay World brand that will engineer greater morals, values and beliefs that are seen and experienced by the youth, which I’m sure an enigma like David Cameron will support as well Anglo American community who have children here. The gay monopoly have made many ties with Germany as well had Australia who have suffered the same losses in proportion to their youths future and s*xual harassment that happens by them with (involuntarily dr*gs) cannabis mixed with seeds as well as abusing intelligence (non ID) and pre Geneva convention. I propose that Switzerland force the full exposure of every show content of the Mr Gay world brand to expose an over liberal movement to force a s*xual movement and stop a company guilty of the ultimate extortion, emotional abuse and suppression, a complete defiance of human rights. I plead for the gay community to see their dark deceit and support my and Eduard’s reconciliation as neither of us want to be in this compromising position, will always regret it and have repulsion and have lost what neither money can buy seeing we don’t get paid or will never regain what we have lost. None of my family and the Horaks know the financial capacity the corrupt directors own.