To date, the Russian Federation does not have a single systematic digitalization program for all criminal proceedings. At the same time, digital technologies themselves are fragmentally penetrating the practice of law enforcement. That is why it is extremely important to investigate this issue, as well as to study the foreign, more successful experience of digitalization of criminal proceedings in other countries. The article discusses the issue of digital transformation of modern Russian criminal proceedings; the need of systemic and interdepartmental interaction to create a unified digital platform “Digital Criminal Justice” is substantiated, namely, government agencies, the bar and other interested agencies involved in criminal proceedings or related to them due to the law enforcement nature of their functions; the role of the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation as the organizer and coordinator of interdepartmental interaction for the creation of such a platform and its use is argued. It seems that the only state body that, by virtue of its tasks, powers and place in criminal proceedings, is able to lead and implement a holistic and systematic digitalization of criminal proceedings in its substantive criminal procedural aspect is the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation.

Observance of the rule of law is an important condition for the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of a person involved in criminal proceedings. The positive potential of using a video conferencing system in an investigative action to a certain extent reduces the guarantee of the accused’s right to defense. The situation with ensuring this right is aggravate when the accused is in a pre-trial detention center due to the application of a preventive measure in the form of detention. The analysis of the construction of the legal norm fixing the list of bodies of inquiry, the study of the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the issue of confidential communication between the defender and his principal, the generalization of the opinions of defense lawyers, the interpretation of the results of investigative practice allowed to substantiate the guarantees of legality of the remote production of an investigative action with the participation of the accused in custody.

The article examines the problematic aspects of the absence in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation of securing the possibility of conducting investigative actions with children using remote technologies. The concepts of video technology, video communication, its basics, video conferencing and web conferencing are studied. The author analyzes the legislation of such foreign countries as Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Uzbekistan, Belarus and Moldova. The positive and negative aspects of consolidating video technologies in criminal proceedings are high-lighted. The author proposes to supplement the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation with a rule on the possibility of conducting investigative actions with minors, regardless of their procedural status, through the use of both video conferencing and web conferences. It is possible to expand the digital format of investigative actions and include in it, for example, checking evidence on the spot, an investigative experiment, resolving petitions and complaints, as well as filing charges, familiarizing with the materials of a criminal case, etc.

The article analyzes the use of artificial intelligence in the field of criminal proceedings. The existing discourse between legal and technical knowledge and the increasingly growing imbalance between legal and technical approaches in justifying the use of professional artificial intelligence are discussed. The use of facial recognition technologies in criminal proceedings, the introduction of promising systems for monitoring and analyzing big data obtained on the Internet, and the use of ChatGPT in criminal proceedings create significant risks in achieving the purpose of criminal proceedings. The experience of introducing artificial intelligence into the field of criminal justice in the People’s Republic of China as one of the leading states in this field seems interesting and noteworthy. A range of problems are outlined that the Russian Federation also needs to solve, related to the incorrect interpretation of court decisions by artificial intelligence, the inability to make value judgments, possible bias of algorithms, selectivity of data, the procedural form of sentencing, a decrease in the level of public confidence in the system of making court decisions made with the help of artificial intelligence.

Assessing the development of Russian criminal procedure science in modern conditions of digitalization, the author seeks to understand what impact the use of information and telecommunication technologies can have on the development of criminal proceedings, ensuring human and civil rights and freedoms. Discussing the threats of the rapid implementation of IT technologies by the criminal community, it is concluded that it is necessary not only to counter criminal encroachments, but also to digitalize criminal procedures through the introduction of electronic criminal proceedings, electronic interaction of subjects of criminal prosecution with individuals and legal entities using cyberspace (messengers, information platforms), and the use of video conferencing. Attention is focused on an integrated approach to the formation of an information society and scientific and technological development, and some aspects of this approach are presented, implemented in the educational and scientific activities of the Moscow Academy of the Investigative Committee named after A.Y. Sukharev. Using the example of the investigator’s exercise of the right to appeal against the prosecutor’s decisions using information and telecommunication technologies, the author’s position on optimizing the timing of the preliminary investigation, procedural control, prosecutorial supervision and taking response measures aimed at protecting the rights of participants in criminal proceedings is argued. Considering legislative measures for the digital transformation of criminal procedure law, the author comes to the conclusion that they are aimed at improving criminal proceedings by introducing a new form of proceedings, simplifying the work of subjects of criminal prosecution, and providing additional guarantees to «non-professional» participants in criminal proceedings by ensuring their access to justice .

