A new advisory body was established - the Meeting of Ministers of Internal Affairs of Independent States, in which the heads of internal affairs bodies of almost all the republics that were part of the USSR took part. It was at such Meetings that multilateral, fundamentally important documents were adopted: agreements on interaction between the ministries of internal affairs of independent states in the fight against crime, on cooperation in the field of provision of material and technical means and special equipment, on the exchange of information, on cooperation in the fight against illicit drug trafficking drugs and psychotropic substances.
The most important step towards the creation of a common legal space was the signing on January 22, 1993 in Minsk by the heads of the CIS member states of the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases. Today, signed documents need to be filled with specific practical content, to ensure the smooth operation of the created legal mechanisms.
Some problems require solutions at the intergovernmental level. Thus, a joint program to combat organized crime is currently being developed. It will be approved by the Council of Heads of Government of the Commonwealth countries. The meeting of ministers of internal affairs will consider the procedure for transporting firearms, convoying and transporting detainees and convicts, etc.
International cooperation between Russian internal affairs bodies and partners from far abroad is developing in the main areas. These include:
- contractual and legal sphere;
- the fight against organized, including economic, crime, drug trafficking, smuggling and counterfeiting;
- training and cooperation in the scientific and technical field.
Particular attention is paid to expanding the legal framework to provide opportunities for real cooperation with police authorities of foreign countries on specific issues. New ones have been added to the already existing and, it must be said, “working” agreements on cooperation with the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Germany, Hungary, Austria, France, and Cyprus. The Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs signed agreements with the relevant departments of Poland, Romania, Turkey, China, and Mongolia. In general, the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs currently has 12 bilateral agreements on cooperation with police authorities of foreign countries. Agreements with India and the northern countries are also in the process of development.
Currently, a lot has already been done to integrate Russia into the global process of fighting crime. The Interpol National Bureau is actively working, which promptly exchanges information with more than 80 states. There are many examples of the high effectiveness of international cooperation in conducting operational investigative and other activities.
At the same time, today there are many gaps in the activities of both Russian law enforcement agencies and our partners abroad. In particular, there is a lack of promptness in providing the necessary information, which often prevents the commission of crimes.
Intensifying international cooperation between Russia in the law enforcement sphere will require in the future the adoption of some new laws (for example, on the provision of legal assistance, extradition, transfer of convicted persons, continuation of an investigation begun on the territory of another state).
To date, a certain system of international organizations, as well as national bodies, has emerged that carry out international cooperation in the field of crime prevention, direct crime, the fight against it and the treatment of offenders. All these bodies and organizations have a single functional focus on achieving goals and implementing tasks in the area under consideration, are closely interconnected in their activities, have relative independence and, as such, are subjects of international cooperation in the fight against crime.
The system of the named subjects can be conditionally divided into two large groups (subsystems): 1) international organizations; 2) national (intrastate) bodies and institutions. Each of them is characterized by its terms of reference, corresponding structure, features of activities, and specific relationships with other entities.
International organizations, in turn, differ in the scale of activity (global and regional), in the scope of competence (universal and targeted), in the nature and sources of authority (interstate, intergovernmental and non-governmental).
At the global, universal and interstate levels, the main subject of international cooperation in the fight against crime is the United Nations and its bodies:
General Assembly;
Security Council;
The Secretariat, which includes a Division (Sector) for Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice;
Economic and Social Council;
International Court.
The General Assembly annually, within the framework of the Third Committee (Social and Humanitarian Affairs), considers reports of the UN Secretary-General on the most significant problems of international cooperation in the prevention of crime, the fight against it and the treatment of offenders.
At its meetings, the Security Council considers appeals from UN member states about specific facts of international crimes (aggression, apartheid, genocide, and ecocide) committed by individual states and their leaders. If necessary, the Security Council refers the matter to the appropriate commission of inquiry. However, the Security Council is not a full-fledged subject of international cooperation in the fight against crime.
The Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Division of the UN Secretariat is engaged in preparatory and organizational work, in particular preparing the necessary recommendations for the Secretary-General on issues of international cooperation within the UN to combat crime.
The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and its Commission for Social Development are directly responsible for ensuring the activities of the SON in this area. To perform the relevant functions within ECOSOC, specialized bodies operated in different years:
The Committee on the Prevention and Control of Crime, which existed until 19911, on whose initiative the UN Congresses on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders were convened every five years (19SS, Geneva; I960, London; 1965, Stockholm ; 1970, Kyoto; 1980, Caracas; D990, Havana)2;
The Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, which arose in 1991 on the basis of the mentioned Committee and continued the work begun by it at a new level (UN congresses - 1995, Cairo; 2000, Vienna);
UN regional research institutes and centers - Research Institute for Social Protection, Institutes for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders for Asia and the Far East (Tokyo), for Latin America (San Jose), for Europe (Helsinki), Center for social and criminological research.
Taking into account the recommendations prepared by UN bodies directly involved in the problems of international cooperation in the fight against crime, ECOSOC determines the strategy and tactics of this specific activity: makes decisions on the establishment of relevant international bodies, determines their status, regulations and areas of work; convenes sessions and conferences, tests their recommendations and resolutions; approves long-term, medium-term and short-term programs of UN activities to combat crime; organizes research and compiles reports on relevant issues; prepares recommendations for the General Assembly, presents draft international agreements on the fight against international criminal crime, etc.
