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. Lupinskaya P. A. Resheniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: teoriya, zakonodatel'stvo, praktika. 2-e izd., pererab i dop. M. : Norma ; Infra-M, 2010. 240 s.

2. Sovetskii ugolovnyi protsess / pod red. S. V. Borodina. M. : Akademiya MVD SSSR, 1982. 578 s.

3. Mironova M. A. Opravdatel'nyi prigovor kak akt sudebnoi reabilitatsii podsudimogo // Yuridicheskii vestnik Samarskogo universiteta. 2016. № 4. S. 96-99.

4. Ershova N. S. Obosnovannost' prigovora // Zakonodatel'stvo. 2012. № 10. S. 78-82.

5. Azhieva M. I. Prigovor suda kak vid sudebnogo resheniya v ugolovnom protsesse // Zakon i pravo. 2019. № 7. S. 94-96.

6. Foinitskii I. Ya. Kurs ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva. SPb. : Al'fa, 1996. 607 s.

7. Marchenko M. N. Sudebnoe pravotvorchestvo i sudebnoe pravo. M. : Prospekt, 2009. 512 s.

8. Ashirova L. M. Problemy realizatsii printsipa spravedlivosti v ugolovnom protsesse. M. : Yurlitinform, 2007. 256 s.

9. Vilkova T. Yu., Nasonov S. A. Prigovor suda v raznye periody razvitiya rossiiskogo ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva: sravnitel'nyi analiz tekstov protsessual'nykh aktov // Aktual'nye problemy rossiiskogo prava. 2021. № 8. S. 21-31.

10. Kuznechenko S. Yu. Preyuditsial'nost' reshenii (prigovorov) sudov zarubezhnykh gosudarstv // Zakonodatel'stvo. 2020. № 7. S. 49-54.