The article is devoted to the phenomenon of trust in criminal proceedings. By analyzing the criminal procedure form and its current state, the authors conclude that the problems inherent in it at the present stage in the form of increasing transformation, formalization, overload of rules, conditions and grounds can be overcome by referring to the genetic Russian code, which is based on ethical and moral values, a worthy place among which is occupied by trust. The paper reveals the essence of two areas of trust: vertical trust as an indicator of the legitimacy of government and state institutions and emphasizes that currently the court and the police are institutions with a negative level of trust in Russian society. In relation to horizontal trust as trust in another subject, participant in public relations or to an object, the work analyzes coercive measures, the admissibility of evidence, challenges, as well as the institution of representation.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation establish a provision called witness immunity. This is a right, the use of which allows a participant in the process not to harm himself and his close relatives with his words or actions. This right is granted to many participants at all stages of criminal proceedings. Ensuring the implementation of the right to witness immunity is entrusted to state bodies and officials conducting criminal proceedings (investigator, investigator, prosecutor and court). The article analyzes the provisions on witness immunity contained in the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation for their compliance. It is stated that Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation has a broader content than paragraph 40 of Art. 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which requires bringing the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation into conformity with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It is concluded that the procedure for clarification and implementation of the right to witness immunity does not have sufficient legal regulation in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, which leads to certain violations in the work of the preliminary investigation bodies, but is partly compensated by clarifications of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and established judicial practice.

The article raise the question of the need to strengthen the supremacy of state power in criminal proceedings. The analysis of law enforcement practice is given and attention is drawn to the fact that trust in state bodies and officials conducting criminal proceedings is falling. It is proved that the supremacy of state power in criminal proceedings is within the legal norms of the Constitution, criminal and criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation. It is concluded that the arbitrariness of state bodies and officials, going beyond these norms is a violation of the rule of law both at the legislative and law enforcement levels, undermines confidence in state bodies conducting criminal proceedings, in state power as a whole, and, accordingly, weakens the internal sovereignty of the state. It is argued that the basis for strengthening the supremacy of State power in the field of criminal justice is to strengthen social justice, ensure social solidarity, the legality of production and increase public confidence in state power. It is substantiated that a new version of the CPC is needed, which will be aimed at improving the effectiveness of criminal proceedings, including by simplifying it while maintaining the existing procedural guarantees for the protection of the subjective rights and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings.

Based on the conceptual characteristics of the institute of judicial control in accordance with Article 125 of the CCP of the Russian Federation, separate problems of protecting the constitutional rights of an individual using this means of judicial protection are identified: lack of uniformity in the interpretation of norms on the subject and ambit of judicial control; lack of clear standards of proof when considering complaints by courts in accordance with Article 125 of the CCP of the Russian Federation; lack of regulatory provisions defining formal criteria for the admissibility of submitted complaints, which entails limiting the right of interested persons to judicial protection in cases of arbitrary interpretation of the provisions of the law by the courts. As measures to improve judicial practice, it is proposed to refine the subject, ambit and standards of judicial control by referring to them the issues of validity and proportionality of restrictions on constitutional rights of the individual, as well as assessing the sufficiency of evidence in favor of the introduction of such restrictions; regulatory clarification of the requirements for the content of complaints, as well as the powers of the court to make decisions on refusal to accept formally unacceptable complaints for  production.

Stopping the prosecution of an innocent person is just as important as filing charges. Therefore, already in pre-trial proceedings, it is so important to formulate in detail not only the provisions regulating the procedure for filing charges, but also the features of changing it. However, after the charges are filed, the collection of evidence continues.

 This leads, in some cases, to amend, supplement a previously brought charge, and sometimes make a decision to terminate it in part. Meanwhile, the legislative regulation of this procedure gives rise to discussions both among law enforcement officials and in the scientific community.

