nazarov-a-d_disser

83

Therefore, the question of legislatively refusing from the rule of ‘prohibition to reverse for a more serious one’ in criminal proceedings when revising charges is of particular relevance, since this rule, while ensuring certain legal procedures, does not affect the accused's right to defence.

It would be quite reasonable for the prosecutor, when approving an indictment, to issue a decision on changing the crime qualification for a more serious one with the facts of the case established by the investigator being constant, to immediately familiarize the accused and his legal counsel with the decision, to provide them with the possibility and reasonably adequate time to prepare defense against a new crime qualification, further study the case file for the accused to give relevant explanations in the course of interrogation and file new motions.

The referral of the case to the prosecutor for re-qualification of a criminal act is postponing the moment of criminal responsibility.

In court hearing, a dispute about the qualification means open presentation of arguments with the prosecutor being the first to offer the qualification.

The legal counsel, the defendant further on in their speeches, in the debate, in a comment, finally, in the pre-imposition statement of the defendant may object to the qualification revision by the public prosecutor. If they need time and the criminal case materials to prepare for objections and defence against the new charges, the court (the judge) at the request of the defense lawyer, or the defendant, may adjourn the hearing for the time necessary.

The characteristic of errors’ structure would be incomplete if it did not show the place of fundamental errors therein. Modern realities of criminal procedural activity have prompted us to separate and study this new type of errors144.

A norm of previously applied Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF has become a subject of lively debate in juridical literature. The wording of sec. 3 Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF as amended of March 14, 2009, introduced a new notion of

‘fundamental violations’, which, according to P.A. Lupinskaya, was specified neither in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF nor in the rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. Moreover, along with a list of specific violations of the criminal procedural law, which were classified as fundamental ones, the law contained judgmental notions of ‘deprivation’ or ‘limitation’ of rights which affected the legality of the sentence, rulings or judgment of the court145.

144Nazarov A.D. Fundamental errors in Russian criminal Proceedings. Issues of theory and practice. LAPLAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2011; Nazarov A.D. Errors in detention as a kind of fundamental errors // Coll. ac. papers from the proceedings of Int. research and practice conference ‘High-potential innovations in science, education, manufacturing and transport’. T.15. Law and political science. Odessa, 2011. P. 3-8; Nazarov A.D., Drobyshevskiy S.A. ... Erroneous Detention as a Type of Fundamental Mistake in Criminal Procedure // Journal of Siberian Federal

University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2012. № 5. et al.

145Lupinskaya P.A. Decisions in criminal proceedings: theory, legislation, practice // M., 2010. P.1.

84

A.A. Davletov assumed that this provision, set forth in Art. 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF, on the one hand, made it possible to correct a judicial error not in favor of the convicted or acquitted, but on the other hand, after one year, maintained the verdict in favor of the convicted and acquitted146.

Having said that, there were significantly more opponents to Article 405 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure of the RF. According to F.N. Bagautdinov, “this provision does not comply with the principle of equality of parties to criminal proceedings because it gives one party an unfair advantage in the realization of their rights ... As a result, the victim may not fully exercise their right to judicial protection and fair justice”147.

A.D. Boykov was against revision of a case for a more serious crime in court proceedings of the supervisory instance. According to him, non bis in idem principle is not applicable in this case: it is not about re-conviction, but about eliminating a judicial error committed in the interest of legitimacy, justice, real respect for human rights148.

In P.A. Lupinskaya’s opinion, the wording of Part 3 of Art. 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF indicated that making a conclusion of the fundamentality of a violation in the cases when the law does not specify a list of such violations, requires a series of value judgments with regard to the established violations of procedural law, namely, whether a party to the trial has been deprived of their rights or severely restricted in them as a result of the violations of the law committed. “With this in mind, the conclusion of the substantivity (fundamentality) of a violation requires a direct conclusion on whether the violation committed affected the legitimacy of the judgment or ruling of the court”149.

The position of P.A. Lupinskaya was supported by I.S. Dikaryev, who said that the

Constitutional Court of the RF had not specified the notion of ‘fundamental violation affecting the outcome of the case’, outlining only its general features. In particular, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that exceptions to the general rule prohibiting the revision of the case for a more serious crime were only appropriate as a last resort, when the failure to correct a miscarriage of justice would distort the very essence of justice, the meaning of the sentence as an act of justice, destroying the required balance of constitutionally protected values, including the rights and legitimate interests of convicts and victims.

