Improving Criminal Procedure in Checking Crime Reports Taking

into Account Problems Arising in Regions of Russia in the Conditions of

Their Sustainable Development

Lyudmila Yu. Budanova

, Vatan V. Asadov

and Ksenia O. Saddarova

Pskov branch of the Academy of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia, Zonalnoe highway 28, Pskov, Russia

Keywords: Criminal Case Initiation Institution, Crime Report Verification, Examination, Defense, Person in Relation to

Whom the Verification is Carried out.

Abstract: The reforms of domestic criminal procedure legislation carried out in Russia in recent years are primarily

aimed at increasing the implementation efficiency of person rights and freedoms involved in the sphere of

criminal proceedings, the beginning of which, according to the criminal procedure law, is caused by the receipt

of a crime report by the competent authorities and verification activities. 1,890.6 thousand crimes were

registered in January – November 2020, or 1.2% more than in the same period last year according to the

official statistical data of the Internal Affairs Ministry of Russia. The registered crime increase was noted in

50 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the initiated criminal case decrease was observed in 35

constituent entities. At the same time, 93.9% of all registered crimes are detected by the internal affairs bodies.

Thus, the main crime report verification subject is the internal affairs bodies. However, the pre-trial

proceeding effectiveness analysis carried out by the internal affairs bodies refers only to crimes, the analysis

of which data on the registered crime report number and the number of refusals to initiate a criminal case is

not published by the official data of the Internal Affairs Ministry of Russia. At the same time, one of the

fundamental indicators of internal affairs body activities is the increase in the unresolved criminal case number,

which indirectly indicates a reluctance to initiate criminal cases until the moment when a person who is subject

to further prosecution as a suspect is identified during the crime report verification after taking decisions to

initiate a criminal case.

1 INTRODUCTION

The dynamics and level of registered crimes in the

regions of Russia have shown a steady decline or

stable indicators every year since 2016. So, there are

1,890 thousand crimes registered over the past 2

years, which, of course, can be influenced by the

decriminalization of crimes carried out recently in

Russia, however, the law violation number revealed

by the prosecutor's office in pre-trial proceedings,

including at the criminal case initiation stage, remains

stably high – 5,139 thousand in 2019.

In addition, if the number of initiated criminal

cases in 2019 according to the official statistics of the

Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia amounted to

2,024.3 thousand, then the number of decisions taken

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1106-9188

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4477-9565

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3156-5250

by the prosecutor's office to cancel decisions on

refusal to initiate criminal cases according to the

official statistics of the General Prosecutor's Office of

the Russian Federation was 2 035.9 thousand, i.e. it

exceeded the number of decisions taken to initiate

criminal cases.

As the authors in the field of criminal procedure,

as well as investigative body practitioners note, crime

report verification, as a rule, is carried out by district

authorized or operational officers authorized by the

inquiry body head with the investigator rights, such a

verification due to the fact that the official duties of

these persons provide another power scope, is very

formal and is more aimed at registering messages

with a law enforcement agency, obtaining

explanations and transferring the verification

764

Budanova, L., Asadov, V. and Saddarova, K.

Improving Criminal Procedure in Checking Crime Reports Taking into Account Problems Arising in Regions of Russia in the Conditions of Their Sustainable Development.

DOI: 10.5220/0010597207640768

In Proceedings of the International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference on Sustainable Development of Regional Infrastructure (ISSDRI 2021), pages 764-768

ISBN: 978-989-758-519-7

materials according to the jurisdiction, or the decision

issuance by the inquiry body not to initiate a criminal

case by the inquiry body head (Logunov, Umnov and

Kutuev, 2019).

At its core, the crime report verification should be

aimed at finding grounds to believe that criminal act

took place, fixing the existing crime traces, and

immediately making a decision on the need to initiate

a criminal case, which should be currently aimed at

reforming the criminal procedural legislation.

However, the criminal case initiation stage is

increasingly consistent with the preliminary

investigation stage at the present development phase

of the Russian Federation. It also includes its own

special evidence subject and the materials and

information collection that can be used as evidence,

if a decision is made to initiate a criminal case, the

maximum crime report verification period

corresponds to the general period for conducting a

preliminary investigation in the inquiry form not in

abridged form and is 30 days.

Expanding the procedural and investigative action

range that can be performed at the criminal case

initiation stage, regulated by the adoption of the

Federal Law "On Amendments to Art. 62 and 303 of

the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and the

Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation"

dated March 4, 2013 No. 23-FZ also increasingly

correlates the crime report verification with the

preliminary investigation stage.