The main work of the UN on organizing international cooperation in this area takes place at UN congresses on crime prevention and the treatment of offenders. Typically, congresses are preceded by regional meetings and conferences, at which the most pressing problems for specific regions are discussed.
The work of the congresses involves not only representatives of states, but also specialized agencies of the UN and other interstate and intergovernmental organizations. International non-governmental organizations also take part in the work of congresses as observers.
Congresses consider that crime is a global problem that requires international cooperation to combat it. The result of the work of the congresses is the adoption of guidelines for crime prevention and criminal justice, the development of special programs and specific recommendations for the prevention of specific types of crimes, and the exchange of work experience. The report of the Congress, its decisions and resolutions are advisory in nature, but at the same time they are of great importance for establishing close cooperation between states in the fight against international criminal crime.
Materials on the multilateral activities of the UN and its crime-fighting bodies are published in a special periodical, the International Review of Criminal Policy, which has been published since 1952. UN Secretariat.
International non-governmental organizations also make a certain contribution to international cooperation in the fight against crime. These include:
International Association of Criminal Law (IALP);
International Society of Criminology (ICS);
International Society for Social Protection (ISSS);
International Sociological Association (ISA);
International Criminal and Penitentiary Foundation (ICPF).
Activities of MAUP, MKO, MOZZ and MUPF, which have an advisory
status under ECOSOC, unites the International Coordination Committee (ICC), created by these organizations in 1982.
An important place is occupied by the seemingly non-core UN International Law Committee (Third Committee), on whose initiative many draft conventions on combating international criminal crimes were developed. In addition, in 1992, the UN Sixth Committee (Legal Affairs) considered the report of the International Law Committee on the draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind and on the establishment of the International Criminal Court. The fact is that the International Court of Justice is the main judicial body of the UN and is intended to consider cases in which states are parties. Therefore, the International Court of Justice does not fully relate to the subjects of international cooperation in the fight against crime. The International Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia operate on an ad hoc basis. In this regard, the idea of creating an International Criminal Court, designed to consider cases of crimes of individuals, arose and is being implemented.
A special place in international cooperation in the fight against crime at the global, universal and international levels is occupied by the International Criminal Police Organization - Interpol, since it is the organization that directly carries out activities in the fight against international criminal crime. This work is carried out both by units of the Interpol central office located in Lyon (France) and by the national central bureaus of Interpol.
An example of international cooperation in the fight against crime at the regional level is the activity in this area of the Council of Europe and its bodies, which act as subjects of both universal and targeted cooperation, having one or another range of powers.
The Council of Europe currently includes 41 states. The Council's activities cover all major issues of European cooperation, including the fight against crime. Among the Council of Europe bodies dealing with this problem are:
Parliamentary Assembly;
Committee of Ministers;
European Committee on Legal Cooperation (PACE);
European Committee on Crime (as part of PACE).
There are a number of non-governmental organizations affiliated with the Council of Europe,
having consultative status.
Significant activities are carried out within the Council of Europe: relevant European conventions and agreements are developed, conferences and seminars are held, research and educational work is carried out. Thus, during the entire period of its work, the Council of Europe has developed and adopted more than 20 international legal documents (conventions and agreements) on the problems of criminal law and the fight against crime. In addition, the Committee of Ministers developed and adopted about 40 resolutions and 45 recommendations on cooperation in the fight against crime. After Russia joined the Council of Europe, it acceded to a number of conventions and assumed obligations to implement their provisions, recommendations and resolutions.
The content of European conventions can be divided into two groups of provisions. The first is aimed at bringing together the domestic legislation of the participating countries and contains obligations to assess certain acts as criminal offenses and to include in the domestic (national) legislation criminal law, criminal procedural and administrative measures aimed at preventing, suppressing and investigating criminal offenses. crimes. The second provides for specific procedures and forms of cooperation that, based on the principle of reciprocity, participating states can use to combat international crime and transnational criminal communities (organizations).
To implement international cooperation in the fight against crime within the European Community, the Central Criminal Police Agency - Europol - was created in 1992, which, according to the organizers, should turn into the European Federal Bureau of Investigation. In addition, through the cooperation of the member countries of the European Union, positions of liaison officers have been introduced - police officers of these European states, who are called upon to quickly resolve issues of bilateral cooperation between the police authorities of the countries that are members of the Schengen group.
Regional cooperation in the fight against crime is also carried out within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), both at the interstate level (Interparliamentary Assembly, Council of Heads of State, Council of Heads of Government) and at the interdepartmental level of law enforcement agencies (prosecutor's office, internal affairs bodies, security, tax police, customs service). At the same time, it is the CIS law enforcement agencies that directly carry out the work to implement cooperation in the fight against crime as one of the directions of the criminal policy of states.
The central place in this activity - taking into account the scale and importance of the tasks being solved, the scope of competence and the importance of the department itself in the implementation of criminal policy - is occupied by the internal affairs bodies. Regarding the participation of internal affairs bodies in international cooperation in the fight against crime, three circumstances should be noted.
Firstly, the National Central Bureau (NCB) of Interpol in the Russian Federation operates as part of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs as an independent division of the central apparatus and has its branches in the largest regions of the country.
