Sankt-Peterburg, Russian Federation
342.7
Introduction. The article focuses on examining the problem of constitutional and legal content of the presumption of innocence in doctrinal, legislative and law enforcement aspects. On the basis of the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation the author makes a few conclusions and generalisations concerning the implementation of the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence in the Russian public law. The presumption of innocence has nothing in common with the legislator’s desire to exempt really guilty persons from legal liability If the guilt is properly proved, a person cannot avoid punishment even if refusing to testify against him/herself and does not plead guilty. But the guilt must be proved in a proper legal procedure: the use of improper evidence, prejudice due to a defendant’s keeping silent (avoiding answering the question about confessing guilt) or denial of guilt – these are the circumstances that Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation directly protects against. Interpretation of the constitutionally guaranteed presumption of innocence in the opposite regard would represent a defect in legal consciousness to be overcome. Methods. The author applied a set of methods developed and tested by constitutional and legal science, history of the state and law. The methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, dialectical approach, method of comparative jurisprudence were particularly involved. Results. The author proves that the main content (core) of the presumption of innocence lies in its three fundamental components: fair distribution of the burden of proof; establishment of guilt by a competent authority and at the appropriate stage of the law enforcement process; respect for proper legal procedure in proving facts and identifying legally relevant circumstances. When analysing the constitutional and legal content of the presumption of innocence, the issue of compliance of the actual practice of criminal prosecution, defence of the accused and criminal punishment with the natural law and common sense of specific corpus delicti of criminal offences is actualised.
constitutionalism, human rights, presumption of innocence, proper legal procedure, privilege against selfincrimination, burden of proof, justice, prosecution, investigation, police
1. Kravcova E. V. Prezumpciya nevinovnosti kak osnovnoy konstitucionno-pravovoy princip ugolovnogo processa // Vestnik nauchnyh konferenciy. 2020. № 2-2 (54). S. 67–69.
2. Istihovskaya M. D. Problemy realizacii konstitucionnogo prava na prezumpciyu nevinovnosti v publichnyh vystupleniyah dolzhnostnyh lic pri osuschestvlenii ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva // Obrazovanie. Nauka. Nauchnye kadry. 2020. № 1. S. 50–55. https://doi.org/10.24411/2073-3305-2020-10011.
3. Mosharova A. S. Osobennosti realizacii principa prezumpcii nevinovnosti v tamozhennom prave RF // Pravovaya poziciya. 2024. № 2 (50). S. 41–44.
4. Omarieva A. N. Nekotorye osobennosti realizacii prezumpcii nevinovnosti: otraslevoy analiz // Vestnik Rossiyskoy pravovoy akademii. 2021. № 4. S. 109–116. https://doi.org/10.33874/2072-9936-2021-0-4-109-116.
5. Volkova I. V. Princip prezumpcii nevinovnosti v administrativnom sudoproizvodstve i problemy ego realizacii // Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. 2021. № 2 (194). S. 149–152. https://doi.org/10.47643/1815-1337_2021_2_149.
6. Varankina O. O. Genezis principa prezumpcii nevinovnosti: kratkiy obzor s pravovoy tochki zreniya // Mezhdunarodnyy zhurnal gumanitarnyh i estestvennyh nauk. 2023. № 9-2 (84). S. 87–90. https://doi.org/10.24412/2500-1000-2023-9-2-87-90.
7. Buraga V. A. Nekotorye voprosy periodizacii razvitiya principa prezumpcii nevinovnosti v rossiyskom prave XVIII-XX vv. / Duhovno-nravstvennye osnovaniya nacional'nogo edineniya i soglasiya v prave : sbornik nauchnyh statey po rezul'tatam raboty Vserossiyskoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferencii, g. Rostov-na-Donu, 1 noyabrya 2024 g. Rostov-na-Donu : Rossiyskaya akademiya narodnogo hozyaystva i gosudarstvennoy sluzhby pri Prezidente RF, 2025. S. 124–136.
8. Starchikov K. I. Problemy primeneniya prezumpcii nevinovnosti v mezhdunarodnom prave // Skif. 2024. № 1 (89). S. 291–295.
9. Shahkeldov F. Prezumpciya nevinovnosti obvinyaemogo i drugie prezumpcii, ispol'zuemye v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: sootnoshenie i problemy // Mirovoy sud'ya. 2007. № 10. S. 22–25.
