Commentary to Art. 1 of the Criminal Code
1. According to Article 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the only federal law that is the source of the criminal legal system of Russia is the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. New laws establishing the criminality of an act, its punishability and other criminal legal consequences cannot be applied without including them in the structure of the Criminal Code. An exception to this rule in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 331 of the Criminal Code constitutes wartime legislation.
2. The criminal law has the highest legal force - not a single normative act can contradict the Criminal Code, otherwise the latter will always be in force.
3. The Constitution of the Russian Federation occupies a priority position in relation to the criminal law, since it has supreme legal force and direct effect (Part 1 of Article 15). If a conflict is established between the norms of the Criminal Code and the Basic Law of the country, it is necessary to apply the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
4. Generally recognized principles and norms of international law are not, in the strict sense of the word, sources of criminal law; they have a universal rather than criminal law nature and can be applied when they are included in the Criminal Code.
Article 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Laws defining the procedure for criminal proceedings (current version)
It should, however, be borne in mind that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in its Resolution No. 19-P of June 16, 1998, in the case on the interpretation of certain provisions of Art. Art. 125, 126 and 127 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation took a significantly different position on this issue, indicating the following (paragraphs 4 - 6 of the reasoning part of the Resolution). Courts of general jurisdiction and arbitration courts are not vested with the authority to verify the constitutionality of the normative acts listed in Art. 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, since it directly assigns this function to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The conclusions of other courts about the unconstitutionality of a law cannot in themselves serve as a basis for its official recognition as inconsistent with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and losing legal force. Provided by Art. 125 (Part 4) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the appeal of other courts to the Constitutional Court with a request to verify the constitutionality of the law applied or to be applied in a particular case, if the court comes to the conclusion that the law does not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, cannot be considered only as its right, the court is obliged to appeal with such a request that the act that does not comply with the Constitution be deprived of legal force (Part 6 of Article 125) in the constitutionally established manner, which would preclude its further application. Refusal to apply in a particular case a law that is unconstitutional from the point of view of the court, without applying in this regard to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation would be contrary to the constitutional provisions, according to which laws apply uniformly throughout the Russian Federation (Articles 4, 15 and 76) , and at the same time would question the supremacy of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, since it cannot be realized if contradictory interpretations of constitutional norms by different courts are allowed.
The obligation of the courts, in cases where they come to the conclusion that a law is unconstitutional, to officially confirm its unconstitutionality to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation does not limit their direct application of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which is designed to ensure the implementation of constitutional norms primarily in the absence of their legislative specification. If, in the opinion of the court, a law that should have been applied in a specific case does not comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and thereby interferes with the implementation of its provisions, then in order to ensure the direct effect of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in all cases it is necessary to deprive such a law of legal force in the manner of constitutional proceedings .
———————————
See: RG. 1998. June 30. N 121.
5. As stated in Part 3 of Art. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are an integral part of the legislation of the Russian Federation governing criminal proceedings. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes rules other than those provided for in this Code, then the rules of the international treaty apply.” It is difficult to imagine how the norms of international treaties and international customs can be part of “legislation”. International norms are part of the Russian legal system.
———————————
See: Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of November 20, 2007 N 13-p “In the case of verifying the constitutionality of a number of provisions of Art. Art. 402, 433, 437, 438, 439, 441, 444 and 445 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in connection with complaints from gr. S.G. Ablamsky, O.B. Lobashova and V.K. Matveeva" // RG. 2007. 28 Nov. N 266.
In international treaties relating to issues of criminal proceedings, both principles and norms generally recognized by the entire world community, as well as norms regulating relations only between the states participating in them, can be enshrined. Depending on the number of participants, agreements are multilateral and bilateral. The composition and level of their participants may also vary. According to paragraph 2 of Art. 3 Federal Law of July 15, 1995 “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation” “international treaties of the Russian Federation are concluded with foreign states, as well as with international organizations on behalf of the Russian Federation (interstate treaties), on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation (intergovernmental treaties), from named after federal executive authorities (interdepartmental agreements).” Of greatest importance for the criminal process are treaties on legal assistance, which determine the procedure for interaction between judicial and investigative authorities of different countries in the criminal prosecution of persons located outside the states where the crimes were committed; execution of orders for procedural actions, etc. A significant number of such agreements were once concluded by the USSR with socialist states, as well as with Algeria, Greece, Iraq, Tunisia, Finland and some other countries. Some of them continue to operate to this day. In the 1990s, Russia signed similar agreements with China, Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia, as well as a number of CIS member states. Among them is the multilateral Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters, signed in Minsk on January 22, 1993 (came into force on December 10, 1994). Russia has signed and ratified the European Convention on Extradition of December 13, 1957 and the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of April 20, 1959 (both Conventions entered into force for Russia on March 9, 2000).
