Question

Подсудимый Перов подал кассационную жалобу на вынесенный приговор,указав,что суд первой инстанции нарушил в отношении него принцип обеспечения права на защиту и принцип состязятельности сторон,что проявилось в следующем: 1) суд первой инстанции не предоставил ему возможности выступить в судебных прениях; 2) суд первой инстанции отказывал ему и его защитнику в удовлетворении всех ходатайств,тогда как ходатайства стороны гос.обвинителя внимательно выслушивались и удовлетворялись. 1-раскрыть содержание принципа обеспечения обвиняемому и подозреваемому права на защиту.2- раскрыть содержание принципа состязательности. 3-оценить доводы Перова.

Answer 1

    Принцип обеспечения подозреваемому и обвиняемого права на защиту. Суть этого принципа заключается в том, что подозреваемому (обвиняемому) предоставляется возможность самостоятельно защищаться, а также защищаться с помощью защитника.
   Принцип состязательности. Суть принципа в том, что сторонам (обвинению и защите) предоставляются равные возможности в реализации их прав. Ни одна из сторон не пользуется преимуществом. А суд независим.
     Первый довод Перова свидетельствует о нарушении принципов принципов уголовного процесса т.к. Петрову не предоставили возможность выступать в прениях. Это возможность гарантирует уголовно-процессуальный кодекс.
    Второй довод Перова не имеет оснований для признания нарушения принципов уголовного процесса. Ходатайства могут удовлетворятся или не удовлетворятся судом.  Без дополнительной информации, предположения Перова всего лишь его субъективное мнение.

Answer 2

Principle of Ensuring the Right to Defense for the Accused and Suspect

The principle of ensuring the right to defense for the accused and suspect is a fundamental aspect of criminal justice systems. It guarantees that individuals facing criminal charges have the opportunity to present their case, challenge the evidence against them, and receive a fair trial. This principle is essential for upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and the presumption of innocence.

The right to defense includes several elements, such as:

1. Legal Representation: The accused or suspect has the right to be represented by legal counsel of their choice or, if unable to afford one, to have legal representation provided for them. Legal counsel plays a crucial role in advising the accused or suspect, preparing their defense, and advocating for their rights in court.

2. Access to Information: The accused or suspect has the right to access all relevant information and evidence related to their case. This includes the right to review the charges against them, examine the evidence presented by the prosecution, and challenge the credibility or admissibility of the evidence.

3. Right to Present Evidence and Witnesses: The accused or suspect has the right to present their own evidence and call witnesses in their defense. This allows them to challenge the prosecution's case, provide alternative explanations or evidence, and demonstrate their innocence or raise doubts about their guilt.

4. Right to Cross-Examine Witnesses: The accused or suspect has the right to cross-examine witnesses presented by the prosecution. Cross-examination is a crucial tool for challenging the credibility, reliability, or accuracy of witness testimony and uncovering potential inconsistencies or biases.

5. Right to Remain Silent: The accused or suspect has the right to remain silent and not incriminate themselves. This right protects individuals from being compelled to testify against themselves and ensures that any statements made are voluntary and not coerced.

Principle of Adversarial Proceedings

The principle of adversarial proceedings, also known as the principle of sostyazatelnost (состязательность) in Russian legal terminology, is another fundamental aspect of criminal justice systems. It emphasizes the importance of a fair and balanced process where both the prosecution and the defense have equal opportunities to present their case, challenge the opposing party's arguments, and contest the evidence.

Key elements of the principle of adversarial proceedings include:

1. Equality of Arms: The prosecution and the defense should have equal resources, opportunities, and rights during the trial. This ensures a level playing field and prevents any party from having an unfair advantage.

2. Right to Challenge: Both the prosecution and the defense have the right to challenge the opposing party's arguments, evidence, and legal interpretations. This includes the right to cross-examine witnesses, challenge the admissibility of evidence, and present counterarguments.

3. Presumption of Innocence: The principle of adversarial proceedings upholds the presumption of innocence, which means that the accused or suspect is considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof rests with the prosecution, and it is their responsibility to present evidence that establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

4. Impartial Judge: The judge presiding over the trial should be impartial and ensure that both parties have an equal opportunity to present their case. The judge's role is to ensure a fair and balanced process, apply the law correctly, and make decisions based on the evidence and legal arguments presented.

Evaluation of Perov's Arguments

Based on the information provided, Perov has raised concerns about the violation of the principles of ensuring the right to defense and adversarial proceedings in his case. He specifically mentioned the following issues:

1. The court of first instance did not provide him with the opportunity to speak during the court hearings. 2. The court of first instance consistently denied his and his defense lawyer's requests, while granting the prosecution's requests.

Without further information about the specific details of Perov's case, it is challenging to evaluate the validity of his arguments. However, if these allegations are accurate, they could potentially indicate a violation of the principles of ensuring the right to defense and adversarial proceedings.

It is important to note that the evaluation of Perov's arguments would require a thorough examination of the specific circumstances, evidence, and legal procedures involved in his case. Legal experts and the appellate court would be better equipped to assess the merits of his claims and determine whether any violations occurred.

Please consult with a legal professional or refer to the specific laws and regulations applicable in your jurisdiction for a more accurate assessment of Perov's arguments and their potential implications.