A critical analysis has been made of one of the conditions for the legality of the use of preventive measures in criminal proceedings, which presupposes the priority of their election only in relation to the accused. Attention is drawn to the established understanding of this condition as an immutable postulate that does not cause critical assessments, to its indisputable obviousness for scientists and practitioners. At the same time, it speaks of a significant legal conflict, expressed by its inconsistency with the grounds for pre-trial criminal prosecution and leading to the vicious practice of bringing forward premature and not properly substantiated charges. It is argued that a two-stage applied technology for formulating criminal legal claims has become widespread in law enforcement practice, which boils down to bringing forward two different charges in time, volume, degree of proof and content: “pilot” and final. In order to properly understand the analyzed problems, the reasons for their occurrence are diagnosed, which are seen in the ill-considered transfer of a number of provisions of pre-revolutionary criminal procedural law into Soviet and modern legislation without their adaptation to the corresponding mechanisms of criminal procedural activity. As a result, a legal condition is called that links the possibility of using preventive measures with bringing charges against a person and is assessed as a normative anachronism subject to abolition. At the same time, it is proposed to choose a preventive measure on a general basis in relation to the suspect.

house arrest, detention, choosing a preventive measure, preventive measure, accusation, accused, suspect, bringing in as an accused

Rossinsky Sergey Borisovich – Doctor of Juridical Sciences, Professor, Chief Researcher of the Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Criminology Sector, Institute of State and Law RAS (10, Znamenka st., Moscow, 119019, Russian Federation), ORCID: 0000-0002-3862-3188, ResearcherID: A-9583-2019, Scopus AuthorID: 56578526900, RSCI AuthorID: 422673, e-mail: s.rossinskiy@gmail.com

Rossinsky S. B. The relationship of the timeliness and reasonability of the charges and the conditions for the legality of choosing a measure of prestression [Sootnoshenie svoevremennosti i obosnovannosti obvineniya i uslovij pravomernosti izbraniya mery presecheniya] Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald]. 2024, no 1(104), pp. 107–114. – DOI 10.26516/2071-8136.2024.1.107 (in Russian)

343.101

1. Gutkin I.M. Mery presecheniya v sovetskom ugolovnom processe [Preventive measures in Soviet criminal proceedings]. Moscow, Higher School MOOP RSFSR Publ., 1963, 43 p. (in Russian)

2. Karneeva L.M. Privlechenie k ugolovnoj otvetstvennosti. Zakonnost’ i obosnovannost [Criminal prosecution. Legality and validity]. Moscow, Legal literature Publ., 1971, 131 p. (in Russian)

3. Kovriga Z. F. Ugolovno-processualnoe prinuzhdenie [Criminal procedural coercion]. Voronezh, Voronezh University Publishing House, 1975, 175 p. (in Russian)

4. Kurs ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva [Course in criminal proceedings]. Ed. L.V. Golovko. Moscow, Statute Publ., 2016, 1276 p. (in Russian)

5. Mikhailov V.A. Mery presecheniya v sovetskom ugolovnom sudoproiz-vodstve [Preventive measures in Soviet criminal proceedings]. Textbook. Moscow, Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR Publ., 1991, 189 p. (in Russian)

6. Mikhailov V.A. Metodologicheskie osnovy mer presecheniya [Methodological foundations of mersection]. Moscow, Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia Publ., 1998, 304 p. (in Russian).

7. Polyansky N.N. Voprosy teorii sovetskogo ugolovnogo processa [Questions of the theory of Soviet criminal process. Ed. D.S. Kareva. Moscow, Moscow University Publishing House, 1956, 271 p. (in Russian)

8. Rossinsky S.B. Privlechenie v kachestve obvinyaemogo kak avtonomnaya sledstvennaya procedura: yavnyj perezhitok proshlogo ili zakonomerno sushche-stvuyushchij pravovoj instrument? [Detention as an autonomous follow-up procedure: a clear relic of the past or an existing judicial remedy?] Gosudarstvo i pravo [State and law], 2022, no. 3, pp. 61-69. (in Russian)

9. Rossinskij S. B. O nedopustimosti “pilotnyh” obvinenij v dosudebnom proizvodstve po ugolovnomu delu [About the inadmissibility of “pilot” charges in pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case]. Sibirskij yuridicheskij vestnik [Siberian Law Herald], 2021, no 4(95), pp. 121-128. https://doi.org/10.26516/2071-8136.2021.4.121 (in Russian)

10. Rossinsky S. B. Privlechenie v kachestve obvinyaemogo: «repernaya toch-ka» ugolovnogo presledovaniya ili itog predvaritel’nogo sledstviya? [Involvement as an accused: the “starting point” of criminal prosecution or the result of the first investigations?] YUrist-Pravoved [Lawyer-Legalist], 2021, no. 4 (99), pp. 100-105. (in Russian)

11. Strogovich M.S. Ugolovnoe presledovanie v sovetskom ugolovnom processe [Criminal prosecution in Soviet criminal proceedings]. Ed. M.M. Grodzinsky. Moscow, Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1951, 191 p. (in Russian).