In addition to that, the legal certainty on the question of what constitutes a ‘fundamental violation’ is crucial, because what meaning the notion is given depends on defining when it is admissible to revise a final effective court judgment, rulings, or orders of the court, on the grounds

146Davletov A.A. Criminal proceedings of the RF. Ekaterinburg, 2011. P. 213.

147Bagautdinov F.N. Securing public and private interests in crime investigation. M., 2004. P. 309.

148Boykov A.D. Victims of Crime // Mirovoy sudya. 2006. № 10. P. 24.

149Lupinskaya P.A. Decisions in criminal proceedings: theory, legislation, practice. P.2

85

entailing the deterioration of the position of the convicted (the acquitted). The legislator tried to solve this problem through wording sec.3 Article 405 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the

RF as follows: “The fundamental violations include violations of the criminal procedural law which resulted in a sentence by the court of illegal composition or the verdict delivered by the jury of unlawful composition, as well as those that deprived participants in criminal proceedings of the possibility to exercise the rights guaranteed by this Code, on a fair trial on the basis of a principle of adversariality and equality of the parties, or significantly restricted these rights, if such deprivation or restriction affected the legality of the sentence, ruling or decision of the court’150.

The above described position indicates the amorphy of the category ‘fundamental violations of criminal procedure’ existing earlier. The presence of judgmental notions prevented from considering this category in a particular perspective. The Court had to determine the extent to which (significantly or insignificantly) the rights of participants in criminal proceedings were restricted and whether these restrictions had affected the legality of the sentence. With the discretion of the court, the assessment of the nature of a violation could always have some uncertainty, one-sidedness, and controversiality, which could lead to judicial errors.

Fundamental criminal procedural violations were one of the most controversial categories in the criminal procedure legislation. There were also disputes related to the essence of this phenomenon.

The development of the legislation leaned towards the rejection of the category of fundamental criminal procedure violations. But we, however, by analogy with the concept of fundamental violations of criminal procedure, believe that it possible to introduce the concept of fundamental errors in criminal court proceedings into scientific and practical usage, since the price of different errors to humans, society and the state is different. And where the price of failure for the person, society and the state is very high, there is a sense, in our view, to talk about the fundamentality of errors, which entails an elevated attention to them from researchers and law enforcers, a special criminal procedure mechanism of prediction, detection, correction and elimination thereof.

In our view, fundamental errors are not criminal acts or omissions of subjects conducting preliminary investigation and a court hearing of the criminal case that resulted in particularly substantive violations of the legitimate rights and interests of people, society and the state in criminal proceedings.

1. application by law enforcement officials (primarily – operational officers) of unlawful violence (primarily – torture, physical violence) to ‘suspected’ persons, suspects, the accused to

150 Dikaryev I.S. The concept of ‘fundamental violation’ in criminal proceedings // Russian justice. 2009. № 6. P. 3.

86

obtain their testimony about the crime not established by the subjects conducting the preliminary investigation and the trial of the criminal case;

2.application by law enforcement officials (primarily – operational officers) of provocations of criminal manifestations not established by the subjects conducting the preliminary investigation and the trial of the criminal case;

3.Errors committed by subjects conducting the preliminary investigation and the trial in the collection, verification and evaluation of evidence in a criminal case, in the application of the penal law resulting in the suspect, the accused, illegally detained (not detained), illegally held (not held) in custody, illegally sentenced to excessively severe (especially to a real term of imprisonment) or too lenient punishment.

Failure to establish the application of illegal methods against suspects, defendants, the accused by subjects conducting criminal proceedings

The problem of using ‘torture techniques’ in the activities of law enforcement officials involved in the orbit of operational-search investigation and criminal proceedings, the fight against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, are relevant to many countries in the world, Russia among them.

