nazarov-a-d_disser

173

Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation devoted a separate decision to these issues341, actualizing it in as early as in 2016.

The Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF establishes the right to appeal procedural actions and decisions as the principle of criminal proceedings (Art. 19).

The Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF stipulates the right to file a complaint with the prosecutor, the head of investigative body (Art. 124), as well as (or) the court (art. 125). Moreover, the participants of criminal proceedings have the right to decide whether to file it first to the prosecutor, the head of the investigative body, and then to the court, or, conversely, at the same time file the complaint to the prosecutor, the head of the investigative body and the court.

In this regard, the proposal made by A.B. Solovyev and N.A. Yakubovich seems to be of relevance: ‘the rights and duties of the court to monitor the legality of the preliminary investigation should be strictly limited by the framework arising from the provisions of the Russian Constitution and ratified international legal treaties of the Russian Federation. In this case it is advisable that the mechanism of the implementation at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation on appealing against decisions and actions of public authorities and officials would provide a general rule of firstly filing the complaint with the prosecutor. This is necessary to protect the court from the unbearable workload which is hardly currently performed by the prosecution apparatus”342.

Y.K. Yakimovich has a peculiar view of the purpose of judicial review.

“Judicial review (no supervision but review) is needed especially now when, unfortunately, the prosecution does not sufficiently supervise the preliminary investigation. Judicial review must be expressed in the consideration of complaints against certain actions by the preliminary investigation and prosecution specified in the law and the court is entitled to rule on these complaints.

Firstly, the court should have the right to consider complaints on the legality of the indictment for a person, it is with the act of indictment that all the negative consequences for this person start.

Therefore, the accused and his legal counsel should be entitled to appeal against the validity of the indictment, and the court should have the right to reverse the said decision in the case of unjustified or illegal indictment.

341The resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of February 10, 2009, № 1 ‘On the court practice of processing complaints in accordance with Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation’. Access from refererce– legal system ‘Consultant Plus’.

342Solovyev A.B., Yakubovich N.A. Preliminary investigation and prosecutor's supervision in the light of the judicial reform // Legitimacy. 1995. № 8. P. 9.

174

This is the most important thing. Everything else, including the appeal against the arrest, is connected with the right discussed above. Otherwise the examination of the motion for the arrest turns into a mere formality: the court is not involved in the review of the legality of indictment and Article 96 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the arrest only on the basis of the severity of the offense of any accused person”343.

According to A.V. Smirnov, rules of the criminal procedure law on appeal do not prevent appeal a decision on the indictment of the person to the court in accordance with Article 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF and the court review of its legality and validity. The court ruling on a complaint must not prejudge the question of guilt of the accused. Such understanding of this provision corresponds to the constitutional human and civil rights, especially the protection of their rights and freedoms by all means not prohibited by law; to judicial protection, the presumption of innocence (Article 45, the first and second part of Article 46, part one of Article 49 of the Russian Constitution), and is also consistent with Article 123 of the Constitution, which provides that proceedings are conducted on adversarially and equally’344.

Certainly, in the context of the detection, prevention and correction of errors the consideration by the court of complaints from persons interested about the decision to prosecute a defendant seems to be one of effective ways to prevent errors, especially fundamental ones.

In actual judicial practice, there are single cases of appeals to the court under Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation about decisions of indictment. The court did not satisfy these complaints, and in 2016 the Plenum of the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the decision to prosecute a defendant can not be challenged in court, like, indeed, a number of other procedural actions and decisions345.

The proposals submitted to the President of Russia in connection with the necessity of introducing the institution of the investigating judge define checking their legality and validity of the original charges presented by the prosecution (indictment), as well as the final charges contained in the indictment as one of the powers of the judge.

Our survey of practitioners shows that strong supporters of the right to challenge in court the decision to prosecute are defense lawyers – 60.7% of them believing that such decision may be appealed to the court both on the ‘question of law’, and ‘the question of fact. 22.2% of respondents-prosecutors, 30.8% –investigators, 20.3% of defense lawyers believe that the resolution under consideration would be possible to appeal for the ‘question of law’ (legality and

343Yakimovich Y.K. Selected articles. Tomsk, 1997, pp. 56–57.

344Smirnov A.V. The appeal of any unlawful or unreasonable indictment. Access from reference– legal system ‘Consultant Plus’.

345The resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of 2016.