———————————
Federal Law of October 25, 1999 N 190-FZ “On the ratification of the European Convention on Extradition and the Additional Protocol and the Second Additional Protocol thereto” // SZ RF. 1999. 25 Oct. N 43. Art. 5129.
A large number of interdepartmental agreements on cooperation in the fight against crime have been concluded with law enforcement agencies of other states by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation.
In addition to agreements on legal assistance, the procedure for relations between Russian law enforcement agencies and foreign citizens and officials may also be regulated by consular conventions. In accordance with them, consuls have the right to represent citizens of the state that appointed them before the courts and investigative authorities of the host country if these citizens, due to absence or for some other valid reason, cannot defend their rights and interests themselves.
Generally recognized international principles and norms exist both in the form of rules established by international treaties and in the form of legal customs, which constitute the so-called general international law. By the Statute of the International Court of Justice of June 26, 1945, custom is defined as evidence of “general practice accepted as a rule of law” (Article 38, paragraph 1b).
A customary norm becomes part of general international law as a result of its recognition, if not by all, then by the majority of states representing the main political and legal systems. Modern international legal customs tend to acquire formal certainty, since generally accepted principles and norms are usually reflected in multilateral conventions and agreements, and, in addition, in other documents of international law: declarations, resolutions of international bodies and organizations, conferences , decisions of international courts, etc.
A feature of the formation of modern customary norms of international law in the field of criminal proceedings is the growing influence on them of the so-called advisory norms, or international standards, in the development of which the main role belongs to the UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. Congressional documents are usually confirmed by resolutions of the UN General Assembly. These include the Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979), the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary (1985), the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment (1988), the Basic Principles on the role of lawyers (1990), etc.
———————————
See: Lukashuk I.I. International law. A common part. M., 1997. S. 74 - 82.
The following may serve as evidence of the generally recognized nature of a norm: a) fixation of the norm in international documents; b) the absence of protests from states against its generally recognized nature; c) actual recognition of the norm (the so-called transformation) by the legislation of a sufficiently representative circle of states. According to the explanation of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, “a generally recognized norm of international law should be understood as a rule of behavior accepted and recognized by the international community of states as a whole as legally binding. The content of these principles and norms of international law can be disclosed, in particular, in documents of the United Nations and its specialized agencies.”
———————————
Right there.
Resolution of the RF Supreme Court of October 10, 2003 No. 5 “On the application by courts of general jurisdiction of generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation” // RG. 2003. December 2 N 244.
From the literal interpretation of Part 3 of Art. 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, one could conclude that, despite the mention in the first sentence of this part of the generally recognized principles and norms of international law along with international treaties, superiority over the laws of the Russian Federation is recognized, however, only by international treaties. However, a logical interpretation of constitutional norms gives a different result. In our opinion, generally accepted principles and norms of international law, if they relate to human and civil rights, including in the field of criminal proceedings, should always take precedence over domestic laws and are directly applicable. In fact, according to Part 1 of Art. 17 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are guaranteed in the Russian Federation “in accordance with generally recognized principles and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution.” But since, in accordance with Art. 18 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation “the rights and freedoms of man and citizen are directly applicable”, define “the meaning, content and application of laws, the activities of the legislative and executive authorities, local self-government and are ensured by justice”, then they must be directly applied, including by the courts, and enshrining These rights and freedoms are generally recognized principles and norms of international law.
The following generally recognized international legal principles of sovereign equality of states are most closely related to criminal proceedings: non-interference in internal affairs; non-use of force and threat of force; the conscientious fulfillment by states of their international obligations; interstate cooperation and solidarity of states; humanism, respect for human rights and justice. Thus, according to the principles of sovereign equality and non-interference in internal affairs, no state has the right to issue laws or take actions that extend its judicial jurisdiction to the territory of other states without the consent of the latter. For example, the results of procedural actions performed by the investigative authorities of one state on the territory of another should be considered legally void, unless this is provided for in the relevant interstate treaty. The principle of non-use of force and the threat of force means that no state can seek the application of its internal law by kidnapping or capturing persons on the territory of another sovereign state or demand their extradition under the threat of military action, etc. The principle of good faith fulfillment by states of international obligations is manifested in the fact that the provisions of national criminal procedural legislation cannot serve as a basis for refusal to fulfill international obligations. If the law contains norms that contradict an international treaty concluded by a state, then, by virtue of this principle, the norms of the treaty are applied, and the law must be brought into conformity with international obligations. The principle of interstate cooperation and solidarity of states is expressed primarily in the widespread practice of concluding international agreements on the provision of legal assistance, including in criminal cases.
