Subscribe to promotions and bonuses. The right to life and the death penalty: problems of constitutional and legal regulation in the Republic of Belarus

The Constitution of the Russian Federation states: everyone has the right to life (Part 1, Article 20). This right is enshrined in almost all constitutions of the world, international legal documents: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 3), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6), the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Article 2) .
The constitutional right to life forms the fundamental basis of all other human rights and freedoms. All other rights - to health, social security, education, private property and others - lose their meaning and significance in the event of a person’s death. The right to life is multifaceted and basically means the right to physical existence and not to be arbitrarily deprived of life. In the first case, we are talking about the essence of the right to preserve life, which is inextricably linked with the right to dispose of it. The latter has enormous social significance, as evidenced by data from the World Health Organization, according to which a large number of suicides and suicide attempts are committed in the world, and suicide is common among all segments of the population and all age groups, including children. Therefore, questions naturally arise: does a person, whose right to life is enshrined in the constitutions of states, have the right to die? Is life his "property"? Is it necessary to obtain the consent of relatives and loved ones of seriously ill patients when they decide to give up their lives? Are the interests of society and the state suffering here? Philosophers, lawyers, doctors, sociologists, and religious leaders are trying to answer these questions. Despite the diversity of opinions, it is clear that in the history of mankind, any form of deprivation of human life has always been condemned. Even though a person has the right to determine his own destiny, suicide, regardless of the motive, has always been condemned by society. Such dead people were buried outside the general cemetery. But what about those who are hopelessly ill and live out the rest of their lives in terrible pain? Does such a person have the right to commit suicide or voluntary deprivation of life? It is necessary to resolve the issue of euthanasia (“easy, painless death” - an organized movement that first arose in the 30s of the last century in England). Currently, laws allowing euthanasia in its active form are in force in Holland, Switzerland and the Netherlands. In Russia it is prohibited in accordance with Art. 45 of the Federal Law of November 21, 2011 “On the fundamentals of protecting the health of citizens in the Russian Federation,” but this does not mean that this issue is not discussed in our country. This is just one of the problems that exist in the context of the constitutional right to life. Another, even more acute, is causing ongoing controversy related to the constitutionally established norm on the death penalty - the highest form of criminal punishment, the essence of which is the deprivation of a person’s life. In Russia, the death penalty replaced blood feud back in the 10th century, and then it was abolished and introduced dozens of times at the legislative level, including during Soviet times.
Currently, the number of states that maintain or have abolished this type of punishment is approximately the same. Thus, in 64 states they not only retain, but also use the death penalty. These include the United States, where the issue of maintaining and applying the death penalty, firstly, is decided not even by the central government, but by each state independently, and secondly, the death penalty is also applied to minors and women.
In Russia, until 1996, the death penalty was provided for in 28 articles of the Criminal Code for committing serious crimes, and currently - in 5 (deliberate murder, terrorist act, banditry, etc.). The Constitution (Part 2 of Article 20) provides guarantees against its arbitrary application: it is established only by federal law; considered as an exceptional measure of punishment; applies only to particularly serious crimes against life; If there is a threat of the death penalty, the accused has the right to have his case heard by a jury. It should also be borne in mind that the death penalty is not imposed on women, minors and men who have reached the age of 65 at the time of sentencing.
Despite the preservation of the death penalty in the Constitution, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, by its Resolution No. 3-P of February 2, 1999, suspended its execution. All of the above, in our opinion, has become one of the reasons that tens of thousands of people die from violent death in Russia. Murders that are horrifying in their cruelty have become an everyday occurrence in our lives. Law-abiding citizens experience fear and a sense of hopelessness, because criminals who easily take a person’s life escape punishment commensurate with the severity of their crimes, and after a short time find themselves free, being a mortal threat to people’s lives. Numerous appeals from citizens demanding the resumption of the use of the death penalty in Russia do not allow further delay in resolving this issue. In addition, one cannot ignore the opinion that an act of violence can only be eradicated by another act of violence. Of course, this cannot be taken literally, but if humanity wants to preserve itself, everyone must be sure that the person who takes the life of another will certainly suffer equal punishment.
People have opposed the death penalty for a long time. The first such European was Thomas More (1478 - 1535) - the greatest English humanist, statesman, writer, founder of utopian socialism. Protesting against the death penalty, by the will of fate he himself was sentenced to a painful death. The verdict of the English court, handed down to T. More, who refused the oath of allegiance to the king, who declared himself not only the head of the English state, but also the church, read: “Drag him along the ground through the entire City of London to Tyburn, hang him there so that he suffers.” "to death, taken from the noose while he is not yet dead, cut off his genitals, rip open his stomach, tear out and burn his entrails. Then quarter and nail one quarter of his body over the four gates of the City, and put his head on London Bridge." Not only such an execution, but even the thought of it can cool the heads of many potential criminals. I quote these terrible details of the execution due to the fact that both then and today liberal-minded figures actively advocate the abolition of the death penalty, even in cases of particularly serious crimes. From their point of view, it turns out that the Nazi criminals of Germany, who killed tens of millions of people during the Second World War, and those responsible for other terrible wars, tragedies or terrorist acts, cannot be sentenced to death. Such “humanists,” while defending non-humans in human form, forget about the suffering and torment of crime victims, their relatives and loved ones.
I will cite just one of the main arguments of supporters of the abolition of the death penalty - “armchair” scientists and politicians. They argue that such punishment does not eradicate crime. Such “experts” are disingenuous, because no one has ever claimed that the death penalty alone can eradicate crime. The point is that its presence in the law and its actual implementation are of great preventive importance, since everyone has an instinct of self-preservation. Thus, the American scientist I. Ehrlich came to the conclusion that each death penalty deters eight potential murderers from committing crimes, i.e. saves at least eight lives. This pattern is confirmed not only by world, but also by domestic judicial practice. The famous Russian professor A. Mikhlin pointed out that after the introduction of the death penalty, from the beginning of the 60s, there was a steady decrease in the number of murders. In the USSR, where the death penalty was provided for many especially serious crimes, registered crime was lower than today in the Russian Federation alone, where the number of murders in which has recently been about 15 thousand annually. It should be borne in mind that this figure , like the statistics of many other serious crimes, is underestimated by at least two times compared to the number of actually committed crimes.
If in the 1960s - 1970s in North Ossetia, for example, about 2.5 thousand crimes were committed per year, then now there are about 7 thousand registered crimes alone! Here we cannot help but say that in traditional societies where the custom of blood feud existed, murders were extremely rarely committed, since both the perpetrators and other members of society knew that the same fate awaited the criminal himself. Therefore, in Ossetia there was a custom according to which they simultaneously mourned not only the victim, but also the person who took his life. It is clear that I am not at all advocating the resumption of the custom of blood feud. We are talking only about finding the appropriate type of punishment for those who kill their own kind. In this regard, I will give another argument from supporters of the abolition of the death penalty - no one can take the life of a person, since it is his natural right. But don't victims of criminals have the same right? Let us remember the principle of equal vengeance, laid down in the Bible (Old Testament): “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, “whoever strikes a person so that he dies shall be put to death.” True, later, already in the New Testament, God instructs: “Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who abuse you...”. I believe that it was assumed that man would go far ahead in his moral development. Now we understand that in modern conditions, neither one nor the other attitude towards a person and his behavior can become the basis of the state’s criminal policy. In any case, it is impossible to call a normal situation when, during life imprisonment, men of working age “rest on bunks,” and you and I pay for their three meals a day, as well as the maintenance of numerous guards. And their cells are slightly smaller than the judge’s office. Therefore, it is difficult to agree with those who claim that those sentenced to life imprisonment endure terrible torment in places of serving their sentences.
Those sentenced to life imprisonment must benefit society and earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow. And the system of serving their sentence should be such that they will repent and “mourn” for the crime committed for the rest of their lives. Perhaps this will give them a chance to save their souls. It seems to me that such a measure of punishment will ensure the constitutional right to life as fully as possible. Any approaches to the issue under consideration must fit within the framework established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Only within these legally established limits and taking into account the universal concept of justice as due retribution for what they have done can a person and his rights become the highest value of Russian society and the state.