175

legitimacy of the indictment and the qualification of the act incriminated to the accused). 83.3% of judges believe that this decision should not be subject to appeal346.

As seen from the above points of view of both scientists and practitioners, the idea of judicial review over the investigation and operational-search activity is perceived differently.

The famous scientist and processualist I.L. Petruhin, assessing arguments of opponents of the idea of judicial control over the investigation (‘the institution is borrowed from the AngloAmerican proceedings and is associated with the retreat of Russian tradition; this institute introduces ‘adversariality’ in the preliminary investigation, but we should have it like this here, the performance of supervisory functions by the two bodies at the same time is unacceptable – by the prosecutor's office and the court, the court can not provide a permanent and operational supervision; the courts are not ready for this work and can not cope with it, judicial review violates the secrecy of the investigation, it is unacceptable to impose on the courts the decision on wiretapping solutions and seizure of postal and telegraphic correspondence (and therefore a number of norms of the Constitution should be suspended and we should restore the order of the prosecutor issuing approvals’), declared them invalid347.

But, at the same time, I.L. Petruhin believed that judicial review is not sufficiently effective. In his opinion, an objective indicator of the effectiveness of judicial review would be low approval by courts of motions for procedural actions from investigation authorities approved by prosecutors under Part 2 of Article 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF348.

If the study, we attempted to understand the reasons for reduced effectiveness of judicial review. The judges being interviewed named disadvantages of legal regulation of this institute as some of the most serious problems for judicial review. Given that judges, prosecutors and investigators when answering this question showed some restraint, the greatest interest for us lies in how defense lawyers responded. 40.2% of the lawyers said that the judge sees judicial review as something secondary (fast–track decision–making procedures ‘behind closed doors’, the priority in the consideration of the criminal case on the merits, and then the performance of duties

‘duty judge considering arrests’, etc.). 70.4% of lawyers stressed that the judges presume validity of the motions and the /or positions of bodies of criminal prosecution. 30.4% of lawyers believe that judges satisfy requests of the prosecuting authorities because they are afraid to be suspected of corruption and links with criminals349.

346Appendix №44.

347Petruhin I.L. Prosecutor's supervision and judicial control over the investigation // Russian justice. 1998. № 9. P.

348Petruhin I.L. The effectiveness of judicial control over the investigation and operational search activity // Criminal

Law. 2007. №2. P.92.

349Appendix № 44.

176

Recently there have been some aggressive proposals that it is possible to change the allapproving (according to some scholars) position of the federal judges in the exercise of judicial review if the judicial system of the Russian Federation introduces the institution of investigating judges as a specialized federal court for the investigation control350.

There is experience of such specialized courts carrying out judicial-control activities in several countries: France, Belgium, Spain, the Netherlands, Italy, Finland, etc.351. On the postSoviet territory there are investigating judges in the judicial systems of Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Ukraine352.

Earlier, I.F. Demidov advocated the establishment in Russia of ‘the institute of specialized judicial bodies – federal investigating judges exercising only the function of judicial review and free from their administration of justice powers not only in the case in which they made the decision at the stage of pretrial proceedings, but also on any other case. The investigating judge can not be part of any court, but should have an office with the appropriate support staff’353.

After the meeting on October, 2014, of the Presidential Council on Civil Society and Human Rights, the President of the Russian Federation recommended that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation explore the establishment of the institute of investigative judges354.

The Message of the President of the Russian Federation to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is based on the proposals of T.G. Morschakova355. These proposals, in fact,

350Belkin A.R. The investigating judge or the investigating judge? // Criminal proceedings. 2015. №3. P.16–27 .; Myadzelets O.A. The investigating judge in criminal proceedings of Russia: pros and cons // Russian justice. 2008. №6. P.39–42 .; Kovtun N.N. Specialized investigating judge: pros and cons // Russian justice. 2010. №9.; Muratova N.G. The system of judicial control in criminal proceedings. Kazan, 2004. P.4–5.; Nikolyuk V.V., Derishev Y.V. Optimization of pre–trial proceedings in the criminal proceedings of Russia. Krasnoyarsk: Siberian Law Institute of the Russian Interior Ministry, 2003. P.170.; Lebedev V.M. The judicial power in modern Russia. St.Pb., 2001. p.71, etc. It is worth noting that the academic community has voiced proposals to return the prosecutor the powers he lost (see: Dzhatiev V.S. Investigating judge? Does Russia need him? // Organization of crime investigation bodies activities: administrative, legal and forensic aspects (to the 60th anniversary of the Department of criminal investigation authorities management): Int. research and practice conference proceedings. in 2 parts. M.: MIA RF Administration Academy, 2015. Ch. 1 pp.219–225) or sometimes has even declared the prosecutor to be analogue to the investigating judge (see: Barabash A.S. The prosecutor – the investigating judge // Criminal justice: the connection of times: int. scientific conference materials. St. Petersburg, 6 –8 October 2010 St.Pb., 2010. P.41–50.