L.A. Zashlyapin in his study noted that 86% of lawyers surveyed in Chita region believed that it was investigators and inquirers (operational officers) that most often applied such criminal coercion to testify151. 270 police officers and prosecutors interviewed by I.V. Buneva not only confirmed the fact that the lawyers above noted, but informed of a broader distribution of this phenomenon unacceptable in a democratic society. Only 4% of respondents stated that they did not use illegal methods in obtaining evidence152. Violent pressure from law enforcement officials leads to the fact that the accused even confess to the most serious crimes – murders. The data of several years collected by V.I. Sankov in Voronezh region indicate that out of 14 persons accused of murder, whose innocence was later proved and the prosecution dismissed for rehabilitating grounds, 12 persons confessed to the crime as a result of torture and other unlawful methods applied to them153.

The suspect, or the accused, as a result of illegal methods applied to him by law enforcement officers during interrogations by the inquirer, the investigator, in court ‘voluntarily’ gives evidence of the crime which may be either true (the suspect, the accused is indeed guilty,

151Zashlyapin L.A. The principles of the procedure for the investigation into investigators and inquirers criminal activities: Ab. Dis. for Cand. Jurid. Sciences. Ekaterinburg, 1993. P. 3.

152Buneva I.Y. Criminal liability for coercion to testify: Ab. Dis. for Cand. Jurid. Sc. Omsk, 2002.

153Sankov V.I. The tactics of interrogation of the person confessing to the murder // Criminalistic means and methods of crime investigation. Voronezh, 1999. P. 79.

87

committed a crime, but the confession of committing a crime is only given after being subjected to violence and torture), or false, including defamation, self-incrimination. Such inadmissible evidence start the chain of investigative, prosecutorial and judicial errors and, at times, crimes (for example, negligence) committed by inquirers, investigators, prosecutors and judges.

Our study held in the Mid-Siberian region in 20022013 showed that 7% of the cases during preliminary investigation and in 12% of cases during court proceedings of criminal cases defendants (and their legal counsels, legal representatives) made statements of the application to them in the process of inquiry or preliminary investigation of illegal methods of investigation (most often threats, beating by operation officers or detention in so-called ‘sweatboxes’ in confinement units, etc.)154.

A.A. Vasyayev, investigating the problem, has concluded that in 74% of criminal cases defendants made statements about the application to them of illegal methods of investigation. The jurist critically examines the prosecutor's inspections conducted with regard with these statements, as well as the actions of the court to check these claims validation. He believes that ‘to reverse this state of affairs may only be done through training (professional level, the strengthening of moral principles) of law enforcement officers and focusing them on observing the rights and legitimate interests of the individual’155. Of course, it is a good intention, but it is impossible to do anything without procedural mechanisms compensating for this negative phenomenon.

International law distinguished three categories of prohibited conduct.

1.Torture – deliberate inhuman treatment causing very serious and cruel injuries.

2.Inhuman treatment – inflicting severe physical and moral suffering.

3.Degrading treatment – mistreatment aiming at causing the victim to feel fear, anguish and inferiority which may humiliate and debase them and possibly break their physical or moral resistance156.

154See: Nazarov A.D. Investigative errors at pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings; Nazarov A.D. The effect of investigative errors on court errors; Nazarov A.D. Fundamental errors in Russian criminal proceedings; Nazarov A.D. Issues of implementing European standards for effective investigation in Russian criminal proceedings // Russian justice. 2010. №11. P.73-74; Nazarov A.D. The activities of the court in identifying the evidence obtained through illegitimate (illegal) methods // Rossiyskiy sudya. 2010. №11. P. 29-31; Nazarov A.D., Brester A.A. Failure to observe constitutional rights and freedoms of the person and citizen in criminal proceedings relating to the application of illegal methods by operational officers // Siberian Federal University Journal. S. Humanities. 2011. V.4. №2. P. 267273; Nazarov A.D. The European standard of effective investigation - a reliable mechanism for protection against torture in the activities of the new police force of Russia // Current issues of crime control in the Siberian region: coll. mater. Krasnoyarsk, 2011. p. 125-129, etc.

155Vasyayev A.A. On applying illegitimate methods of investigation to the suspects (accused) in criminal proceedings / Justice administration system in criminal cases in modern Russia as social interaction between the individual and the state (Text): collection of academic articles: in 2 parts. Part 2 / ed. staff: T.K. Ryabinina (Ch. Ed.), A.A. Kovyazin (Ch. Ed.) (Et al); Kursk St. Tech. Univ. Kursk, 2009. 340 p. P.195-200. P.200.