INTRODUCTION 3 1 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE RIGHT TO LIFE 5 1.1 Analysis of the concept and essence of the human right to life 5 1.2 State provision of constitutional human rights to life 7 2 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE DEATH PENALTY 11 2.1 Problems of the death penalty in the light of Russia's international obligations. 11 2.2 Recognition of the impossibility of imposing the death penalty by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation 19 CONCLUSION 22 LIST OF SOURCES USED 24

Introduction

Relevance. Problems related to the protection of human rights in domestic and international law are becoming increasingly important. The most important right of any person, without the implementation of which it is pointless to talk about all other rights, is the right to life. One of the more complex and controversial elements of the right to life is the issue of the death penalty. In the modern world, the largest number of countries have either legislatively or actually introduced the abolition of the death penalty. The trend is strengthening and developing at an increasingly rapid pace, on the basis of which, every year, about three states introduce abolition of this type of punishment. International law plays a major role in the process of abolishing and limiting the death penalty. Currently, a large number of universal and regional international treaties regulate the limitation and abolition of the death penalty. The death penalty in our country, on the basis of the current Constitution of 1993, “was of a temporary nature and was intended only for a certain transitional period” and can no longer have a conciliatory nature since April 16, 1997, that is, punishments in the form of the death penalty should not be imposed, and be fulfilled. Issues regarding the application of the death penalty were finally clarified by the Constitutional Court in 2009 on the basis of the provisions of the Constitution and international treaties, but the rule on the death penalty continues to remain in national legislation, which has less legal force than the Constitution and international treaties. The relevance of the problem, its practical significance prompted us to choose the topic of course research: The right to life and the problem of the death penalty: constitutional and legal aspects. The object of the study is the right to life and the problem of the death penalty. The subject of the study is the constitutional and legal norms of the possibilities and limits of the right to life and the problems of the death penalty. The goal is to substantiate the features of the constitutional and legal norms of the right to life and the problem of the death penalty. The implementation of this goal included the following tasks: 1. Carry out a theoretical analysis of scientific research on the topic of the course work. 2. Reveal the constitutional and legal foundations of the right to life. 3. Analyze the theoretical aspects of the problem of the death penalty in the light of Russia’s international obligations. Research methods: theoretical: analysis and synthesis of scientific and methodological literature on the topic of work, generalization and systematization of scientific data. Practical significance: the content and results of this work can be used in further research aimed at studying the constitutional and legal norms of the possibilities and limits of the right to life and the problem of the death penalty. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that: - an attempt was made to systematize theoretical sources in connection with the problems being studied, the essence of the right to life and the problem of the death penalty was established. Theoretical and methodological foundations of the study. The theoretical and methodological basis of the study is determined by its object, subject and nature of the tasks. The author of the work confirms that the presented material objectively reflects the state of the process under study, and all provisions borrowed from various sources are accompanied by links to their authors

Conclusion

At the beginning of the work, tasks were set that needed to be resolved during the work. 1. Carry out a theoretical analysis of scientific research on the topic of the course work. 2. Reveal the constitutional and legal foundations of the right to life. 3. Analyze the theoretical aspects of the problem of the death penalty in the light of Russia’s international obligations. Based on the research, the author comes to the following conclusions. Every person has the right to life. No person can be arbitrarily deprived of life. Ensuring and protecting the right to life throughout the Russian Federation is a priority task of the state and all government bodies. Every person has the right to have his life respected. Punishment in general and the death penalty in particular are not omnipotent and are not a universal means in the fight against crime. Since crime has a multifaceted and deep nature, due to a series of reasons, measures to combat it must be comprehensive. But in this work we were talking about the legality of using the death penalty, its necessity and expediency. But research in this area is very limited; therefore, neither supporters nor their opponents have so far been able to present convincing factual data in defense of their point of view, and are left with guesses that are based on emotions. In support of his thesis that both opponents and supporters of the death penalty cannot express a final decision, and also taking into account that every rule has exceptions, one can cite the statement of one famous French lawyer Raymond Forny: “The question of the death penalty in France has been resolved finally. However, this does not mean that there cannot be exceptions. If Hitler had not committed suicide and had to be tried today, the sentence would hardly have been limited to life imprisonment. The same applies to the Nazi executioners...” A very interesting statement, since the law is the law. In this regard, it is logical to believe that, since cold-blooded, terrible and cynical crimes still take place in the modern world, the death penalty should remain, but within a limited framework, for a very limited range of crimes. But, if society itself becomes more humane, and not just its government, which abolishes the death penalty, then crimes that require the death penalty will not be committed in it.

