I would like to consider how the prosecutors behave when a party to the protection of petitions to exclude evidence obtained with violation of the law, and how should they behave?
In accordance with Part 3 of Art. 37 Code of Criminal Procedure: "In the course of the trial in the criminal case, the prosecutor supports public prosecution, providing its legality and validity."
By virtue of Part 3 of Art. 88 Code of Criminal Procedure: "The prosecutor, investigator, the investigator has the right to recognize the proof of an invalid at the request of the suspect, accused or on its own initiative."
Taking into account the requirements of Part 3 of Art. 119 Code of Criminal Procedure: "The public prosecutor also has the right to declare a petition during the trial."
According to the order General Prosecutor RF Gull Yu.Ya. No. 136 "On the organization of prosecutor's supervision for the procedural activities of the preliminary investigation authorities:" 1.9. Exercising supervising the procedural activities of the preliminary investigation bodies, to achieve compliance with the requirements of Part 3 of Art. 7 and art. 75 Code of Criminal Procedure on the inadmissibility of the use of evidence obtained in violation of the procedure established by law. 1.12. When approving a prosecution, study the compliance of the conclusions of the investigator established during the investigation of the circumstances of the case, the correctness of the qualifications of the deed, compliance with the criminal procedural norms in production investigative actionscompliance with the present procedural documents Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.
When identifying in criminal cases of evidence obtained in violation of the norms of criminal procedural legislation, in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 88 Code of Criminal Procedure to make a reasoned decree on the recognition of such evidence unacceptable and to exclude them from the indictment. "
As follows from the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of June 29, 2004. No. 13-P, the prosecutor, supporting the charge on behalf of the state in a criminal case, should submit to the procedure for criminal proceedings of part 2 of Art. 1, following the appointment and principles of criminal proceedings, enshrined the code. Heated by all those who are held at his disposal to ensure the protection of human rights and freedoms and citizen (Art 11), proceed in its professional activity From the presumption of innocence (Article 14), to ensure the accused of defense (Art. 16), by virtue of which the charges can be recognized only under the condition that all the circumstances of the case opposing him are objectively investigated and refuted by the accusation side.
According to Art. 40.4 of the Federal Law of January 17, 1992. No. 2202-1 "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" (oath of the prosecutor): "Debating himself to serving the law, solemnly swear, sacred to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, laws and international obligations of the Russian Federation, not allowing the slightestness of them; It is implacably fighting with any violations of the law, whoever will make them, to achieve the high efficiency of the prosecutor's oversight and preliminary investigation; actively defend the interests of the individual, society and the state; It is sensitive and carefully to proposals, statements and complaints of citizens, comply with objectivity and justice in solving the fate of people. "
In accordance with the Code of Ethics of the Prosecutor's Employee (order of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation dated March 17, 2010 No. 144): "The prosecutor's employee in service and in non-viable activity is obliged to 1.1. Strictly comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation", federal constitutional laws and federal laws, as well as other regulatory legal actsNorma international law and international treaties Of the Russian Federation, to be guided by the rules of conduct established by this Code, oath of the prosecutor (investigator), and generally accepted norms of morality and morality, based on the principles of legality, justice, independence, objectivity, integrity and humanism. 2.1.2. It is implacably struggling with any violations of the law, whoever they do, in a timely manner takes effective measures to protect the law of human rights and freedoms and citizen, as well as the interests of society and the state, seeks to eliminate violations of the law and restore violated rights. "
In accordance with Art. 21 Part 1 of the Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation": "The subject of supervision is the observance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the execution of laws acting on the territory of the Russian Federation, federal ministries, state Committees, services and other federal authorities executive power, representative (legislative) and the executive bodies of state power of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, bodies local governments, military management bodies, control bodies, their officials, as well as management bodies and managers of commercial and non-commercial organizations. "
Part 2 Art. The 50 Constitution of the Russian Federation, in the implementation of justice, does not allow the use of evidence obtained in violation of the Federal Law.
The prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation has determined the participation of prosecutors in the consideration of criminal cases by the courts as one of the priorities in the activities of the prosecution authorities, the prosecutor in the criminal process is the guarantor of the rights and legitimate interests of persons involved in the field of criminal proceedings.
In the meaning of the legal norms, in the event of the identification of evidence obtained in violation of the law, the prosecutor (public prosecutor) is not entitled, but must recognize this proof to be invalid or apply to the court.
And if the side of the defense stated a motivated and reasonable application for the exclusion of evidence, then the prosecutor does not have legal grounds to object to such a petition.
At the same time, the prosecutor has a constitutional obligation to exclude invalid evidence.
What do we have in reality?
When applying for a party to the protection of petitions to exclude defective evidence, the prosecutor always objects. In rare cases, it agrees when the issue of excluding the insignificant evidence that does not affect the proof of the defendant's guilt is raised.
If the court eliminates the proof or a group of evidence that the change in the change is entitled or what is worse excited sentenceThe prosecutor automatically introduces a cassation submission to such a judicial act.
The author of more than 300 judicial acts of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation showed that in one case the public prosecutor did not stated the application for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the law, as if the law by the investigators and inquisition were never broken by the courts, the courts of many of these cases were recognized Evidence unacceptable.
Examples said quite a few. From the practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation:
Determination of the Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 13, 1996 Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1996. No. 8. p. 10-11 (Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, number 8, 1996).
Resolution No. 969 P-02 in the case of Protasov (Bulletin of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation No. 12 December 2003, p.20)
Determination of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of January 31, 2006. Melo N 30-D05-08.
Determination of the judicial board in criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of August 18, 2004. No. 41-O 04-8SP (Bulletin of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, No. 1, January 2006, p.25)
Supervisory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of December 11, 2007. № 89-D07-30.
Cassation definition of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 18, 2006. Case N 74-O06-4Sp
Determination of the Court of Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of February 13, 1996 in the case of Kamenev (Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. 1996).
Determination of the Court of Cassation Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 14, 1999 (Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.2000.№5. C.3-5)
Determination of the judicial board in criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on May 14, 1997. Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. No. 11. 1997
Decision of the Judicial Collegium for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 232p2002 in the case of Shengafa. (Bulletin of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, No. 12, December 2002, p.10) and others.
If someone has a different point of view, then let it analyze any of the district (urban) prosecutor's Office of Russia over the past year or years in the following positions: how many motivated orders made the prosecutor to the investigative body on the recognition of evidence obtained in violation of the law; How many times the prosecutor returned the criminal case to the investigator in accordance with Article 221 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with an indication of the violations of violations in obtaining evidence and most importantly: how many times in the courts, in the consideration of the case on the merits, state prosecutors declared a petition for the exclusion of evidence. I am convinced that statistics will be quite convincing and not in favor of prosecutors.
Opponents of the expressed point of view can make an erroneous conclusion: once prosecutors about violations do not declare, it means that such violations did not allow the investigations.
However, this conclusion can only convince the inexperienced listener. Judges and representatives of the Face of protection daily in the courts face mass violations of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the investigators upon receipt of evidence.
It is assumed that the prosecutor at the approval stage of the indictment is the admissibility of evidence in criminal cases, tested and therefore during the court there is a duty to defend the admissibility of evidence in criminal case.
Meanwhile, such violations of the procedural standards may be opened during the trial, which the prosecutor cannot be known to the prosecution, if the prosecutor simply looked through. The prosecutor for objective reasons may not detect unacceptable evidence, since the documents compiled by the investigator and the documents in the case must be tested not by reading them, but as a result of a direct, comprehensive and objective trial. So, in a criminal case a protocol interrogation of a witness, decorated with external observance of procedural norms and having the questioned questionable, but only as a result of a judicial examination of evidence, it was possible to find that the protocol was signed not interrogated, but another person, which will entail his exception to the evidence .
The current indictment is sometimes explained by the falsely understood interests of the competition of the parties in court: if the defense asks something, the charge must necessarily object to.
It is not taken into account that in the procedural position of the defender and the prosecutor there are fundamental differences.
If the first is not entitled to occupy a position in the case, contrary to the will of his principal (Art. 6 h. 4 of paragraph 3 of the Federal Law "On advocacy and the lawyer in the Russian Federation ") even regardless of the legality of the criminal prosecution, the last, i.e. The prosecutor, its procedural position should build strictly in accordance with the requirements of the law, it is not entitled according to Part 3 of Art. 37 Code of Criminal Procedure to support illegal or unreasonable accusation.
However, in practice, we are faced with situations where the public prosecutor tries not to occupy a position in spite of the will of the prosecutor who approved the indictment.
Unfortunately, it is precisely the efforts of public prosecution that invalid evidence are replenished and the consequences of violations made.
So, often state prosecutors are trying to interrogations of witnesses (police officers, understood, etc.) to fill what has not been reflected in the protocols of investigative or procedural actions.
In this regard, the position of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, set forth in the cassation definition of April 18, 2006 No. 74-O06-4Sp: "The arguments of the cassation idea that the investigator of the prosecutor's office could clarify the court, whether A. at the time of receipt from His explanations to take advantage of the services of the defender and whether he clarified the right to have a defender at the stage of verification of a crime report, justified to be recognized. An indication of the clarification of the rights to a suspect or accused person, according to the requirements of the criminal procedure law, should be contained in the protocols of the relevant investigative actions compiled by a person who produces interrogation of the person. "
In connection with the above, based on the current judicial practice, are forced to state that prosecutor's employees Most often do not fulfill their procedural duties and impede the protection and court in the implementation of an important constitutional provision on the exception of unacceptable evidence. They do it for quite understandable reasons: the interests of maintaining the charges are more often prevailing on the interests of respect for the rule of law.
The prosecutor's employees themselves are not obeyed, they are forced to do so, fearing personal responsibility for the results of the cases considered. After all, the petition for the exclusion of evidence obtained in violation of the law declared by the prosecutor will be satisfied with the court, which may result in the further either to refuse to maintain the accusation or to make an exclusive sentence.
Therefore, state prosecutors perceive not as ordinary procedural activities, but as a threat (prosecutors), and not surprisingly, are not surprising that they object to the disciplinary responsibility.
Such a practice of prosecutors' behavior proves that the system of functioning the part of the prosecution created by the legislator requires fundamentally new approaches. It will be possible to return the prosecutor's office in the legal field in the event that the exclusion of evidence, the rejection of the charge, a change in the prosecution, the exclusive sentence will not be perceived as an emergency requiring mandatory punishment guilty people.