156Gomien D., Harris, D., Zvaak L. The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Social Charter: law and practice. M., 1998. P. 136.

88

Unfortunately, all these three variants of prohibited behavior, most often of operational officers, may be seen in our criminal proceedings having a distorting effect on the results of investigation, i.e. contributing to the emergence of investigative and judicial errors in criminal cases.

This means that the problem of the influence of these negative factors in the criminal proceedings still remains. It has remained with us for a long time and is a stimulus for both fundamental research and the search for optimal solutions related to the judicial and legal reform in our country157.

Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter – the ECHR) states that ‘no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’.

The state under no circumstances is allowed to deviate from the requirements of this article, which has been repeatedly emphasized by the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the Court or the ECtHR).

Another disturbing fact is that every year in compliance with Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of torture) the Court of ECHR makes a significant amount of rulings against Russia.

Article 3 of the ECHR, as the Court has pointed out many times158, ‘enshrines one of the fundamental values of a democratic society. Even in the most difficult circumstances, such as the fight against organized terrorism and crime, the Convention clearly prohibits torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Unlike most of the substantive provisions of the Convention and Protocols 1 and 4, Article 3 makes no provision for exceptions and no derogation thereof is permitted: according to Article 15, it does not cease to act even in the case of public emergency threatening the life of the nation’159.

No situation of acute necessity may justify application of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.

The Court specifies that ‘no matter what impact a confession obtained from the applicant under the pressure had on the outcome of criminal proceedings, this evidence has made the criminal proceedings unfair ... in the present case there has been a violation of sec. 1 Art. 6 of the

Convention’160.

157Boykov A.D. The third power in Russia. Essays on justice, legitimacy and judicial reform in 1990-1996. M., 1997. P. 47-48.

158‘Greek case’ (Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands v. Greece N 3321/67, 3322/67, 3323/67 and 3324/67 (1969)) // URL: www.echr.coe.int. Access from legal reference system ‘Consultant-Plus’.

159The court’s ruling in Aksoy vs Turkey, p. 62. Access from legal reference system ‘Consultant-Plus’.

160Mostipan vs Russia. The ruling of the European Court of Human Rights of 16 October 2014. Access from legal reference system ‘Consultant-Plus’.

89

The Court also points out that Article 3 “categorically prohibits torture and inhuman and degrading treatment and enshrines the application thereof irrespective of the reprehensible nature of the individual's behavior”161.

In our opinion, the use in proving any inadmissible evidence received from the defendant as a result of applying to him illegal methods by the operational officers, investigators, etc., not detected (not established, not identified) or, which is even worse, ignored by the judge is a rough judicial error (in our classification – a fundamental error) or sometimes even criminal negligence of the judge.

Non-establishment by subjects conducting criminal proceeding of errors related to provocations in operational-search activity

Criminal intentions of a certain circle of people have been persistent so far. And when these intentions relate to interests of the individual and the state, the private sector business, the problem is to be solved by the most productive means. Often, however, the police are so deeply involved in official interests and rates of crime detection, that without hesitate use methods that directly violate human rights while law enforcement agencies activities aimed at combating crime actually produce these crimes, ‘clone’ them.

According to A.S. Gorelik, ‘the state is interested in revealing all the crimes committed, but does not seek the number of crimes increasing through provocation or artificial inspiration of crimes and their detection where no one had an intention to become a criminal’162.

For many reasons arising from the nature of agencies engaged in the operational-search activity, provocation as a method of fighting crime and solving crimes is very common and actively ‘cultivated’ in the law enforcement system.

The topic of provocation at the present stage is beyond the state limits and acquires a special significance in the international arena when individual rights find protection in the European Court of Human Rights.

In this regard, another urgent problem of the theory and practice of operationalinvestigative activity is defining the appropriate limits (first of all, from a legal point of view) of the procedure for implementing operational information so that operational staff actions do not become provocations of crimes163.

161The case against the United Kingdom (DvUnitedKingdom), p. 47

162Gorelik A.S., Lobanova L.V. Crimes against justice. St.Pb.: R. Aslanov Publishing House ‘Juridical Center Press’, 2005. P. 179.

163Gavrilov B.Y., Bozhenok S.K. On the issue of provocation of crimes (inclusive of the European Court of Human

Rights) // Russian justice. 2006. № 5. P. 48.