Bibliography

Regulatory legal acts 1. Constitution of the Russian Federation of December 12, 1993 / "Rossiyskaya Gazeta", N 7, 01/21/2009 Scientific literature 2. Balashov, A.V. Legislative support for the right to life / A.V. Balashov // EurAzSouth.-2010.- No. 7. - P.15-16. 3. Balashov A.V. Constitutional right to life and the death penalty // Bulletin of Economics, Law and Sociology. - Kazan. -2010. - No. 1. - pp. 61-64. 4. Vengerov, A.B. Theory of State and Law: Textbook for Law Schools. 3rd ed. – / A.B. Vengerov. - M.: Jurisprudence, 2010. – 402 p. 5. Civil law: in 3 volumes. T. I: textbook. / S.S. Alekseev, I.Z. Ayusheeva, A.S. Vasiliev et al.; edited by S.A. Stepanova. – M.: Prospekt; Ekaterenburg: Institute of Private Law, 2010. – 423 p. 6. Dzigar, A.L. Death penalty and crime / A.L. Dzigar. - Rostov-on-Don, 2008. – 143 p. 7. Drobyazko, S.G. General theory of law: textbook / S.G. Drobyazkov, V.M. Kozlov. – Mn: Asveta, 2010.-360 p. 8. Zubkov, A.I. Punitive policy of Russia at the turn of the millennium / A.I. Zubkov. - M., 2008. – 243 p. 9. Kovalenko, A.I. Constitutional law of Russia / A.I. Kovalenko. - M.: Law and order, 2007. - 208 p. 10. Kolyushin, E.I. Constitutional law of Russia. Lecture course. /E.I. Kolyushin. - M.: Publishing house. house?Gorodets?, 2006. - 415 p. 11. Mikhlin, A.S. Capital punishment: history, modernity, future. /A.S. Nekrasov. - M.: Higher Education, 2008. - 276 p. 12. Nekrasov, S.I. Constitutional law of the Russian Federation. Lecture notes / S.I. Nekrasov. – M.: Higher Education, 2011. -167 p. 13. Nikulin, V.V. Constitutional law of the Russian Federation. - Textbook for bachelors of the direction “Jurisprudence” / V.V. Nikulin. - Tambov: Publishing house of the Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "TSTU", 2012. - 332 p. 14. Determination of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of November 19, 2009 N 1344-O-R. [Electronic resource]. Access mode: http://www.rg.ru/2009/11/27/postanovlenie-ks-dok.html. Access date: 12/08/2014 15. The human right to life and guarantees of its implementation in the sphere of labor and social security / Ed. K.N. Gusova. – M.: Prospekt, 2008. - 488 p. 16. Strekozov, V.G. Constitutional law of Russia / V.G. Strekozov. - M.: New Lawyer, 2010. -489 p.

The right to life is proclaimed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Article 20) and almost all constitutions of the countries of the world as an inalienable human right protected by law. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of life. This norm is enshrined in all international legal instruments on human rights: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 3), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6), the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Clause 1, Article 2 ). The Convention, however, allows deprivation of life as a result of the “absolutely necessary use of force: (a) to protect any person from unlawful violence, (b) to effect the lawful apprehension or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained, (c) to suppress, in accordance with with the law, rebellion or rebellion” (Part 2, Article 2). Recognition of this right means that the state must actually apply legislation that criminalizes intentional killings committed by both private individuals and government officials acting outside their legal authority.

In many countries, the issue of protecting abortion is considered from the perspective of protecting the right to life. The Council of Europe (European Commission) has indicated that recognition of the absolute right to life of the fetus would be contrary to the content and purpose of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. At the same time, it was noted that the state can impose certain restrictions on the right to abortion without thereby violating the right to private life of a pregnant woman, guaranteed by Art. 8 of the Convention. The Convention does not declare the beginning of life at the moment of conception, but certain states, especially those under the influence of the Catholic Church (Slovakia, Latin American countries), have constitutionally enshrined the protection of life before the birth of a person.

The Human Rights Convention also does not establish any prohibitions on euthanasia. A number of states (Great Britain, Denmark) have adopted laws allowing the taking of life of a terminally ill person under certain conditions. But in Russia there is no such law, and the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 20, 2012 established the rules for terminating resuscitation measures and determining the moment of death of a person; the moment of a person’s death is the moment of his brain death, established by a council of doctors, or his biological death (irreversible death of a person).

The Federal Law “On a temporary ban on human cloning” (as amended on March 29, 2010) introduced a temporary ban on human cloning, based on the principles of respect for humans, recognition of the value of the individual, the need to protect human rights and freedoms, and taking into account insufficiently studied biological and social consequences of human cloning. The temporary ban was introduced pending the entry into force of a federal law establishing the procedure for using technologies for cloning organisms for the purpose of human cloning.

The right to life, first of all, presupposes that the state pursues a peaceful foreign policy that excludes wars and conflicts. A number of states (Japan, etc.) have proclaimed in their constitutions the renunciation of war, as well as the use of armed force as a means of resolving international disputes. A law-governed state is obliged to maintain the country's defense capability in the event of any attacks, but strictly regulates the use of a regular army on its territory and abroad, since this leads to the death of both civilians and personnel. However, there is no special mention of this kind in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

In peaceful conditions, the guarantees of this right are not limited to the prohibition of murder - this is unconditionally enshrined in the criminal code of each country. The state is obliged to organize an effective fight against crime, and especially against terrorist acts. The right to life is guaranteed by healthcare systems, and in particular the prevention of child mortality; protection from accidents at work; prevention of road accidents; fire safety, etc. For example, Art. 34 of the Federal Law “On Fire Safety” (as amended on May 28, 2017) establishes: “Citizens have the right to protection of their life, health and property in the event of a fire.”

The issue of the death penalty is of particular importance. The death penalty- the highest measure of criminal punishment, consisting of depriving a person of life. Such punishment is allowed by the constitutions or laws of a number of countries as an exceptional measure and applied only by court verdict. However, in most democratic countries (Austria, Germany, Denmark, Italy, Sweden, Latin American countries, etc.) the death penalty has been abolished. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 6) states that in countries that have not abolished the death penalty, death sentences may only be imposed for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law and only in execution of a final judgment pronounced by a competent court. Anyone sentenced to death has the right to seek clemency or a commutation of their sentence. The death penalty is not imposed for crimes committed by persons under 18 years of age, and is not carried out against pregnant women. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Protocol No. 6) established: “The death penalty is abolished. No one can be sentenced to death or executed." The Convention allowed for the possibility of introducing the death penalty by law for acts committed during war or when there is an imminent threat of war, but Protocol No. 13 (came into force on July 1, 2003) eliminated this assumption.

When developing the Constitution of the Russian Federation, some public and religious organizations insisted on a constitutional prohibition of the death penalty, as was done in a number of countries. The religious approach is based on the inadmissibility of human interference in God’s exclusive right to both give life and take it away from a person. These general democratic considerations were not fully accepted, but the prospect of abolition of the death penalty is still indicated in the Constitution (“pending its abolition”). At the same time, several guarantees against its arbitrary use:

• 1) the death penalty should be established only by federal law;
• 2) the death penalty should be considered as an exceptional punishment, i.e., have an alternative in the form of imprisonment for a certain period, so that the court always has the opportunity to choose the punishment;
• 3) the death penalty can only be applied for especially serious crimes against life (i.e., against persons who have committed premeditated murder under aggravating circumstances, for terrorist acts and banditry, if they led to the death of people);
• 4) if there is a threat of the death penalty, the accused has the right to have his case considered by a court with the participation of a jury.