351Judicial control in criminal proceedings / ed. N.A. Kolokolov. 2nd ed., rev. and ext. M., 2009; Kovtun N.N. On the concept and content of the concept of ‘examining magistrate’ (‘investigating judge’) // Russian judge. 2010. №5.

P.17–18.

352On the experience, when the Crimea was part of Ukraine, of investigating judges of the Republic of Crimea, which wasn’t in all respects positive see: Mikhaylov M.A. The need to consider the Crimean experience when deciding on the establishment of the institute of investigative judges in the Russian Federation // Criminal proceedings: Procedural theory and forensic practice: III Int. research and practice Conf. Simferopol–Alushta of April 24–25 aterials. Simferopol, KrFU n. Vernadsky, 2015. P.54–56.

353Demidov I.F. Judicial reform and new challenges of the science of criminal proceedings // Issues of strengthening legitimacy in criminal proceedings in the light of the legal reform: Conf. proceedings. M., 1995. P. 24–25. The idea of the revival of investigative judges institute is also supported by M.E. Tokareva and A.G. Haliulin. See: Solovyev A.B., Tokareva M.E., Haliulin A.G. et al. Op. cit. P. 59.

354See Smirnov A.V.: Prove, your honor // Rossiyskaya gazeta. 2015. 13 May.

355Morschakova T.G. On the concept and procedure of formation of the institute of investigating judges in the Russian Federation // http: law.sfu–kras.ru/data/method/e–libraru–kup/Raznoe/prilozhenye№7–294_15.pdf;

177

retain the authority to exercise ‘arrest control’, ‘procedural control’, ‘control over complaints’ for investigative judges. But, at the same time, new powers are added related to the legalization of the relevant information gathered by the parties to the rank of forensic evidence356, as well as the investigating judge holding the hearings on bringing the accused to justice.

The position of T.G. Morschakova is similar to the institute of the investigating judge of model proposed by A.V. Smirnov357. A.V. Smirnov offers to deformalize the prosecution in adversarial criminal proceedings so that the information received by the criminal prosecution (the prosecution) and the defense do not become judicial evidence immediately, at the very moment of their receipt, and pass through a specific procedure of judicial review and recognition (judicial legalization of evidence), ‘which can only serve as a genuine guarantee of the proceedings transparency and quality of evidence used”. According to A.V. Smirnov, it is to legalize and

‘deposit’ judicial evidence that the figure of the ‘judge of investigation, investigative judges, is necessary, who will acquire now existing judicial and supervisory powers at the pre-trial stage and new powers for the legalization of judicial evidence, the accusation against the person and bringing the accused to trial; ‘in no way this is not the judicial investigator, but ‘the judge of investigation’, since he does not take a criminal case for his consideration on an ongoing basis, but performs judicial functions discretely, occasionally in the form of hearings and court proceedings with the participation of both parties’358.

Criticizing the concept of investigative judges, proposed by A.V. Smirnov, L.V. Golovko does not find in it ‘any positive experience of developed legal orders or a theoretical novelty, or an improvement in the situation of citizens in the criminal process, or economic viability’359. His position is argued in detail. He notes in particular that the concept implies ‘complete fragmentation’ of proof, the gap in the activity of collecting and evaluating evidence, ‘which will

356For example, in Germany, ‘ during the inquiry the judge’ may interrogate witnesses under oath at the pre–trial stage, and such proof acquires the status of a particularly important evidence. Of course, special responsibility for false testimony under oath is specified as well. In Germany, there are 3 types of testimony: the evidence given to the police (there is no liability for the falsity thereof); the testimony provided to the Prosecutor (there is liability for the falsity thereof set forth); the testimony given to the court under oath (there is liability for the falsity thereof set forth). See: Best E. Criminal procedure in Germany // Criminal proceedings. 2014. №4. P.8–13.

