Petut'yun ev iravunk'
P-ISSN: 1829-023X
E-ISSN: 2738-2508
Vol. SI - 1 (2025)
Full Issue
PROCEDURAL LAW
-
PROCEDURAL LAW
THE PURPOSES AND CHALLENGES OF SUPPLEMENTARY HEARINGS IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA
AbstractThis article examines the newly introduced institution of supplementary hearings in the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of the Republic of Armenia, in force since 1 July 2022. Focusing on supplementary hearings held after a guilty verdict, it explores the legislature’s aims, the mechanism’s doctrinal foundations, and implementation challenges. Drawing on comparative criminal-procedure (United States, United Kingdom) and interdisciplinary findings from psychology and behavioral science, the authors argue that a bifurcated model that separates adjudication of guilt from sentencing decisions is valuable even without a jury, because it mitigates cognitive biases, particularly confirmation and hindsight bias, that can otherwise contaminate punishment. While the CPC’s tripartite structure (preliminary, main, supplementary hearings) aspires to balance public and private interests, current rules permit character and sentencing-related materials to surface during the main hearing, weakening the intended procedural barrier. The article proposes targeted reforms to operationalize the separation: (i) amend Article 102 to allocate facts strictly between the main hearing (event, attribution, elements, guilt) and the supplementary hearing (aggravating/mitigating factors, character, harm, civil claims); (ii) introduce a “two-envelope” mechanism requiring the prosecution and parties to submit guilt-related and sentencing-related evidence in separate sets; and (iii) revise Article 319 to bar the submission or examination of character/sentencing evidence before the verdict. Alternatives such as different judges for verdict and sentence are noted but assessed as impracticable. Properly implemented, supplementary hearings can more effectively safeguard fundamental rights and enhance the legitimacy and accuracy of sentencing in Armenia’s criminal justice system.
References -
PROCEDURAL LAW
CORRELATION OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS OF THE ACCUSED
AbstractThe article discusses the relationship between criminal prosecution and protection of the rights and freedoms of the accused in the context of the typological characteristics of legal proceedings. Based on the comparative legal analysis, the author concludes that at present there is no explicit division of national criminal procedure systems into systems with the priority of substantive law over procedural law and systems with the priority of procedural law over substantive law.
References -
PROCEDURAL LAW
RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: PROCEDURAL FORM VS RULESOF PROCEDURAL RECORD KEEPING
AbstractThe article examines the law-making trends associated with the strengthening of the formalization of criminal procedure law and expressed in the content of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation with purely technical and technological rules that determine not so much the high purpose of the criminal procedure form, but the procedure for judicial, prosecutor's and investigative paperwork and document management.
The article explores the reasons for the emergence of such trends, which are associated with two objective factors inherent in the formation of the early Soviet criminal justice system in the 1920s. In addition, an attempt is made to identify the reasons that led to a sharp increase in the considered trends at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries and their reflection in the text of the current Criminal Procedure Code.
In this regard, it is hoped that this shortcoming in the national law-making policy will be eliminated as soon as possible and that the rules of criminal procedure paperwork will be gradually excluded from the scope of legislative regulation. It is noted that the form of criminal procedure that follows from the Federal Law, which is predetermined by proper legal guarantees of the quality of the intended results, cannot be identified with the rules of criminal procedure record-keeping and document management.
References -
PROCEDURAL LAW
SOME FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES REGARDING JUDICIAL APPEALS OF PRE-JUDICIAL ACTS BY PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
AbstractThis scientific article is dedicated to the judicial appeal of pre-trial procedural acts performed by public participants in criminal proceedings. It examines the subjects entitled to appeal, the written and oral procedures for examining appeals, as well as the evidentiary process related to facts under appeal in judicial proceedings.
The Criminal Procedure Code establishes a system of guarantees designed to protect the rights and legitimate interests of individuals within the framework of criminal proceedings. Appealing the actions and decisions of public participants during pre-trial proceedings is one of the key guarantees that enables judicial review of the legality of procedural acts carried out by public participants.
The new Criminal Procedure Code provides detailed regulation of the scope of judicial appeals concerning pre-trial procedural acts, the parties entitled to appeal, the powers of the court, and the participants involved in the proceedings. A review of judicial practice reveals numerous cases involving appeals against the actions and decisions of public participants in pre-trial proceedings. This underscores the significance of challenging pre-trial procedural acts and highlights the necessity of ensuring their effective application in practice.