Among the generally recognized international legal norms relating to criminal proceedings, one should, for example, include norms establishing:
1) the inadmissibility of the use of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in criminal proceedings, the right to humane treatment and respect for the dignity of the individual (Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Rome, November 4, 1950; UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984; Principle 6 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, approved by UN General Assembly Resolution 9 December 1988 N 43/173);
2) a ban on extraditing a person to another state if: a) there are serious grounds to believe that he may be in danger of being subjected to torture or the death penalty there; b) the crime for which extradition is requested is considered by the requested party to be a political crime or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the request for extradition is intended to prosecute or punish a person on account of his race, religion, nationality or political opinion or for another crime, than that specified in the request (Article 3 of the European Convention on Extradition. Strasbourg, 13 December 1957);
3) the inadmissibility of arbitrary arrest or detention: “No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law” (Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. New York, December 19, 1966; Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms);
4) the right of an arrested or detained person to a judicial review of the legality of the arrest or detention on an urgent basis, i.e. without undue delay, within a reasonable, fairly short time (Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; paragraph 3 of Article 5 of the CIS Convention on the Rights and Fundamental Freedoms human freedoms; principles 11, 32 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment);
5) the right of a detained or arrested person to file a petition to notify family members or other persons of his choice about the fact of detention or arrest and the place in which he is being held; the right to visit and correspond with family members (principles 16, 19 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment);
6) the right of a detained or arrested person to undergo a medical examination (principles 24 - 26 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment);
7) the prohibition of using investigative methods on a detainee that impair his ability to make decisions or make judgments, including the prohibition of abusing the detainee’s position in order to obtain from him evidence against himself or any other persons (principle 21 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All persons subject to any form of detention or imprisonment);
prohibition on the imposition of unjustified restrictions on detainees or arrests that are not immediately necessary for the purposes of the detention or arrest (principle 36 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment);
9) the right to compensation for anyone who has been a victim of unlawful arrest, or detention, or unlawful conviction (Articles 9, 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; paragraph 4 of Article 5 of the CIS Convention on Rights and Fundamental Freedoms person);
10) the right of a detained or accused person to be informed in detail and promptly in a language he understands of the nature and basis of the charge against him (Article 14, paragraph 3a, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Article 6, paragraph 3a, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms, Principle 10 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment);
11) the right of everyone accused of a criminal offense to be considered innocent until his guilt is proven according to the law, i.e. presumption of innocence (Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; paragraph 2 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the CIS Convention on Rights and fundamental human freedoms);
12) the right of a person to a fair and public hearing of the criminal charge against him without undue delay, on the basis of full equality, by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law (Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted at the third session of the UN General Assembly on December 10, 1948 g.; paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the CIS Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms);
13) the right to have sufficient time and opportunity to prepare his defense and to defend himself personally or through a lawyer of his own choosing (Article 6 of the Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, paragraph 3b of Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, paragraph 3b Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms);
14) the right to provide qualified legal assistance from a competent lawyer (clause 6 of the Basic Provisions on the Role of Lawyers, adopted by the Eighth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. New York, August 1990);
15) the right to provide the accused or suspect with free assistance of a defense lawyer and translator in the event that he does not have enough funds to pay for this defense lawyer or translator (clause 3c of article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; clause 3d of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
16) the right of the accused to interrogate witnesses testifying against him (the right to confrontation) and the right to summon and interrogate his witnesses under the same conditions as exist for witnesses testifying against him (clause 3e of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ; paragraph 3d article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms);
17) the prohibition on forcing a person to testify against himself or to admit guilt and the right of a person to refuse to give such testimony (clause 3g of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
18) the right to review the conviction and sentence by a higher court in accordance with the law (clause 5 of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
19) the rule of non bis in idem (you can’t do the same thing twice - lat.), i.e. prohibition on secondary prosecution and bringing a person to criminal liability for a crime for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted (clause 7 of article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights);
20) the right of every person sentenced to death to appeal the sentence on appeal to a higher court and file a petition for clemency, and pardon or commutation of the sentence can be granted in all cases of a death sentence (clauses 6, 7 of the Measures guaranteeing the protection of rights those sentenced to death, approved by the 21st plenary meeting of the UN Economic and Social Council on May 25, 1984), etc.