Nver Gasparyan,
Lawyer, Member of the Qualification Commission AP Stavropol Territory

The establishment of a very important provision for recognition guilty and on the application of criminal punishment only by the court makes the trial of the central, decisive stage of the Soviet criminal procedure, and the participation of the prosecutor in judicial proceedings - One of the most important areas for its supervision of the execution of legality in the consideration of criminal cases by the courts. The participation of the prosecutor in court is not only an important guarantee of the decision by the court of a legitimate and substantiated sentence, but at the same time one of the forms of its activities to prevent crimes and propaganda of Soviet law. Maintaining public prosecution in criminal court is one of the priorities prosecutor's activity to exercise oversight for accurate and uniform execution of laws in the state.

The judicial tribune is a special kind of tribune, it is not available to every prosecutor's employee. The prosecutor should be professionally, and not only theoretically prepared for maintaining public accusation in court. The prosecutor, as a public prosecutor, is not formed immediately. To fulfill this activity, knowledge is needed not only by legislation, but also the foundations of rhetoric, techniques and methods of oratory, we need a wide range and a certain life experience. The Attorney General of the Russian Federation, believing that the participation of the prosecutor as a public prosecutor, when considering the criminal case by the court, is one of the guarantees of legality in justice, in its order No. 7 of March 11, 1992 "On the tasks of the prosecution authorities arising from the law of the Russian Federation" About the prosecutor's office of the Russian Federation, "suggests subordinate to the prosecutors:" Consistently expanding the participation of prosecutors in the consideration of criminal cases by the courts. In the conditions of judicial and legal reform, an active part in the consideration of the case is considered to be the main means of influencing judicial activities, a decree of a fair sentence. " The General Prosecutor proposed the Office of the General Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation on the supervision of the legality of judicial regulations in criminal cases together with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation to organize an experiment in three regions of Russia to explore the possibility of maintaining prosecutors by prosecution on all criminal cases. It should be noted that the experiment conducted gives its positive results.

Criminal procedural legislation does not determine the categories of criminal cases for which the participation of prosecutors in the court proceedings are required. Only in some cases the law provides for the obligatory participation of the prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases. So, if the judge's decision made in the stage of the accused court will be recognized as necessary for the participation of the prosecutor in the trial, this is the ruling of a judge for the prosecutor necessarily (Art. 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). On the other hand, if the prosecutor, directing the case, reports that it considers it necessary to support the accusation (Art. 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), then the judge is not entitled to refuse him in this. The participation of the prosecutor in this case in the trial is also mandatory (art. 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

If the judge issued a decree on the hearing of the case with the participation of the prosecutor, but the latter did not appear at the court hearing, the court reports the superior prosecutor (Art. 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). Criminal procedural legislation does not consider the public accusation to be a prerequisite for the trial of all criminal cases without exception.

The Prosecutor General of the USSR in order No. 79 of October 14, 1987 invites the prosecutors: "Public prosecution needs to be supported by cases that the participation of prosecutors is required based on the nature, degree public danger crimes, crime states in the city or district, complexity or social importance. " Thus, the prosecutor was given independence in the choice of cases, according to which he considers it necessary to maintain a state accusation. As a rule, prosecutors support the accusation of minors, serious crimes and cases considered by the courts in attendants. In general, the country, prosecutors support the accusation of 40% of criminal cases considered by the courts of first instance.

Many heads of the prosecutor's office of republics, edges and regions, based on the order of the Prosecutor General of the USSR No. 79 dated October 14, 1987, which the prosecutors were given independence in the choice of criminal cases for the public prosecution on them, the number of criminal cases were reduced to a minimum. They consider it necessary to maintain public prosecution. In certain republics, the edges and regions, a charge of 30-35% of criminal cases is supported, whereas until 1987 the prosecution was maintained in the country for 65% of criminal cases. The consistent implementation of the principle of competition in criminal proceedings involves the participation of prosecutors in the trial of almost every criminal case. In this regard, in the conditions of the implementation of judicial and legal reform, it is necessary to radically change the attitude of the prosecutors to maintaining public accusations in the court in criminal cases. In order No. 20 of May 28, 1992, "On the organization of supervision and management in the bodies of the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation", the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation offers subordinate prosecutors: "Take part in consideration by cases of courts of first instance in cases, provided by law, orders and instructions of the Prosecutor General of Russia, as well as when this requires social significance or complexity of the case. "

In organizing maintaining state accusations, a special role belongs to the prosecutors of the republics, edges, regions, cities and districts. The heads of the prosecution authorities, taking part in judicial consideration of criminal cases as government prosecutors, thereby emphasize the high degree and procedural significance of this activity of the prosecutors. By participating in the trial, the prosecutor contributes to the court to properly resolve all the questions arising during the judicial consideration of the case, to conduct a judicial effect full, objectively and comprehensively, and ultimately deal with a legitimate, reasonable and fair sentence. To this end, the prosecutor takes part in a study of evidence, declares the petitions, makes a conclusion on issues arising during the trial, provides a court of considerations on the application of the criminal law and the penalties against the defendant. Supporting the state accusation, the prosecutor at the same time protects guaranteed rights and legitimate interests of citizens. The measures of judicial protection of the violated rights of citizens, the prosecutor contribute to the courts to criminal responsibility contribute to the courts to restore the violated rights and legitimate interests of the participants in the process.

The success of a judicial consideration of the case largely depends on the preparedness of the prosecutor to participate in the process, from its perseverance in establishing truth and professional skills to take a position based on the law and emanating from the case materials. Impeccable knowledge of criminal case materials - an indispensable requirement for the prosecutor supporting public prosecution. A careful study of the prosecutor's materials of the criminal case presents the basis of the qualitative maintenance of public prosecution. The study of criminal case materials should be organized in such a way that the prosecutor examines not only the main procedural documents, as is often in practice, but familiarized himself with all the criminal case materials, including those that, at first glance, may seem He is secondary. In practice, for example, it happened that the prosecutor studies the testimony of only those witnesses who are included in the investigator to the list of persons to be called at the court hearing. The testimony of witnesses not included in this list, the prosecutor, as a rule, does not study. Meanwhile, it may turn out that it is these evidence that will be crucial when evidence of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Interrogation of such witnesses in court occurs due to the satisfaction of the defenders' applications about it. The defender thoroughly studied the testimony of these individuals, and the prosecutor turned out to be unprepared to their interrogation.

Having a context statement, and even the literal excerpts from the testimony of the defendant, the victim and witnesses, the prosecutor has the opportunity during the interrogation of these persons by the court and participants in the trial to compare their testimony from those that they were given on the preliminary investigation or in the previously held trial. The prosecutor should carefully study the materials of the criminal case even in cases where he supervised his investigation or approved the indictment. If the prosecutor going to the process does not carefully examine the case materials, but will count on its resourcefulness or natural mind, erudition or practical experience, he will never be able to qualitatively support the public prosecution even by the most simple criminal case. Ignorance of the case materials will always bind the prosecutor. An analysis of the practice of maintaining public prosecution convincingly confirms that the low level of speeches of individual prosecutors is the result of their weak preparation for judicial processes, lack of knowledge of legislation, and in some cases there are no sufficient practical experience.

The success of the trial is largely determined by the right and timely resolution of the court of issues relating to the study of evidence, the conduct of judicial debate, and ultimately the decree of the reality court sentence. In the preparatory part of the court session, the prosecutor makes a conclusion on emerging issues in question by the participants of the process of the petitions, declares various kinds of petitions, expresses his considerations about the possibility of a hearing of the case in the absence of any of those caused by the court hearing. The prosecutor's conclusion is one of the procedural actions logically related to all its preceding and follow-up activities.

The conclusion is given orally, its main content is entered into the minutes of the court session. In accordance with Art. 277 Code of Criminal Code, as mentioned above, in the preparatory part of the court hearing hears the conclusion of the prosecutor about the possibility of a hearing of the case in the absence of any of those participating in the case of persons. It should be borne in mind that the appearance of the defendant in all cases is obligatory, with the exception of the laws with the law (the defendant is abroad or applies to the hearing of the case in its absence, subject to the appointment of a sentence that is not related to imprisonment). In the case of depositing of the proceedings, the court may interrogate the witnesses, an expert or a specialist, the victim, civil plaintiff or a civilian defendant and not to cause them again if the case is considered by the court in the previous composition.

