The author compares the normative consolidation of the institution of witness immunity in four procedural branches of law: criminal procedural, civil procedural, arbitration procedural and administrative procedural. The universal essence of this institution is determined for all types of legal proceedings under consideration and the need for a single regulation is assumed. The existence of a moral and ethical basis for exemption from witnessing is substantiated. The relationship is established between the development of this institution and the development of the branch of procedural law as a whole, the influence of the institution on the legal consciousness of citizens. Comparative analysis of industry regulation reveals a number of differences that are unjustified by industry specifics. These include a different list of close persons who are subject to family-related witness immunity. The rationale is given for the expediency of expanding the circle of close persons with witness immunity due to quasi-family and quasi-kinship relations. The disadvantage of criminal procedural witness immunity is the absence among its carriers of arbitration assessors, representatives who provide legal assistance and do not have a lawyer status, Commissioners for the Rights of the Child and Commissioners for the Protection of Entrepreneurs, mediators and judicial conciliators. The author argues on the basis of comparison with other procedural branches of the need to supplement the list of holders of «official» witness immunity in criminal proceedings. The existence of norms governing relations related to exemption from witnessing is stated in sources other than procedural codes. The conclusion is made about the need for a large-scale comparison and generalization of legal information related to witness immunities in order to develop a uniform normative consolidation for all industries.

criminal procedure, arbitration process, civil procedure, administrative process, judicial law, witness immunity, testimony

Sharipova Aliya Rashitovna - Candidate of Juridical Sciences, Associate Professor Department of the Criminal Law and Procedure, Institute of Law, Bashkir State University (32, Z. Validi st., Ufa, 450076, Republic of Bashkortostan), e-mail: nord-wind23@mail.ru

Sharipova A.R. Svidetel'skij immunitet v ugolovnom, grazhdanskom, arbitrazhnom i administrativnom sudoproizvodstve: sravnitel'nyj analiz [Witness immunity in criminal, civil, arbitration and administrative proceedings: a comparative analysis] Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald]. 2021, no 3(94), pp. 77–82. DOI 10.26516 / 2071-8136.2021.3.77. (in Russian).

343.1

RRFCMY

1. Dikarev I.S. Svidetel'skij immunitet v ugolovnom processe [Witness immunity in criminal proceedings]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava [Journal of Russian law], 2012, vol. 3, pp. 76-81. (in Russian)

2. Litvintseva N.Yu. Svidetel'skij immunitet po Ustavu ugolovnogo sudo- proizvodstva [Evidence immunity under the Charter of Criminal Procedure]. Glagol"Pravosudiya [Glagol Justice], 2014, vol. 2, pp. 25-28. (in Russian)

3. Nikitin S.Yu. Svidetel’skij immunitet v rossijskom ugolovnom processe [Testimony of Immunity in Russian Criminal Procedure]. Cand. sci. diss. abstr. Chelyabinsk, 2005, 27 p. (in Russian)

1 Налоговый кодекс Российской Федерации от 31 июля 1998 г. № 146-ФЗ // КонсультантПлюс : справочная правовая система.

82 Сибирский юридический вестник

4. Pavlushkov A.R. Tajna ispovedi i svidetel'skij immunitet svyashchen- nosluzhitelya kak otrazhenie zakonodatel'nogo i obshchestvennogo proti- vorechiya [Secret of confession and witness immunity of a clergyman as a reflection of legislative and social contradiction]. Ius Publicum et Privatum [Ius Publicum et Privatum], 2019, vol. 1, pp. 56-60. (in Russian)

5. Petukhovsky A.A. Svidetel'skij immunitet: problemy razvitiya pro- cessual'nogo instituta [Witness immunity: problems of the development of a procedural institution]. Rossijskaya yusticiya [Russian justice], 2003, vol. 9, pp. 49-50. (in Russian)

6. Tarasov A.A. Ugolovno-processual'naya komparativistika i problema tochnosti perevoda yuridicheskih terminov [Criminal procedural comparative studies and the problem of the accuracy of translation of legal terms]. Zakony Rossii: opyt, analiz, praktika [Laws of Russia: experience, analysis, practice], 2016, vol. 12, pp. 87-91. (in Russian)

7. Fedyakin K.P. Teoreticheskie i prakticheskie problemy svidetelskogo immuniteta v ugolovnom processe [Theoretical and practical problems of witness immunity in criminal proceedings]. Cand. sci. diss. abstr. Saratov, 2007, 25 p. (in Russian)

8. Fokina M.A. Sovershenstvovanie pravovogo regulirovaniya doka- zyvaniya po grazhdanskim delam: voprosy unifikacii [Improving the legal regulation of proof in civil cases: issues of unification]. Sovremennoe pravo [Modern law], 2015, vol. 9, pp. 101-111. (in Russian)

9. Furlet S.P. O zakonodatel'nyh merah sohraneniya advokatskoj tajny v rossijskom ugolovnom processe [On Legislative Measures to Preserve Advocate Secrecy in the Russian Criminal Procedure]. Advokat [Advocate], 2016, vol. 3, pp. 39-45. (in Russian)

10. Sharipova A.R. Dokazyvanie v ugolovnom i arbitrazhnom proces- sah: nevynuzhdennye razlichiya [Proofing in criminal and arbitration processes: unforced differences]. Biblioteka kriminalista [Criminalist Library], 2015 vol. 4, pp. 180-185. (in Russian)

11. Shigurova E.I. Napravleniya sovershenstvovaniya instituta svide- tel'skogo immuniteta v rossijskom ugolovnom processe [Directions for improving the institution of witness immunity in the Russian criminal process]. Mir nauki i obrazovaniya [World of Science and Education], 2017, vol. 1, p. 12. (in Russian)