Secondly, the Bureau for Coordination of the Fight against Organized Crime and Other Dangerous Types of Crime (BC BON), created by decision of the Council of Heads of Government of the CIS on September 24, 1993, as a permanent body, operates under the leadership of the Council of Ministers of Internal Affairs of the CIS and is provided organizationally Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia.
Thirdly, the internal affairs bodies of the regions of the Russian Federation build their work to combat transnational and ordinary crime in close cooperation with the internal affairs bodies (police) of foreign countries, and such cooperation is carried out both on a multilateral and bilateral basis, is universal and target character.
Of particular importance is the bilateral cooperation of the Russian internal affairs bodies with the militia (police) of neighboring states (for example, Finland, Poland, Mongolia and the CIS republics), including cooperation within the framework of the Shanghai Forum (Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan). 1
The interaction of the internal affairs bodies of various states in the fight against crime is in the nature of interdepartmental assistance, which is provided on the basis of international legal agreements and domestic regulations. A special case is the protocol form for consolidating international cooperation of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs with the relevant ministries (departments) of individual countries. These acts provide for the scope, directions and forms of such cooperation.
In general, the multilateral activities of all entities (in all its manifestations: global and regional, universal and targeted, multilateral and bilateral) is a complex phenomenon - a system of international cooperation in the fight against crime. The systematic approach is that since the problem of crime and the fight against it is global in nature and cannot be resolved at the national and even regional levels, the most effective solution is the strategic activity of the subjects of international cooperation - global in scale; universal and targeted in terms of competence; multilateral in form. A necessary and natural complement to it should be corresponding activities both at the regional levels and within the framework of bilateral agreements. Full participants - subjects of activities to implement cooperation in the fight against crime are, within the limits of their powers, interstate, intergovernmental and non-governmental bodies and organizations. At the national level, such cooperation is ensured by the relevant government agencies.
___________________
1 See: Collection of international agreements of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. - M., 1996.
When approaching this topic, the question immediately arises whether it is legitimate to talk about the international fight against crime at a time when crimes are committed on the territory of a certain state and fall under the jurisdiction of that state.
In fact, the fight against crime in any state is not international in the literal sense of the word. The jurisdiction of this state and the competence of its law enforcement agencies apply. Similarly, crimes committed outside its territory, for example on the high seas on ships flying the flag of that state, fall under the jurisdiction of a state.
Taking into account the fact that in all cases the principle of jurisdiction of a particular state applies to a crime, the international fight against crime refers to the cooperation of states in the fight against certain types of crimes committed by individuals.
The development of cooperation between states in this area has come a long way. At first, the simplest forms were used, for example, reaching an agreement on the extradition of the person who committed the crime, or on any other actions related to a particular crime.
Then the need arose to exchange information, and the volume of this information was constantly expanding. If earlier it concerned individual criminals and crimes, then it is gradually filled with new content, affecting almost all areas of the fight against crime, including statistics and scientific data on the causes, trends, forecasts of crime, etc.
At a certain stage, the need arises to exchange experiences. As scientific and technological progress develops, cooperation in this area is also changing and playing an increasingly significant role in relations between states. The same thing happens with the provision of legal assistance in criminal cases, including searching for criminals, serving documents, questioning witnesses, collecting material evidence and other investigative actions.
Recently, the issue of providing vocational and technical assistance has occupied a prominent place in relations between states. Many states are in dire need of equipping their law enforcement agencies with the latest technical means necessary to combat crime. For example, detecting explosives in the luggage of air passengers requires very complex and expensive equipment, which not all states are able to acquire.
Of particular importance are joint actions or their coordination, without which law enforcement agencies of various states cannot successfully combat certain types of crimes and, above all, organized crime. Although the fight against international crime remains a task of paramount importance, more and more attention is being paid to the problem of crime prevention, the treatment of offenders, the functioning of the penitentiary system, etc.
Cooperation between states is developing at three levels. First of all, this is cooperation at the bilateral level, which has its roots in the distant past. Currently, it not only has not lost its importance, but plays an ever-increasing role.
Bilateral agreements make it possible to more fully take into account the nature of relations between two states and their interests on each specific issue. The most widespread are bilateral agreements on such issues as the provision of legal assistance in criminal cases, the extradition of criminals, and the transfer of convicted persons to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens.
There are several dozen such agreements in Russian contractual practice. These are mainly agreements on legal assistance in civil and criminal cases.
As far as the criminal sphere is concerned, these agreements regulate the procedure for interaction between the judicial and investigative authorities of the two countries when carrying out criminal prosecution of persons located outside the state where they committed crimes. Most of these agreements were concluded by the Soviet Union, and they passed to Russia as a successor state to the USSR. But a number of agreements have already been signed by Russia: with China, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania. Interstate and intergovernmental bilateral agreements, as a rule, are accompanied by interdepartmental agreements, which specify the cooperation of individual departments, for example, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the Customs Committee, and define in more detail their tasks and the procedure for resolving issues within their competence.
In addition to bilateral cooperation, cooperation between states is also carried out at the regional level, which is due to the coincidence of interests and the nature of relations between countries in a certain region. Regional organizations such as the OAS, LAS, OAU, etc. play a significant role in its implementation. In 1971, 14 OAS member states signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Acts of Terrorism in Washington.