7. Since generally accepted principles and norms of international law, as well as international treaties are part of the Russian legal system, one should keep in mind the rules of the relationship between the norms of international and domestic criminal procedural law. Whenever assessing the validity and significance of these rules in the event of competition, the following must be taken into account:
1) the norms of international treaties have priority over the norms of domestic legislation, i.e. in the event of a conflict, the norms of the agreement are applied, and not the Code of Criminal Procedure and any other laws (Clause 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation);
2) in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 5 of the Federal Law “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation” only provisions of international treaties that simultaneously satisfy the following conditions can be directly effective: a) the treaty has been officially published; b) the provisions of the contract must be self-executing, i.e. do not need to issue internal acts for the purpose of their application. To implement other provisions of international treaties of the Russian Federation, appropriate legal acts must be adopted. For example, the above-mentioned generally recognized norm of international law on judicial appeal of the legality of detention within a reasonable period is self-executing and, in principle, could be implemented even without the adoption of additional laws, but the norm on the right to compensation due to illegal detention or arrest presupposes the existence of legislative norms specifying the types and procedure of such compensation.
The Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation draws the attention of the courts to the fact that consent to be bound by an international treaty for the Russian Federation must be expressed in the form of a federal law, if the said treaty establishes rules other than those of the federal law. That is, we are talking only about ratified international treaties, which, after ratification by federal law, are applied regardless of the moment of adoption of such laws. However, when assessing the said Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, one must keep in mind that, according to Art. 27 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a state “may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to comply with a treaty.” That is, according to international law, obligations arising from international treaties must be fulfilled regardless of the provisions of domestic law.
———————————
See: Resolution of the RF Supreme Court of October 10, 2003 No. 5 “On the application by courts of general jurisdiction of generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation.”
See: Zimnenko B.L. On the application of international law by courts of general jurisdiction. M.: Statute; RAP, 2005.
8. If individual relations arising in criminal proceedings are not regulated by the law, then under certain conditions it is permissible to use an analogy of the criminal procedural law or an analogy of the criminal procedural law. An analogy of law can occur when an unregulated relationship is subject to a legislative norm regulating a similar legal relationship. The analogy of law is used when the general principles and principles of criminal procedure, constitutional and international law are directly applied to resolve the relations arising in the process. The question of the conditions for applying the analogy of law and law has not received sufficient development in the legal literature. In our opinion, the application of the law by analogy cannot cross the line that separates the prerogatives of the law enforcer from the prerogatives of the legislator. Therefore, the application of the law by analogy is not always possible, but only when it is either permitted by the law itself (for example, as is done in Part 1 of Article 6 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), or when analogy is a form of interpretation of the existing law. Filling up gaps in the law by the law enforcer with the help of an analogy of the law is unacceptable, because this would contradict the constitutional principle of separation of powers. When interpreting legal norms, the actual will of the legislator is revealed, which was not clearly or in detail expressed by him in the text of the law. If, using methods of interpretation, it can be established (and in this sense, proven) that the legislator actually meant in a given problematic norm a way of behavior similar to what he expressed in another norm, then the result of this will be a distributive or restrictive in its scope, an interpretation of a norm that has the external form of applying the law by analogy. See paragraph 1 comment about this. to Art. 86 of this Code.