These guarantees reflect the humane nature of justice and are designed to eliminate the risk of irreparable miscarriage of justice.

In connection with Russia's accession to the Council of Europe, the question of abolishing the death penalty arose. Russia signed Protocol No. 6, but did not ratify it. In the context of increasing crime, all government bodies came to the conclusion that it was impossible to immediately abolish this penalty and implement a gradual reduction in its use. The President of the Russian Federation issued a Decree “On the gradual reduction of the use of the death penalty in connection with Russia’s entry into the Council of Europe” on May 16, 1996, which is considered as the basis for introducing a moratorium on the execution of death penalty sentences. In the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which came into force on January 1, 1997, the elements of crime providing for the death penalty were reduced from 28 to 5 (premeditated murder, terrorist act, etc.). The death penalty for a number of crimes has been replaced by life imprisonment.

However, all these measures did not eliminate the inequality of citizens, in respect of whom death sentences were imposed in some cases by a jury, as clearly required by Art. 20 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and in others - by courts without involving a jury. Inequality arises due to the fact that jury trials for a long time operated only in nine constituent entities of the Russian Federation.

In this regard, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, in a resolution dated February 2, 1999, drew the attention of the Federal Assembly to the fact that after the adoption of the Constitution in 1993, it had sufficient time to implement the requirements of Art. 20, and recognized that “from the moment this resolution comes into force and until the entry into force of the corresponding federal law, ensuring throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation everyone accused of a crime for the commission of which the death penalty is established by federal law as an exceptional measure of punishment, the right to consideration of his case by a jury, the death penalty cannot be imposed regardless of whether the case is considered by a jury, a panel of three professional judges, or a court consisting of a judge and two lay judges.”

Consequently, this provision should have been in effect until the establishment of jury trials in all constituent entities of the Russian Federation. For a long time they did not exist only in the Chechen Republic, but they were created there by January 1, 2010 in accordance with the Federal Law “On Jurors of Federal Courts of General Jurisdiction in the Russian Federation.”

After January 1, 2010, this condition lost force, and the issue again arose before the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which, in a ruling dated November 19, 2009, indicated that the introduction of a jury trial does not open up the possibility of applying the death penalty, including for a guilty verdict based on the jury's verdict. The basis for this conclusion was the fact that “as a result of a long moratorium on the use of the death penalty, stable guarantees of the human right not to be subjected to the death penalty were formed and a constitutional and legal regime was formed, within which - taking into account international legal trends and obligations undertaken on itself by the Russian Federation - an irreversible process is taking place aimed at the abolition of the death penalty as an exceptional measure of punishment, temporary in nature and permitted only during a certain transition period.”

• Human cloning is the creation of a person genetically identical to another living or deceased person by transferring the nucleus of a human somatic cell into a denucleated female germ cell.

It is impossible to categorically state what is more significant and important for all people without exception, but it seems that the right to life is still the main human right. It was written and proclaimed on December 10, 1948 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is worded as follows: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.” At the same time, the most important aspects of the content of the right to life have not found their place in the main universal documents, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, etc. The right to life is most often interpreted as the individual’s right to freedom and personal security, sometimes reducing the problem to the abolition of the death penalty.
The content of human rights to life and the role of the state in this regard should be understood much more broadly than is generally accepted. The right to life is, first of all, the right to peace in the broadest sense of the word. It includes the obligations of the state to prevent wars and armed conflicts, acts of terrorism, and criminal attacks on the life and health of people. This problem should be considered not only in terms of the rights of an individual, but also through the prism of the interests of the nation, nationality, and ethnic group.
The right to life is not an elementary reflection of all other rights, but has its own social content, synthesizing all other rights and freedoms in the most important and valuable.
Recognizing some simplification of this approach, it is nevertheless fair to put forward the thesis that the right to life presupposes the human right to a dignified human existence. Realization of the right to life requires guarantees of other human rights, primarily the rights to health care, labor, education, etc.
The main indicator of the humanism of mass consciousness is its attitude towards the death penalty. And the point is not even in the negative consequences of the existence of this measure of criminal punishment (the inability to correct a judicial error, the hardening of public morals, the crippled psyche of the executors of the sentence, the lack of a positive impact on the state of crime, which is clearly confirmed by statistics, etc.), but in the fact that the deprivation of life of a person who is already isolated from society and deprived of the opportunity to commit new atrocities is sanctioned by the state. But if the state, as punishment, revenge for what they have done, approves the murder of a criminal, then it seems to put itself on the same level with those who reject (consciously or without extra thought) the very idea of ​​human life as the highest, untouchable value.
It is quite obvious that the death penalty can be imposed only when the guilt of the defendant is established on the basis of such convincing evidence that there is no basis for a different understanding of the facts. Since the execution of a death sentence against an innocent person is an irreparable and most terrible miscarriage of justice, it is necessary to strengthen guarantees of the rights of the defendant (convict) and establish a special procedure for imposing the death penalty (for example, only by unanimous verdict of the jury in the court of first instance), as well as a procedure for leaving it punishment without change by higher courts - by unanimous decision of all judges.
This does not mean that human life is inviolable in any case. If a criminal threatens the lives of other people or his actions can cause serious damage to protected values, then he “excludes” himself from such inviolability. Therefore, killing a person while suppressing a crime and the death penalty are completely different things.
Throughout the world, the abolition of the death penalty has always been an act of state will, and not a reflection of the aspirations of mass consciousness, and Russia in this case is no exception, but this does not create a serious obstacle to the legislative abolition of the death penalty in accordance with Russia’s obligations assumed in connection with joining the Council of Europe.

More on the topic The right to life, as the highest value, and the problem of the death penalty:

1. 37. PROCEDURE FOR EXECUTION OF THE DEATH PENALTY. MORATORIUM ON THE DEATH PENALTY IN RUSSIA
2. § 4. Reform of the death penalty under Vladimir I as an indicator of the maturity of legal policy and legal thinking of the end of the 10th century.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays

Khomenko Natalya Nikolaevna. Problems of constitutional and legal regulation of the death penalty in the Russian Federation: Dis. ...cand. legal Sciences: 12.00.02: Moscow, 2001 235 p. RSL OD, 61:02-12/782-3

Introduction

Chapter 1. The death penalty in the system of regulating relations between a person (citizen), the state and society 7

2 Forms of restriction and abolition of the constitutional right to life 54

3. History of the death penalty in Russia and foreign experience 97

Chapter 2. Legal regulation of the application of the death penalty in the Russian Federation 130

1 . Constitutional and legal regulation of issues of pardon in the Russian Federation 130

2. Constitutional and legal status of the jury 145

3. Problems of ensuring constitutional human rights from the moment of issuance and until the execution of the death sentence 176

Conclusion. 208

List of used literature and normative sources 214

Introduction to the work

Relevance of the research topic.

