2025 Issue №4

Based on a wide range of unpublished archival sources, the process of abolishing courts of conscience in the Russian Empire between 1828 and 1866 is analyzed. The mass abolition of courts of conscience dates to 1852, when, following all regulatory procedures, 18 courts of conscience were closed. At the same time, the positions of judges of conscience were not al­ways abolished—in some cases, they were incorporated into local judicial chambers (as a rule, criminal chambers). Formally, the small number of cases considered by courts of conscience after the promulgation of the law of 13 November 1850 became the main reason for the aboli­tion of these judicial institutions in 18 provinces of the Russian Empire in 1852. The second wave of mass abolition of courts of conscience dates to 1857, when another 22 courts of con­science were closed. An analysis of the mechanism of abolishing courts of conscience makes it possible to assert that the majority of these courts were abolished according to the scheme ap­proved by the State Council in 1852. Under this scheme, the last courts of conscience in the Russian Empire were liquidated in 1861. At the same time, the positions of judges of con­science continued to be retained. Only in accordance with the law of 25 November 1866 were they gradually abolished, and the duties of judges of conscience were assigned to the deputies of the chairmen of local judicial chambers.

The article examines personal surety as a preventive measure in contemporary criminal proceedings and analyzes problems related to the effectiveness of its application. Using histor­ical analysis, the authors trace changes in the legal regulation of this preventive measure prior to the adoption of the Judicial Statutes, after their enactment, during the Soviet period, and in the present day. The study characterizes controversial issues that arise when selecting this preventive measure and notes its extremely low demand among law enforcement practition­ers. Particular attention is paid to the interpretation of the concept of a “trustworthy person” and to the criteria that, although not currently enshrined in law, may be applied to such indi­viduals. The article also describes the amount of the fine imposed for violation of this preven­tive measure and points out its disproportionality. The authors propose significantly increas­ing the amount of the fine or linking it to the amount of damage caused by the crime. The article presents the results of a survey conducted among law enforcement officers and judges, as well as an analysis of narrative accounts collected on the issue under consideration. Based on the findings, the authors formulate recommendations aimed at increasing the effectiveness of the application of this preventive measure and expanding the number of cases in which it is selected. In particular, they propose increasing the amount of the fine for violation of the pre­ventive measure and clarifying the concept of a “trustworthy person” at the level of subordi­nate regulatory acts of law enforcement bodies or in the explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

The relevance of the study of interim decisions in proceedings before courts of first in­stance is due, first, to their diversity; second, to their legal value and significance for the pro­gress of a criminal case during the consideration and resolution of a criminal-law dispute on the merits; and third, by the fragmented requirements applied to them. The aim of the study is to formulate a definition of an interim decision, to determine its place among the decisions of the court of first instance, and to develop universal recommendations containing require­ments that contribute to its effective and high-quality functioning. Within the framework of the research, axiological, synergistic, and dialectical methods were applied, as well as provi­sions of the theory of social action. Methods of synthesis and analysis, along with formal-legal and comparative-legal methods, were employed. The immediate empirical basis of the study consisted of the results of an analysis of the legislation of the Russian Federation, data from the Judicial Department at the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and law enforce­ment practice. The findings of the study make it possible to enrich the theory of criminal pro­cedure with a new definition, to clarify the essence of interim decisions of courts of first in­stance, and to create conditions for the implementation of the formulated recommendations in judicial practice.

The relevance of the topic of the article is determined by practical issues arising in the formation of intent to illegally distribute prohibited substances when such intent is realized in the course of operational-search measures such as an “operational experiment” and a “test purchase,” since, in cases where this intent is formed under the influence of law enforcement agencies, this necessarily leads to the conclusion that the elements of a crime are absent. The article examines issues related to establishing the formation of intent to illegally distribute narcotic drugs using IT technologies, as well as issues of provocation and the consequences of its application. The prohibition on the use of provocation to commit a crime contained in the Federal Law “On Operational-Search Activity” should be regarded as a legal fiction, since criminal law lacks effective response measures to this negative phenomenon, with the sole exception of Article 304 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which concerns brib­ery and official corruption. The aim of the study is to develop criteria by which it is possible to assess the causes and motivating factors behind the emergence of intent to commit crimes related to illicit drug trafficking. In the course of the research, judicial decisions were analyzed and the views of Russian scholars on this subject were taken into account. The article propos­es possible solutions to the identified problems in order to achieve public interests in the form of protecting the rights and interests of citizens from various provocative actions aimed at forming criminal intent.