However, despite the amendments made to the

Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation

(hereinafter – the RF CPC), in the criminal procedure

science and in practice, problematic aspects remain

related to the criminal procedural status of such a

subject as an applicant, a person in respect of whom

the crime report verification is carried out; realization

of the defense right at the criminal case initiation

stage; crime report verification procedure

implementation and registering a reason for criminal

case initiation; calling procedure for persons to give

an explanation, bringing to responsibility for refusing

to appear without good reason; procedural

explanation form; procedure for reclaiming and

seizing items and documents; lack of the possibility

of conducting the verification before starting criminal

case initiation, which is especially important if there

are formal elements of the crimes under Art. 264.1 of

the RF CPC and entails the criminal procedural action

replacement with administrative ones, etc.

2 METHODS

The main method used during the research was the

dialectical method of objective reality scientific

knowledge. The research object and the subject were

investigated applying this method in a complex and

interrelated manner. The methodological basis of the

research also includes such methods as historical and

legal method, used in the development study of the

criminal case initiation institution, comparative legal

method, which made it possible to research the

regulatory framework. The complex use of these

methods made it possible to achieve reliable,

substantiated and well-reasoned research results.

3 RESULTS

Crime report verification should be aimed at finding

grounds to believe that a criminal act took place and

fixing the existing crime traces, at which criminal

procedure legislation reforming should be aimed at

currently.

The criminal case initiation reason receipt is

formalized in practice by registering it in the crime

registering book. When a person submits the

application, he is issued a notification coupon with

the registration number and the application

acceptance date.

However, the procedure for registering the

criminal case initiation reason receipt is not

established by the criminal procedure law. This

activity is regulated by an interdepartmental legal act

– the joint order "On the Unified Crime Registration"

(together with the "Standart Regulations on the

Unified Organization Procedure for Crime Report

Reception, Registration and Verification",

"Regulations on the Unified Procedure for Criminal

Case Registration and Crime Registration",

"Instruction on the Procedure for Filling out and

Submitting Registration Documents") (hereinafter –

the Unified Registration Order).

After Federal Law No. 87-FZ dated July 5, 2007

amended the criminal procedural legislation, the

prosecutor's office does not keep Crime Reports

Registration Book, i.e. the registration of a crime

report received from a prosecutor must be made by

authorized person in the appropriate law enforcement

agency.

In addition, the norm wording contained in Art.

140 of the RF CPC "to resolve the criminal

prosecution issue" is not consistent with Art. 5 of the

RF CPC, according to which, criminal prosecution is

Improving Criminal Procedure in Checking Crime Reports Taking into Account Problems Arising in Regions of Russia in the Conditions of

Their Sustainable Development

765

"activity carried out by prosecution in order to expose

suspect accused of committing a crime", i.e. in an

already initiated criminal case.

However, during acceptance legality check of

crime report and conducting pre-investigation review,

it is taken into account that authorized persons also

comply with regulatory laws, i.e. the Unified

Registration Order.

Procedure violations of accepting a crime report

and conducting the verification are systematically

detected by the prosecutor's office at the criminal case

initiation stage and are reflected in a relatively

constant, about 200 thousand per year, number of

disciplinary responsibility against persons for

committed violations.

The RF CPC does not regulate the person's

obligation who verify the crime report personally to

inspect the alleged scene of the incident when

establishing a list of procedural and investigative

actions.

Section IV of the Unified Registration Order

prescribes to perform actions during the pre-

investigation check in such a way as to fix the crime

traces, as well as to take measures to search for the

person involved in the commission of the alleged

crime. So, part 25 of the said Order instructs the

inquiry body heads, whenever possible, to put into

effect special plans for "detecting and arresting

persons who have committed grave or especially

grave crime", i.e. in fact, if it already becomes known

that there are formal elements of the crimes, then

according to the RF CPC, a decision should be made

immediately to initiate a criminal case, and this

regulation, in fact, prescribes the implementation of

more actions before the final decision is made.

One of the practical priority areas of the internal

affairs bodies, requiring an increase in its efficiency,

indicated the need to improve activities when

receiving, registering and resolving statements and

messages about the crime in 2017 (Rezvan and

Fedyukina, 2017).

Practitioners note that the absence of the calling

procedure or ensuring the person appearance to

receive explanations from them during the crime

report verification affects the crime report

verification delay, while practitioners did not indicate

problems associated with the lack of the procedural

explanation form.

We assume that the law enforcement practice

developed in the regions allows the use of forms on

the basis of interrogation protocols and explanations

obtained in the course of operational-search activities,

without attaching great importance to the absence of

a explanation procedural form in the RF CPC, since

the courts, when considering the criminal case,

essentially investigate all evidence orally, and other

documents may be recognized by the court as

evidence if it is impossible to hear the person in the

court session.

However, scientists rightly point out that the

absence of procedural form and procedure for

obtaining explanations from persons contribute to the

exclusion of this procedural action at the further

stages of criminal proceedings (Sumin, 2013).

