Приговор при свечах / Judgment in candlelight - Владимир Анатольевич Арсентьев

violence, the exercise of the principle of humanism as provided for in the criminal law requires observing the constitutional principle of presumption of innocence. If the defendant’s culpability for the crime is proven by due process and established by a court verdict, whereby criminal punishment is imposed on the guilty person, then, by virtue of the principle of humanism, the punishment is aimed at restoring justice, preventing crime, and reforming criminals.

Furthermore, the presumption of innocence, a form associated with criminal procedure, meets the same objectives and purposes as the principle of humanism, an essence associated with criminal law: both are aimed at ensuring human security through state protection.

The form of criminal procedure is in unity with the legal essence of criminal law. They share adherence to the legal status of human and citizen, which status reflects such general legal principles as democracy, legality, humanism, social justice, presumption of innocence, etc. Any person suspected in (accused of) a crime has a legal status, which guarantees that the state authorities and officials authorized to conduct criminal proceedings minimize and possibly eliminate the negative consequences of state coercion and violence against the person, which accompany the detection and investigation of the crime. That status is based on the presumption of innocence as a continuously working principle. Humiliation and suffering of the innocent – as well as those temporarily considered innocent of a crime – are no adequate means to achieve adequate goals.

The principles of freedom of conscience and presumption of innocence arise from the equality of all citizens before the law. Due to each principle’s constitutional autonomy, both are implemented in conjunction with the principles of criminal law. Everyone is guaranteed freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, including the right to profess, individually or jointly with others, any religion or to profess no religion, to freely choose, possess, and disseminate religious and other convictions and act in accordance with them. These freedoms are fundamentally guaranteed by secularism, which lies at the basis of the constitutional order of the state.

The Federal Law of September 26, 1997 On Freedom of Conscience and On Religious Associations[252] envisaged a system that guarantees freedom of conscience for all people, based on their equality before the law, irrespective of individual attitude to religion or personal views. In accordance with Article 16 Section 3 of that Federal Law, it is allowed to conduct religious rites and ceremonies in detention facilities, as long as Russian criminal procedure legislation is observed.

The criminal procedure requirements for government agencies and officials are found in Article 6 Section 1 Item 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (CPC RF). According to these regulations, criminal proceedings aim to protect individuals from illegal or unwarranted accusations, convictions, or restrictions of rights and freedoms.

In accordance with Article 14 of the CPC RF, the defendant shall be considered innocent until their guilt of the crime is proven according to the procedure specified in the Criminal Procedure Code and established by a final and valid court verdict (Section 1). The suspect or defendant is not obliged to prove their innocence. The burden of proving the accusation and refuting the arguments in defense of the suspect or defendant lies on the prosecution (Section 2). All doubts as to guilt that cannot be resolved in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code are construed in favor of the defendant (Section 3). The conviction may not be based on conjecture (Section 4).

The criminal legislation ensures human safety (Article 7 Section 1 of the CC RF). Hence, the suspect or defendant is protected by the criminal law from arbitrary actions by state agencies and officials.

In this way, the constitutional, criminal, and criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, together with the generally acknowledged principles and norms of international law, recognizes, respects, and protects the freedom of human conscience, considering human rights and freedoms as the highest value. Article 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation directly stipulates that as a responsibility of the state.

Freedom of choice, an inalienable human right belonging to everyone from birth, is manifested in the ability to choose a personal belief system. Freedom of conscience as a principle allows the individual to particularize their choice, which guides the manifestation of their free will. It protects the individual from arbitrary actions against their inner world and from any attempts to impose beliefs or opinions on them, thus preserving the individual’s identity.

Law and conscience are part and parcel of criminal procedure for the judge who must rely on personal conviction arising from the aggregate evidence available in the case, when no evidence has a predetermined value.

Presumption of innocence is to be correctly understood as a guarantee that one’s inalienable rights will be observed. It allows the individual to act in accordance with their personal religious beliefs and exercise their freedom of conscience.[253]

Thus, the administration of criminal justice lies in the implementation of basic principles that arise from the ideas of freedom, equality, and fairness. For this reason, observance of human rights and freedoms is the purpose of criminal procedure, while justice is the means to that purpose, provided that every individual is respected. Criminal prosecution and just sentencing of guilty persons serve the aim of criminal proceedings along with non-prosecution of innocent persons, their exemption from punishment, and the rehabilitation of anyone who has unwarrantedly been subjected to prosecution. The ideal of criminal procedure, enshrined in the corresponding law, articulates the meaning of criminal justice.

4.5. Judicial Discretion as a Prerequisite for an Acquittal

What is the main evidence against Prokhor Petrovich?

The main evidence is logic, said the detective.

The investigation report was overall vague and ambiguous: the living defendant candidates – Ibrahim Ogly and Prokhor Gromov – were only suspected of the crime, and there was no obvious evidence against them. Besides, an allegation was put forward that