The prosecutor must objectively refer to the applications claimed by the defendant, his defender about the challenge and interrogation of new witnesses, the appointment of expertise (re-, additional, control or commission), extermination of physical evidence or documents. Haste, not based on the case file, the conclusion of the prosecutor about the refusal to satisfy the claimed petitions only undermines the authority of the prosecutor, is perceived as a manifestation of bias and does not contribute to objectivity in the evidence study.

In his conclusion, the prosecutor should take into account the considerations of the authors of the claimed petitions and maintain those of them that matter in the case, and in case of disagreement - to bring convincing arguments that refute their arguments. For judges, the opinion of the prosecutor is especially important when the petitions are considered to satisfy the investigator or the prosecutor at the preliminary investigation. In the judicial review stage, the defendant and the defender, as a rule, repeat these petitions, so it is important for the correct permission to listen to the prosecutor's conclusion.

The participation of the prosecutor at the court hearing and its conclusion will contribute to the court in making a legitimate and reasonable definition (decree) only if the prosecutor is carefully prepared for participation in judicial process, to check the completeness, comprehensiveness and objectivity of the promotion or preliminary investigation, to give motivated conclusions based on the law and materials of the case, to make the necessary proposals on issues related to the preparation for the consideration of the case at the court session. Each conclusion of the prosecutor, no matter what questions it should be:

• 1) objective and evidence. The findings contained in it must reflect the truth in the case, no arbitrary interpretations of the law and the actual circumstances are unacceptable. In conclusion, convincing motives should be given, logically impeccable arguments that will determine those conclusions to which the prosecutor came;
• 2) comprehensive and complete. The prosecutor in his conclusion should not be limited to an unequivocal expression of his opinion - "I agree, I do not agree"; In all cases, it must fully disclose the circumstances of the criminal case and the position of the prosecutor under the issues discussed;
• 3) legally reasonable, i.e. contain references to the norms of material and procedural law. If there is a need to give a legal assessment of a crime or solve other complex legal issues, it is advisable to use judicial practice, refer to the leadership of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR or the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation;
• 4) defined. The prosecutor should take a clear position on the issue under discussion, commemorated positively or negatively, and not alternatively.

The legality and validity of the sentence largely depends on the quality, completeness and objectivity of the judicial investigation, because Only the data of the judicial investigation and no others may be based on a sentence. Solving evidence not investigated in the trial entails sentencing. The composition of the court must be personally and directly at the court hearing to explore all the evidence. In judicial investigation, the court checks the evidence taken on the preliminary investigation, compares them among themselves, produces cross-interrogation of defendants, victims, witnesses, investigates material evidence, produces if it is required, inspection of the scene or the investigative experiment, etc. Success in the study of evidence largely depends on the perseverance of the prosecutor and the professional ability to take a position based on the law and emanating from the criminal case materials. The prosecutor should be borne in mind that the gap made by him in the trial cannot be replenished in indictment, since only the judicial investigation fills the prosecutor's indictment. The judicial speech of the prosecutor is always an addition to the judicial investigation, and not the opposite. The Prosecutor General of Russia in the "Recommendations" of September 22, 1992 emphasizes that "the active participation of the prosecutor in the judicial investigation, moreover, the capture of the examination of evidence to their hands can be a decisive factor in the initiation of the offender and ensure the inquulance of punishment."

The state prosecutor and the court is important to determine the limits of proof (Art. 68 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). At the same time, the same danger is as leaving the circumstances, the lighting of which is important to establish truth and excessive expansion of the limits of evidence. All more superfluous, leading the court from studying these issues should be eliminated. The overtime of the process by clarifying unnecessary parts only takes off the time and leads the court, prosecutor and participants in the process to the side of the study of issues that are important for the decree of the reasons. The right of the presiding party at the court session to eliminate from the trial, everything that is not related to the case is continued. Turning to these powers of the presiding party, the prosecutor contributes to the study of precisely those issues that matter to establish the truth in the case. In cases where the participants in the court proceedings are rejected from the study of the circumstances of essential importance, the prosecutor declares the appropriate petition so that the presiding judicial session consider these issues.

The success of the judicial investigation in the case as a whole and the trial to a certain extent depends on the correctness of the proceeding proposed projection of evidence. This order should be such that in the strict sequence and most effectively all the circumstances of the criminal case were clarified. Election of the procedure for studying evidence is not only the definition of interrogation of interrogations of the process participants, this is a consistent test of evidence that ensures the most complete and comprehensive study of the circumstances of the crime. The prosecutor takes an active part in the interrogation of the defendant, the victim, witnesses, in the study of the conclusion of experts and physical evidence. Interrogation should be correct, without threats and intimidation. At the same time, the prosecutor is obliged to find out the circumstances of both increasing and justifying the defendant, both aggravating and mitigating his responsibility.

At the end of the judicial investigation, the Court turns to listen to the judicial debate. The prosecutor participating in the case, the public prosecutor, the victim, as well as the civil plaintiff, the civil respondent or their representatives, the defender, the public defender and the defendant if the defender does not participate in the case, in its oral speeches summarize the audit and research of evidence. The judicial debate has a certain influence on the formation of conviction of judges, contribute to a more complete assimilation of the materials of the case as a composition of judges and those present in the hall. The accusatory speech ends the activities of the prosecutor in the trial. Regardless of whether the prosecutor supports the prosecution, considering the crime proven, or refuses him, considering the crime unproved, he helps him with his speech to deal with a legitimate and reasonable sentence. However, it is necessary to promote the court not only to properly resolve issues related to the decision of the sentence (Article 303 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), but also to have educational significance.

Maintaining a prosecutor of public prosecution is a multifaceted activity that covers the permit of both organizational and procedural issues.

IN general The content of the activities of the prosecutor to maintain public prosecution includes:

1) a preliminary study of criminal materials and the preparation of a plan to maintain state accusation;

2) the procedural activity of the public prosecutor at various stages of the trial.

With a preliminary study of the case materials and drawing up an accusatory work plan, the state prosecutor analyzes the following criminal case materials:

1) the subject and limits of proving on a specific criminal case;

2) the evidence that is issued in the commission of a crime;

3) evidence indicating not in favor of the charge;

4) the identity of the accused;

5) regulatory material and judicial practice on a specific category of affairs.

Preliminary analysis is carried out by the prosecutor (public prosecutor) in the pre-trial preparation stage in order to predict situations that may arise during the trial.

As practice shows, the most typical situations are:

1) a change in the participants of the proceedings of previous testimony data;

2) failure to appear at the court session of certain persons;

3) nomination by the defendant version that was not subject to verification at the stage preliminary investigation;

4) Application of petitions by various participants of the proceedings.

As a rule, the materials of the criminal case are being studied by the prosecutor in two ways: consistently, chance from starts to the end of the case, and objectively - the meaning of the investigative and procedural actions.

In the second case, the study of the case occurs to reduce the legal significance of materials.

Studies begin with an indictment research. At this stage, the prosecutor determines which criminal actions committed accused, and what evidence is justified by the accusation. The protocols of the initial investigative actions are then studied (inspection of the scene, presentation for identification, primary interrogations, etc.) in order to clarify the situation of committing a crime, designing a crime painting, the reasons for which suspicion of committing a crime fell on the accused, as well as the appearance of investigative versions. Further, the decision is being studied to attract his interrogations as the accused and protocols in order to clarify the main episodes of the accusation and attitudes towards them accused. At the same time, the objections of the accused, its detailed testimony, changes to them indications and the reasons for their change, are of particular importance. The next step is to study the conclusions of judicial expertise in order to establish the circumstances of the crime (time, place, method, character and mechanism of damage, etc.). At the end, all other criminal materials are being studied.

The study of the criminal case materials by the prosecutor at the preparation stage pursues two main tasks: to compare the materials with each other in order to identify possible contradictions and identify whether the procedural law of the procedural law and the rights of the accused of defense.

According to the results of the study of the materials of the case, the prosecutor is a plan for maintaining public prosecution.

The plan for maintaining public prosecution includes:

1) the general plan for the participation of the prosecutor in the judicial review of the criminal case;

2) the participation plan of the prosecutor in certain investigative actions;

3) the plan to maintain the accusation of multi-episodes and cases of crimes of several persons;

4) the scheme of criminal ties;

5) plan calculation of civil lawsuits;

6) Plan defining the procedure for researching evidence;

7) the scheme of the mechanism of committing a crime and the concealment of its traces;

8) the scheme of the interpordability of conflict participants during the commission of a crime;

9) The scheme of the situation of the crime.

Based on the planned plans, the prosecutor formulates the version of the charge, which, although it is determined by the version of the investigation, reflected in the indictment, is not less different from it. For public prosecution, the investigative version has only the importance of the assumption that must be checked during the trial. These versions can coincide and differ from each other. When the version of the charge is accepted during the trial and is checked by him, it becomes a judicial version.