The problem of the death penalty is complex and multifaceted. It affects political-legal, socio-economic, moral-religious, cultural-psychological and other spheres of life. Therefore, today the issue of the death penalty has not been legally finally resolved.

Russia is currently experiencing a crisis. The weakening of statehood, contradictions in laws, insecurity of human rights and freedoms, difficult economic situation, non-payment of wages and pensions, low legal culture, rampant crime and corruption determine the crisis moral situation in society.

Human rights are a particularly important area of ​​law, since they concentrate the main values ​​of human society, such as life, freedom, dignity, and personal autonomy. These values ​​receive their normative consolidation in human rights and guarantees of implementation through legal means and institutions.

Only awareness of the need for proactive behavior in the socio-economic, political, spiritual and legal spheres, improvement of culture, revival of extra-legal (social) regulation, achievement of a qualitatively new level of democracy, the formation of a self-developing civil society can become a real guarantee of human rights as the highest value.

In other words, it is important to consider the problem of the death penalty in a broader context, in all the interdependence of socio-economic, political, legal, spiritual and moral factors.

The issue of abolition of the death penalty is addressed differently in all countries.

Some states prohibit the use of this type of punishment, others can apply it only in emergency circumstances, and others retain it in law, but have not actually applied it for many years. But there are many countries that widely use this punishment.

It should be noted that in almost all countries of the world public opinion opposes the abolition of the death penalty. Nevertheless, the parliaments of many countries have excluded the death penalty from the punishment system.

Numerous polls conducted in Russia show that the majority of the population has a negative attitude towards the complete abolition of the death penalty.

According to statistics, older people and those who do not have secondary education most often speak out for the abolition of the death penalty. The overwhelming majority believe that this punishment should be applied, but on a minimal scale. Middle-aged respondents, those with higher education, students, and those who were not victims of a crime are especially actively in favor of this. And finally, minors, people without secondary education, workers and victims of crime are especially intolerant in this regard.

Of interest are the answers to another question that was posed to those who spoke in favor of maintaining the death penalty: for what crimes should an exceptional measure of punishment be applied? About half believe that it should be assigned only for premeditated murders, but 38% do not limit themselves to this, believing that other crimes can also entail an exceptional measure. Among the listed crimes are banditry, extortion, kidnapping, hostage-taking, robbery and even theft.

Over the last decade, the voices of various international organizations, such as the Council of Europe and Amnesty International, have begun to sound increasingly louder against the death penalty. Under their influence, the number of countries that have legally or actually abandoned the death penalty is constantly growing.

The question of the expediency or inexpediency of the death penalty will remain open as long as it exists, at least only in legislative form, without being found in practical application.

h Degree of development and range of sources.

There is hardly a problem in law that would generate more controversy among scientists, politicians and practitioners than the problem of the death penalty. Points of view expressed are diametrically opposed. The controversy has been going on for several centuries.

Over the past period, thousands of works have been devoted to the death penalty, the authors of which either demanded its immediate abolition - this is P.D. Kalmykov, A.F. Kistyakovsky, V.D. Nabokov, N.D. Sergeevsky, N.S. Tagantsev and others, or argued the urgent need, for example, A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

Before the opening of the session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in June 2001, his letter was read out calling for the resumption of the use of the death penalty in Russia.

The problem of the death penalty has been the subject of scientific research at all stages of the history of the Russian state.

The works of SM deserve special attention in this area. Solovyov 1 in his writings about the history of Russia since ancient times, O.I. Chistyakov 2, under whose editorship Russian legislation of the 10th-20th centuries was published.

Many authors, such as A.N., have written and are writing about the history of the use of the death penalty in Russia. Golovistikova, A.F. Kistyakovsky, N.S. Tagantsev, N.A. Shelkoplyae, O.F. Shishov and others,

The dissertation also examines the views of individual foreign scientists on the problem of the death penalty.

Issues related to the death penalty have become particularly relevant in the modern period. Therefore, various publications appear in magazines and newspapers about this. In this regard, the works of N. Astafiev, A. Astakhov, Kh.M. should be noted. Akhmetshina, N.Kh. Akhmetshina, V. Borisenko, O. Borodina, A. Elina, A. Weitzel, D. Viksne, S. E. Vitsina, D. Zhamaldinova, V. Zainetdinova, V. Zorkaltseva, A. Ivanova, V. Kvapshs, N. Kolokolova, N.F. Kuznetsova, F.M.

See: Soloviev SM. History of Russia from ancient times. Works in 18 books. / Ota: edited by I.D. Kovachchenko S.S. Dmitriev -M., “Thought”, 1991

2 See: Russian legislation of the 10th and 20th centuries in nine volumes. / Generally edited by Doctor of Law, Professor O.I. Chistyakova - M., "Legal Literature", 1984-1994.

Reshetnikov, L. Sharov and many others.

Particular attention in the dissertation is paid to the implementation of the constitutional human right to life and forms of restriction and abolition of the constitutional right to life. The basis of the dissertation research was the work of modern scientists such as N.A. Ardasheva, V.I. Bozhko, N. Bolotova, S. E, Vitsin, I. Vermel, A.A. Guseinov, A.I. Gusher, Yu.A. Dmitriev, A.M. Izutkin, T.V. Karsaevskaya, M. Kovalev, M. Latysheva, L.N. Linik, P.I. Novgorodtsev, I.A. Pokrovsky, Yu.D. Sergeev, F. Foot, P. Hollender, I.I. Khomich, G.I. Tsaregorodtsev, Y.F. Schiller, E.V. Shlenev and many others.

An important place in the dissertation work is given to the issues of pardon and the constitutional and legal status of the jury. These issues were dealt with by G. Alimov, W. Burnham, L.M. Karnozova, M.V. Nemytina, V. Melnik, N. Radutnaya, F. Sadikov, M. Tashchilin and others,

At the same time, it is necessary to especially note the works of V.N. Andreeva, A.P. Lavrina, A.S. Mikhlin and other authors researching and revealing the problem of the death penalty.

During the dissertation research, the legal framework was fully used, including the current legislation of the Russian Federation, the legislation of the USSR and the RSFSR, including pre-revolutionary and foreign sources.

Subject, purpose and objectives of the study.

Main subject dissertation research are the constitutional and legal norms governing the application of the death penalty.

Target research - determining the effectiveness of the death penalty in order to give it a constitutional, legal and moral assessment, to help the legislator resolve the issue of their appropriateness.

Conducting a dissertation research is determined by legal, political, socio-economic grounds, the content of which is given special attention in the work.