Another problematic aspect that arises in practice

at the criminal case initiation stage is the conduct of a

procedural action in the form of items and documents

seizure. The procedure absence for carrying out this

procedural action, procedural form, as well as

coercive measures creates problems in law

enforcement (Ovsyannikov, 2018).

Such investigative actions as a search and seizure

are not allowed during crime report verification,

therefore, items and documents seizure is possible

during the incident scene inspection or upon the

information and documents submission request that

are significant for establishing the circumstances

during the pre-investigation review. However,

requests sent at the criminal case initiation stage are

aimed at obtaining information, not documents or

items.

Practitioners note that during crime report

verification, documents and items are obtained during

the inspection, it is carried out with the consent of the

owner of the premises or the persons living in case of

the inspection in a residential building.

If it is necessary to seize video recording, for

example, from CCTV cameras, it is in practice either

seized during the incident scene inspection or by the

inquiry body during operational-search activities on

the basis of instructions, with subsequent transfer to

the investigator, the inquirer.

The absence of a real possibility to conduct the

examination prior to criminal case initiation has a

significant impact on the establishment of criminal

act signs provided for in Art. 264.1 of the RF CPC

"Driving a car, tramway or other power-driven

vehicle by a person in intoxication state, subject to

administrative punishment for driving a vehicle in

intoxication state".

If there are intoxication signs and when

information is established that a person was

previously brought to administrative responsibility

for similar actions, law enforcement officers are

forced to replace actions aimed at establishing formal

elements of the crimes with actions provided for by

the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian

Federation, and then transfer administrative materials

ISSDRI 2021 - International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference on Sustainable Development of Regional Infrastructure

766

of examinations at the request of an investigator or

inquiry officer.

In addition, the absence of coercive measures in

region practise at the criminal case initiation stage, as

well as the impossibility to conduct such investigative

actions as search and seizure, due to the fact that they

are associated with a significant restriction of

constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals,

creates difficulties for obtaining samples required for

comparative research during the examination. Such

samples can be obtained by the investigator, the

inquirer only if the person voluntarily agrees to their

removal, while the procedure for such removal in Art.

144 of the RF CPC is not provided.

Problems in practice at the criminal case initiation

stage arise when it is necessary to conduct a forensic

medical examination in relation to a living person,

since coercive measures are not applied at this stage.

4 DISCUSSION

The sentence execution stages were considered in

works by such scientists as Ashirbekova, M.T.,

Islamova, E.R., Kutuev, E.K., Logunov, O.V.,

Ovsyannikov, Yu.V., Rezvan, A.P., Sumin, A.A.,

Umnov, S.P., Fedyukina, A.Yu., Chubykin, A.V. et

al. The works of Alexandrova, O.P. et al. are devoted

to proof at the criminal case initiation stage and the

procedural status of its subjects. The works of

Shcherbakov, A.V. are devoted to ensuring the rights

of persons and subjects involved in criminal

proceedings. (Shcherbakov, Smirnova, Budanova

and Shabanov 2020), Alexandova, O.P. (Asadov,

Alexandrova O., Budanova, Alexandrova V.,

Borisov, 2020) et al.

Some authors, propose to establish an explanation

form in the Instruction "On the Consideration

Organization of Citizens Appeals in the System of the

Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian

Federation", approved by Order of the Ministry of

Internal Affairs of Russia dated September 12, 2013

No. 707 in order to increase the activities efficiency

at the sentence execution stage, but this circumstance,

in our opinion, will not solve the above problems,

since fixing the form in the Instruction will not give

this document a procedural status (Ashirbekova,

2012). We believe that the opinion of the authors

proposing to complete Art. 144 of the RF CPC with

the rule establishing the procedure for obtaining an

explanation from persons, explaining to them their

rights, as well as the obligations to appear to give an

explanation, supported by the monetary penalty, in

the event of their failure to appear without good

reason (Aleksandrova O., 2019).

Another controversial issue considered by the

authors in the criminal procedure field is the absence

of the prosecutor's right to make decisions on the

initiation or refusal to initiate the criminal case.

Thus, the authors note that the prosecutor's

deprivation of the right to make a decision to initiate

the criminal case based on the materials of the

ongoing prosecutor's check creates an unreasonable

delay in the response time to possible criminal law

violations (Islamova and Chubykin, 2016).

However, the legislator position on this issue, in

our opinion, was based on the separation of the

prosecutor's office control over the observance of the

rule of law in pre-trial proceedings and its own

implementation of pre-trial proceedings

(Ashirbekova, 2012).

5 CONCLUSION

1. The crime report verification procedure and

crime report registration is not regulated by the

criminal procedure law, the authorized official

actions are provided only in an

interdepartmental order on the single

regulation approval.

2. The calling procedure for persons to give an

explanation, responsibility for refusing to

appear without good reason as well as

procedural explanation form are absent in the

RF CPC, which leads to a delay in the pre-

investigation check, and also entails the

possibility of recognizing the received

explanation from the person as invalid

evidence.