The versions of the charges may be general concerning the subject of proof and private - relative to certain circumstances of the case. The limits of verification of the version of the charge are limited by the framework and opportunities of the trial. In cases where the version cannot be verified in conditions of judicial consequences through various judicial actions, the case is sent for production additional investigation.

The participation of the public prosecutor in the preparatory part of the court hearing is important. At this stage, the activities of the state prosecutor develops from three main directions:

1) verification of the observance of the rights of participants in the court proceedings by the court;

2) statements and permits of petitions;

3) the permission of the question of the possibility of consideration of the case in the absence of any of the persons caused to the meeting.

The public prosecutor must be traced that all the participants of the proceedings have been clarified by their rights, the right of defendant is properly ensured by the right to defend and whether a copy of the indictment is provided in a timely manner. Violation of these rights and requirements of the Criminal Procedure is considered judicial practice As unconditional bases for cancellation.

The second direction of the participation of the public prosecutor at this stage is the application and permission of the petitions.

Petitions aimed at changing the nature, content and volume of the proof material contained in the case;

Petitions aimed at determining the further fate of criminal proceedings.

As for the first group of applications, the public prosecutor must necessarily declare applications for additional materials to eliminate the preliminary investigation gaps discovered by it in the process of studying the criminal case materials. However, this form of public prosecution is applied much less frequently than the statement of opinions on the already stated petition by other participants in the process. Expressing an opinion on the claimed petition, the prosecutor participated in the case should understand its essence and focus. At the same time, he should also ensure compliance with the person who declared the petition, compliance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation on the mandatory indication of the circumstances, on the establishment of which is aimed at the additional presentation or extermination of evidence. In addition, the public prosecutor has the right to ask clarifying questions for the rapid and proper formulation and the statement of his opinion on the request of the opposite side. In this case, the request for the prosecutor of the examination of documents and the study of documents, which one of the participants in the process asks to enjoy the case. If the petition is stated in writing, the public prosecutor has the right to demand the time to study it.

As practice shows, the second application group includes: petitions about the direction of the prosecutor to eliminate violations of the law not disposable at the court session, if this is not related to the fill in the incompleteness of the investigation; on the termination of the proceedings; on the termination of criminal prosecution against a particular person; On the transfer of inconsistency.

If an error assumes in determining the jurisdiction or not to apply the undisputed base to stop the proceedings or criminal prosecution (for example, the provisions of the amnesty act), the prosecutor must correct mistakes, agreeing with the stated petitions and orient the court to their satisfaction. The prosecutor should also be received and in the case of a statement of the application for the direction of the case of the prosecutor to eliminate violations of the law, not disposable at the court session, when there really have gross violations of the criminal procedure law.

As practice shows, evaluate other circumstances declared in applications, on the preparatory part without judicial investigation seems difficult, so the public prosecutor must offer a court to reject such applications.

The third direction of the participation of the public prosecutor is to permit the possibility of consideration of the case in the absence of any of those caused by the court hearing.

Article 247 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the trial of the case in the court of first instance is carried out with the obligatory participation of the defendant. The exceptions are cases when the defendant applies to considering the case in its absence, provided that he is accused of committing a crime small or middle severity. Satisfaction with the court of such a petition does not prevent further participation in the prosecutor.

Non-appearance of the defendant to court without good reason Specifies to disrespect for the court. In this situation, the public prosecutor is obliged to consider the severity of a perfect crime and data on his personality to focus on the depositing of the case by a hearing while choosing a decision on the election of preventive measure in the form of imprisonment or providing a compulsory drive.

Article 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure establishes that the judicial investigation begins with the state of the prosecutor of the defendant, and in criminal cases of private accusation - with the presentation of the statement by the private prosecutor. Presiding the defendant, whether he is clear to him, whether he recognizes himself guilty and whether he wishes or his defender to express his attitude to the charges.

In turn, Art. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation determines that the sequence of research of evidence is determined by the court of evidence to the court. The first represents the evidence of the prosecution.

In science and practice, certain recommendations have been developed for determining the procedure for researching evidence.

1. First of all, it is necessary to investigate the facts at the court session that the most fully justified by evidence, and then move towards more controversial circumstances.

2. If the court session will have a number of homogeneous judicial actions, it is preferable to begin with a study of evidence that represents the value for the accusation. For example, witnesses - eyewitnesses it is advisable to interrogate first and then go to interrogations of less important witnesses.

3. Witnesses who are interrogated about the same circumstances of the case must be interrogated by each other. This will make it possible to make a complete and comprehensive idea of \u200b\u200bthe specified facts, and in some cases it makes it difficult for witnesses.

4. Forensic examinations Usually appointed at the court session after interrogation of all persons whose testimony is important to expert research.

According to multi-episodes, the state prosecutor needs to be solved, in which sequence it is advisable to investigate episodes - in chronological, according to the severity or degree of proof.

1. The entire complex of evidence for each episode is investigated.

2. The defendants and witnesses are interrogated for each episode separately, and the remaining evidence is investigated without a division into episodes.

3. According to individual episodes, only the defendants are interrogated, and the remaining evidence is investigated without reference to episodes, but are specified in relation to each defendant.

The judicial investigation consists of a set of various judicial actions. The most common of them is interrogation.

Practice shows that the majority of cases considered in the courts begins with the interrogation of the defendant by the prosecutor. This approach allows us to find out all the circumstances of the perfect crime, the details of which did not find their reflection at the stage of preliminary investigation, to understand the version of protection. The information obtained as a result of this interrogation can be used in subsequent interrogations of witnesses and victims.

It is advisable to start studying evidence from interrogation of the victim and witnesses with a partial recognition by the defendants of its guilt when it does not deny the main circumstances of the crime, but is trying to mitigate individual facts.

If there are strong accusatory evidence, and the indications of the accused were informative or were reduced to a simple denial of preventive evidence, it is preferable to begin a judicial effect from the interrogations of victims and witnesses-accusers.

When the crime was committed in conditions of non-obviousness and the prosecution is based on indirect evidence, for the public prosecutor, it is tactically more profitable to start a judicial consequence with the interrogation of the defendant, because From his testimony in the future will depend on the course of evidence.

If the defendants are somewhat and their position in terms of presented charges is different, then more correct to interrogate those persons who give truthful testimony so that they do not change them under the influence of those who give false, according to the prosecutor, the testimony.

From the defendants, recognizing themselves guilty, it is recommended first of all to interrogate those among the partners enjoy the greatest authority.

Special literature also developed recommendations for state prosecutors to conduct interrogation.

First of all, it is necessary to establish a psychological contact with the defendant by manifesting interest in his personality, polite correct relationship, respectful attitude towards his position, interest in his fate, demonstration of impartiality, elimination of uncomfortable situations, etc.

In the case of a conflict situation during interrogation, when the defendants give false testimony, it is necessary to use special interrogation tactics and strategies based on the surprise of issues, the admission of the legend of the defendant in order to indicate its insolvency, distracting its attention to secondary details and circumstances.

Basic tactical techniques The implementation of these strategies are: the announcement of previously evidence of the testimony, comparison and detailing of the testimony, re-explaining the criminal liability for the giving false testimony (in case of interrogation of witnesses and victims), the chronological sequence of issues of issues, formulation of issues from common to private, etc.

In the event of a non-appearance of victims and witnesses or change their testimony, the prosecutor must be guided by the norm of Art. 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allows to announce the testimony of the victim or a witness without the consent of the parties, if these persons were warned that they, possessing testimonial immunity, giving testimony, warned by the investigating authorities that their testimony can be used as evidence during further production criminal case (Part 2 of Art. 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). If, during the trial, significant contradictions are found in the testimony in the testimony of victims and witnesses compared to previously data, the prosecutor must offer a court (by making a petition) to announce the testimony of these persons, data during the preliminary investigation (part 3 of Article 281 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ).

The public prosecutor should own the specifics of the main, cross, chess, repeated and additional interrogation, as well as clearly imagine the purpose of these interrogations.

The main interrogation is the interrogation of the person by the court and other participants in the trial.

Cross-processed interrogation of one person when the sides alternately ask him questions in the same circumstance in order to verify, clarify or additions the testimony obtained during the main interrogation. At the same time, the main objectives of cross-interrogation are obtaining new information, discrediting the results of direct interrogation (especially if the testimony of the prosecutor is false), bringing the testimony of the questioned with other facts in the case or common sense.

With a chess interrogation, the public prosecutor simultaneously puts questions to other previously interrogated persons. Its main goal concludes in the elimination of existing contradictions. The fundamental difference between the chess interrogation from the cross is that with a chess interrogation, the same circumstance is found to be one questionable, and with cross-pass several interrogants find out the same circumstance from one person.

With additional interrogation, circumstances missed during the main interrogation.

Repeated interrogation is made in cases where doubts arise in connection with the study of other evidence in the correctness of the testimony, as well as when cases are postponed, and the registered persons are again caused to court.

Since various types of interrogations are widely applied in the trial, a full-time rate as an investigative action is used extremely rarely.

When evaluating the expert's conclusion, the public prosecutor should find out if the expert did not come out beyond its competence, whether he is objective of conclusions, if he has the necessary special knowledge and practical experience. The prosecutor also finds out whether the procedural requirements are met, namely, whether he was warned about criminal responsibility for the task of a deliberately false conclusion, how scientifically conclusion and whether it matches the case file. If necessary, an expert may be called at the court session, however, with insufficient clarity or completeness of the conclusion, the public prosecutor must declare a petition for additional examination. Repeated examination It can be appointed in case of unreasonable conclusions, or doubt in the correctness of the findings of an expert study.