90

The criminal law of Russian criminalizes the provocation of a bribe or a commercial bribe (article 304 of the Criminal Code of the RF). However, the criminal legal regulation has not addressed such kinds of provocative actions as a provocation of theft, illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, etc.

S.V. Pozdnyshev believed that “the police are to prevent and combat crimes, rather than create them; provocation is contrary to the purpose of policing, and, being a dirty means contrary to the law, is not to be allowed and permitted. Thus, if the purpose of the instigator is exposing the one being instigated at the moment of committing a crime or an attempt to commit it, then such a

‘noble’ goal does not preclude from bringing him to criminal responsibility for crime provocation’164.

T.V. Kondrashova believes “that classifying the behavior of a provocateur as treacherous and unscrupulous means that he deliberately distorts the idea of the provoked regarding some circumstances of the objective reality ... traditionally, in doctrinal criminal legal literature, this behavior has been quite logically regarded as a way of incitement and entailed a criminal responsibility for criminal complicity”165.

A.A. Piontkovskiy wrote that, in contrast to the instigator, the provocateur “is guided not by the desire in their activities to cause harm to the object upon which the act of the perpetrator is directed but a desire to expose the perpetrator and deliver him to the governmental authorities”166.

Criminal cases with a provocative nature pose a greater danger of investigative, prosecutorial, judicial errors because of their artificiality, incomplete ‘genuinity’.

Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF categorically prohibits the use, for proving in criminal cases, of evidence obtained as a result of operational-investigative activities if it does not meet the requirements proscribed for evidence in this Code.

The main requirements for evidence are set out in Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure

Code of the Russian Federation (‘Inadmissible evidence’), Article 88 the Code of Criminal

Procedure of the RF (‘Rules for evaluating evidence’).

There is no doubt about the fact that the danger of the provocative way in obtaining evidence for criminal proceedings lies within carrying out operational-search actions, especially such as a test purchase, a controlled delivery, an operational experiment (sec. 6, 13, 14 Art. 6 of the Federal Law On Operational-Search Activities’).

164A complete course of criminal law: In 5 vols. V. 1. Crime and Punishment / ed. A.I. Korobeeva. St.Pb., 2008. P.

165Kondrashova T.V. See above. P. 57.

166Piontkovsky A.A. The doctrine of the crime under Soviet penal law. M., 1961, p. 573.

91

Not often, but with expressed concern, jurists speak about the issue of provocation in criminal proceedings used on the incentive of operational divisions’ employees of the law enforcement agencies167.

Unfortunately, despite the recognition of the jurisdiction of the ECtHR following the ratification of the Convention, for a long time Russian law enforcement agencies have not taken into account the respective legal positions of the ECtHR concerning the inadmissibility of provocation of crime, actively using provocative methods in their operational-search activity. It is hardly surprisingly that this practice has been the subject of repeated complaints of Russian citizens to the ECtHR, which has issued a number of rulings with regard to the issue stating that the police provocation violates the provisions of the Convention.

The first of them was the ECtHR Ruling of 15 December 2005 on Vanyan vs the Russian

Federation, the complaint № 53203/99. Subsequently, the legal positions reflected in this decision were developed in the ruling of the ECtHR of 26 October 2006 in the case of Khudobin vs the

Russian Federation, the complaint № 59696/00; the ruling of 4 November 2010, the case of

Bannikova vs the Russian Federation, the complaint № 18757/06; the ruling of 2 October 2012 in the case of Veselov and others against the Russian Federation, the complaint № 23200/10,

24009/07 and 556/10.

The ECtHR case law analysis allows us to select the classifying features of provocative police activities and to develop criteria for distinguishing them from legitimate search operations. Applying these criteria may make it possible to avoid errors in the pre-trial and trial proceedings in criminal cases168.