 Digitalization, as well as modern legislative structures for bringing charges and interrogation, provided for in the legislation of some foreign countries, seem to be of interest and can be taken into account in the search for new vectors in the search for ways to change the charge.

The article discusses the problematic aspects of determining the legal status of the body of inquiry as a participant in criminal proceedings. It is noted that despite a number of legislative changes, a considerable number of issues concerning the procedural position of the body of inquiry in the criminal process of Russia remain unresolved. The inconsistency of the legislator in determining the list of bodies of inquiry is separately indicated, the allocation among them of those who have the right to conduct a preliminary investigation in the form of an inquiry, and those who are authorized only to initiate a criminal case and carry out urgent investigative actions. Referring to the foreign experience and the historical development of this institution in domestic legislation, the author emphasizes the unjustified narrowing (compared with the pre-revolutionary state) of the number of state institutions belonging to the bodies of inquiry. The author criticizes the legislative criterion of attribution to the bodies of inquiry, based on the sign of the implementation of operational investigative activities. Special attention is paid to the shortcomings of the legislative definitions given in Article 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The article discusses changes in Russian criminal procedural legislation related to criminal proceedings on crimes in the economic sphere committed by entrepreneurs in connection with their entrepreneurial or other economic activities. It is noted that these changes are due to the general policy of the state aimed at increasing the economic activity of the population and accelerated economic development of the country as a whole. In this regard, the author provides critical statements by the country’s leaders regarding the current law enforcement practices. The article consistently sets out individual institutions of criminal procedural law affected by these changes. Thus, the features of initiating criminal cases for certain crimes in the economic sphere classified as cases of private-public prosecution are described. The general rules for conducting investigative actions, including those related to the seizure of electronic storage media in cases of this category, are described. Considerable attention is paid to the selection of preventive measures against entrepreneurs and general restrictions on the use of detention against them. Special grounds for termination of criminal prosecution of entrepreneurs in connection with their compensation for damage are described. The author notes that the process of improving legislation in this area is far from complete and will continue depending on the needs of practice.

The article examines the issues of the limits of judicial control in accordance with Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. The author concludes that the court, verifying the legality and validity of the actions (inaction) and decisions of the investigation body in accordance with Art. 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has no right to invade the investigation process and establish the factual circumstances of the case by these bodies and assess the validity of the internal conviction of officials of these bodies, monitor the correctness of their application of criminal and criminal procedure laws.

Otherwise, the court would invade the competence of the investigator, interrogator, prosecutor, limiting their procedural independence in the commission of procedural actions and decision-making and would prejudge issues that may later become the subject of legal proceedings.

The uncertainty of the criminal procedure legislation regarding the recognition of the right to compensation for harm for a certain category of persons gives rise to the relevance of the study of this issue. Based on the provisions of part 3 of Article 133, Article 139 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, an analysis of the normative complex has been carried out with the help of which, in judicial practice, compensation for harm to persons caused by the unlawful application of procedural coercion measures to them should be ensured. Special attention is paid to court cases, the content of which reveals the problems of establishing the grounds for compensation for damage caused by the illegal use of procedural coercion measures. It is concluded that only participants in criminal proceedings, criminal prosecution against whom has been terminated on rehabilitative grounds, or illegally subjected to compulsory medical measures, as well as other persons illegally subjected to procedural coercion measures, have the right to compensation for harm in rehabilitation. Thus, the list of persons eligible for rehabilitation is definite and not subject to broad interpretation.

The article, based on a study of judicial practice and comparative legal analysis of the legislation of the Russian Federation and a number of foreign countries, examines the problem of “multiplicity” of jury verdicts, i.e. the presence of two or more jury verdicts in one criminal case that meet the criteria of certainty and consistency and are subjects to proclamation. The author notes that the phenomenon of multiple jury verdicts is determined by the procedural error of the presiding judge, who recognizes that a certain and consistent jury verdict can not be pronounced. The article considers this phenomenon as a negative fact that contradicts the essential features of a jury trial. The author believes that solving the problem of multiple jury verdicts is possible, on the one hand, by clarifying and legalizing the grounds for recognizing the verdict as unclear or contradictory. On the other hand, there is a need for a significant modification of the procedural form of checking the jury’s verdict by the presiding judge for its clarity and consistency and giving him explanations to the jury in this regard. The author makes proposals for legislative reinforcement of the discussion between the presiding judge and the parties about the defects of the jury’s unannounced verdict, which should take place in the absence of the jury in a closed court hearing.