Real evidence in all cases without exception should be examined by the court and are charged with the participants of the trial.

The public prosecutor may declare a petition about the announcement of the court of evidence in the form of documents introduced to the case or presented during the trial.

PL A N.

Introduction 3.

The procedural figure of the state prosecutor. four

The powers of the prosecutor's office in relationships with judicial system 9

Criminal procedural powers of assistants of prosecutors. nineteen

Conclusion. 22.

List of used literature: 24

Among the numerous Novel of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the reform of the Institute of the State Prosecutor, which has undergone qualitative changes, should be identified - both by the volume of its procedural powers and in the circle of officials authorized to implement the function of the public prosecutor.

So, in accordance with paragraph 6 of Article 5 and Part 4 of Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Code of Code of the Russian Federation, not only the officials of the prosecutor's office may be supported, as provided for by the Code of RSFSR, but also the investigator and the investigator. In view of this, the legislator supplied the prosecutor to the right to entrust the maintenance of the court to the investigator or the investigator who made the inquiry in this criminal case.

At the same time, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor's Office, which may, on behalf of the state, support the criminal case charge in court. It is enough to say that according to Part 6 of Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the function of the public prosecutor can only be carried out by the prosecutor of the district, cities, their deputies that equated to them prosecutors and a higher prosecutor.

Another innovation is that the category of criminal cases, which should be considered by the court with the obligatory participation of the public prosecutor, is significantly expanded in the new Criminal Procedure. So, in accordance with Article 266 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the State Prosecutor in the trial of criminal cases of the public and privately public charges is mandatory.

If we consider that criminal prosecution in private is carried out only on the four compositions of crimes (part 2 of Article 20 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), it becomes obvious that the overwhelming majority of criminal cases are subject to judicial review with the obligatory participation of the public prosecutor.

Finally, new ufk Significantly expanded the procedural authority of the state prosecutor in criminal proceedings. Moreover, its functions of the state prosecutor performs independently. Because of this, the prosecutor approved by the indictment (indictment), as well as a higher prosecutor, is not entitled to cancel or change the decision taken by the State Prosecutor. For example, disagreement of the state prosecutor with the petition of the accused of applying a special procedure of a trial excludes the possibility of the decision by the court by the court without conducting a trial in full, and the prosecutor approved by the indictment is not entitled to change this decision of the state prosecutor.

The procedural independence of the state prosecutor from the prosecutor is also expressed in the fact that it is not related to the conclusions of the indictment (indictment) in accordance with Part 5 of Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, if he comes to an opinion during the trial of the criminal case, than the one that is set forth in the indictment (indictment act), he has the right to fully or partially refuse to further maintain the accusation that automatically entails the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution or in its corresponding part (Ch. 7 Article 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

At the same time, it is characteristic that the revision of the definition or resolution of the judge on the termination of a criminal case due to the refusal of the state prosecutor is not allowed from the charge, except in cases where new or newly discovered circumstances are established (Ch. 9 Article 246 of the Code of Criminal Procedure).

The given far from a complete list of wide procedural powers of the state prosecutor in criminal proceedings shows the importance of this participant in the criminal process in the implementation of criminal prosecution.

Taking into account the above, the question arises, and whether investigators and investigators can exercise such complex functions in criminal proceedings?

Secondly, in a state of whether they fulfill the entire complex of procedural functions assigned to the Code of Criminal Procedure at the Public Prosecutor, if we take into account the workload of investigators and investigators of criminal cases that are in their production? In addition, it is impossible to forget that, along with direct maintenance in court, the state prosecutor implements in criminal proceedings and a wide list of other procedural functions (for example, participates in pre-listening criminal case, brings an idea of \u200b\u200ba court decision in appeal and cassation, etc.).

Thirdly, whether the investigators and investigators will be able to support the public accusation in court without special training, to resist experienced lawyers, well-own knowledge not only in the field of jurisprudence, but also oratory, psychology of public speech, etc.?

It's not a secret that due to a number of objective reasons (low wages, high personnel turnover, etc.) in many regions of the country to this day as an investigator and in particular the investigator in the internal affairs bodies, tax police, etc. Employees who do not have legal education are working.

Finally, fourth, can the investigator be objective, when maintaining the charge in a criminal case, a preliminary investigation on which he conducted personally? According to I. Demidov and A. Tushev, "it is impossible to imagine that he refuses the accusation, he changed him towards mitigation and thus publicly admitted to the insolvency of the preliminary investigation produced by him or his colleague" (Demidov I., Tusch and . Refusal of the prosecutor from the charge. Russian Justice. 2002. N 8. P. 27). I believe that the legislator it's time to understand that the functions of the public prosecutor can be carried out far from all employees of criminal prosecution authorities, that this is a special type of law in the field of jurisprudence, which is akin to art, to master all the subtleties of which is not given to every lawyer.

It seems that today the professional public prosecutor, firstly, should be not only a carrier of high culture and morality, but also a comprehensively erudite lawyer and a public speaker with eloquence, analytical warehouse of the mind and flexibility of thinking; A subtle psychologist capturing the mood of the audience and know how to convince people at the wrong position.

Secondly, it is obliged to own sufficient knowledge in the field of material and procedural legislation, perfectly be aware of law enforcement practice in this area, be able to clearly and clearly substantiate its position on one or another issues of administration of criminal proceedings arising in the process of trial, etc.

In other words, the modern public prosecutor is, above all, a representative of the state, on behalf of which he supports the prosecution in court; The official, from the activities and professional qualities of which depends both the success of the final stage of the initiation of the perpetrated crime and the implementation of the results of the multi-month and painstaking work of the bodies of the inquiry, preliminary investigation and the prosecutor's office.

The given far from a complete list of minimal professional and personal qualities, which every state prosecutor must have today, gives grounds for the conclusion that the provisions of the Code of Maintaining the charges in court by investigators and the investigators inevitably puts quite serious problems of both an organizational and procedural problem.

Apparently, for this reason, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation before the entry of the Code of Criminal General of the Russian Federation into legal force by its order of June 3, 2002 N 28 "On the organization of prosecutors in the court stages of criminal proceedings" banned prosecutors to a special order to entrust the maintenance of public accusation in court to the investigators and investigators. Not denying the presence of internal logic in such a prohibition, at the same time, notice that the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation is not entitled to limit the procedural powers of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings and thereby actually suspend the effect of the provisions of the Code of Criminal Code of Criminal Procedure.

At the same time, in this order, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation bypassed the question regarding the officials of the prosecution authorities, which are authorized to support the public accusation in court. As a result, the function of the state prosecutor in court today performs mainly assistants of the prosecutor, which, in my opinion, contradicts the requirements of Ch. 6 Article 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

Justifying such a practice, individual representatives of the Prosecutor's Corps of the country refer to the law on the prosecutor's office, in which the assistant prosecutor is endowed with such powers, and paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, where, under the concept of "Prosecutor", the legislator implies an assistant to the prosecutor.

At first glance, the above arguments are more than weighty.

Indeed, in Article 36 of the Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" it is indicated that the assistant prosecutor, the prosecutor of the Office, the Prosecutor of the Department can bring a protest only in the case of which they participated. And in paragraph 31 of Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the legislator explained that under the concept of "prosecutor", the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and the prosecutors subordinate to him, their deputies and assistants participating in criminal proceedings should be implied.

However, without looking at these regulations of the law, they cannot serve as the basis for entering the assistant prosecutor with the powers of the public prosecutor.

As is known, one of the fundamental differences between the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation on the previous criminal procedure legislation is that the legislator has established the priority of the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation over the norms of other branches of federal legislation and in Part 1 of Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, according to which the court, the prosecutor The investigator, the inquiry body and the investigator are not entitled to apply a federal law contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

From this it follows that in the case of the detection of the collision between the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and other federal laws, the law enforcement must be guided by the prescriptions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Based on the above and taking into account that Article 36 of the Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" enters into a contradiction with the requirements of Ch.6 Art.37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in accordance with Part 1 of Article 7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Law on the Prosecutor's Office in this Parts have no legal force.

As for the arguments based on the existing alleged contradictions between paragraph 31 of Art. 5 and Part 3 of Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the concept of "prosecutor", it should be noted that in principle there is no contradiction between these norms.

It seems that the erroneousness of the position of supporters of the assistant to the prosecutor by the powers of the state prosecutor is that they substantiate their position solely on the basis of the text of paragraph 31 of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure, ignoring the special reservation that the legislator has consolidated in the first paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation where these words are told: "if otherwise not specified, the basic concepts used in this Code have the following meaning ..."

In other words, the legislator says that if in certain norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this or that the concept listed in Art. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is used in a narrow or broad sense, then it is necessary to understand it in this sense.

And, as it can be seen from the content of Ch. 6 Art.37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the legislator has made a special reservation regarding the concept of "prosecutor", which is significantly different from the interpretation, which is fixed in paragraph 31 of Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the prosecutor of the district, the city is obliged when the concept of "Prosecutor" is obliged to follow the procedural figure of the state prosecutor, not paragraph 3 of Art. 5, and Ch. 6 Art.37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not entitled to entrust the maintenance of public accusation to his assistant.

