CONCERNING DETENTION OF PERSONS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: THE PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Abstract

ANNOTATION: the article outlines the problematic issues of the institution of detention, clarifies its relationship with the constitutional human right to liberty and security of a person, reviews the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding detention, focuses on the violation of the principle of legal certainty in the current procedural legislation.

It is fundamentally important in the study to determine the subjective composition of the persons who are detaining, in particular, the attention is focused on their procedural status, a position is considered regarding the limited terms of reference of authorized officials, in terms of the right to detention solely for committing a crime for which a penalty of imprisonment is provided, unlike persons holding legal detention who are authorized to detain a person in the commission of a criminal offense regardless of the severity. The article deals with the manipulation of procedural rules, which correlates with the so-called hidden purpose and occurs by substituting administrative detention in the understanding of criminal procedural legislation and is the basis for violation of human rights.

The concept of immediate judicial control is considered and supported, which provides for an obligation on an authorized official to deliver a detained person directly to a court to resolve the issue of the legality of detention, bypassing the pre-trial investigation authorities, where the detained person is still long (60 hours, since this period should not be exceeded to deliver the detainee to the investigating judge, where a decision is made on the selection of a preventive measure against him), pressure may be applied.

It is indicated that there is no clear and comprehensive definition of the category «authorized official» in the current Criminal Procedure Code, which leads to the problem of a which leads to the problem of a narrowed or broader interpretation of this concept. Proposals for its normative consolidation are presented.

 The work is fundamentally different in that specific problems became the basis for the study of domestic legislation, which were subsequently supported by the decisions of the ECHR, but today they remain in the current legislation anyway. This is a comprehensive approach to the issue of legislative imperfections, and it focuses the legislator’s attention on them.