Achieving the set goal is achieved through solving the following tasks:

Studying the history of criminal legislation on the death penalty in Russia;

studying the legislation of foreign countries where the death penalty is applied;

Study of theoretical and practical provisions developed by legal science on the death penalty;

making practical proposals to improve the legislation of the Russian Federation.

Methodological basis of the study constitute general scientific and special scientific methods of cognition, including: formal logical, sociological methods, the method of comparative law, system analysis, historical method, etc. The use of these methods made it possible to study the constitutional and legal relations associated with the use of the death penalty in dynamics, in the aggregate explore objective factors influencing their development, deeply and comprehensively study the legal phenomena that constitute the subject of research, analyze their relationships on the basis of empirical and theoretical knowledge.

Scientific novelty of the dissertation work.

The novelty of the dissertation research lies in the fact that the issues of application of the death penalty are considered in the aspect of limiting the constitutional human right to life,

In the dissertation research, new theoretical principles, practical conclusions, proposals and recommendations are formulated and justified, which are submitted for defense:

Conclusion on the need to issue a law limiting interference in a person’s exercise of the right to life;

Conclusion on the need for further development of the Criminal legislation of the Russian Federation, namely its articles on crimes against human life; Civil legislation, in particular its provisions on legal personality; Family legislation and other legal acts -

3. Formulate proposals for a well-established theory of protection

human life,

Proposals on the procedure for legally prohibiting the abolition of the death penalty;

Conclusion on the need to ratify Protocol No. 6 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Proposal to legally regulate the pardon procedure by the President of the Russian Federation.

Practical significance of the dissertation and testing of research results.

The practical proposals formulated in this dissertation can be used by the legislator when resolving issues related to the constitutional and legal regulation of the application of the death penalty in the Russian Federation.

The dissertation materials can become the basis for subsequent scientific research in this area; they are used in teaching the course on Criminal Law of the Russian Federation in terms of the application of the death penalty and Constitutional Law of the Russian Federation in terms of regulating issues of the constitutional human right to life and forms of limitation of the constitutional right to life.

A number of theoretical and practical provisions of the study are reflected in publications prepared by the dissertation candidate.

Dissertation structure.

The construction of the dissertation is determined by the content of the research topic.

This work consists of an introduction, two chapters combining six paragraphs, a conclusion and a list of references and legal acts.

Contents of the constitutional human right to life

The protection of life is one of the most important political and legal tasks of the state - this is absolutely clearly defined at the constitutional level of Russia. To successfully solve this problem, a necessary condition is the legal definition of the concept of “human life”.

Life in the broadest sense is one of the forms of existence of matter, which naturally arises under certain conditions in the process of its development. However, in addition to this general philosophical approach to defining the concept of “life,” there are others that take into account the specifics of its manifestations in one aspect or another. So, for example, in biological (natural science) terms, “life” is the physiological existence of a person or animal, and “life activity” is the totality of vital functions that make up the activity of the organism1. “Life,” wrote F. Engels, “is a way of existence of protein bodies, and this way of existence consists essentially in the constant renewal of their chemical components through nutrition and excretion”2.

This statement by F. Engels is of fundamental importance for defining the concept of human life, which, from a biological point of view, consists of continuous metabolism, nutrition and excretion. With the cessation of these functions, human life also ends. Thus, we can conclude that life is “a natural biological form of human existence, which is its prerequisite”1. From this definition of human life, as a form of human existence given by nature, it follows that the concept of “life” remains a purely natural concept.

However, the state cannot simply adopt the point of view of natural scientists, in whose views there is no and cannot be unity. The concept of “life” should be defined by law, and not by medicine or biology. The concept of “life” is as basic as those facts and processes that are covered by law. Therefore, it must be limited by law and created by it.

The task of legally defining the concept of “life” is quite complex. The scientific understanding of human life is organically connected with the value approach; in defining it one cannot help but touch upon the social, philosophical, moral and ethical aspects due to a number of reasons that are becoming important today. Among these reasons, it is already possible to identify some that are of particular relevance. One of them is connected with the development of medicine, the other with environmental protection, and the third with the development of technology, primarily weapons. In addition, the development of society itself potentially poses a threat to the life of an individual. All these problems can be correctly posed and solved only on the basis of a scientific understanding of the essence of human life.

“Man is a living system, representing the unity of the physical and spiritual, natural and social. As a living organism, man is included in the natural connection of phenomena and is subject to biological laws; at the level of the conscious psyche and personality, man is turned to social existence with its specific laws.” This definition is the result of a general analysis of numerous scientific works of the philosophical direction, ranging from ancient thinkers to modern philosophers. It comes from the biological nature of man and his social essence. The manifestation of human essential forces is organically connected with his natural life activity. As K. Marx said, a real, bodily person absorbs and emits all natural forces.

The biological in a person is the vital activity of the body, carried out on the basis of metabolism, it is a physiological and anatomical-morphological mechanism for satisfying the natural needs of the body and its adaptations to the external environment on the basis of neuropsychic activity. The internal biological characteristics of a person as a natural organism also include those genetic mechanisms that contribute to the formation of a certain “program” of his life activity and development, determine gender and age differences between people, influence the state of physical and mental health, etc.2.

Being a form of life activity of the human body mediated and transformed by social existence, the biological in man enters into the structure of life and constitutes its internal natural basis, on which the social life activity of people grows and is, as it were, “built on.”

Back in the middle of the last century, the thesis was put forward: “The essence of man is not an abstraction inherent in a single individual, in its reality it is the totality of all social relations.” This formula about man as the totality of all social relations has become key in the scientific understanding of man.

Social patterns, being decisive in the formation and development of a particular way of life, are revealed on the basis of interaction with the objective laws of human biological organization.

Based on the unity of the biological and social in human nature, it should be assumed that human life is also a bio-social “unity”. It stops when this unity disintegrates. “If the whole... is divided, then it will cease to be whole”4.

Thus, life must be protected by law as a complete biosocial unity.

The problem of human life is studied by representatives of various sciences: genetics, physiology, psychology, sociology, philosophy. It would seem that such a versatile approach should deeply reveal the essence of the problem. However, although representatives of different sciences have accumulated a huge amount of factual material, at present there is still no unity of views among scientists on this issue.

The main reason for this phenomenon lies in the fact that the study of human life is still carried out separately. One science studies the structural organization of man, i.e. the basis of life (anatomy), another - functional (physiology), the third - focused its attention only on the social side of human life - philosophy, etc. Traditional scientific disciplines have studied and continue to study certain aspects of human life. But none of them aims to give a comprehensive description of it, since none of them has such an opportunity.

Human life is an extremely complex phenomenon. And its essence will remain undiscovered until, through the joint efforts of representatives of different sciences, all both biological and social mechanisms underlying it are comprehensively analyzed. The existing disparate approach to the study of human life has so far only contributed to the identification of contradictions in its nature, but has not made it possible to develop a unified concept.