The use of an analogy of law by a law enforcer is also possible, in our opinion, only within the framework of an explanatory, specific interpretation of an already existing rule of a general nature, establishing legal principles suitable for a given case (the “basic” rule, according to G. Kelsen). The use of an analogy of law is permissible only when it is impossible to use an analogy of law (there is no similar norm). At the same time, in contrast to the analogy of the law, the law enforcer can actually fill in the gaps of legal regulation, since the will of the subject of lawmaking revealed in the process of such interpretation is always formulated very broadly, allowing for a certain degree of specification. A striking example of the use of analogy of law can be found in many decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, by which gaps in legislation, caused, in particular, by the recognition of a number of norms as unconstitutional, are filled by interpreting the general legal provisions and principles contained in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, it should be remembered that the concretizing possibilities of the analogy of law are far from unlimited. While filling in the gaps in the law with the help of such an analogy, the law enforcer must not go beyond the existing textual content of the “basic” norm, which can only be grammatically interpreted in the broad or narrow sense of the words and expressions used in this general norm. For example, in Resolution No. 11-P of June 27, 2000 in the case of verifying the constitutionality of the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 47 and part 2 of Art. 51 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR in connection with the complaint of V.I. Maslov, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation essentially created a new, “double” legal construction of the concept of the accused and the suspect, filling the gap in the law associated with the insecurity of the rights to defense of all persons subject to criminal prosecution in one form or another. According to this construction, along with the narrow, criminal procedural, concept of the accused and the suspect, there is also a broad, constitutional and legal meaning of these concepts. This new norm significantly supplemented the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR in force at that time, which linked the appearance of the procedural figures of the suspect and the accused, as well as the beginning of the exercise of the right to defense, only with the formal moment of announcing to the person a protocol on his detention or a decision to apply a preventive measure in the form of imprisonment to him into custody or facing charges. At the same time, the Constitutional Court explained: “The right to use the assistance of a lawyer (defender), enshrined in Article 48 (Part 2) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, is a concretization of the more general right PROVIDED BY PART 1 OF THE SAME ARTICLE (emphasis added by me. - A.S.) - the right everyone to receive qualified legal assistance."
———————————
See: Smirnov A.V., Manukyan A.G. Interpretation of legal norms. M.: Prospekt, 2008. P. 96 - 127.
RG. 2000. July 4th. N 128.
Second commentary to Art. 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation
1. The criminality and punishability of an act are established only by criminal law. Recognition of criminal law as the only source of criminal law is an important guarantee of law and order in our country.
2. The criminal legislation of the Russian Federation consists of the Criminal Code. All new laws establishing criminal liability must be included in the Criminal Code; they cannot be applied independently. The exception is the wartime legislation of the Russian Federation, which must be adopted in Russia in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 331 of the Criminal Code of Russia.
3. According to part 2 of the commented article, the Criminal Code is based on the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The Constitution of the Russian Federation has supreme legal force, direct effect and is applied throughout the territory of the Russian Federation (Part 1 of Article 15). Guided by this provision, courts, when considering cases, must evaluate the content of the law or other normative legal act regulating the relevant social relations for its compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and, in all necessary cases, apply the latter as an act of direct action.
4. The Federal Law “On International Treaties of the Russian Federation” establishes the rule: international treaties of the Russian Federation, along with generally recognized principles and norms of international law, are, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, an integral part of its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes rules other than those provided for by law, then the rules of the international treaty apply.
General characteristics of the criminal law system
The system of the branch under consideration - criminal law, like most independent branches of law and legislation, is characterized by the presence of a special structure of its own, within which two main structural elements are distinguished:
- a common part,
- special part.
It is necessary to pay attention to the fact that the general and special parts of criminal law are in a close, inextricable connection with each other due to the fact that the application of any norm of the special part, in relation to the qualification of a specific criminal act, is impossible without taking into account the provisions of the general part. Thus, the criminal legal provisions of the general part of criminal law serve, in a way, as the basis for the formulation of the provisions of the special part and their actual application.
A detailed analysis of the content of the criminal law system allows us to conclude that within the largest components indicated above - the general and special parts, they, in turn, are divided into separate institutions of criminal law:
Are you an expert in this subject area? We invite you to become the author of the Directory Working Conditions
Definition 1
Institute of Criminal Law We have already completed an essay
Comparison of an institution in criminal law in more detail - this is a set of taken together group of criminal law regulations, characterized by the presence of common features and acting as an integral element of the criminal law system.
The most important characteristic of a criminal law institution, as an element of the system of the industry under consideration, is that within the framework of a specific institution there is a unification of norms regulating a certain group of relatively homogeneous social relations.
Example 1
As an example of the largest criminal legal institutions, we can cite the institution of crime, the institution of criminal liability, the provisions of which form the basis of the entire system of legal regulation in the relevant area.
Finished works on a similar topic
Coursework General and special parts of criminal law 400 ₽ Abstract General and special parts of criminal law 230 ₽ Test work General and special parts of criminal law 240 ₽
Receive completed work or specialist advice on your educational project Find out the cost
The institutions of criminal law, including the above-mentioned institutions of crime and criminal liability, upon closer examination are divided into sub-institutions - for example, complicity, criminal record, etc., and criminal law norms.
Definition 2
Criminal law norm We have already completed course work
Objectives and principles of criminal law in more detail - a specific isolated rule of behavior that regulates a certain legal relationship that is part of the subject of criminal law, the implementation of which is ensured by the possibility of using state coercive measures.