The article deals with problematic issues related to the implementation of a lawyer’s position when making an introductory statement and in the debate of the parties in court with the participation of jurors. The author analyzes the question of how the term “defense position in the case” can be defined and how the position is related to the content of speeches. In this regard, the prohibitions that are related to the content of this legal institution are considered, as well as the range of information that cannot be reported, since they are outside the positions of the parties. Based on the analysis of examples from judicial practice, the author comes to the conclusion that, based on the content of the introductory statement and its “positional” component, it is forbidden to analyze the positions of the parties in the introductory statement, to make judgments about the quality of the investigation and to evaluate the evidence. The article raises the question of what are the limits of the presentation of the factual circumstances of the case in the introductory statement and whether it is possible to refer to the norms of law in it. It is noted that the limits associated with the justification of the position in court debates are of great importance.

 The article is devoted to the study of the functions of the prosecutor in the judicial stages of criminal proceedings, and provides an analysis of statistical data from the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation on the participation of prosecutors in criminal proceedings. The results obtained allow us to assert that the prosecutor performs two functions during criminal proceedings: the criminal procedural function of prosecution and the constitutional and legal function of supervision over compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the execution of laws. At the same time, at the stages of trial (in the court of first instance) and appeal proceedings, when the principle of adversarial parties is fully implemented, the prosecutor supports the state prosecution, thereby performing the procedural function of the prosecution. In the remaining stages of judicial proceedings, the prosecutor exercises the function of supervising compliance with the law. The conclusion is formulated that the proposed approach requires a rethinking of the role of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings from the position of the constitutional and legal status of the Russian prosecutor’s office, as well as amendments to the norms of criminal procedure law.

The article analyzes the problem of the possibility of using audio recordings of the minutes of the court session in the process of proving criminal cases. The author tries to define the definitions of the minutes of the court session in criminal proceedings. Based on the conducted research, the author concludes that in relation to criminal proceedings, the minutes of the court session drawn up at all judicial stages and in all proceedings cannot have different meanings and should definitely be considered as evidence. The use of the audio recording of the court session is aimed at ensuring a valid reflection of what is taking place in the court session, which should be reflected accordingly in its protocol. However, as practice shows, the minutes of the court session do not always reflect the content of the audio recording, which initially calls into question the correctness and quality of the minutes of the court session, reflecting the course of the trial in it. The legislator does not require full reflection of the audio recording in the minutes of the court session, which allows the court, when challenging the inconsistency of the minutes of the court session with its audio recording and the need to make changes and additions to it in this regard, to refuse to satisfy the petition in this regard. that the full compliance of the minutes of the court session with its audio recording is not required. The opinion is substantiated on the need for the content of the minutes of the court session to correspond to its audio recording as the basis for its recognition as admissible evidence.

This article provides a justification for the insolvency of the phenomenon of psychological reliability of the testimony of a minor participant in criminal proceedings in the light of current legislation and the existing level of scientific development. The study contains an analysis of the proposed concepts of psychological reliability, as well as foreign experience in their application.

The main reason for the illegality of the appointment and production of expert examinations of the reliability of the testimony of minors is that the expert is not classified by the criminal procedure law as a subject of evidence assessment. In addition, the results of investigative actions cannot be the subject of expertise within the meaning of the norms of Federal Law No. 73-FZ “On State Forensic expertise in the Russian Federation”.

The conclusions based on the results of the reliability examinations cannot be called justified due to the lack of a sufficiently developed scientific and practical base for such studies.

The authors present a legally acceptable and effective form of using special knowledge in the process of forming, using and evaluating the testimony of juvenile participants in criminal proceedings. It is proposed to identify the individual psychological characteristics of a minor through expert research in order to further take these results into account by appropriate assessment subjects when deciding on reliability.