References -
PROCEDURAL LAW
THE CONCEPT AND THE FUNDAMENTAL GUARANTEES OF LEGALITY OF SECRET INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS
AbstractThis article discusses a number of important issues regarding the implementation of secret investigative activities. Secret investigative operations, as operations carried out during pre-trial proceedings, have specific tasks aimed at detection and prevention of crimes, collection of evidence and identification of the person who committed the crime. In the legal and linguistic sense, “covert” means a secret, non-public, inconspicuous practice, the purpose of which is to provide evidence necessary for the investigator’s actions. The probative value of secret investigative operations is largely determined by the protection of the guarantees provided by law during their implementation. Compliance of national legislation with international standards is essential to ensure the legality of covert investigative activities. The position of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue emphasizes that the competent authorities of the states can carry out secret operations to ensure the protection of public safety, but there must always be clear and effective guarantees for the protection of human rights. The guarantees established by the state for the implementation of secret investigative activities are intended to exclude human rights violations, possible interferences and abuses. For example, according to Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, secret investigative actions are carried out based on a court order and only in the event that gathering evidence by other means is impossible. In the case of conducting secret investigative activities, priority is given to the proportionality of the interference with personal data and the protection of private life and fundamental rights. The legislation of Armenia also sets clear restrictions on the scope of persons against whom secret actions can be carried out, including with the permission of the court. The author concludes that secret investigative actions, being an independent type of state activity carried out by law enforcement agencies within the scope of the functions assigned to them by law, are subject to implementation in accordance with the nature of that activity, its purpose and the legality conditions set by the legislation, always guaranteeing a fair balance between the public interest and the rights of the individual.
References -
PROCEDURAL LAW
PRACTICAL ISSUES IN THE APPLICATION OF THE PROCEDURAL INSTITUTION OF PRELIMINARY COURT HEARINGS
AbstractThe new Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia has introduced fundamental changes to the structure of proceedings in the court of first instance. The trial stage has been divided into three mandatory sub-stages: preliminary, main, and supplementary hearings, each having its own distinct procedural tasks. Preliminary hearings are considered a new, independent procedural institution, the purpose of which is to eliminate shortcomings made in the previous stages and to prepare the proceedings for the main hearings.
During the preliminary hearings, the court examines a number of strictly defined issues, including the matter of preventive measures, as well as the scope and admissibility of evidence.
In practice, however, the legal regulations regarding the issues subject to discussion during the preliminary hearings are applied inconsistently, which prevents the realization of the content originally intended in those regulations.The article highlights the most common violations encountered in legal practice and presents practical recommendations aimed at ensuring the purposeful application of the institution of preliminary hearings.
References -
PROCEDURAL LAW
SEPARATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE HEAD OF THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY AND THE SUPERVISING PROSECUTOR IN THE CONTEXT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCEEDINGS
AbstractSEPARATION OF THE FUNCTIONS OF THE HEAD OF THE INVESTIGATIVE BODY AND THE SUPERVISING PROSECUTOR IN THE CONTEXT OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCEEDINGS
GEVORG BAGHDASARYAN
Candidate of Law, Lecturer at YSU Chair of Criminal Procedure and Criminalistics, State Councilor of Justice of the Third Class
baghdasaryangevorg001@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6407-6253
This article addresses the fundamental issue of distinguishing the functions of organizing, managing, supervision and oversight of the preliminary investigation. Acknowledging that this issue is not new in the theory of criminal proceedings, the author first outlines its historical background and identifies the factors that have prevented its resolution to this day.
Subsequently, by presenting the existing theoretical approaches to the content of the aforementioned functions, the author concludes that there are no objective and applicable criteria for their delineation.
Based on a combined analysis of the powers vested in the supervising prosecutor and the head of the investigative body, the author concludes that the legislature has failed to implement the “one subject – one function” concept, which is proclaimed as the foundation for regulating the relationships between public participants in criminal proceedings. Although each has been formally assigned a distinct function, in practice, they have also been endowed with powers that are inherent to the function of the other participant. Given the organic interconnection between the functions of organizing, directing, supervising and overseeing the preliminary investigation, the author considers the overlap of certain powers between the supervising prosecutor and the head of the investigative body to be natural, however, the author criticizes the authority granted to the supervising prosecutor to annul procedural acts issued by the head of the investigative body that pertain to the organization of the investigation.
References -
PROCEDURAL LAW
THE ISSUE OF THE COURT'S COMPETENCE TO RELEASE FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY ON THE BASIS OF ACTIVE REPENTANCE
AbstractIn this article, the author, taking into account the various approaches developed in legal practice, raises the issue of whether the court can be regarded as an authorized body entitled to exempt a person from criminal liability on the basis of active repentance.
On this matter, the author conducts a corresponding analysis and presents their own approaches.
As a result, the author, also relying on the idea that discretionary criminal prosecution refers to the prosecutor's ability, based on legal criteria and reasoned expediency, not to initiate or to terminate already initiated criminal proceedings, concludes that the existing practical approaches—according to which the court, by virtue of its function of administering justice, is already vested with the right to apply the institution of active repentance—are legally questionable. This includes concerns regarding the proper enforcement of the constitutional chain of “function – body – authority”․References
