PROCEDURAL SANCTIONS UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LEGISLATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33184/pravgos-2026.3.8Keywords:
procedural sanction, procedural liability, measures of procedural coercion, procedural offense, grounds for liability, criminal proceedingsAbstract
The legal systems of the Republic of Armenia and the Russian Federation, while sharing common roots, have undergone a long period of independent development and have accumulated their own experience in organizing criminal proceedings. A comparative study of this experience is of scientific interest, as it allows for the identification of the advantages and disadvantages of each national jurisdiction, trends in legislative development, and the prospects for adopting the best practices of immediate neighbors. The formation of a particular procedural institution is best examined through the analysis of foreign experience. Furthermore, comparative legal research enables the identification of the underlying meaning of legal norms. Purpose: to conduct a comparative study of the institution of procedural sanctions in the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Armenia and the Russian Federation. The methodological framework of the study is based on an integrated combination of universal, general scientific, and specific legal methods of jurisprudence, ensuring a comprehensive and multi-level approach to the research problem. The universal dialectical method made it possible to examine procedural liability and sanctions in their dynamics, identify contradictions and patterns in their development, and consider the interconnection between these legal phenomena and other social and legal processes. The abstract-logical method was employed to construct theoretical frameworks, derive general concepts and categories, formulate definitions, and identify the essential features of the legal phenomena under study. The structural-functional method served to uncover the internal structure of the institution of procedural liability and sanctions, identify their elements and objectives, and assess how this institution performs its functions within the criminal procedure system and interacts with its other components. The comparative legal method was used to contrast the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Codes of Armenia and Russia and the approaches adopted in these jurisdictions, which helped identify general trends and potential avenues for legislative improvement. Finally, the formal-legal method was applied to analyze the texts of normative acts, interpret legal norms, identify their structural elements (hypotheses, dispositions, and sanctions), and determine the place and role of these norms within the legal system, relying on legal technique and established doctrine. Results: the article analyzes the approaches to structuring the system of procedural sanctions and defining their content within the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Armenia and the Russian Federation. Significant differences between the two legal systems are identified, primarily the absence of the concept of “abuse of right” and general provisions on procedural sanctions in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. A comparative analysis of six procedural sanctions provided for by the criminal procedure law of the Republic of Armenia and their counterparts in Russian legislation is conducted. The article concludes that the Armenian legislation is more consistent and detailed, thereby better addressing the need to protect participants in criminal proceedings from the unjustified application of sanctions and contributing more effectively to achieving the goals of criminal justice.
References
Быков В.М. Следователь в уголовном процессе России : монография / В.М. Быков. – Москва, 2014. – 333 с.
Коврига З.Ф. Уголовно-процессуальная ответственность / З.Ф. Коврига // Судебная власть и уголовный процесс. – 2016. – № 2. – С. 25–123.
Гамбарян А.С. Отстранение следователя от производства: ответственность или прокурорская «расправа»? / А.С. Гамбарян // Расследование преступлений: проблемы и пути их решения. – 2018. – № 4 (22). – С. 79–92.
Трефилов А.А. Уголовный процесс зарубежных стран. Т. 1. Уголовно-процессуальная компаративистика. Уголовный процесс Швейцарии / А.А. Трефилов. – Москва, 2016. – 1019 с.
Коврига З.Ф. Уголовно-процессуальное принуждение / З.Ф. Коврига. – Воронеж. 1975. – 175 с.
Ветрова Г.Н. Санкции в судебном праве / Г.Н. Ветрова. – Москва, 1991. – 160 с.
Элькинд П.С. Сущность советского уголовно-процессуального права / П.С. Элькинд. – Ленинград, 1963. – 172 с.
Элькинд П.С. Цели и средства их достижения в советском уголовно-процессуальном праве / П.С. Элькинд. – Ленинград, 1976. – 143 с.
Морщакова Т.Г. Оценка качества судебного разбирательства (по уголовным делам) / Т.Г. Морщакова, И.Л.. Петрухин. – Москва, 1987. – 238 с.
Протасов В.Н. Основы общеправовой процессуальной теории / В.Н. Протасов. – Москва, 1991. – 143 с.
Булатов Б.Б. Государственное принуждение в уголовном судопроизводстве : монография / Б.Б. Булатов. – Омск, 2003. – 320 с.
Ольков С.Г. Уголовно-процессуальные правонарушения / С.Г. Ольков. – Тюмень, 1996. – 266 с.
Вепрев В.С. Основания уголовно-процессуальной ответственности : дис. … канд. юрид. наук : 12.00.09 / В.С. Вепрев. – Челябинск, 2006. – 265 с.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format; remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially, unless appropriate credit is given, a link to the license is provided, and all made changes are indicated.