Fundamental errors in detention, extension of detention and determining punishment

The provisions of Article 22 of the Constitution of the RF provide for special guarantees against the state invasion of personal privacy and integrity. The international legal standard also

167V.Y. Alferov, Ilyinykh V.L. Operational experiment and provocation // Jurisprudence. 1998. №1. P.169-170; Volzhenkin B.V. Sting operation or provocation? // Legality. № 6. P. 26-30; Volzhenkin B.V. Is provocation a legitimate method to combat corruption? // Russian justice. 2001. № 5. P. 45; Kotin V.P. Provocation of a bribe // State and law. 1996. № 2. P. 82-87; Kurchenko B. Distinction between provocation and actions in suppression of crimes // Legitimacy. 2004. №1. P. 10-12; Mikhaylov V.I. Countering the legalization of proceeds from criminal activities: legal regulation, criminal liability, operational-search activities and international cooperation. St. Pb., 2002, p. 158; Nazarov A.D., Mayer K.A. Prohibition of provocations in criminal proceedings // Investigative practices. 2004. №4. P. 29-35; Nazarov A.D. Evidence obtained through provocation is not legitimate: some practical aspects of the issue // Bulletin of KSU. Krasnoyarsk, 2006. №6. P. 336-340; Nazarov A.D. How to oppose the provocation in criminal proceedings to activities blocking criminal practices // Academic essays: Col. ac. papers of the Institute of State and Law. Tyumen, 2007. P.86-93; Nazarov A.D. Some issues of test purchasing operation in the context of the European Court of Human Rights rulings // Issues of modernization of the legal system of modern Russian society. Krasnoyarsk, 2011. P. 302-306.

168See, e.g.: Volynskiy A.F., Lapin E.S. The investigation of the provocation of bribes and commercial bribery. M.: Jurlitinform, 2010. - 160 p.

92

includes specific requirements with regard securing personal integrity of the individual. Let us emphasize once again that errors of state officials in restricting this right are classified as fundamental and substantive by the nature of possible and actual consequences169. Violations of existing procedures with regard to detention are the source of the following errors committed by the investigator, the prosecutor, the court.

1.Erroneously selecting detention of the suspect, the defendant as a preventive restrictive measure, as well as the extension of the terms of detention, in the absence of the necessary evidence and (or) instead of, possible in a particular situation, such preventive measures as house arrest, bail, and other ones, not connected with isolation from society.

This error is accompanied by its opposite - an erroneous non-selection of detention of the suspect, the defendant, as well as non-extension of the term of the detention for these participants, resulting in the aforementioned persons going into hiding from the investigation and the court, committing new crimes, illegally influencing the victim and witnesses. In addition, this error of subjects conducting criminal proceedings may cause a negative reaction of society and provoke disorderly behavior of a certain part of citizens.

2.The arrest used by unscrupulous law enforcement officials as a means of illegally obtaining evidence of a crime from detained persons, which may, at times, result in the suspect, accused, defendant giving the investigator, the court distorted evidence (deformation, selfincrimination, and so forth).

3.The use of ‘excessive qualification’ (‘over-stated qualifications’) in order to avoid a wide

variety of adverse (procedural, career, etc.) consequences for the investigator, the inquirer and as a way to get the desired court resolution of the detention or extension of the detention term.

For example, 61.1% of prosecutors, 33.3% of judges and 20.4% of legal counsels believe that investigators and inquirers ‘overstate’ qualification of the act for the court to be able to reclassify the act to a ‘more lenient’ crime during the subsequent trial without the referral of the criminal case to the prosecutor, while 5.6% of judges, in addition, believe that ‘excessive’ qualification allows you to ensure that you receive the court ruling on the detention of the suspect or the accused170.

169See: Nazarov A.D. Investigative errors at pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings; Nazarov A.D. The effect of investigative errors on court errors; Nazarov A.D. Fundamental errors in Russia criminal proceedings; Nazarov A.D. Investigative and judicial errors in cases of detention. P. 39-43; Nazarov A.D. Law enforcement errors in cases of detention // Legal policy and lawful life. 2010. №2. P. 92-98; Nazarov A.D. Differentiated approach to applying the most stringent preventive punishment as a way to avoid errors // Criminal procedure and forensic reading of the Altai. Barnaul, 2011. P.193-196; Nazarov A.D., Tuzov A.G. A more complex procedure of detention as a way to avoid errors // Legal issues of strengthening Russian statehood: Col. articles. P. 51. Tomsk, 2011. P.109-115; Nazarov A.D. On the improvement of the detention procedure // The judiciary and justice in criminal proceedings: issues and prospects. Ekaterinburg, 2012. P.106-112.

170Appendix №44.