In connection with the adoption of the Regulations of Criminal Proceedings, it became possible to study and study the procedural status of participants in criminal proceedings, including the defense lawyer. In this connection, the author examines his procedural status from the perspective of the rights and obligations available during the period under review, and also analyzes the possibility of him realizing his criminal procedural function. Examining the norms of the Regulations of Criminal Proceedings, the author comes to the conclusion that the defense attorney could enter into a criminal case by appointment or invitation, and had both his own rights and those granted to the parties as a whole. At the same time, the rights of the defense attorney, as a rule, correlate with the rights of the defendant, and the rules of law emphasize the simultaneous participation of the defense attorney and the defendant.

The purpose of this article is to examine the position of the institution of defence during the period of duration of the significant document in the sphere of russian criminal procedure — Regulations of Criminal Proceedings. In this article the object of consideration is the legal rules of the Regulations of Criminal Proceedings, which the participation of the defender in criminal cases is subject to. As an example, the author gives legal practice of the Councils of Barristers, which could clarify the provisions of the Charter of Criminal Proceedings regarding the participation of a defense attorney in criminal cases

Considering the historical and legal prerequisites for the creation of the first independent supervisory institutions in Russia (the fiscal office and the procuratorate), today legal scholars accord their attention mainly to the need to monitor the implementation of written legislation arose in the XVIII century. At the same time, an equally important factor is often overlooked, which seems as made a considerable contribution to the historical decision on what exactly this supervisory institution should be. This article reveals the socio-legal context of the creation of the Russian procurator supervision. Historical and legal researches and archival documents as well as specific examples from the criminal chronicle demonstrate that there were systemic problems, such as open disrespect for the law, abuse of power and the predominance of personal predilections over public interest. These problems had influenced the decision of Peter the Great no less than the fact of the rapid development of formal legislation. The absence of an authority or official in the Russian state to whom ordinary man could turn for help and protection (including the absence of an independent court) even exacerbated these problems and urged the creation of Procurator-General’s office.

The development of digital technologies contributes to the change of criminal procedural relations and the emergence of electronic evidence used in the proof process. The author’s position is formulated based on the results of the analysis of theoretical approaches in criminal procedure science to the definition of the concept of “electronic evidence”. Arguments are presented confirming the need to use electronic evidence in criminal proceedings in order to overcome the risks associated with the realization of the rights and legitimate interests of participants in a criminal case, the preservation of evidence in case of their referral to the place of investigation, destruction or modification in case of counteraction to the investigation. The article reveals the importance of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. Based on the analysis of the norms of criminal procedure legislation and law enforcement practice, the factors that determine the increasing importance of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings are substantiated.

The article, based on the results of an empirical study conducted by the author, states the absence in the Russian Federation of a wide practice of remote interrogation and confrontation. The objective factor in the form of insufficient technical equipment of the preliminary investigation bodies is analyzed as the reason for this. A separate reason is the incompleteness of legal regulation, which excludes the indication in the law of an investigator who is obliged to establish the identity of a remotely participating person when applying the norms of Article 189.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, as well as the absence of legally regulated features of the investigator’s exercise of the authority to present material evidence, a document during remote interrogation and confrontation.

It is indicated that such circumstances create the risk of incomplete provision of the procedural rights of an uncontrolled subject of the process, including for a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, a full and comprehensive investigation of the circumstances of the criminal case. In this regard, the author notes the need to allocate budgetary funds for sufficient technical support for the preliminary investigation bodies. There is also a proposal to improve the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation in the part under consideration.

The intensive and massive introduction of digital technologies has revealed the “lag” of law from dynamically developing public relations. To date, a unified position on the concept of information obtained using digital technologies has not been developed and legislatively fixed. The article con[1]siders the problem of the lack of a uniform understanding of the concept of information obtained using digital technologies in criminal proceedings. The author cites various positions of scientists on the issue under study, as well as the provisions of normative legal acts containing legal definitions of the analyzed term. An author’s version of the term is proposed to denote information introduced into criminal procedural evidence through digital media. The lack of a legal definition of digital information and a common understanding of its essence when used in proving a criminal case makes it much more difficult to achieve the goals of criminal proceedings. The legislative definition of the concept of “digital information” will contribute to the correct, or rather, the only possible understanding of its meaning in the context of this legal context.