Powers of the prosecutor's office in relationship with the judicial system

In the Constitution of the Russian Federation, only one article is devoted to the prosecutor's office. Moreover, it is included in the chapter "judicial power". However, organizational-structural russian prosecutor's office It is not part of the judiciary. The prosecutor's office is a single centralized system with subordination of the lower prosecutors to the higher and general prosecutor of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the community of endful goals, such as the creation of guarantees of legality in the country, the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual, as well as the proximity of the functions predetermine the close interaction between the prosecutor's office and the courts. At the same time, we proceed from the idea of \u200b\u200bthe judiciary as an independent, independent, higher in the hierarchy of legal authorities.

Interaction with the judiciary is typical for all functions and areas of activity of the prosecutor's office. It should be borne in mind that the Constitution does not define them, and in the question of the authorities, the organization and procedure of the Prosecutor's Office refers to the Federal Law on the Prosecutor's Office.

In Article 1 of the Law on the Prosecutor's Office, its main function is formulated - on behalf of the Russian Federation, supervising the execution of laws existing on its territory. It also indicates that the activities of the prosecutor's office aims to ensure the rule of law, the unity and strengthening of the legality, the protection of human rights and freedoms and citizen, as well as the law protected by the law and the state.

If you briefly describe the directions of prosecutor's activity, then it will be:

1) supervision of the execution of laws in the field of government, the economy, the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens, i.e. The industry, which in a professional language we used to call a common universal supervision;

2) supervision of the execution of laws by bodies engaged in operational investigative activities, inquiry and preliminary investigation;

3) supervision of the execution of laws by the Administration of Penitentiary Institutions;

4) criminal prosecution, as well as coordination law enforcement to combat crime;

5) Participation in cases of cases by courts, protesting contradictory decisions, sentences, definitions and decisions of judicial authorities.

The prosecutor's office in Russia oversees the execution of laws by federal ministries and departments, representative (legislative) and executive bodies of the subjects of the Federation, local governments, military management, control, their officials, as well as for compliance with the laws of the acts published by them.

It is this activity that causes sharp discussions. The proposals of the radical opponents of the prosecutor's office on the liquidation of general oversight are based on the fact that in many developed countries there is no such function by the prosecutor's office. However for modern Russia It is precisely such a type of prosecutor's office, its organization and activities objectively depend on the social, economic, political and other conditions of the Company's vital activity.

Of the aggregate of these conditions, legal ones should be allocated. It is they who have a decisive effect on the purpose and composition of the functions of the prosecutor's office, the ways to reform. This concentrate is expressed in a state of legality in the country.

With the collapse of the totalitarian system, the attitude towards legal values \u200b\u200band institutions has changed in Russia for the better, although not as much as I would like. Legality has not yet been able to take the incident in social politics, in the life of society. The Russian community had to be a witness when current Law Aside aside and used "appropriate", and even force.

Of particular danger represents legal nihilism, which comes not only from individuals, in one way or another interested in bypassing the law, but also from representatives of management personnel, obliged to be conductors of the requirements of the law. The executive vertical is still not possible to fulfill its main purpose - to ensure proper execution of laws.

Our opponents do not take into account not only the specifics of the state and legal situation in Russia, but also directly ignore the fact that in countries, the experience of which they refer, the self-regulators of civil society, primarily - stable legislation, are the traditions of respect for law and responsibility. in front of him; Legal culture is imbued with all the structures of the state and social mechanism. This is the objectively due to the narrowing of the sphere. state control and supervision.

We in Russia so far boasting such a situation, unfortunately, we cannot. And if the listed factors were different, probably it would be possible to talk about another prosecutor's office. In the transitional stage, the prosecutor's office of the transition period with extensive functions, strong supervisory powers, allowing it to play the role of "compensator" of the flaws and disadvantages of primarily the controlling bodies in the state mechanism.

Of course, this situation is in many ways turns around against the prosecutor's office itself. Role fire team And the "compensator" of the weakness of the entire system of control and supervision of the state of law leads to the fact that the prosecutor's office often looks in the public eyes the only responsible for all misfortunes and vices of the current legality.

Supporters of the immediate narrowing of the competence of the prosecutor's office argue that the only way to protect the rights of citizens and society should be judicial authority. Of course, gradually expanding judicial order Protection of rights and freedoms is the most reliable and efficient. However, this does not reason argue that the human rights activities of the prosecutor's office replaces the "right of citizens to the judge", limits their possibility of appealing in the court of violations of legality. First, in a democratic society there must be a "multichannel" system of protection and protection of human rights. Especially since it is important for Russia, where opportunities for violation of fundamental rights and freedoms are abused. Secondly, having received the right to go behind the defense of the arbitrariness of officials to court, citizens are still few of them. People are more willing with their troubles go to the prosecutor. Why? They are confused by the duration of the trial. It is no less important that such protection is too expensive: in recent years, the court fee has increased significantly. Getting professional legal aid With modern prices for services, not all for the pocket.

Other - prosecutor's office. Here citizens are addressed as the most affordable organ, which is able to quickly and qualifying, for free to take measures to protect the violated rights.

I will give a few digits. For the year in the prosecutor's office, about 300 thousand appeals of citizens receive only along the line of overall supervision. Among them are 95 thousand - on violations labor legislation; 43 thousand - housing; 10 thousand - pension; 15 thousand - minusions on minors; 5 thousand - on issues related to land reform. We will be frank: courts are not yet ready to take on this amount of work. It is difficult to imagine what will happen if, say, from tomorrow, prosecutors will cease to engage in human rights activities. At the current state of the judicial system russian citizen With his troubles and concerns will actually be able to take advantage of their right "on the judge."

This is one side of the case concerning the subjective attitude of citizens to the court and prosecutor's office. The second refers to the problem of the relationship of the prosecutor's office and the functioning of legal proceedings. This issue should be kept in mind one important circumstance: in relation to the supervision of the execution of laws, as well as the oversight of respect for human rights and freedoms and the citizen, the prosecutor's office is mainly drawn to the abolition of illegal legal acts and in other cases violations of the right to court, that is . The position of the prosecutor is tested in court. And only after the court decision acquires a binding nature.

Therefore, the emphasis on the judicial form of protection does not have to lead to turning the efforts of the prosecutor's office in this direction.

Now about the supervision of the execution of laws by the bodies that carry out operational investigative activities, inquiry and preliminary investigation. It affects a huge scale and emergency, especially now, the sphere of combating crime. The prosecutor's office pursues two main objectives: to ensure the protection of citizens, society and states from criminal encroachments and compliance with the prosecutor's supervision constitutional law and freedoms of those who were involved in the criminal proceedings. There are significant changes in Russia.

Until recently, overseeing the execution of laws in the pre-trial stages of the criminal process was a monopoly law (and, of course, the duty) of the prosecutor's office. The court could not intervene in the course of the investigation, until he received the completed case with the indictment. Now the situation has changed. Now the restriction of such critical rights and freedoms of man and citizen, as the right to freedom and personal integrity, on the secret of correspondence, telephone conversations, postal, telegraph and other messages, the inviolability of the housing, was supplied under the control of the court, allowed not otherwise as a court decision. By russian Constitution Only the court has the right to arrest, enter into custody of the suspect or the accused.

However, so far, before the adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code, the project of which is currently being considered in the State Duma, the arrest is made with the sanction of the prosecutor. At the same time, the face contained in custody, his defender or legal representative (if it comes to a minor), the right to appeal against the arrest to the court, but equal to the prosecutor of the term of detention.

During the work on the draft of the new Code, the issue of a more substantial expansion of the scope of judicial control at the pre-trial stages of the criminal process is considered. In particular, it is assumed on the basis of a court decision to exercise home arrest, the inspection of the residential premises, if persons living in it object to him, as well as production in the residential placement of search or excavation against the will of those living there, premises in the state medical institution For the production of forensic psychiatric examination of the suspect or the accused, etc.

The position of the prosecutor's office in this issue is reduced to two moments.

The first participants in the criminal procedure should be eligible to appeal against the action and decision of the investigator and the prosecutor, blocking the path to judicial protection (termination of the case, refusal to initiate criminal proceedings, etc.), as well as limiting their main constitutional rights.

However, at the same time, a list of actions and solutions that may be appealed to the court at the pre-trial stages of the process should be exhaustively determined in the Code. If you allow an appeal to the court of any actions and decisions of the investigator, the preliminary investigation will be paralyzed and becomes impossible.

But this does not mean that all other actions and decisions of the investigator and the prosecutor are not subject to control. At the end of the preliminary investigation, when it comes to the court, the Court will have the right and the ability to verify the legality and validity of everyone without the exception of investigative actions and procedural decisions.

The second point - the expansion of the judicial control at the pre-trial stages of the process should not entail the coagulation or weakening of the prosecutor's supervision. Judicial control In this stage, in its essence, in its intended purpose, it is selective and to some extent accidental character: it applies only to individual measures of procedural coercion and enters into operation only in connection with the appeals of citizens. Prosecutor's supervision has a comprehensive and regular character. For example, in 1997, almost 60 thousand unreasonable decisions on termination and 76 thousand were canceled by the prosecutors, almost 39 thousand ideas were made to eliminate violations of the law during the investigation and inquiry.

