Czasopismo
Tytuł artykułu
Warianty tytułu
Criminalisation of violation of the right to defence as a remedy for its enforcement (national legislative experience)
Języki publikacji
Abstrakty
B статье рассматривается возможность признания права на защиту самостоятельным объектом уголовно-правовой охраны с учетом процессуальных, конституционных, международно-правовых и общеевропейских аспектов его ценности. В качестве методологического инструментария для реализации исследовательской задачи выбраны системно-структурный, диалектический и компаративный методы, а также аксиологический (ценностный) подход. В результате исследования выявлены возможные модели криминализации нарушений права на защиту.
The opportunity of admission of the right to defence as an independent object of criminal law protection is analysed in this article. Such opportunity has been considered with the reference to the procedural, constitutional, international law and European aspects of the value of this right. The system-structural, dialectical and comparative methods, as well as the axiological (value) approach were chosen as a methodology for the implementation of the research task. The potential models of criminalisation of violation of the right to defence have been identified as a result.
Słowa kluczowe
Czasopismo
Rocznik
Numer
Strony
191-199
Opis fizyczny
Daty
wydano
2021
Twórcy
autor
- V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University
autor
- Kharkiv Regional Administrative Court
autor
- Kharkiv National University of Internal Affairs
Bibliografia
- ALBRECHT Peter-Alexis (2012), Zabytaâ svoboda. Printsipy ugolovnogo prava v evropeĭskoĭ diskussii o bezopasnosti, Kharkiv.
- BRIDGES Katrice L. (2004), The forgotten constitutional right to present a defense and its impact on the acceptance of responsibility – Entrapment Debate, “Michigan Law Review, vol. 103, issue 2. https://doi.org/10.2307/4141921
- CASE OF KROMBACH v. FRANCE (2001) of 13 February 2001, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg (Application no. 29731/96), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-59211 (13.05.2001).
- CASE OF CHOPENKO v. UKRAINE (2015) of 15 January 2015, European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg (Application no. 17735/06), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-192473 (15.04.2015).
- FULEI Taras (2015), Zastosuvannia praktyky Evropeĭskoho sudu z prav liudyny pry zdiĭsnenni pravosuddia: Naukovo-metodychnyi posibnyk dlâ suddiv, Kyiv.
- HROSHEVYI Yuriy, TATSII Vasyl, TUMANIANTS Anush (2013), Kryminalnyĭ protses: pidruchnyk,Kharkiv.
- KOBLIKOV Aleksandr (1961), Pravo obvinâemogo na zaschitu pri proizvodstve predvaritelnogo sledstviâ, Moskva.
- MARKUSH Mariya (2007), Pryntsyp zmahalnosti v kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy, Kharkiv.
- PRYLUTSKYI Serhyi (2012),Vstup do teorii sudovoi vlady (Suspilstvo. Pravosuddia. Derzhava), Kyiv.
- SPIRIDONOV Mykhailo (2016), Responsibility for violation of the rihgt to protection under criminal law of foreign countries, „Forum prava”, no. 5, Kharkiv, http://nbuv.gov.ua/UJRN/FP_index.htm_2016_5_32 (29.09.2016).
- YAVORSKYI Bohdan (2010), Spryânnia zakhystu jak neobkhidna umova zabezpechennia funktsionuvannia zasady zmahalnosti u kryminalnomu sudochynstvi, Lviv.
Typ dokumentu
Bibliografia
Identyfikatory
Identyfikator YADDA
bwmeta1.element.desklight-91252468-8898-4eb1-8d9d-9380b17c2c3a