REQUIREMENTS TO THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

The subject of the study is the final act of the court of first instance according to its requirements. The aim of the study is to analyze the essence of a sentence and requirements imposed on it. The objectives of the study are the following: to formulate the concept of a sentence as an act of justice imposed
by the government; to determine the requirements of legitimacy, validity, motivation and fairness of the sentence of the court of first instance; to substantiate the necessity to enshrine these requirements in the legislation. The study was carried out using methods of analysis and synthesis, historical and comparative method, and legal method. Regulatory acts, Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation related to the sentencing by the court of first instance were studied, and procedural scientists’ standpoints on the requirements of legitimacy, validity, motivation and fairness of the court sentence were analyzed. The rules of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russia, and those of the previous Criminal Procedure
Codes in force, and Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, that elucidate issues on sentencing by the court of first instance, were analyzed. The scientists’ opinions were studied. The rules of previous Criminal Procedure legislation in force, which regulates the concept of a sentence and requirements to it, were compared to those of current Criminal Procedure legislation in force. The author’s concept of the sentence of the court of first instance is given according to the functional approach to the activity of the court of first instance. The author’s concepts of legitimacy, validity, motivation, fairness of the sentence of the court of first instance were formulated. The necessity to enshrine the listed above criteria in the Criminal Procedure Law was substantiated.

1. Лупинская П. А. Решения в уголовном судопроизводстве: теория, законодательство, практика. 2-е изд., перераб и доп. М. : Норма ; Инфра-М, 2010. 240 с.

2. Советский уголовный процесс / под ред. С. В. Бородина. М. : Академия МВД СССР, 1982. 578 с.

3. Миронова М. А. Оправдательный приговор как акт судебной реабилитации подсудимого // Юридический вестник Самарского университета. 2016. № 4. С. 96–99.

4. Ершова Н. С. Обоснованность приговора // Законодательство. 2012. № 10. С. 78–82.

5. Ажиева М. И. Приговор суда как вид судебного решения в уголовном процессе // Закон и право. 2019. № 7. С. 94–96.

6. Фойницкий И. Я. Курс уголовного судопроизводства. СПб. : Альфа, 1996. 607 с.

7. Марченко М. Н. Судебное правотворчество и судебное право. М. : Проспект, 2009. 512 с.

8. Аширова Л. М. Проблемы реализации принципа справедливости в уголовном процессе. М. : Юрлитинформ, 2007. 256 с.

9. Вилкова Т. Ю., Насонов С. А. Приговор суда в разные периоды развития российского уголовного судопроизводства: сравнительный анализ текстов процессуальных актов // Актуальные проблемы российского права. 2021. № 8. С. 21–31.

10. Кузнеченко С. Ю. Преюдициальность решений (приговоров) судов зарубежных государств // Законодательство. 2020. № 7. С. 49–54.