Detention and Home Arrest: Theoretical and Legal Analysis of the Application
( Pp. 308-317)

The article presents the results of a comparative legal analysis of the use of preventive measures in the form of detention and home arrest. Both of these measures are forms of isolation from society of suspects, accused persons, and defendants in criminal proceedings. Thus, detention as a preventive measure, as a general rule, is applied by a court decision against a suspect or accused of committing crimes for which the criminal law provides for a penalty of imprisonment for a term of more than three years, if it is impossible to apply another, more lenient, preventive measure. When choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention, the judge's decision must specify the specific, factual circumstances on the basis of which the judge made such a decision. Such circumstances may not be data that has not been verified during the court session, in particular the results of operational search activities, submitted in violation of the requirements of Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. At the same time, house arrest, along with detention, is classified as a preventive measure that restricts freedom. These measures are identical in terms of preventing consequences. However, this circumstance is often not taken into account by the court. This conclusion is supported by statistics showing a low level of use of home arrest. The article examines the evolution of the legal regulation and application of detention and home arrest. The conclusion is made about the historical continuity of both positive and negative experiences. In particular, the use of detention as a means of influence to obtain "necessary evidence", a punitive measure, which does not follow from its essence, is traced. Unfortunately, this practice still exists today, as confirmed by the examples given in the article. The article examines the conceptual aspects of the use of detention and home arrest as an alternative to isolation from society. Proposals for amendments to the criminal procedure legislation aimed at minimizing abuses in the appointment and execution of procedural preventive measures in the form of detention and home arrest are formulated and justified.

Ilin D.V., (2021), DETENTION AND HOME ARREST: THEORETICAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF THE APPLICATION. Gaps in Russian Legislation, 4 => 308-317.

Minimal nye standartnye pravila obrashcheniya s zaklyuchennymi. Prinyaty na pervom Kongresse Organizatsii Ob edinennykh Natsiy po preduprezhdeniyu prestupnosti i obrashcheniyu s pravonarushitelyami, sostoyavshemsya v ZHeneve v 1955 godu, i odobreny Ekonomicheskim i Sotsial nym Sovetom v ego rezolyutsiyakh 663 S (XXIV) ot 31 iyulya 1957 goda i 2076 (LXII) ot 13 maya 1977 goda // https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl conv/conventions/prison.shtml. Data obrashcheniya: 26.05.2021.
Postanovlenie Plenuma Verkhovnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii № 41 g. Moskva 19 dekabrya 2013 g. O praktike primeneniya sudami zakonodatel stva o merakh presecheniya v vide zaklyucheniya pod strazhu, domashnego aresta, zaloga i zapreta opredelennykh deystviy (s izmeneniyami, vnesennymi postanovleniyami Plenuma ot 24 maya 2016 g. № 23 i ot 11 iyunya 2020 g. № 7) // https://www.vsrf.ru/documents/own/8379/. Data obrashcheniya: 26.05.2021.
Postanovlenie Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 29.06.2004 № 13-P Po delu o proverke konstitutsionnosti otdel nykh polozheniy statey 7, 15, 107, 234 i 450 Ugolovno-protsessual nogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii v svyazi s zaprosom gruppy deputatov Gosudarstvennoy Dumy // SPS Konsul tantPlyus. Data obrashcheniya: 26.05.2021.
Opredelenie Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 06.06.2003 № 184-O Ob otkaze v prinyatii k rassmotreniyu zhaloby grazhdanina Evstaf eva Alekseya Vladimirovicha na narushenie ego konstitutsionnykh prav punktom 1 chasti vos moy stat i 109 UPK Rossiyskoy Federatsii // https://legalacts.ru/doc/opredelenie-konsti-tutsionnogo-suda-rf-ot-06062003-n-184-o-ob/. Data obrashcheniya: 26.05.2021.
Opredelenie Konstitutsionnogo Suda RF ot 19 marta 2009 g. № 271-O-O Ob otkaze v prinyatii k rassmotreniyu zhaloby grazhdanina Rudakova YUriya Ignat evicha na narushenie ego konstitutsionnykh prav polozheniyami chastey chetvertoy, sed moy i vos moy stat i 109 Ugolovno-protsessual nogo kodeksa Rossiyskoy Federatsii // https://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/1691151/. Data obrashcheniya: 26.05.2021.
Данные судебной статистики за 2020 г. // http://www.cdep.ru/ index.php?id=79&item=5671. Дата обр.: 26.05.2021.
Dvoryanskov I.V. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost za pytku i inoe beschelovechnoe ili unizhayushchee dostoinstvo obrashchenie s zaklyuchennymi // Ugolovnoe pravo. 2003. № 4. S. 19-21.
Dvoryanskov I.V. Pytka i inoe zhestokoe ili unizhayushchee dostoinstvo obrashchenie s zaklyuchennymi: metodologicheskie aspekty kriminalizatsii // Vedomosti ugolovno-ispolnitel noy sistemy. 2004. №1. S. 36-43.
Dvoryanskov I.V., Druzin A.I., CHuchaev A.I. Ugolovno-pravovaya okhrana otpravleniya pravosudiya (istoriko-pravovoe issledovanie) / otv. red. I.A. Isaev. M.: 4-y filial Voenizdata, 2002. 150 s.
Rossiyskoe zakonodatel stvo X-XX vv. T. 2. M., 1985. 520 s.
Rossiyskoe zakonodatel stvo X-XX vv. T. 4. M., 1986. 512 s.
Vyshinskiy A.YA. Teoriya sudebnykh dokazatel stv v sovetskom prave. M., 1945. 220 s.
Korneshov L. Drama 38-go goda // CHelovek i zakon. 1989. № 3. S. 35-60.
Trunova, L. Domashniy arest kak mera presecheniya // LawMix.ru. URL: http://www.lawmix.ru. Data obrashcheniya: 26.05.2021.

measures of procedural coercion, preventive measures, home arrest, detention, isolation from society, application, execution, abuse, coercion to give evidence.