357Smirnov A.V. The institute of investigating judges – a constitutional requirement? // Criminal judicial proceedings. 2015. № 2. P. 9 – 14.; Smirnov A.V. The revival of the institute of investigative judges in Russian criminal proceedings // RAPSI. 2015.: http: // rapsinews.ru/judicial_analyst/20150224/273218436.html.

358Smirnov A.V. Russian criminal proceedings: from dusk to dawn. – Http: // rapsinews.ru. On the deposit of evidence See also: Gambaryan A.S., Simonyan S.A. The court deposition of testimony in the modern criminal proceedings: monograph / sc.ed. D.Jurid.Sc., prof. S.S. Avetisyan. – M.: Jurlitinform, 2016. – 160 p.

359Golovko L.V. The institute of investigating judges: Americanization through manipulation // URL: http://www.iuaj.net/node/1746 (created 22/03/2015). On the extreme negative attitude to the concept of the institution of investigating judges promulgate by L.V. Golovko Department of Criminal Procedure, Justice and Prosecutorial Supervision of Lomonosov MSU see: Discussion of the initiative proposed by the Presidential Council of Human Rights of the Russian Federation // http://www.law.msu.ru/node/34903/

178

inevitably lead to chaos in criminal proceedings’; proposed in it ‘argument for reducing the load simply defies common sense’, etc.

O.V. Otchertsova, analyzing the proposed concept, expresses reasonable doubts about the possibility of its application for strengthening the position of the defense360.

Y.P. Borulenkov stresses that the investigating judge in A.V. Smirnov’s concept is a ‘weak link’ since in proving he is unable to carry out cognitive function361; that ‘the statements about the possibility to relieve the investigator of institutional control by moving it to the judicial system sound naive’362. Y.P. Borulenkov agrees with the need to deformalize the preliminary investigation but believes that this work should be carried out within the framework of the investigating authorities363.

The opinion of V.M. Bykov and N.S. Manova with respect to the institute of the investigating judge is as follows: ‘there is no need to create a new law enforcement agency, and the legislator should extend the rights of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings’364. The authors note that ‘granting investigative judges broad powers in pre-trial proceedings will definitively deprive investigators of procedural autonomy and independence’365. V.N. Karagodin believes that the position of A.V. Smirnov and his supporters is largely based on ‘a quite fashionable now presumption of bad faith of the investigator’366. The author also expresses his bewilderment to strengthening the position of the defense in the proposed reorganization, in particular with regard to appointment of forensic examinations. According to him, the existing procedural means to guarantee the legitimate interests of all participants in the appointment and conducting the expertise is more than enough367.

The General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation does not support the proposal to establish the institute of investigative judges either. They believe that ‘supervision does not need control’, that the establishment of the new system ‘will lead to the invasion of courts in the scope of the public prosecution activity’368.

360 Otchertsova O.V. The introduction of the institute of investigating judges: will the preliminary investigation become more adversarial? // Russian justice. 2015. № 8. P. 63 – 66.

361Borulenkov Y.P. The investigating judge as a ‘weak member’ of the criminal procedure proof // Criminologist library. Academic ощгктфд. 2015. № 3. P. 9.

362Ibid. P.18.

363Ibid. P. 20.

364Bykov V., Manova N. Does Russia need the investigating judge in criminal proceedings? // Legitimacy. 2015. P.45.

365Ibid. P.28.

366Karagodin V.N. Improving pre–trial proceedings as an element of the criminal law policy. P. 25.

367Ibid. P. 24.

368 Supervision does not need control // Vedomosti. 2015. May 5. (№ 3824). Also: On investigative judges. The response of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the RF. The official website of the General Prosecutor's Office of the RF: http: // genproc.gov.ru/upload/iblok/64d/2.doc.

179

The chairman of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation V.D. Zorkin supports the institute is investigating judges. According to him, the introduction of the institute of investigative judges ‘will allow progress in addressing the issues on which the citizens or the courts regularly send petitions to the Constitutional Court’369. Details of V.D. Zorkin’s position on the need to institute the investigative judges in Russia are outlined in the report, which presented a comprehensive system of improving the judicial system in Russia. According to him, ‘in situations where the same judge in the criminal trial both produces a judicial review of the investigation, and renders the judgment in the same case at the hearing there can not be any doubts about the independence and impartiality of the legal outcome’; the introduction of the institute of the investigative judge will enhance the effectiveness of judicial control over the investigation and the objectivity of proceedings, ‘will help to break the ‘accusatory link’ between the investigation and the court, and at the same time, at least in part, to overcome the prosecutorial bias in the national justice’370. V.D. Zorkin considers it appropriate ‘for a member of the judiciary to initially decide the question of qualifying the act (for example, for the investigating judge)’371.