Important importance we attach the participation of the prosecutor in the consideration of criminal cases by the courts. By approving the indictment in the case and directing the case, the prosecutor, continuing to criminal prosecution, acts in the trial as a public prosecutor.

The participation of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings is not limited to maintaining the accusation. The procedural position of the state prosecutor, the prosecutor takes only a court of first instance. As for the participation of the prosecutor's office in the control stages of the criminal process, as well as in the production of the rebellious circumstances, then the prosecutor does not support the accusation. The task of the prosecutor in these stages of the process is to promote its participation correct, in accordance with the law to resolve the case.

It should be said about the participation of prosecutors in consideration by civil cases. Only in the last two years they participated in the consideration of more than 600 thousand such cases. This is, first of all, cases of restoration at work illegally dismissed, on eviction, on the restriction of the capacity of citizens, of deprivation parental rights. The participation of prosecutors in the consideration of such cases, their conclusions are one of the guarantees of the adoption of a legitimate and reasonable decision.

In solving questions about the preparation and presentation of lawsuits in the procedure of civil proceedings, the prosecutor's office proceeds from the requirements of paragraph 4 of article 27 of the Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation", in accordance with which in case of violation of human rights and freedoms and citizen, when the affected health , age or other reasons cannot personally defend their rights and freedoms or when the rights and freedoms of a significant number of citizens are violated or, by virtue of other circumstances, violation has gained special social importance, the prosecutor presents and supports the lawsuit in the court in the interests of victims.

The prosecutor is obligatory in court proceedings of civil cases, if such participation is provided for by law or recognized by the necessary court, as well as on reinstatement cases, evicting citizens without providing residential premises, on the release of property from arrest and initiated by applications and claims of prosecutors.

Recently, the activities of the prosecutor's office in the arbitration proceedings have recently received a qualitatively new development. This is manifested not only in the increase in the volume of claim, but also to substantially updating its meaningful aspects, improving the quality of procedural documents, more efficient use of authority to participate in the arbitration process in order to strengthen the legality in the economic sphere.

Positive shifts in the work of prosecutors for the implementation of powers in arbitration legal proceedings were facilitated by organizational and staff activities. Currently, independent sectoral units (in the form of departments or groups on the implementation of the powers of the prosecutor's office for applying to the Arbitration Court and participate in the arbitration process) were established in prosecutors 60 constituent entities of the Russian Federation. The number of appeals of prosecutors to arbitration courts over the past three years has doubled.

And finally, another form of participation of the prosecutor in judicial activity. According to the Prosecutor's Office of the Prosecutor General, the Prosecutor General has the right to contact the Plenum of the Supreme Court and in the Plenum of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation with a request for the dacha courts of explanations on issues judicial practice in civil, arbitration, criminal and administrative deeds. This allows the prosecutor's office to achieve the elimination of the facts of misunderstanding and applying the law, to influence the formation of the relevant law of judicial practice.

Now about the relationship between the prosecution authorities and the constitutional justice. In the Constitution of Russia, the Prosecutor General is not named among those who own the right to appeal Constitutional Court. (Just prosecutors in some subjects of the federation are endowed with this right.) There is no mention of the General Prosecutor's Office and the Law on the Constitutional Court. We believe that it is wrong.

The Prosecutor General, in the hands of which concentrates the extensive information about the contrary to the laws of the Constitution, as well as materials on other problems that are included in the terms of reference of the Constitutional Court must have such a right. The prosecutor's office takes energetic measures to solve this issue. But it seems that there is (or may be) and other points of contact with the prosecutor's office with constitutional courts.

This is generated, in particular, the need for introducing at least any official control over the decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia, which acts as the only and last instance. After all, it would be wrong to perceive any court decision as impeccable. Therefore, one of the means to overcome such a situation could be the introduction of objections to its decisions to the plenum of the Constitutional Court of the Constitutional Court to be compiled and motivated.

Another channel of contacting the prosecution authorities with a constitutional court is scheduled today in connection with the problems of perception of court decisions by the authorities of the subjects of the Federation. The fact is that the decisions of the Constitutional Court adopted on specific acts of the subjects of the Federation formally have the effect on these specific acts, although the situation challenged in the court may be contained in acts and other subjects. And there are such cases.

In this regard, we believe that the protests of prosecutors could contribute to the execution of the decisions of the Constitutional Court outside its assessment of individual regional acts.

One of the most important issues that arose in the course of the practical application of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is the question of the criminal procedure powers of the assistants of the prosecutors of all levels, as well as prosecutors of departments and departments.

If the OPC norms are literally, then, in my opinion, the specified prosecutors are not entitled to be public prosecutors in a criminal case.

According to paragraph 6 of Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the public prosecutor is supporting the prosecutor's office for the court on behalf of the state, but on behalf of the prosecutor and in cases where the preliminary investigation was performed in the form of inquiry, the investigator or the investigator. The assistant to the prosecutor seems to fall under the concept of "the official of the Prosecutor's Office", especially since it is mentioned in paragraph 31 of Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, the head of the department of logistics of the Prosecutor's Office of the region is also an official, but no one will come to anyone to recognize him the right to maintain public prosecution. In addition, it will not forget that Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure begins words "if no other", i.e. Contains general rules.

And in Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is determining the powers of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings, including the authority to maintain public charges in court (Part 4), contains a special norm, where the prosecutor's office is entitled to support public prosecution. It says that "the powers of the prosecutor provided for in this article are carried out by the prosecutors of the district, the city, their deputies equivalent to prosecutors and superior prosecutors." Notice - the assistant prosecutor here is not mentioned.

The prosecutor of the department (control) of the prosecutor's office of the subject of the federation cannot be a "higher" prosecutor in relation to the prosecutor of the city or district, if only because it does not have the authority to cancel the decision of the latter (this is the right to make only the prosecutor of the subject of the Federation or his deputy. Thus, the Code of Criminal Procedure clearly defined an exhaustive list of prosecutors' officials who have the authority to support public prosecution: Prosecutors - heads of the district (urban) level and their deputies; Higher prosecutors (i.e., the prosecutor of the subject of the Federation, equivalent to a military or other specialized prosecutor, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation) and their deputies.

These persons may delegate these powers only in one case - when the investigation was carried out in the form of inquiry, and it is entitled to delegate them to only one person - the investigator or the investigator who conducted an inquiry in this case (part 4 of Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Code of Criminal Procedure does not allow the prosecutors to transfer these powers to their assistants, prosecutors of departments (offices) or other persons.

Meanwhile, the Federal Law "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation" (Article 36) still provided for the possibility of the participation of the assistant prosecutor, as well as the management prosecutor (department) as a public prosecutor in a criminal case. However, in this part, it is no longer subject to use: Art. 7 of the Code of Criminal Proizews directly prohibits the court and all other participants in the process to apply the law contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The problem is that for most criminal cases, the state accusation has so far been supported by the assistants of prosecutors of cities, districts and prosecutors of departments (departments) of the prosecutor's office of the subjects of the Federation. The Code of Criminal Procedure has deprived of the named officials of these powers (as well as all other powers in the criminal process).

It turns out that now the lawsuit according to any criminal case can begin with requests to the state of protection against the public prosecutor: "Name the position you take in the prosecution authorities."

Hearing the answer: "Assistant Prosecutor of the District" (or Prosecutor of Management, Department), the Protection Party is entitled to immediately turn to the court: "Dear Court! According to parts 4 and 6 of Article 37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Assistant Prosecutor of the district, as well as prosecutor management and department, not authorized Maintain a state accusation in court. I declare a discoverty to this state prosecutor, for he is not an appropriate state prosecutor. "

And the court, in my opinion, will have to satisfy the petition of the side of protection. If the court does not do this and leave the assistant to the prosecutor in the process, this may be the basis for the subsequent cancellation of the sentence.

The "Exception" of the Assistants of the Prosecutor, Prosecutors and Departments from the Criminal Procedure is enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutors and departments from the criminal process looks unreasonable. It seems appropriate introduction in Art. 5 and 37 of the Code of Criminal Problems concerning the entry of these people with certain procedural powers, including the right to maintain public accusation in court.

I believe that the powers of the state prosecutor are not entitled to carry out not only the assistants of the district, urban prosecutor, but also to the higher prosecutors, right up to the assistant (senior assistant) of the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, as they are also not endowed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, the procedural powers of the public prosecutor.

Based on the requirements of Ch. 6 Art.37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prosecutors, heads of departments (offices) of all links, which are also not entitled to support the court on behalf of the state, fully applies to the prosecutors.

Thus, in the system of bodies of the prosecutor's office, the function of the state prosecutor, only the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation and its deputies, prosecutors of the subjects of the Federation and their deputies, district prosecutors, cities and their deputies, and their deputies equal to them can be carried out.

At the same time, the author does not consider the position of the legislator regarding the procedural figure of the state prosecutor optimal. I believe that when amendments and additions in the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is necessary to exclude the provisions of the prosecutor to entrust the maintenance of public prosecution in court to investigators and investigators.