Much work is being done in this regard in the Council of Europe. The high level of cooperation in the European region is evidenced by the conventions: on the extradition of criminals; on legal assistance in criminal cases; on recognition of sentences in criminal cases; on the transfer of legal proceedings in criminal cases; on offenses against cultural property; on “laundering”, identification, seizure and confiscation of proceeds from criminal activities.
Of interest is the Convention on the Transfer of Persons Sentenced to Imprisonment to Serve Their Sentences in the State of which they are Citizens. It was signed in 1978 in Berlin mainly by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and is currently in force.
Cooperation in this area and within the CIS is developing rapidly. Its relevance is especially obvious both in connection with the increase in crime in the CIS countries and because of the openness of borders, which deprives states of the ability to successfully fight crime alone.
In August 1992, all CIS member states, as well as Georgia, signed an Agreement on relations between the Ministries of Internal Affairs in the field of information exchange. In January 1993, in Minsk, the Commonwealth countries (except Azerbaijan) signed the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters.
Many articles of this Convention are devoted to the provision of legal assistance in criminal matters. They regulate cooperation on issues such as the extradition of criminals, criminal prosecution, consideration of cases under the jurisdiction of the courts of two or more states, transfer of items used in the commission of a crime, exchange of information on convictions and criminal records, etc.
In the course of developing cooperation between states, it quickly became clear that it was impossible to limit ourselves to bilateral and regional agreements. It became clear that some types of crimes affect the interests of the entire world community, which created the preconditions for cooperation between states in this area to reach a universal level.
The process of concluding multilateral treaties began, and if during the League of Nations dozens of states participated in them, then during the period of the UN their number exceeded a hundred.
The international fight against crime is one of many areas of cooperation between states. Like all cooperation, it develops on a unified basis of the basic or general principles of their communication historically established in international law. These principles discipline cooperation, subordinate the rules and procedures for interaction between states in all areas, since they are endowed with the property of imperativeness.
As the highest criterion of legality, they serve as the normative basis for the law-making and law-enforcement process in all areas of cooperation between states, including in their joint fight against criminality. The basic principles form the foundation of the international legal order, which is created and maintained by the state. The very level of legal order depends on the degree to which they recognize these principles and follow their instructions.
The most authoritative international legal documents, where they were first collected, were the Charter of the United Nations, adopted in 1945, as well as a special document with the lengthy title “Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” ", adopted in 1970. The Declaration called on states to “be guided by them in their international activities and develop their relationships on the basis of their strict observance.
Both documents contain 7 principles. Now there are more of them. The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in 1975 in Helsinki by all countries of the continent of those years, as well as the USA and Canada (a total of 35 states), names ten principles. The first five: non-use of force and threat of force, inviolability of state borders, territorial integrity of states, peaceful resolution of conflicts, equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies are united into a common group of principles that ensure peace and security on Earth.
In the above list, each of the ten principles is strong because of its interconnectedness with all the others: “the weakening of the unity of the basic principles undermines their effectiveness as a whole. Only in unity, in close interaction, can they function properly.
References to general principles - all together or two or three of them - are found in many such agreements. For example, the preamble to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, signed in Rome on 10 March 1988, calls on its parties to strictly adhere to the general principles of international law. The UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, adopted in the same year, states that “... the parties shall implement their obligations under this Convention in accordance with the principles of sovereign equality and territorial integrity of States and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other States "(Article 2, Part 2).
Three of the general principles, namely cooperation, non-interference in each other's internal affairs and respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms, must be considered, since they operate in the field of international cooperation in the fight against crime not only as general, but also as special.
General principles of international law in cooperation between states in the fight against crime.
The principle of cooperation between states is codified in the above-mentioned Declaration of 1970, where its normative content is revealed as follows: “States are obliged to cooperate with each other, regardless of the differences in their political, economic and social systems, in various fields of international relations with a view to maintaining international peace and security and promoting economic stability and progress, the general welfare of peoples..."
This equally applies to cooperation between states in the fight against crime. Although criminal crime does not pose a fatal threat to the security of states and the world as a whole, nevertheless, for each of them it is a huge evil. Let us recall, for example, that American presidents, starting with Lyndon Johnson, who was the first to name crime as the No. 1 problem for America in his 1967 message to Congress, annually repeat the same assessment.
According to the results of public opinion polls, crime is now turning into a similar problem in Russia. Crime has reached alarming proportions in many other countries. Each of them spends a lot of effort and money to contain it. But it cannot be otherwise. Otherwise, crime, especially transnational crime, can crush or subjugate all state institutions, take on universal proportions and forms, and establish its own power and its own laws in the world.
According to Interpol estimates, currently political regimes in 11 countries around the world may fall under the pressure of the drug mafia.
States try to combat crime together through constant and constructive cooperation. There is no other alternative. Therefore, cooperation between states in the fight against crime, even without the requirements of the principle in question, has long acquired the character of an immutable imperative. This is confirmed by the large number of bilateral and multilateral treaties on combating crime concluded by states, the total number of which today is no longer countable.
Some crime researchers deny the obligation of international cooperation in the fight against it. Indeed, with the exception of an insignificant number of types of crimes, such as maritime piracy, pirate broadcasting from the high seas and some others, committed, as they say, in “no man's” (neutral) territory - in international waters, all other crimes are committed within the boundaries of territorial jurisdiction any particular state. Each of them itself, without the help of other states, is able to find, expose and punish the culprit (if, of course, it wants to do this and if it manages to “get” him), that is, if he has not fled abroad. If the act he committed does not pose a great danger, the state may generally refuse to prosecute and punish the perpetrator.