3. The absence in the RF CPC of the procedure

for reclaiming and seizing items and

documents also creates difficulties in law

enforcement when checking a crime report,

since the procedure, procedural form of such

seizure, action of investigator, inquirer in case

of person's refusal to issue such items and

documents are not provided.

4. The inability to carry out such investigative

action as examination prior to criminal case

initiation in the crime sign presence under Art.

264.1 of the RF CPC entails the replacement of

criminal procedural actions with administrative

ones.

5. The terms for conducting forensic

examinations are not established in federal

legislation. Departmental regulations provide

Improving Criminal Procedure in Checking Crime Reports Taking into Account Problems Arising in Regions of Russia in the Conditions of

Their Sustainable Development

767

for a possible period for conducting

examinations beyond the period of the crime

report verification.

6. The authors rightly note that during crime

report verification in order to realize the rights

and legitimate interests of all persons involved

in it, it is necessary to establish specific types

of procedural actions, indicating the procedure

for their conduct, the list of subjects who can

participate in them, provide for interim

measures that can be used in these procedural

actions, the procedural form of such actions

and the procedure for their appeal.

7. The crime report verification procedure and

crime report registration is not regulated by the

criminal procedure law, the authorized official

actions are provided only in an

interdepartmental order on the single

regulation approval.

8. The calling procedure for persons to give an

explanation, responsibility for refusing to

appear without good reason as well as

procedural explanation form are absent in the

RF CPC, which leads to a delay in the pre-

investigation check, and also entails the

possibility of recognizing the received

explanation from the person as invalid

evidence.

9. The absence in the RF CPC of the procedure

for reclaiming and seizing items and

documents also creates difficulties in law

enforcement when checking a crime report,

since the procedure, procedural form of such

seizure, action of investigator, inquirer in case

of person's refusal to issue such items and

documents are not provided.

10. The inability to carry out such investigative

action as examination prior to criminal case

initiation in the crime sign presence under Art.

264.1 of the RF CPC entails the replacement of

criminal procedural actions with administrative

ones.

11. The terms for conducting forensic

examinations are not established in federal

legislation. Departmental regulations provide

for a possible period for conducting

examinations beyond the period of the crime

report verification.

The authors rightly note that during crime report

verification in order to realize the rights and

legitimate interests of all persons involved in it, it is

necessary to establish specific types of procedural

actions, indicating the procedure for their conduct, the

list of subjects who can participate in them, provide

for interim measures that can be used in these

procedural actions, the procedural form of such

actions and the procedure for their appeal.

REFERENCES

The state of crime in Russia in January-November 2020 //

Official website of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of

Russia: https://Ministry of Internal Affairs.рф.

Logunov, O.V., Umnov, S.P. and Kutuev, E.K. (2019). On

the need to abolish the current stage of criminal

proceedings. Bulletin of the Kaliningrad branch of the

St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal

Affairs of Russia, 1 (55): 8-9.

Islamova, E.R. and Chubykin, A.V. (2016). Motivated

decision of the prosecutor to send relevant materials to

the preliminary investigation body to resolve the issue

of criminal prosecution (application problems).

Crimean Scientific Bulletin, 3:12.

Ashirbekova, M.T. (2012). Reasons for initiating a criminal

case. Legality, 10:17.

Rezvan, A.P. and Fedyukina, A.Yu. (2017). On some issues

of criminal procedural and operational-search activities

at the stage of verification of a crime report. Legal

science and practice: Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod

Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia,

4: 200.

Sumin, A.A. (2013). New problems of consideration of

reports of crimes. Bulletin of the Moscow University of

the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 7: 54-56.

Alexandrova, O. P. (2019). Proofing at the stage of

initiation of a criminal case. Actual problems of

jurisprudence: materials international. scientific-

practical conf. 12.12.2019. Pskov, 142-147.

Ovsyannikov, Yu.V. (2018). Production of procedural

actions at the stage of initiating a criminal case. Bulletin

of the Siberian Law Institute of the Ministry of Internal

Affairs of Russia, 2:35.

Shcherbakov, A.V., Smirnova, I.N., Budanova, L.Y. and

Shabanov, V.B. (2020). International legal acts in the

field of security and their implementation in the penal

system of Russia. Journal of Advanced Research in

Dynamical and Control Systems, 12 (S2): 387-390.

Asadov, V.V., Alexandrova, O.P., Budanova, L.Yu.,

Alexandrova, V.E. and Borisov, B.Yu. (2020).

International human rights standards and the practice of

using house arrest as a preventive measure in criminal

proceedings in Russia and some foreign countries.

Journal of critical reviews (JCR), 7(2): 4863-4877.

ISSDRI 2021 - International Scientiﬁc and Practical Conference on Sustainable Development of Regional Infrastructure

768