from 01.01.2022 to 01.01.2024
Russian Federation
UDK 343 Уголовное право. Уголовное судопроизводство. Криминология. Криминалистика
Introduction. The idea laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the basis of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which the period of criminal procedural detention should be calculated from the moment of actual restriction of freedom of movement, is not implemented in practice. Since there is a contradiction between the law and its application, it is supposed that the way to solve given problem will be found through the analysis of practice. Methods. The following methods were employed in the work: formal-legal, methods of analysis, induction and generalisation. Results. The current legal regulation, science and practice allow for at least three options to interpret the moment of actual detention and the beginning of calculating the period of the suspect’s detention: the moment of actual capture, the moment of delivery to the investigator (to the body of inquiry) and the moment of drawing up the detention protocol. The last two are the most common in practice, but they do not coincide with the actual intention of the legislator to calculate the period of detention from the moment of actual restriction of freedom. At the same time, linking the beginning of the period of detention to the moment of delivery or the drawing up of the protocol meets the needs of practice due to the objective insufficiency of the 48-hour period, if calculated according to the idea laid down in the law, i.e. from the moment of actual capture. Summarising the results of the analysis of judicial practice, the author concludes that the way to take into account the time of actual restriction of freedom and at the same time not to take away from the investigating authorities the small but very important 48-hour period of detention is to include the time of actual detention in the total period of detention when considering a petition for detention or when considering the case essentially.
personal integrity, detention, actual detention, term of detention, delivery, moment of detention
1. Petrova G. B. Sroki kak element pravovogo regulirovaniya ugolovno-processual'noy deyatel'nosti : monografiya. Saratov : Saratovskaya gosudarstvennaya akademiya prava, 2006. 182 s.
2. Grigor'ev V. N. Repernye tochki v ponyatiyah o fakticheskom zaderzhanii podozrevaemogo // Vestnik Vserossiyskogo instituta povysheniya kvalifikacii sotrudnikov Ministerstva vnutrennih del Rossiyskoy Federacii. 2020. № 4 (56). S. 50–57.
3. Suprun S. V. Razgranichenie fizicheskogo, fakticheskogo i ugolovno-processual'nogo zaderzhaniya // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2007. № 1. S. 92–96.
4. Starodubova G. V. Zaderzhanie podozrevaemogo: problema ischisleniya sroka // Yuridicheskiy vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. 2019. T. 5, № 1. S. 20–24. https://doi.org/10.18287/2542-047X-2019-5-1-20-24.
5. Ovchinnikova N. O. Probely pravovogo regulirovaniya poryadka i srokov zaderzhaniya lica po podozreniyu v sovershenii prestupleniya // Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii. 2023. № 5 (154). S. 241–247. https://doi.org/10.24412/2227-7315-2023-5-241-247.
6. Desyatova O. V. Priroda pravootnosheniy, voznikayuschih pri fakticheskom zaderzhanii // Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravoohranitel'naya praktika. 2022. № 3 (61). S. 73–80.
7. Shadrin V. S. Obespechenie prava na svobodu peredvizheniya pri zaderzhanii lica po podozreniyu v sovershenii prestupleniya (sravnitel'no-pravovoy analiz) // Pravovoe gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. 2024. № 1 (75). S. 151–160. https://doi.org/10.33184/pravgos-2024.1.19.
8. Pobedkin A. V., Yashin V. N. Fakticheskoe i processual'noe zaderzhanie podozrevaemogo: neobhodimo reshenie zakonodatelya // Izvestiya Tul'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ekonomicheskie i yuridicheskie nauki. 2018. № 1-2. S. 16–24.
9. Barabash A. S., Retyunskih I. A. O nekotoryh problemah ischisleniya sroka zaderzhaniya lica po podozreniyu v sovershenii prestupleniya // Pravo i gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. 2023. № 12 (228). S. 404–406. https://doi.org/10.47643/1815-1337_2023_12_404.
10. Azarenok N. V., Davletov A. A. S kakogo momenta sleduet ischislyat' srok zaderzhaniya podozrevaemogo? // Rossiyskiy sledovatel'. 2018. № 5. S. 8–11.
11. Gaponova V. N. K voprosu o zaderzhanii v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve Rossii // Vestnik Vostochno-Sibirskogo instituta MVD Rossii. 2022. № 2 (101). S. 132–141. https://doi.org/10.55001/2312-3184.2022.10.25.011.
12. Gricenko T. V. Problemnye voprosy ischisleniya sroka zaderzhaniya podozrevaemogo // Vestnik Barnaul'skogo yuridicheskogo instituta MVD Rossii. 2020. № 2 (39). S. 37–38.
13. Rossinskiy S. B. Neprikosnovennost' lichnosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: o «prizovom» meste Rossii v «konkurse» na samyy korotkiy srok ogranicheniya svobody bez resheniya suda // Pravovoe gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. 2024. № 1 (75). S. 97–105. https://doi.org/10.33184/pravgos-2024.1.12.
14. Grigor'ev V. N. Ustav ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva 1864 g. Kak istochnik iznachal'nogo smysla sovremennyh ugolovno-processual'nyh kategoriy // Aktual'nye problemy rossiyskogo prava. 2014. № 7. S. 1409–1414.
15. Sobolev I. V. Problemy ischisleniya srokov zaderzhaniya i soderzhaniya pod strazhey po ugolovnomu delu // Zakon i pravo. 2008. № 3. S. 81–82.
16. Bulatov B. B., Kal'nickiy V. V. Fakticheskoe zaderzhanie kak ugolovno-processual'noe ponyatie // Nauchnyy vestnik Omskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2023. T. 29, № 1 (88). S. 5–11. https://doi.org/10.24412/1999-625X-2023-188-5-11.
17. Kal'nickiy V. V. O naimenovanii i tak nazyvaemom neotlozhnom haraktere zaderzhaniya podozrevaemogo // Pravovye i gumanitarnye problemy ugolovno-processual'nogo prinuzhdeniya : materialy mezhdunarodnoy nauchno-prakticheskoy konferencii, posvyaschennoy 70-letiyu so dnya rozhdeniya B. B. Bulatova, g. Omsk, 16 fevralya 2024 g. Omsk : Omskaya akademiya MVD Rossii, 2024. S. 155–160