To follow or not to follow in such cases the principle of “inevitability of responsibility for a crime committed” is the internal matter of each state. However, states always strive not to leave those who have committed a serious crime unpunished, even if this means turning to other countries for help.
The increase in the number of such cases in the world practice of fighting crime has turned such cooperation from optional into an “urgent necessity” Sielaff W. Interpol - Europole - "Kriminalistik" (Hamburg). 1974. N 7. S. 304.
A similar conviction was expressed in the preamble of the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Sentences, signed in 1970 in The Hague by the member states of the European Council, in which they noted that “... the fight against crime is beginning to grow into an international problem.”
Principles of non-interference of states in each other's internal affairs.
Cooperation between states in the fight against crime is steadily expanding to include new problems that require their joint regulation. The object of such regulation also becomes individual issues that are traditionally classified as the “internal affairs” of states, but in the solution of which all of them (or the majority of them) turned out to be extremely interested.
Based on their own sovereignty, states themselves determine what exactly from the sphere of their “internal affairs” their own competence and to what extent can and should be transferred to international regulation. At the same time, “states shall refrain from making the object of the treaty issues that are exclusively within the internal competence of states.”
1. Each state determines for itself the problems and areas of cooperation with other countries, the legal and organizational forms in which it is ready to support it, and the scope of its participation in each of the forms.
2. States also themselves determine the scope of obligations assumed under each concluded agreement, fixing this by introducing reservations into it.
For example, the USSR, when signing the 1970 Hague Convention against the Hijacking of Aircraft, made a reservation not to recognize the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in possible disputes between two or more states concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention (Article 12) Gazette of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR . 1971. N 327. Art. 12, paragraphs 1 and 2.
3. Even decisions taken in the fight against crime within the framework of international organizations - for example: the UN, ICAO, the World Health Organization (WHO) or Interpol - do not have the nature of interference in their internal affairs for states, since they have only advisory legal force character.
Let us now turn to the treaties that shape the policies and practices of states in their joint fight against crime.
Above we divided these agreements into two groups:
a) treaties, or more correctly, multilateral conventions on combating certain types of crimes;
b) agreements, mainly bilateral (there are only a few multilateral agreements of this type), regulating procedural institutions of cooperation - legal assistance in criminal cases, extradition, departmental (administrative) assistance (see below for details).
Each of the treaties of the first or second group in its own way refrains from interfering with the internal competence of the participating countries.
The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, as the main provision of this policy, is formulated in the treaties of the first group. Thus, Article 18 of the International Convention against Counterfeiting of Currency states that “... this Convention leaves unaffected the principle that the actions provided for in Article 3 (acts that fall within the scope of the Convention are defined. - Author’s note), shall in each country be prosecuted, prosecuted and tried according to the general rules of its domestic law."
Each of the conventions of the first group has a mandatory article containing variants of the same norm. Let us present it as it is presented, for example, in paragraph 4 of Article 36 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961: “Nothing contained in this article affects the principle that the crimes to which it relates are defined, prosecuted and punished by the Party in accordance with internal law of that Party."
A norm similar in content and almost identical in wording is in the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Vienna, 1988) - Article 3, paragraph 11: “Nothing in this article affects the principle that the description of the offenses referred to therein is within the scope of the national law of each Party and that such offenses will be prosecuted and punished in accordance with that law.”
In a different way, but the same norm is formulated in Article 7 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (The Hague, 1970), which states that criminal prosecution of persons who have committed a crime provided for in the Convention is carried out “in accordance with the legislation of the given state.” . The same rule is in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal, 1971). In both Conventions, the norm in question is contained in Article 7.
Article 10 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Rome, 1988) states that criminal prosecution of persons who have committed any of the crimes named therein is carried out “in accordance with the legislation of the given state.”
The same norm is in the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism (Strasbourg, 1977) (Article 7), as well as in the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (Article 8, paragraph 1).
So, in the international fight against crime, the principle of non-interference in internal affairs is manifested primarily in the fact that: a) each of the states participating in cooperation, in maintaining it, relies on its own legislation; b) significantly limits the ability of treaty norms to interfere with national legislation.
This is also expressed in the fact that the norms of the agreements of the first group, which form the criminal legal basis for cooperation in the fight against crime, by their design (structure) are incomplete and not ready for their use for practical purposes. For this they do not even have a sanction, without which not a single norm of a repressive nature can be considered complete. States parties must first finalize and finalize the convention rules and only then introduce them into their domestic criminal legislation. Only after such a legislative procedure can the norms of international law be implemented “within the territorial supremacy of states where national law operates.” As a result of this procedure, they are transformed from international norms into norms of internal state law - criminal or criminal procedural.
Thus, the introduction on the territory of a state of norms that are incomplete in their design requires additional rule-making on the part of each of them and the adoption of a special legal act that turns an unaddressed international norm into a norm of domestic criminal law addressed to the subjects of the relevant domestic relations. This result is achieved by issuing a legal act by the state, which introduces a corresponding change or addition to its criminal legislation.
As for the treaties of the second group, in them states go even further in protecting their sovereignty from outside interference.
