Vol 1, No 1 (2024)

The author presents a critical examination and justification for his dissenting stance toward the thesis proposed by I.M. Ragimov, A.N. Savenkov, and H.D. Alikperov in their article titled “Etiology of Individual Criminal Behavior: A Different Perspective” (State and Law, 2023;(9):112-125. DOI: 10.31857/S102694520027657-3). This thesis posits that the perpetrator inevitably faces a lifetime of punishment for the crime committed. However, while the author acknowledges the value of the aforementioned article in its entirety, along with its other propositions and conclusions, he calls on fellow legal scholars to engage in a wide-ranging discourse on these matters.

Throughout its centuries-long history, Russia has repeatedly attempted to define its historical purpose, determine the course and strategy of sociopolitical development, and articulate the value preferences guiding its society. It is evident that addressing such a complex undertaking, burdened with profound objectives, necessitates an appropriate framework of ideas, perspectives, and theories. This article substantiates the possibility, necessity, and practical significance of a state ideology, while also questioning the relevance, in contemporary historical conditions, of maintaining the constitutional prohibition on a state or mandatory ideology. Russia possesses an ideology of statehood, with its main substantive components enshrined in the country’s Constitution, relevant legal statutes, annual presidential addresses to the Federal Assembly, and relevant programs, doctrines, and other political documents. Central to this ideological framework is the concept of a federal democratic legal social secular state harmoniously integrated with the traditional ideals, values, and priorities of Russian civilization. This study adopts a comparative institutional and functional approach.

This article examines the formation and positioning of new and already-established financial and legal institutions. Emphasis is placed on the importance of establishing common financial and legal institutions. The article argues that there is currently an active process of shaping common financial and legal institutions, as exemplified by the emergence of the “emission law” and “offset and refund of fiscal payments” institutions. The institution of offset and refund of fiscal payments is modeled after the institution of “public financial control” and includes a complex set of financial and legal rules governing various types of financial relationships, unified by overarching characteristics. Furthermore, this article posits that the financial and legal institution of mandatory audits, which has gained prominence in the field of financial law in the 21^st century, should be categorized not within the general but within the specialized field of financial law. It is argued that the formation of financial law institutions within the general framework follows the same pattern as the institution of “public financial control”.

This article analyzes some changes in current legislation regarding the stipulation of requirements for state civil servants, particularly in response to extraordinary circumstances. This article seeks to identify emerging trends in revitalizing public law institutions and assesses the importance of creativity in shaping the personal and professional potential of civil servants. The author underscores the critical role of creative abilities within the public administration system, highlighting their impact on the effectiveness of achieving management objectives. However, creativity in public law should not be perceived as unlimited freedom of action; rather, it must be exercised within the confines of established rules and procedures. Thus, a delicate balance between creativity and legal compliance is required.

This study delves into the intricacies of comprehending, calculating, and applying deadlines within criminal procedure, which serves as a distinct form of guarantee established to uphold the overarching objectives of criminal proceedings in Russia while safeguarding the interests and rights of all involved stakeholders. The author explores the gaps and contradictions present in current normative regulation on this matter, alongside the doctrinal viewpoints and trends within judicial and investigative practices. Concrete examples are employed to illustrate the profound collisions arising from these gaps in practice, prompting an evaluation and the proposition of potential solutions to mitigate, if not eliminate these collisions.

This article examines the complexities surrounding the court’s assessment of evidence, particularly concerning contradictions encountered during the adjudication of criminal cases. It emphasizes that the resolution of such contractions is an essential aspect of a judge’s procedural duties. Mere logical coherence in the court’s conclusions is insufficient to validate a verdict; instead, all significant contradictions within the case materials must be meticulously identified and rectified through objective scrutiny and evaluation of the evidence. Additionally, the author highlights the court’s obligation to justify, in cases where irreducible doubts persist regarding the defendant’s guilt, the inability to eliminate such doubts in the verdict.

The proposed work examines the issues of the admissibility of such type of evidence as an expert opinion, which are traditional for any country with a continental European legal system.

The appeal to this issue is not accidental due to the rather rapid development of science and technology in recent years, the course of global digitalization processes in the human environment.

Objectively, it is necessary to discuss the issue of adjusting the procedural conditions for admission of expert opinions as evidence in a criminal case, especially those that are carried out in actively developing areas of application of special knowledge.