ON THE FORMATION OF A JUDGE’S INNER BELIEF WHEN DECIDING ON THE APPLICATION OR EXTENSION OF PRE-TRIAL MEASURES OF RESTRAINT

Abstract

The fact that the law does not explicitly prohibit a judge who previously ruled on a pre-trial measure of restraint from presiding over the same case on its merits renders the problem of ensuring that judicial impartiality especially crucial. On the one hand, the ruling on the imposition of a measure of restraint must not contain statements that prejudge the issue of the accused’s guilt; on the other hand, the court is obliged to justify the choice of a specific measure of restraint, as any restriction on movement and liberty is impermissible without sufficient grounds established by the court. At the same time, formal criteria (the compliance of a court decision with legal requirements) do not necessarily indicate that the judge remains impartial towards the accused. Purposes: to identify the key factors influencing judicial impartiality during the selection of a measure of restraint and to address the related challenges in the existing judicial review procedure. Methods: empirical methods of comparison, description, and interpretation were employed to assess and characterize judicial impartiality in the examination of a case on its merits and during judicial review in the imposition of measures of restraint. The formal-logical method demonstrated how the procedure for selecting measures of restraint assumes a revisionary nature. Legal-dogmatic analysis and interpretations of legal norms were applied to evaluate and compare the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the positions of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, judicial practice, and doctrinal sources. As a result, the article establishes that rising requirements for justification in the selection of measures of restraint lead to blurring the distinctions between suspicion of an individual’s involvement in a crime and the ultimate conclusion of his guilt.