The treaties of this group regulate only the procedures, the procedure for maintaining contacts between countries in specific cases of providing legal assistance in criminal cases, extradition, and providing departmental assistance. The terms of cooperation, the procedure and channels for sending requests, the language in which the request sent abroad and the response to it are written are determined, possible reasons for refusal to provide legal assistance in criminal cases, the extradition of accused and criminals, and the provision of departmental (administrative) assistance are specified.
The norms of the treaties of this group (with rare exceptions) practically do not require additional rule-making from the states that have signed them. They are self-executing and in their self-execution do not affect the internal interests of states and do not interfere with the sphere of their internal competence and internal affairs.
The principle of respect for human rights and freedoms is “the obligation of states to respect and observe these rights without any discrimination in relation to all persons who are within the sphere of their jurisdiction, that is, to whom their power extends”
The first place of legal acts is occupied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 Text of the Covenant. See: Collection of the most important documents on international law. Part 1., General. M., 1996. S. 143 - 163 (or Gazette of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. 1976. N 17. Art. 291). It was proclaimed "as an objective to which all peoples and all States should strive to... promote respect for these rights and freedoms and to ensure... universal and effective recognition and implementation (from the Preamble of the Declaration)."
Collection of the most important documents on international law. Part 1., General. M., pp. 96 - 102, as well as: Collection of United Nations standards and norms in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. Ed. UN. New York, 1992. pp. 275 - 279.
According to Article 5, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966<*>"no restriction or derogation of any fundamental human rights... is permitted." This norm forms the foundation on which all other norms must function. All others must be based on the requirements of this norm. Therefore, it is not surprising that many norms of both the Covenant itself and other international legal documents echo it.
Both cited documents contain a norm directly addressed to the police, militia and criminal justice authorities. This is Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or expulsion.” Article 9 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is similar in content, but more detailed: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one may be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.
No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law."
Further, paragraph 2 of this article states that “every person arrested must be informed of the reasons for his arrest and the essence of the charge. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be urgently brought before a judge or other official exercising local judicial power.”
In the criminal process of many Western countries, preliminary investigation authorities are vested with broad powers to apply preventive measures. The police also enjoy greater powers of arrest. The length of police detention in many countries is not regulated. However, the final decision on pretrial detention rests with the judges.
Article 9 of the Covenant introduces the concept of a “reasonable period” during which an arrested (or detained) person has the right to have his case resolved or to be released. Moreover, as follows from the text of the same article, the detention of persons awaiting such proceedings “should not be a general rule.” But release can also be made conditional on the provision of guarantees of appearance before the investigating authorities, the court, or for the execution of the court sentence.
In accordance with paragraph 4 of the same article 9, everyone “who is deprived of liberty as a result of arrest or detention” has the right to demand a trial of his case, so that the court can immediately decide the issue of the legality of his detention and order his release if detention is illegal.
And finally, the last provision of Article 9 of the Covenant, which is practically unknown to Russian justice: “everyone who has been a victim of unlawful arrest or detention has the right to enforceable compensation.” Such a norm, introduced into the legislation of a number of countries, is, of course, unable to stop law enforcement officials from illegal arrests or detention, since compensation is made not at the expense of officials, but from state budget funds. And yet, the presence of such a norm in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in the legislation of countries, allows victims of illegal arrests or detentions to at least hope for compensation for the moral and physical suffering caused to them.
A prominent place in the international legal acts under consideration is also given to the protection of the rights of persons appearing before the court.
According to Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all people are equal before courts and tribunals. Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.
Everyone accused of a criminal offense has the right to be considered innocent until his guilt is proven by law in court (presumption of innocence - Article 14, paragraph 2). When considering a charge brought against him, every person has the right to be informed in detail, in a language which he understands, of the nature and grounds of the charge brought against him; have the time and opportunity to defend himself and meet with a lawyer of his own choosing; to be tried in his presence, without undue delay, to have the assistance of a defense lawyer even in the absence of funds to pay for his work; have the right to call his own witnesses, as well as witnesses against him; use the help of an interpreter if you do not know the language in which the process is being conducted; not be forced to testify against oneself or to admit guilt.
The UN General Assembly in 1975 adopted a special Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Compendium of United Nations Standards and Norms in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Ed. UN. New York, 1992. pp. 259 - 260. But with the adoption of this Declaration as a non-binding document, inhumane and criminal practices were not stopped. On December 10, 1984, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.
The drafters of the Convention took into account the diversity of actions that in practice often mask torture and harsh treatment of detainees, suspects and prisoners. And therefore, in the very first article of the Convention, the concept of “torture” was defined: this is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, physical or moral, is deliberately inflicted on a person in order to obtain information or a confession from him or a third person, to punish him.” for an act which he or a third party has committed or is suspected of having committed, or to intimidate or coerce him or a third party, or for any reason based on discrimination of any nature when such pain or suffering is caused by a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, or at their instigation, or with their knowledge or acquiescence."
The Convention obliged the signatory states to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent each of them. And at the same time, firmly adhere to the position that “no exceptional circumstances, no matter how serious, can serve as a justification for torture” (Article 2 of the Convention).
In Article 4, the Convention required states to consider all acts of torture as a crime. Attempts to use torture, complicity or participation in it are also subject to punishment. Courts should not use evidence obtained under torture unless it is necessary to do so against a person accused of torture.