Much debate in the scientific world has been caused by a doctrinal model of the criminal procedure law of evidence of the Russian Federation prepared by a group of authors under the supervision of A.S. Alexandrov372. In this model, there are many different radical proposals on the criminal justice reform, including, the now unknown for the current Russian criminal procedure legislation norms of the institution of the investigating judge, which state that the investigating judge is a federal judicial authority (the court) operating independently from the general courts of law and implementing in pre-trial criminal proceedings a complex of jurisdictional and investigating functions. From the subsequent discussion, it follows that these functions are related to:

1)resolution of the dispute regarding the application of essential measures of procedural

coercion;

2)ensuring the rights and legitimate interests of the parties to the proceedings;

3)the deposit at the request of the parties supposedly legitimate evidence in the case.

369The head of the CC (the Cassation Court) supports the establishment of the institute of investigating judges // RIA ‘Novosti’ / URL: http://ria.ru/society/20141217/1038845017.html#ixzz3Pdd29C34

370Zorkin proposes to create separate appeal courts in GJC (general jurisdiction courts) and the institute of investigating judges // PRAVO.RU / URL: http://pravo.ru/news/view/81000/

371The head of the CC supported the establishment of the institute of investigative judges // RIA ‘Novosti’ / URL: http://ria.ru/society/20141217/1038845017.html#ixzz3Pdd29C34. See also: Zorkin V. The Constitution lives in laws // Rossiyskaya azeta. 2014. December 18.

372The doctrinal model of the criminal procedure law of evidence of the Russian Federation and the comments to it / ed. A.S. Alexandrov. M.: Jurlitinform 2015.

180

An interesting comparative analysis of the institution of the investigating judge in pre-trial criminal proceedings has been conducted by V.N. Grigoryev, I.A. Zinchenko and A.P. Popov373. According to these scientists, no matter how attractive some institutions and norms of RomanoGermanic legal family law (continental system) are for researchers, they are not always easily adapted to Russian realities. Therefore, in their opinion, it is rational to use a comparable legislation – in the criminal procedure law it is, firstly, Russian legislation on the judicial system and legal proceedings prior to the current one, and, secondly, the current legislation of the states of the near abroad. It can be argued that in some positions he takes into account mistakes made in the preparation and adoption of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RF374.

V.N. Grigoriev, I.A. Zinchenko and A.P. Popov emphasize that under the legislation of the states of the near abroad in the modern sense, the investigating judge is one of the judges of the court of the first instance, who, along with the administration of justice in criminal matters, are burdened with the powers associated with the implementation of the judicial power (judicial review) in pre-trial proceedings. However, their status is somewhat different from the status of Russian judges with similar powers. The differences lie in the scope of authority, as well as in the procedure for granting the status of the investigating judge to one of the judges of the respective court. So, in criminal proceedings of all these neighboring countries the investigating judge at the request of the prosecutor or the investigator decides to hold the unspoken (specific, intelligence) investigations. All of the CPCs (with the exception of the Criminal Procedure Code of Latvia) stipulate the deposition of evidence, interrogation of witness conducted in exceptional cases by the investigating judge during the preliminary investigation. There are other special features. For example, the Code of Criminal Procedure of Kazakhstan (art. 55) obliges the investigating judge to classify the international investigation and determine the question of forced interrogation at the request of defense counsel of the witness interviewed earlier, whose appearance is difficult to ensure. In accordance with para. 5 and 6 p. 1 art. 41 of the CPC of Latvia, the investigating judge has the right to make decisions on complaints of unjustified infringement of privacy and other protected by the law secrets, to release the person from payment for legal representation. Art. 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Moldova included such powers of the investigative judge as the review of applications to accelerate the prosecution, the exclusion from the decision of some points in cases where the convicted person was extradited. There are specifics in the procedure of forming the body of investigating judges (their appointment or election, term of office, etc.),

373Grigoriev V.N., Zinchenko I.A., Popov A.A. Comparative notes on the institute of the investigating judge in pre– trial criminal proceedings // The international criminal law and international justice. 2016, №1. C.