Forms of restriction and abolition of the constitutional right to life

For the first time, international legal regulation of the right to life was given in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Article 3 of the Declaration declares that every person has the right to life, liberty and security of person1. However, the Universal Declaration does not provide an interpretation of this right.

The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 went further than the Universal Declaration: Article 2 of the Convention stipulates that the right of everyone to life is not only proclaimed, but also protected by law. Deprivation of life shall not be considered a violation of the right to life if it results from the use of force no more than is absolutely necessary: ​​a) to protect any person from unlawful violence; b) to effect a lawful arrest or prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; c) in case of actions provided for by law to suppress a riot or rebellion2.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, in article 6, establishes that the right to life is an inalienable right of every person, which is protected by law. No one can be arbitrarily deprived of life. If the deprivation of life constitutes the crime of genocide - a destructive policy committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group - then, according to the Covenant, nothing gives participating States the right to any was by way of derogating from any obligations undertaken under the provisions of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

An example of such a policy is Rwanda since April 1994, where the conflict between the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa peoples is political against a strong ethnic background. In this regard, the International Tribunal for Rwanda was established by UN Security Council Resolution No. 955 (1994) for the purpose of prosecuting persons5 responsible for genocide and other serious violations of international humanitarian law.

However, despite the importance of this right for human life, it is the most vulnerable and violated in the modern world.

Article 20 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which proclaims the right to life, prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life, therefore, gives reason to believe that interference with this right is possible only on the basis or in accordance with the law. This is a fairly general clause and its presence in the Basic Law is surprising at first glance. Indeed, can this absolutely highest value, this life-giving basis of human dignity be dependent on a simple legislator? Isn't such a restriction an absurdity in the constitutional system?

On the contrary, it is a general clause that allows more specific definition of cases of possible interference with the right to life that is necessary in this case. It allows the state to legalize the creation of numerous risky situations, without which its existence is sometimes impossible: the use of firearms by the police, occupational risk, antiviral vaccinations, etc. Such situations, although they should not, can lead to loss of life, and therefore must be provided for by law . In view of the extreme variety of such situations, the clause should be more general.

A general limitation of law is therefore necessary. However, it is also necessary to clearly define the goals for which life-threatening situations are created. Otherwise, any dangers arbitrarily created by the state (war, for example) will be legalized, which is completely unacceptable. Such situations may be legalized or outright prescribed where necessary to protect other legal benefits of equal value. For such a value as life, such a good is, as was said, only another life. Thus, the reservation allows interference with the right to life only to protect the life of another, which must be saved or guaranteed by the measure (necessary defense, vaccinations, use of firearms, etc.). When comparing equally high values, it is probably necessary to act according to the general principles of relativity.

In few cases, the state itself interferes with the right to life of its citizens, or it refuses to protect itself when this right is interfered with by third parties. This is again permissible, provided that it is very necessary to protect or preserve another life. If you approach this issue with this interpretation, then you can solve problematic cases, of which the most important ones are named here:

1. The institution of necessary defense in modern criminal law means the possibility of violent actions against a person who has committed a socially dangerous attack on legally protected interests, taken to suppress this attack1. In accordance with criminal law, actions that, although falling under the signs of a criminal act, but committed in a state of necessary defense (i.e., in defense against socially dangerous attacks on the interests of the state, public interests, personality or rights of the defender or another person) are not considered a crime and do not entail criminal liability if the limits of necessary defense were not exceeded2. Defensive actions during the necessary defense can be expressed in causing bodily harm to the attacker, including serious ones, depriving him of his freedom (locking, tying up), causing death. Creating danger and depriving life during necessary defense is permissible only to the extent that one’s own life or the life of another is endangered by unlawful interference. In conditions of necessary defense, it is permissible to kill the attacker. But the right of necessary defense does not stem from the right to the life of another, but from the right to preserve one’s life. The innate sense of self-preservation forces a person to defend himself against any attack. But if a murderer becomes unarmed, he cannot be killed. The right to life becomes inviolable in an unarmed killer1.

2. By extreme necessity, criminal law understands a state in which a person eliminates a danger that threatens the interests of the state, public interests, personality or rights of the person or other citizens by committing actions that cause harm and therefore bear the outward signs of a crime. Actions committed in a state of extreme necessity also do not entail criminal liability if the threatening danger under the given circumstances could not be eliminated by other means and if the harm caused is less significant than that prevented2.

Constitutional and legal regulation of issues of pardon in the Russian Federation

A pardon is a mitigation of the fate of a convicted person. This is the last hope, which can become a means of correcting possible judicial errors, mitigating severe punishment and compensating for the severity of the criminal law itself, taking into account the circumstances of a particular case not provided for by law. In addition to the humane nature of this act, it is also an act of trust in the convicted person. If he does not justify the trust placed in him, then the pardon was erroneous.

In almost all countries, the law provides for a pardon procedure if a death sentence has been imposed. The right of anyone sentenced to death to seek clemency is well established in international human rights instruments.

Until recently, there was no legal regulation of this type of pardon. The President of the USSR (and previously the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR or the RSFSR) could impose by way of pardon, instead of the death penalty, any punishment provided for by the Criminal Code. In practice, this was imprisonment for the maximum period established by law1. After the adoption of the Fundamentals of Criminal Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics in 1958, this period was 15 years. And in 1986, after amendments were made to this law, from up to 20 years. This situation existed in Russia until 1992. The Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, by the Law of the Russian Federation of December 17, 1992, allowed the imposition of life imprisonment instead of the death penalty upon pardon4. However, by order of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 16, 1994, a different interpretation of the norm in question was given. When pardoning those sentenced to death, they could be sentenced to imprisonment for up to 15 years or life.

A further change in the procedure for assigning imprisonment when pardoning those sentenced to death occurred with the introduction of the new Criminal Code of the Russian Federation of 1996. In accordance with it, the death penalty by pardon can be replaced by life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of 25 years.

Speaking about pardons, it is necessary to consider the mechanism of action of the Commission on Pardons both in the USSR and in the Russian Federation.

In the USSR, the highest collegial body was the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. It had a working apparatus - the Secretariat of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. The Secretariat had about 15 departments in different sectors of the state's life. One of these departments was the Department of Pardons and Citizenship, which in turn had 2 sectors: a sector for pardons and a sector for citizenship issues. The pardon sector included approximately 20 people who, in essence, prepared documents for the Pardon Commission. The Department for Citizenship and Pardons received petitions from citizens whose sentences were passed directly by the Supreme Court of the USSR or military tribunals, from foreigners or from stateless persons, from citizens who committed crimes on the territory of two or more republics, as well as petitions for pardon, rejected in the Supreme Soviets of the Union Republics. The Department for Pardons and Citizenship also had 2 commissions: the Commission for Pardons and the Commission for Citizenship Issues. The Pardon Commission included seven deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (cosmonaut P. Klimuk, writer Ion Druta, foreman of the Moscow Art Watch Factory N.