According to Article 16 of the Convention, states must prevent on their territory any other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that do not fall within the definition of torture given in Article 1 of the Convention, when such acts are committed by a public official acting in an official capacity. capacity, or at their instigation, or with their knowledge or acquiescence.
Among the documents aimed at protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners deserve due attention. They were adopted at the First UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1955 in Geneva and approved by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) ECOSOC Resolutions 663 (XXIV) of July 31, 1957, 2076 (XII) of May 13, 1977 and 1984/47 dated May 25, 1984..
The problem of punishment and resocialization of convicts, including those sentenced to imprisonment, is beyond the scope of our study. However, it is necessary here not only to name these Rules, but also to consider a number of their norms. And that's why. Contrary to their name, the Rules concern the detention of two categories of persons in places of isolation from society:
persons under arrest, investigation or awaiting trial, held either in police stations (pretrial detention centers) or in prison institutions, but not as convicted persons. This category of persons is called in the Rules “prisoners under investigation” (Articles 84 - 93);
persons sentenced to imprisonment by a court. They are called "convicted prisoners" in the Rules.
The rules emphasize their different legal status: “prisoners under investigation”, whose guilt has either not yet been established by the investigation or not recognized by the court, must be kept in different conditions and regime, different from the detention of “convicted prisoners”. This difference is clearly emphasized by the Rules: until a court verdict, they are “considered innocent” (Article 84, paragraph 2) and a special regime should be applied to them:
young (namely young, and not just minors. - Our note, G. N) prisoners should be kept separately from adults “and, in principle, in separate institutions.”
The rules define other conditions that make the detention of “prisoners under investigation” different from the maintenance of convicted prisoners. In particular, they are allowed to receive food from relatives or purchase it at their own expense, wear their own clothes, and also purchase newspapers, books, writing instruments and other items with their own money that allow them to usefully occupy their time. But at the same time, the Rules contain a warning “not to forget about the safety and normal course of life in the establishment” (Article 90).
Untried prisoners must be given the opportunity to work, and their work must be paid (Article 89). They are also allowed “within reasonable limits” to enjoy the opportunity to communicate with relatives and friends “enjoying an unblemished reputation” (Article 37), to receive them in prison, subject only to those restrictions and supervision that are necessary for the official administration of justice, compliance with the requirements security and ensuring the normal operation of the establishment (Article 92).
Every untried prisoner has the right to seek free legal assistance, meet with a lawyer, and transfer to him confidential documents prepared by him. His meetings with his lawyer must take place in the presence, but out of hearing, of police or prison officials (Article 93).
All countries must implement the Standard Minimum Rules in their national legislation and, once implemented, they must be communicated to every detainee whenever he is placed in an appropriate pre-trial detention facility.
In our opinion, four special principles can currently be named:
1. Limiting cooperation to cases of ordinary crimes only.
2. The inevitability of responsibility for the crime committed.
3. Humanity.
4. Carrying out actions requested by foreign law enforcement agencies - procedural or operational - investigative - only in accordance with their national legislation.
International treaties on the fight against crime also name other special principles. But at the same time we are always talking about principles, the scope of which is limited by some institution of cooperation. For example, in extradition practice such principles as non-extradition of one’s own citizens are known, which are not applicable to persons who have gone through the procedure of issuing capital punishment, etc. Regarding these principles, and these are really special principles, it should be noted that, firstly, how We have already indicated above that they only apply to one or two international legal institutions, and secondly, even here each of them is not generally recognized: some states follow them, others do not.
The principle of limiting cooperation only to cases of ordinary crimes. Cooperation in the fight against criminal crime is carried out only for crimes that are called ordinary crimes abroad. This name covers the most significant part of the crimes found in the criminal legislation of countries. But their number does not include a number of specific groups of crimes, primarily political ones or crimes based on a political motive for their commission. Therefore, political crimes, as well as the persons who committed them, are not subject to international agreements of states on the joint fight against criminal crime.
Cooperation is also not supported on military crimes. And in Article 3 of the Interpol Charter, in addition to the two named groups of crimes for which members of this organization should not assist each other, cases of a racial and religious nature are also indicated. Such crimes create very delicate situations in relations between countries. Therefore, practice makes its own reasonable adjustments to their resolution: assistance in cases of a racial or religious nature is refused only if their perpetrators were guided exclusively by political motives, the crimes were of an overtly expressed or hidden political nature.
The principle of the inevitability of responsibility for an offense committed is accepted in the criminal justice of all countries as a necessary condition for maintaining a spirit of intolerance towards crimes and criminals in society, as an expression of the primordial faith of mankind that all evil must be punished. And a person who has violated the laws of society must answer for it. Punishment of persons convicted of committing a crime is the implementation of this principle.
The threat of punishing the guilty does not exhaust the role of this principle in society and the state. This principle also has a great preventive effect on unstable people. The famous Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria noted that one of the most effective means of deterring crime lies not in the cruelty of punishments, but in their inevitability... Confidence in the inevitability of even a moderate punishment will always make a greater impression than the fear of another, more cruel one. , but accompanied by the hope of impunity. In the area of international cooperation under consideration, the principle of inevitability of responsibility for a crime carries a significantly greater burden. More than a hundred years ago, the famous Russian author V.P. Danevsky expressed this idea this way: every crime, where and no matter who it is committed, is an encroachment on the general legal order that embraces all states, therefore no crime should be left unpunished, and every state that holds a criminal in power must punish him." Therefore, it is this principle that has become the foundation on which cooperation develops, the cement that holds it together, and the engine that pushes states to new joint actions, the search for effective means and methods of fighting crime. And most importantly, it forces states to enter into international agreements that create a legal framework. basis for their constant cooperation, establish international organizations.
