The Aadversarial Nature of the Criminal Procedure: Problematic Aspects

The relevance of the research is due to the existing contradictions between the theoretical model of adversarial nature and the practice of its implementation in the criminal procedure of Russia. The legislative regulation of this principle does not allow us to say that it is effective in the course of practical activity.
The purpose of the research is to consider the operation of the principle of adversarial nature at various stages of the criminal procedure, as well as the theoretical concepts of its strengthening in the criminal procedure.
The objectives of the research: to conduct a retrospective research of the implementation of the principle of competition in the criminal procedure of Russia, to consider various approaches to the definition of competition, to analyze proposals for strengthening competition in the criminal procedure of Russia.
Methodology. Methodological basis of research is a general scientific dialectical method as a method of scientific knowledge; a systematic approach to the problem, historical method, formal-logical method, etc.
Results. The strengths and weaknesses of the adversarial criminal procedure were identified, the possibility of introducing a lawyer's investigation, reviving the institute of investigative judges, creating a special court apparatus to ensure the independence of judges was considered.
Conclusion. The existing criminal procedure system has long been formed in the conditions of authoritarian state power, which has left its mark on the operation of the principle of competition in the criminal procedure of Russia. Its manifestation to a greater extent at the trial stage is due to the presence only at this stage of an independent subject in the form of a judge, who can provide equal opportunities for the prosecution and the defense to participate in the consideration of a criminal case. In addition, there is no conceptual contradiction to the principle of competition in the fact that the presiding judge can act actively because the law imposes on him responsibility for the justice of the sentence. At the pre-trial stages, there is no such independent body, although it is necessary for the objective establishment of all the circumstances of the incident.

1. Kozyavin A. A., Chistilina D. O. Perspektivy razvitiya vzaimodejstviya institutov grazhdanskogo obshchestva i ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [Prospects for the development of interaction between civil society institutions and criminal procedure]. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Proceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: History and Law, 2015, no. 1, pp. 136–144.

2. Petrakova S. A. Evolyuciya sostyazatel'nosti (na primere ugolovnogo processa) [The evolution of competition (on the example of a criminal proceedings)]. Penitenciarnaya nauka = Penitentiary science, 2019, no. 2, pp. 222–228.

3. Strogovich M. S. Kurs sovetskogo ugolovnogo processa: Osnovnye polozheniya nauki sovetskogo ugolovnogo processa [The course of the Soviet criminal procedure: The main provisions of the science of the Soviet criminal procedure]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1968. Vol. 1. 470 p.

4. Chebotareva I. N. Sredstva i sposoby uchastiya advokata-zashchitnika v dokazyvanii po ugolovnym delam [Means and methods of participation of a defense lawyer in proving criminal cases]. Mirovoj sud'ya = Justice of the Peace, 2011, no. 9, pp. 12–14.

5. Mal'cagov I. D., Saidov M. H. Problems of the adversarial principle in criminal proceedings. Zakon i pravo = Law and law, 2020, no.11, pp. 139–141.

6. Martynchik E.G. Advokatskoe rassledovanie v ugolovnom processe. Teoretikometodologicheskie osnovy doktriny advokatskogo rassledovaniya [Lawyer investigation in criminal proceedings. Theoretical and methodological foundations of the doctrine of lawyer investigation]. Moscow, Yurist Publ., 2009. 257 p.

7. Ryabinina U. S., Chernikova E. A. Problemy principa sostyazatel'nosti v ugolovnom processe [Problems of the adversarial principle in criminal proceedings]. Probely v rossijskom zakonodatel'stve = Gaps in Russian legislation, 2016, no. 7, pp. 187–189.

8. Orlov Yu. K. Sostyazatel'noe sudoproizvodstvo i koncepciya yuridicheskoj istiny [Adversarial proceedings and the concept of legal truth]. Vestnik Volgogradskoj akademii MVD Rossii = Bulletin of the Volgograd Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2016, no. 2(37), pp. 10–15.

9. Nasonov S. A. Aktual'nye problemy sudebnogo sledstviya v sude prisyazhnyh i podhody k ih razresheniyu [Actual problems of judicial investigation in the jury trial and approaches to their resolution]. Aktual'nye problemy rossijskogo prava = Actual problems of Russian law, 2014, no. 7, pp. 1468–1473.