Glazkov, foreman of fitters at the Balashikha Foundry and Mechanical Plant A, Borodulin, head of the Political Department of the Border Troops of the KGB of the USSR N. Britvin and head of the Commission, first deputy chairman of the All-Union Society of War and Labor Veterans A. Golyakov)1. At the discretion of the Commission itself, journalists could be present at its meetings. The commission met on average once a month, and there were no officially clearly established deadlines, as they were ready. At each meeting, the commission brought up 30-35 cases on issues of pardon related to the death penalty, and about 200-300 cases related to imprisonment and other types of punishment. Each death penalty case was examined personally. The commission made a decision and the department prepared a draft decree on pardon, or a draft decree rejecting the petition for pardon. The decree of pardon was signed by the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR (and later by the President of the USSR). Further, such a decree was sent to departments that were supposed to carry out the decisions of the highest bodies of state power on pardons.

During 1990, the Pardon Commission considered 226 petitions for pardon for exceptional punishment. Taking into account their young age, first conviction, degree of participation in the crime, and other mitigating circumstances, the lives of 18 were saved. 208 petitions from those sentenced to death were rejected due to the particular gravity of the crimes they committed and their increased danger to society. All these persons were convicted of premeditated murders, and each of them had several victims2. In fact, execution was used for those who were recognized by law as especially dangerous repeat offenders and who had committed several murders. No one was sentenced to death for one murder.

When the institution of the presidency was formed, the department of pardons was given to him in accordance with the Constitution. The Pardon Commission, established in November 1990, already consisted of twelve people and included parliamentarians and representatives of the public, justice and science (the head of the commission was member of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR N. Glazkov)1. The presence of parliament members, representatives of government bodies, the public and the media was allowed. She conducted a preliminary review of petitions for clemency and presented her proposals to the President. Without exception, all death sentences were referred to the Commission for consideration, even if a petition for clemency was not submitted. The commission was not empowered to examine the legality of the death sentence or determine whether it was justified. She had to be guided only by the principles of mercy, taking into account the personality of the convicted person and the circumstances of the crime. It was not within the scope of the Commission's powers to decide whether there had been a miscarriage of justice.

Constitutional and legal status of the jury

According to Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “Everyone has the right, in full equality, to have his case heard in a public and fair manner, in the determination of his rights and obligations and in the determination of any criminal charge against him.” justice by an independent and impartial court"1. One of the guarantees of ensuring the independence and impartiality of the court in the administration of justice is the direct and clear definition by law of the range of cases that are subject to consideration by a particular court. Thanks to this, a person has the opportunity to know in advance where and by which judge his case will be considered, if one arises.

Part 1 of Article 47 of the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes the right to have a case heard in those courts and by those judges whose jurisdiction they are assigned by law2. This means, in particular, that the consideration of cases must be carried out by the legally established composition of the court.

Cases considered by jury courts fall under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts of the republics, courts of territories, regions, autonomous okrugs and regions."

In accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR and the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, these courts have jurisdiction over all cases of especially dangerous state crimes, except for espionage, cases of which are within the jurisdiction of military courts; cases of a number of other state crimes: violation of national and racial equality; disclosure of state secrets; loss of documents containing state secrets; transfer of information constituting an official secret to a foreign organization; banditry; some actions that disrupt the normal activities of institutions that provide isolation from society; mass riots; violation of international flight rules; violation of traffic safety rules and transport operation, resulting in serious consequences; damage to communications and vehicles; production or sale of counterfeit money or securities; criminal cases of premeditated murder under aggravating circumstances; rape under especially aggravating circumstances; kidnapping; receiving a bribe committed by an official holding a responsible position or who has received a bribe repeatedly in a large amount and in other cases; a number of crimes against justice and some crimes against the order of government.

The courts of this level of the judicial system have jurisdiction over all cases of crimes for which the death penalty can be applied by law, except for cases within the competence of the relevant military courts, as well as cases related to state secrets.

According to the draft Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted for the second reading as of July 1, 1999, the jury has jurisdiction over criminal cases of especially serious crimes, for the commission of which the law provides for punishment in the form of life imprisonment or the death penalty3.

The norm providing for the introduction of jury trials into modern practice first appeared (after 1917, when jury trials were abolished as “old regime” and replaced by the participation of two people’s assessors in the consideration of cases) in the Fundamentals of the Legislation of the USSR and Union Republics on the Judicial System in November 1989 Article 11 of the Fundamentals stated: “In cases of crimes for which the law provides for the death penalty or imprisonment for a term of over ten years, the question of the defendant’s guilt may be decided by a jury (an expanded panel of people’s assessors)”1. The identification of a jury trial with a panel of people's assessors suggests that at that time the legislator did not have a clear understanding of the differences between these two institutions.

Further development of the jury system took place at the constitutional level. By the Law of the RSFSR “On Amendments and Additions to the Constitution (Basic Law) of the RSFSR” of November 1, 1991, Part 1 of Article 166 of the Constitution was set out in a new wording: “Consideration of civil and criminal cases in courts is carried out., with the participation of jurors, people’s assessors or a panel of three professional judges or a single judge."

The court with the participation of a jury was established on the basis of the Law of the Russian Federation of July 16, 1993 "On Amendments and Additions to the Law of the RSFSR "On the Judicial System of the RSFSR", "Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR, Criminal Code of the RSFSR and Code of the RSFSR on Administrative Offenses" , according to which the consideration of civil and criminal cases in courts is carried out collegiately and individually: in the court of first instance - with the participation of jurors, people's assessors, or a panel of three professional judges or a single judge3.

By the Decree of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation of July 16, 1993 on the procedure for introducing this Law, jury trials were introduced in the Stavropol Territory, Ivanovo, Moscow, Ryazan and Saratov regions - from November 1, 1993; in the Altai and Krasnodar territories, Ulyanovsk and Rostov regions - from January 1, 19944. In the future, it was assumed that the courts and territories where criminal cases could be tried with the participation of jurors would be determined by the State Duma of the Russian Federation - the legal successor of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation.

As a result, since January 1, 1994, jury courts have been established and operate to this day only in the nine above-mentioned regions and territories of the Russian Federation.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 enshrines all inalienable rights and freedoms. The state guarantees equality of rights and freedoms of humans and citizens, regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, as well as other circumstances.

Among these rights and freedoms of a citizen is the equality of all before the law and the administration of justice. Many international legal documents are also devoted to the problem of human and citizen rights and their status. In accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, they are included in the legal system of Russia2.