The article pursues the idea that the principle of legality is not unrelated, but it is inseparably linked with the conceptual essence of that model (type) of the criminal procedure in which it realizes its action. In the criminal procedure of an adversary type, rejecting objective truth the procedural form (procedure) takes precedence over the actual content due to the self-sufficiency of adversary (everything is decided by the parties’ adversary), therefore the probable, technical, procedural truth, “the truth of the parties’ adversary winner” is established. Accordingly, the legality which inseparable linked with the procedure’s adversary, “full-adversary” legality will be protocolary legality. In contrast, the principle of legality, as other principles and legal institutions, in the objective-issued model (type) of the criminal procedure is aimed at criminal cases’ objective truth achievement (reliable, objective and issued crimes disclosure, crime prevention) - it is an objective-issued legality. The authors critically appreciate the adversarial type of criminal jurisdiction, they are notes its relativity, narrow-pragmatic interest of parties in winning the case, but not in objective truth. Hence, there is an adversely-winning parties’ preconception and partiality. The authors defend the necessity of objective truth consolidation in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; they are emphasize the objective superiority of the criminal procedure of an objective-issued type over an adversarial (winning-losing) procedure.
legality, protocolary legality, technical truth, objective truth, objective-issued legality, adversary type (model) of criminal procedure, objective-issued type (model) of the criminal procedure, precedence of form over the actual content, crimes disclosure, crimes prevention, adversary, relativity, sophistry
1. Bezlepkin B. T. Kommentariy k UPK RF. M., 2002.
2. Pechnikov G. A., Blinkov A. P. Zakonnost' kak princip ugolovnogo processa // Vestnik Volgogradskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2011. № 3 (18). S. 130.
3. Nikitaev V. V. Problemnye situacii ugolovnogo processa i yuridicheskoe myshlenie // Sostyazatel'noe pravosudie: trudy nauch.-prakt. laboratoriy. M., 1996. Vyp. 1 Ch. II.
4. Mihaylovskaya I. B. Nastol'naya kniga sud'i po dokazyvaniyu v ugolovnom processe. M., 2006.
5. Yakimovich Yu. K. Ponyatie, naznachenie, differenciaciya ugolovnogo processa. Principy ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva. Tomsk, 2015.
6. Mezinov D. A. Ob'ektivna li istina, ustanavlivaemaya v ugolovnom processe? // Biblioteka kriminalista. 2012. № 4. S. 82-94.
7. Tomin V. T. Ugolovnyy process: aktual'nye problemy teorii i praktiki. M., 2009.
8. Tokareva M. E. Sovremennye problemy zakonnosti i prokurorskiy nadzor v dosudebnyh stadiyah ugolovnogo processa: dis. … d-ra yurid. nauk v forme nauchnogo doklada. M., 1997.
9. Voskresenskiy F. A. Princip sostyazatel'nosti kak sderzhivayuschiy faktor ugolovno-processual'noy deyatel'nosti na stadii predvaritel'nogo rassledovaniya // Vestnik Volgogradskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2015. № 3 (34). S. 77-84.
10. Matuzov N. I., Mal'ko A. V. Teoriya gosudarstva i prava: uchebnik. M., 2013.
11. Kuhta A. A. Dokazyvanie istiny v ugolovnom processe: dis.. d-ra yurid. nauk. N. Novgorod, 2010.
12. Marks K., Engel's F. Sochineniya. T. 1.
13. Luneev V. V. Tendencii sovremennoy prestupnosti i bor'by s ney v Rossii // Gosudarstvo i pravo. 2004. № 1. S. 5-18.
14. Aleksandrov A. S., Terehin V. V. Pyat' tezisov iz manifesta kriticheskih pravovyh issledovaniy russkogo ugolovno-processual'nogo prava // Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 5. Yurisprudenciya. 2015. № 1 (26). S. 8-14.
15. Azarov V. A., Bekker T. A. Ob'ektivnaya istina - edinstvenno vernyy put' vyneseniya pravosudnogo akta. URL: http://www.ugpr.ru (data obrascheniya: 04.04.2018).