10. Shejfer S. A. Trebuyut li princip sostyazatel'nosti i polozheniya ch. 3 st. 86 UPK sozdaniya novoj teorii dokazatel'stv? [Do the adversarial principle and the provisions of Part 3 of Article 86 of the CPC require the creation of a new theory of evidence?]. Aktual'nye problemy sovremennogo ugolovnogo processa Rossii. Mezhvuzovskij sbornik nauchnyh statej [Actual problems of the modern criminal process in Russia. Interuniversity collection of scientific articles]; ed. by V. A. Lazareva. Samara, Samara St. Univ. Publ., 2007, pp. 14–22.

11. Doroshkov V. V. Mirovozzrencheskie podhody k sostyazatel'nosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Ideological approaches to competition in criminal proceedings]. Mirovoj sud'ya = Justice of the Peace, 2019, no. 7, pp. 3–11.

12. Baranov A. M. Sostyazatel'nost' v rossijskom ugolovnom processe: zhelaemoe i dejstvitel'nost' [Adversarial nature in Russian criminal proceedings: wishful thinking and reality]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Right, 2019, no. 34, pp. 44–52.

13. Shumilova L. F. Principy sostyazatel'nosti i ob"ektivnoj istiny kak fundamental'nye nachala pravoprimenitel'noj praktiki [Principy sostyazatel'nosti i ob"ektivnoj istiny kak fundamental'nye nachala pravoprimenitel'noj praktiki]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2005, no. 11, pp. 55.

14. Shamsutdinov R. K. Sostyazatel'nost' storon v ugolovnom processe – osnova pravosudiya [Principles of competition and objective truth as fundamental principles of law enforcement practice]. Vestnik Ufimskogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii = Bulletin of the Ufa Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 2013, no. 2, pp. 25–29.

15. Yunoshev S. V. O sootnoshenii prava obvinyaemogo na kvalificirovannuyu yuridicheskuyu pomoshch' i prava na zashchitu [On the relationship between the right of the accused to qualified legal assistance and the right to defense]. Vektor nauki Tol'yattinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Yuridicheskie nauki = Vector of science of Togliatti State University. Series: Legal Sciences, 2018, no. 2 (33), pp. 52–56.

16. Ryabinina T. K. Vzglyady Z. Z. Zinatullina na problemy otpravleniya pravosudiya i funkcij suda v razlichnyh stadiyah ugolovnogo processa [Z. Z. Zinatullin's views on the problems of the administration of justice and the functions of the court at various stages of the criminal proceedings]. Vestnik Udmurtskogo universiteta. Seriya: Ekonomika i pravo = Bulletin of the Udmurt University. Economics and Law Series, 2018, no. 1, pp. 144–149.

17. Sviridov M. K. Zadacha ustanovleniya istiny i sredstva ee dostizheniya v ugolovnom processe [The task of establishing the truth and the means to achieve it in criminal proceedings]. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Pravo = Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Right, 2013, no. 2 (8), pp. 101–106.

18. Lucenko P. A. Formy realizacii sudebnoj vlasti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve v kontekste processual'nogo statusa suda kak uchastnika ugolovnogo processa [Forms of the exercise of judicial power in criminal proceedings in the context of the procedural status of the court as a participant in criminal proceedings]. Penitenciarnaya nauka = Penitentiary science, 2019, no. 3, pp. 376–385.

19. Maslova M. V. Sudebnoe sledstvie i deyatel'nost' zashchitnika po dokazyvaniyu [Judicial investigation and the activity of the defense lawyer on proving]. Rossijskij sud'ya = Russian judge, 2016, no. 2, pp. 26–31.

20. Ostapenko E. P. Pravovoj status sud'i i effektivnost' pravosudiya [The legal status of a judge and the effectiveness of justice]. Obshchestvo i pravo = Society and law, 2010, no. 5(32), pp. 213–218.

21. Smirnov A. V. Institut sledstvennyh sudej – konstitucionnoe trebovanie? [The revival of the institute of investigative judges in the Russian criminal procedure]. Ugolovnoe sudoproizvodstvo = Criminal proceedings, 2015, no. 2, pp. 9–14.

22. Golovko L. V. Sledstvennye sud'i ili ocherednoj raund "amerikanizacii" rossijskogo ugolovnogo processa? [Investigative judges or another round of "Americanization" of the Russian criminal procedure?]. Apparat vlasti sledstvennoj [The apparatus of the investigative power]; ed. by N. A. Kolokolov. Moscow, Yurlitinform Publ., 2016, pp. 319–324.