As for the assistants of the prosecutor, it is advisable to pay them to the procedural authority of the state prosecutor. To do this, it is enough to change the editors of Ch.6 and supplement the new part (Ch. 7) Article.37 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which are set forth in the following expectancy:

"6. The powers of the prosecutor provided by the units of the first, second and third of this article are carried out by the prosecutors of the district, cities, their deputies equivalent to prosecutors and superior prosecutors.

7. The powers of the prosecutor stipulated by the four and five of this article are carried out by assistants of the Prosecutor General, the prosecutor of the subject of the Federation, the prosecutor of the district, the cities equated to prosecutors, and equal to the heads and prosecutors of the Departments (Offices) of the Prosecutor's Office. "

1. Constitution of the Russian Federation (1993).

2. Federal Law of November 17, 1995 N 168-FZ "On Amendments and Additions to the Law of the Russian Federation" On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation "(with amended and add.)

3. "Prosecutor's supervision", textbook, edited by Professor Yu.E. Rinokuurova, M-2001, ed. "Yuratt"

4. Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (ed. D.N. Kozak, E.B. Mizulina) - M.: Lawyer, 2002

5. Legal status of the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation and the problem of administrative justice on financial issues (A.A. Demin, "Citizen and Law", N 8, August 2001)

6. Foreign Russian Prosecutor's Office (1864-1917) (V.G. Bessarabov, "Journal of Russian Law", N 10, October 2002)

7. New Code of Code of Criminal Procedure reflect the needs of the practice (Y. Lyakhov, "Russian Justice", N 1, January 2004)

8. Does the assistant prosecutor have the right to support public prosecution? (V. Sopin, Russian Justice, N 10, October 2003)

9. The prosecutor in the lawsuit - the figure of irresponsible (S. Polyakov, Y. Khudyakov, "Russian Justice", N 1, January 2002)

10. Judicial reforms in Kazakhstan and Russia. Comparative analysis (K. Mami, "Russian Justice", N 12, December 2001)

11. The defender should not be right than that of the preset (V. Filippov, Russian Justice, N 7, July 2000)

12. "The powers of the prosecutor's office in relations with the judicial system" (Skoras Yu., Russian Justice, 1999, N 3)

Article 35 of the Law "On the Prosecutor's Office" calls the general powers of prosecutors when considering cases by the courts. So, the prosecutor has the right:

• 1) implement criminal prosecution in court;
• 2) to perform in criminal proceedings as a public prosecutor;
• 3) contact the court with a statement;
• 4) to enter into business at any stage of the process.

Special powers possesses the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation, which:

• 1) takes part in the meetings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation;
• 2) addresses the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue of violation of the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens by law applied or subject to use in a particular case.

The prosecutor or his deputy within its competence is entitled to bring an appeal, cassation, supervisory presentation to the illegal or unreasonable court order to the higher court. In addition, Art. 36 FZ "On the Prosecutor's Office of the Russian Federation").

Maintaining a prosecutor of state accusation in court

Maintaining public accusations in the court of first instance can be divided into several stages:

• 1) preparation for participation at the court session;
• 2) participation in the preliminary hearing;
• 3) participation at the court session;
• 4) familiarization with the trial of the court session and the court decision.

The entry of the prosecutor to the process begins from the moment of the country, the head of the prosecutor's office of the relevant order. For the heads of the prosecutor's office should be obvious that it is necessary to appoint state prosecutors in advance. According to the most difficult, multi-episodes with a large number of defendants, you can create groups of prosecutors. This practice has both positive aspects and disadvantages; The most obvious negative point is the need to use only several employees at once.

Of course, the district (urban) prosecursors even the same subject of the Russian Federation differ in different ways to work under criminal surveillance, depending on the staff and real number of employees, the number of judges and the volume of the cases under consideration, the presence of transport and other specialized prosecutors and other circumstances. In the best position, those assistants of the prosecutor were found that support the public accusation of cases considered by one composition of the court. Knowing all the cases appointed to the hearing, they have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the affairs in advance. Even with a large amount of work, they may take the following measures to ensure that it is most likely to prepare for the process:

• - Having received supervisory production, the prosecutor should immediately familiarize himself with him. Experienced government prosecutors already in familiarization with the indictment represent the perspective of the case or at least with a large share of probability can predict whether significant problems arise with its consideration. Sometimes the conclusions of the investigation of the guilt of the accused and qualifications of the deeds are so do not comply with the above evidence that the prosecutor does not even have a large experience sees this inconsistency. In such cases, it is necessary to study the case materials as early as possible and determine their preliminary position;
• - If the prosecutor does not have the opportunity to study all the cases for which he must support public prosecution, then first of all should pay attention to the following cases:
• - investigated by inexperienced investigators, investigators or those persons who previously allowed significant errors;
• - in which the defender participates;
• - with the most difficult to qualify for the composition of crimes;
• - with a bad evidentiary base;
• - In the course of the investigation of which significant violations of the norms of criminal procedure legislation were allowed.

In the event that, when studying materials, the public prosecutor arises questions to which he finds it difficult to answer, he can and should:

• - to report the case to the prosecutor of the district (city);
• - Counseling with other state prosecutors (not necessarily more experienced) - in their practice there could be similar cases;
• - To seek advice in the criminal court department of the higher prosecutor's office, whose prosecutors are familiar with the practice of regional (or equivalent to the regional) court.

All of the above applies, of course, to resolve the difficulties arising at the subsequent stages.

In a more severe position there are those government prosecutors, the number of which is less than the number of judges. And in this case, in addition to the above recommendations, they must most fully explore cases considered:

• - judges who do not have sufficient experience;
• - Judges who are among the least participate in the study of evidence.

In addition to the assistants of the prosecutor, for which the maintenance of public prosecution is a direct responsibility, the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation requires that other employees of the prosecutor's office, including the district prosecutor and his deputies, in consideration by criminal courts.

In the meaning of Part 4 of Art. 37 Code of Criminal Procedure The Prosecutor has the right to entrust the maintenance of public prosecution to the person who has investigated under this criminal case. However, at present, in accordance with the order of the Prosecutor General, it is prohibited until a special order to entrust these persons to maintain public prosecution. Attracting investigators and investigators to maintain public prosecution has its undoubted advantages: first, the involvement of a larger number of employees of the prosecutor's office to this activity makes it possible to fill the lack of state prosecutors; secondly, - and this, in our opinion, the most important-consumeriatric staff related to the investigation of criminal cases, get the opportunity to see the final result of their work and make sure that the perfect, from their point of view, is not a criminal case in the opinion of the court. .

In order for the reader to be able to correctly perceive the above in this chapter, the author believes to clarify that, having experience in maintaining public accusations, both in the district courts and in the St. Petersburg City Court, he understands that many shortcomings in the work of district (urban) Prosecutors are partly summoned by objective reasons - a large number of cases considered by the courts, and the lack of assistants of the prosecutor. He also gives a report and is that it is quite difficult to combine the management of the prosecutor's office for the prosecution on all the cases under consideration with appropriate preparation for the court session.

Communicating with employees who carry out the investigation, and with persons, the investigation of supervising, the author came to the striking conclusion: even the most experienced ones, those whose professionalism is not questioned, often poorly present the fate of the work of the work.

Even in the past times, when the problem of the admissibility of evidence was not so acute, as now, and opportunities to eliminate the shortcomings by conducting an additional investigation, there were incomparable, lack of understanding by investigators, investigators, heads of investigative departments and departments, deputy prosecutors and prosecutors of regions (cities) court requirements represented additional difficulties to maintain public prosecution. By the way, the previously existing institution that existed earlier, sometimes allowed investigators and overseeing prosecutors to find out what evaluation the courts gave the evidence with them. Supporting the state accusation, these employees can make sure that their ideas are about what is needed to make a lawyer conviction, and the court's opinion does not always coincide.

It should be noted that the mistakes of public prosecutors in the courts of various levels have their own characteristics.

Errors that allow prosecutors involved in the consideration of cases with regional and equivalent courts are caused primarily by the complexity of the category of affairs them and are associated, as a rule, with the qualifications of the deed. Under the error here, it is necessary to understand the wrong position of the participating in the prosecutor, regardless of whether the sentence was canceled or subsequently changed in accordance with the opinion of the State Prosecutor or the court did not share this position and decided a legitimate and reasonable sentence.

In any of these cases, we can talk about poor-quality maintenance of public prosecution.

The disadvantages of maintaining the courts in the courts of district (urban) links are usually other reasons associated with the insufficient experience of the assistants of the prosecutor, many of which have a small work experience in law enforcement.

As a rule, criminal proceedings on criminal cases do not attract the attention of prosecutors due to the fact that the cases considered by them are considered to be the affairs of private accusations and are not otherwise initiated by the victim, its legal Representative and representative. At the same time, the criminal case on crimes provided for by Art. 115, 116, 129, part 1 Art. 130 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may be initiated by the prosecutor, as well as by the investigator, the investigator with the consent of the prosecutor in cases where the victims of the helpless state, being dependent or for other reasons, cannot protect their rights and legitimate interests. In such cases, the prosecutor sends a case to produce a preliminary investigation and further supports public prosecution at the court hearing.

By the prosecutor of the appeal of cassation and private submissions on illegal and unreasonable decisions of criminal cases.