10. Pechnikov G. A. O zavisimosti principa prezumpcii nevinovnosti ot tipa ugolovnogo processa // Vestnik Kostromskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. N. A. Nekrasova. 2006. № 5. S. 110–112.
11. Barabash A. S. Ocherk razvitiya teorii prezumpcii nevinovnosti v Rossii. Chast' 3. Prezumpciya nevinovnosti v nashe vremya // Elektronnoe prilozhenie k «Rossiyskomu yuridicheskomu zhurnalu». 2020. № 5. S. 40–49. https://doi.org/10.34076/2219-6838-2020-5-40-49.
12. Lazareva V. A., Kir'yanov A. Yu. Cel' i predmet dokazyvaniya po ugolovnomu delu v svete prezumpcii nevinovnosti // Yuridicheskiy analiticheskiy zhurnal. 2010. № 1-2. S. 7–13.
13. Lysyuk Yu. V. Prezumpciya nevinovnosti kak garantiya zaschity prav i svobod cheloveka i grazhdanina v ugolovnom proizvodstve // Vestnik Akademii MVD Respubliki Belarus'. 2014. № 1 (27). S. 234–235.
14. Ahmetova E. P. Predmet dokazyvaniya i bremya dokazyvaniya: vzaimodeystvie i vliyanie na rezul'tat rassmotreniya dela // Yuridicheskiy fakt. 2019. № 52. S. 15–17.
15. Il'yutchenko N. V. Princip nemo tenetur se ibsem accusare: sravnitel'no-pravovoy analiz // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 11: Pravo. 2015. № 3. S. 42–49.
16. Ponomarenko E. V. Koncepciya estestvennogo prava v konstitucionno-pravovoy nauke i estestvennye prava i svobody cheloveka // Konstitucionnoe i municipal'noe pravo. 2006. № 4. S. 26–29.
17. Sadonshoev D. Princip prezumpcii nevinovnosti v sostyazatel'noy i ob'ektivno-istinnoy modelyah ugolovnogo processa // Vestnik Volgogradskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2018. № 4. S. 132–137.https://doi.org/10.25724/VAMVD.EXYZ.
18. Boryakin A. D. Mehanizm oproverzheniya pravovoy prezumpcii // Voprosy ekonomiki i prava. 2014. № 11 (77). S. 7–10.
19. Tolstik V. A. Koncept normal'nogo pravosoznaniya // Vestnik Nizhegorodskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2021. № 4 (56). S. 31–36. https://doi.org/10.36511/2078-5356-2021-4-31-36.
20. Klef'el M. E., Potemkina E. V. A. Ya. Vyshinskiy o dokazatel'stvennom processe v sovetskom prave // Internauka. 2020. № 1-3 (130). S. 22–24.
21. Ivan'shina A. E. Stimulirovanie obvinyaemogo k dobrovol'nomu priznaniyu svoey viny: problema minimizacii riskov // Yuridicheskaya tehnika. 2019. № 13. S. 678–681.
22. Kostenko K. A. «Pravilo Mirandy» v rossiyskom ugolovnom processe: problemy teorii i praktiki pravoprimeneniya // Rassledovanie prestupleniy: problemy i puti ih resheniya. 2015. № 4 (10). S. 120–126.
23. Padva G. P. Ogovor i samoogovor // Vestnik Universiteta im. O. E. Kutafina (MGYuA). 2014. № 1. S. 158–161.
24. Pobedkin A. V. Illyuziya prezumpcii nevinovnosti (zachem nuzhen ugolovnyy prostupok) // Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii. 2018. № 1. S. 27–30.
25. Ermakova A. O. Realizaciya principa prezumpcii nevinovnosti pri prekraschenii ugolovnogo dela (ugolovnogo presledovaniya) po nereabilitiruyuschim osnovaniyam // Innovacionnaya nauka. 2019. № 4. S. 131–134.
26. Miroshnichenko D. V. O meste ugolovnoy preyudicii v sisteme pravovyh preyudiciy // Evraziyskaya advokatura. 2017. № 2. S. 36–38.
27. Vologina E. V. Problemy priznaniya prava na reabilitaciyu v ugolovnom processe Rossiyskoy Federacii // Forum. 2019. № 1 (18). S. 48–51.
28. Magomedov A. I. Osnovaniya vozniknoveniya prav na reabilitaciyu v ugolovnom processe // Gosudarstvennaya sluzhba i kadry. 2022. № 4. S. 203–205. https://doi.org/10.56539/23120444_2022_4_203.