374Popov A.P., Popov I.A., Zinchenko I.A. Criminal proceedings: issues of the contemporary law of evidence of modern Russia: monograph. Pyatigorsk: RIA–KMF, 2014. pp. 15 – 18.

181

indicating a special attitude to this party of pre-trial proceedings as the most authoritative and experienced employee.

A.R. Belkin, being a supporter of the institute of investigative judges, offers an original framework for appellate review of judicial decisions. ‘As soon as investigative judges will be

‘close to the ground’, the appellate review of their decisions may occur at the level of the RF subjects (military districts), and to speed up the process it is advisable to isolate the appropriate instance, clearly separating it from the Court of the RF subject (or a military court of a corresponding level ... The decision of the investigating judge is not a final decision in the case and in order to accelerate the process may well be reviewed by a single judge of a higher level”375.

The position of practitioners with respect to the institute of the investigating judge being currently created in Russian for judicial review at the pre-trial stages showed that 72.2% of judges, 77.8% of prosecutors, 82.1% of investigators, 70.6% of defense lawyers do not see the need for the creation of such an institution376.

However, the idea of the institute of the investigating judge (judge for the preliminary investigation control) seems relevant and promising. But the reality is that at the present time neither politicians nor the criminal justice practitioners are ready to the fundamental changes in the judicial structure and content of judicial activities. According to our research, there are no unambiguous grounds for the introduction of the institute of the investigating judge but, at the same time, such question has its reasons.

In this regard, we propose the following: to determine the best prepared group of judges among the federal judiciary of district and equivalent levels (for example, with the experience of investigative, prosecutorial, advocacy work before the judicial career) and call them preliminary investigation control judges. These judges will have to deal only with matters of judicial review, without considering the criminal case on the merits (it is possible that they may consider materials in executing the sentence, in fact, as ‘penitentiary judges’).

Thus, out of the theoretical structures for investigative judges, discussed above, we exclude particularly criticized propositions on ‘four investigative judges in the region’, the creation of a separate office and a specialized system of investigating judges, along with the existing judicial system.

The powers of preliminary investigation control judges are proposed to include all three types of judicial review which today is carried out by federal judges – ‘arrest control’, ‘procedural

375Belkin A.R. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the RF: constructive criticism and possible improvements. Part XI. Other issues of pre–trial proceedings. M.: MTU (MIREA), 2016. p.92.

376Appendix №44.

182

control’, ‘control over complaints’: the content of these types of judicial review is considered above.

Along with classical types of judicial review preliminary investigation control judges could also implement the following judicial and supervisory powers:

– to ‘deposit’ the evidence of criminal proceedings on the request of the parties in criminal proceedings: it is important to define a very clear and narrow range of evidence that the court

‘deposits’, bearing in mind this exclusive nature of this ‘deposition’ (for example, questioning a witness with a serious medical condition at the potential danger that in the future when considering the criminal case on the merits the court may not be able to make such questioning of the witness for various objective reasons);

– resolution of issues associated with the appointment of the hearing on the merits, bearing in mind:

a)it is the preliminary investigation control judge that in the end of this investigation will reconsider the preventive measure for the defendant, especially if he is in custody;

b)to consider on the request of the parties the question of declaring certain evidence gathered in the criminal case inadmissible (at this point the prosecutor will present the accused final charges, the indictment, decisions); it is important to provide that in a criminal case trial on the merits the court has the opportunity to once again appeal to the issue of admissibility of evidence and make its decision on declaring evidence valid or invalid;

c)to decide the question of the trial by a jury, a panel of three judges or a single judge, which would be the ultimate solution, to which, when considering the criminal case on the merits, the court of the first instance will not return;

d)to preliminary consider the question on special procedure trial (considering a criminal case on the merits does not exclude returning to the general order of the trial);

e)to consider other matters provided for in Chapters 33–34 of the CPC RF.

Essentially, this type of judicial review preliminary investigation control judge will carry out in the form of a court hearing as a preliminary hearing in every criminal case.

We propose two additional types of judicial review conditionally called: ‘deposited control’ and ‘pre-trial review’ (referring to the control of listing for trial for the consideration of the criminal case on the merits). And there is every reason to believe that the operation of these two new types of judicial review in the general mechanism of judicial and control activities at the pre-trial stages will reduce the threshold of investigative errors, effectively identify them and correct, prevent them.