Criteria for the quality of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings

Cover Page

Cite item

Full Text

Open Access Open Access
Restricted Access Access granted
Restricted Access Subscription Access

Abstract

The quality of judicial decisions is one of the main factors according to which the fairness of justice, the activities of the judiciary, as well as the law enforcement system as a whole, and the ability of the state to effectively protect individual rights and freedoms are assessed. The quality of court decisions significantly affects the assessment of the judicial system by society, is an important condition for trust in the court.

The purpose of the article is to identify criteria for assessing the quality of decisions made by the court.

The methodological basis of the research is the universal dialectical method of scientific cognition, which made it possible to study the subject of research in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of cognition (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, modeling) and private scientific methods of cognition (formally legal, historical-legal, comparative-legal, concrete-sociological.

Conclusions. The quality of judicial decisions in criminal proceedings directly depends on compliance with the requirements imposed on them. Such requirements include legality, reasonableness and fairness. Enforceability, completeness, reliability, consistency, persuasiveness, certainty, unconditionality, transparency, clarity and comprehensibility, correctness are also often considered as criteria for the quality of court decisions. The criteria for the quality of judicial decisions can be contained not only in the norms of the law that define the basic requirements for them – legality, validity, motivation, fairness – but also be in other sources, or even be actually outside the framework of legal regulation (completeness, reliability, consistency, correctness). Evaluation of the quality of solutions should also be carried out in terms of these criteria.

Full Text

Restricted Access

About the authors

Oksana V. Kachalova

Russian State University of Justice

Author for correspondence.
Email: Oksana_kachalova@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4440-8510

Doctor of Science (Law), Professor, Professor of the Department

Russian Federation, Moscow

Maksim V. Belyaev

Kazan Branch of the Russian State University of Justice

Email: 2216406@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3326-7508

Doctor of Science (Law), Associate Professor, Professor of the Department

Russian Federation, Kazan

References

  1. Gorobets, V. T. Legality, validity and fairness of the verdict in the conditions of adversarial process. Rossijskaya yusticiya = Russian Justice. 2003;(8):37-39. (In Russ.)
  2. Perlov, I. D. Sentence in the Soviet criminal trial. Moscow: Gosyurizdat; 1960. 263 p. (In Russ.)
  3. Lupinskaya, P. A. Decisions in criminal proceedings: theory, legislation, practice. 2nd ed., repr. and add. Moscow: Normа, Infra-M; 2010. 240 p. (In Russ.)
  4. Ostapenko, I. A. The verdict as the final decision in a criminal case. Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Law) Dissertation. Vladimir; 2007. 21 p. (In Russ.)
  5. Zagorsky, G. I. The decision of the verdict. Problems of theory and practice. 2nd ed. Moscow: Prospekt; 2017. 208 p. (In Russ.)
  6. Glins’ka, N. V. Conceptual foundations for determining and ensuring standards of good quality of criminal procedural decisions. Abstract of Dr. Sci. (Law) Dissertation. Kharkiv; 2015. 42 p. (In Ukr.)
  7. Gaj, O. Yu. The legal force of a sentence in a criminal trial. Cand. Sci. (Law) Dissertation. Saratov; 1999. 179 p. (In Russ.)
  8. Strogovich, M. S. Checking the legality and validity of court sentences. Moscow: Academy of Sciences of the USSR; 1956. 320 p. (In Russ.)
  9. Galoganov, E. A. The role of the court as a subject of evidence in criminal proceedings. Rossijskij sud’ya = Russian Judge. 2003;(1):36-38. (In Russ.)
  10. Bunina, A. V. Sentence as an act of justice. Its properties. Cand. Sci. (Law) Dissertation. Orenburg; 2005. 233 p. (In Russ.)
  11. Ershova, N. S. The validity of the final criminal procedural decisions of the court of first instance. Abstract of Cand. Sci. (Law) Dissertation. Moscow; 2014. 36 p. (In Russ.)
  12. Belyaev, M. V. Judicial decisions in the Russian criminal process: theoretical foundations, legislation and practice. Moscow: Prospekt; 2022. 304 p. (In Russ.)
  13. Alsberg, M., Muse, K.-N. Der Beweisantrag im Strafprozess. 5. Aufl. KÖln, Berlin, Bonn, München: Heymann; 1983. 429 s.
  14. Dorokhov, V. Ya. The content of truth as a goal of proof. In: N. V. Zhogin, ed. Theory of evidence in the Soviet criminal process. 2nd ed., rev. and add. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura; 1973. Pp. 113–138. (In Russ.)
  15. Trusov, A. I. Fundamentals of the theory of judicial evidence: a brief essay. Moscow: Gosyurizdat; 1960. 163 p. (In Russ.)
  16. Polyansky, N. N. An essay on the development of the Soviet science of criminal procedure. Moscow: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR; 1960. 213 p. (In Russ.)
  17. Dobrovol’skaya, T. N. Principles of the Soviet criminal process: questions of theory and practice. Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura; 1971. 200 p. (In Russ.)
  18. Mikhajlovskaya, I. B. Goals, functions and principles of the Russian criminal procedure (criminal procedure form). Moscow: Prospekt; 2003. 144 p. (In Russ.)
  19. Rozin, N. N. Criminal proceedings. St. Petersburg: Pravo; 1914. 546 p. (In Russ.)
  20. Kachalov, V. I. Theoretical foundations of evidence in the execution of final judgments. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2017. 160 p. (In Russ.)
  21. Antonov, M., Pauzhajte-Kulvanskiene, Yu. Methodology of drafting court decisions for Central Asian countries. European Union; 2017. 236 p. URL: Sudgov.kz>pagebiles>171013_metodology_final_colour_web.
  22. Sulejmenov, M. K. Definition of criteria for assessing the quality of judicial decisions in Kazakhstan and abroad. URL: https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=37115678 (In Russ.)
  23. Kachalova, O. V. Judicial decisions in criminal proceedings and social demands of society. Sud’ya = Judge. 2020;(8):57-60. (In Russ.)

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML

Согласие на обработку персональных данных

 

Используя сайт https://journals.rcsi.science, я (далее – «Пользователь» или «Субъект персональных данных») даю согласие на обработку персональных данных на этом сайте (текст Согласия) и на обработку персональных данных с помощью сервиса «Яндекс.Метрика» (текст Согласия).