At the II International Police Congress in 1923 in Vienna, where the creation of the future Interpol took place, one of the speakers (Austrian police representative Bruno Schulz) said that “international cooperation in the fight against crime has a dual goal - ideal and real. The first is to achieve recognition of the idea that a criminal is a criminal everywhere and as an enemy of society should not deserve leniency anywhere, he should be denied the right of asylum everywhere. He should be subject to criminal prosecution regardless of which country he came from or where he committed the crime.
This idea should receive universal recognition.
The real goal is the practical implementation of this idea, the unification of states into a united international front in the fight against crime. Schultz Bruno. Nachrichtendienst uber internationale Verbrecher. Archiv fuer Kriminologie. Leipzig. Band 76. 1924. S. 33.
At the international level, today the principle of inevitability of responsibility for a crime is realized in the very fact of cooperation between states in the fight against crime. It seems that this is why this principle is not mentioned in the preambles of concluded agreements.
Only rarely can such a reference to the principle in question be found in individual treaties, for example in the preamble to the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977 (Strasbourg). Its signing by the participating countries was motivated by the desire to “take effective measures to ensure that persons committing such acts do not escape prosecution and punishment.” This principle is specifically highlighted in the Convention, since not all countries and not always have the same sharply negative attitude toward every case of terrorism.
The absence of a reference to this principle in a treaty does not mean that states ignore it. This can be seen in the example of two related conventions - the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970, The Hague) and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal, 1971). Under both Conventions, states party to them are entitled to exercise jurisdiction over an offender apprehended on their territory, regardless of the place where the crime was committed and his nationality. The jurisdiction of the state is that, in accordance with each of the Conventions, it can take the offender into custody or take other necessary measures and conduct an investigation. When another state requests the extradition of an offender, it either extradites him to the requesting state or, “without any exception and regardless of whether the crime was committed on its territory” or not, it must “refer the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of criminal prosecution.” " (Articles 6 and 7 of the 1970 Convention and also Articles 6 and 7 of the 1971 Convention).
Without any indication of this principle of inevitability of responsibility, it is embodied in the institution of extradition, which is widely used in international cooperation in the fight against crime. The treaties of states that deal with extradition provide that in the event that a criminal cannot be extradited to the requesting state, the country refusing extradition is obliged to initiate criminal proceedings against him under its own legislation. In this case we are talking about a requirement widely known in the West and included in contracts - “aut dedere, aut punire” (either extradite or punish yourself).
In conclusion, we note that the significance of the principle under consideration goes beyond the outlined framework. It not only drives cooperation between states in the fight against crime when it operates on a prepared legal basis. This principle imperatively influences the behavior of interested states even in the absence of contractual ties between them. In particular, it prevents them from groundlessly refusing to extradite the required criminal or provide legal assistance in a criminal case. States, guided by the principle in question, most often fulfill a request on the terms of reciprocity or so-called international courtesy.
The principle of humanity. Encyclopedic dictionaries give a broad meaning of the term “humanity”: humanity, philanthropy, respect for people and their human dignity.
For centuries, humanity was in principle alien to the goals of criminal justice - to punish the guilty. This in itself excluded the manifestation of humanity towards them, respect for their human dignity. And even now, when the ideas of humanism have taken shape in the principle of the same name in the criminal policy of many states, their criminal prosecution bodies find themselves in a very contradictory situation: on the one hand, they must ensure the protection of all members of society from the criminal attacks of individual members of the same society, and apply fair justice to the latter penalties.
On the other hand, they must apply the same principle of humanity to them.
Despite the seeming unnecessaryness of mentioning the requirement of a humane attitude towards perpetrators in the fight against crime, the principle of humanity is enshrined in the modern criminal legislation of many countries as a complete denial of the use of unjustifiably cruel and painful punishments. Humanity is manifested primarily in the presence in the criminal laws of countries of several sanctions for the same act, which makes it possible to choose in each specific case a measure of punishment that is necessary and sufficient, and at the same time the least of those that are permissible in this case. When a new law adopted after the commission of a crime establishes a more lenient punishment for such an act, the effect of this law extends to the offender in question, if he has not yet been convicted.
Further, in countries there is a wide practice of mitigating punishment and even releasing minors (under certain circumstances), elderly people, pregnant women, and terminally ill prisoners. Amnesty and pardon are widely used, and attitudes towards the death penalty are changing, which has already been abolished in approximately half of the countries in the world. Death penalty. Analysis of global trends. International Review of Criminal Policy. Ed. UN. New York, 1990. N 38..
L.N. Galenskaya rightly noted the connection between the principle of humanity operating in the fight against crime and the principle of the inevitability of punishment for a crime committed: the perpetrator of a crime should not go unpunished. But the punishment itself should not only be a punishment for what he has done, but also include “the goals of resocializing the criminal”, so that “upon returning to normal life in society, the offender is not only ready, but also able to obey the laws and ensure his existence.”
Back in 1950, the UN General Assembly, by Resolution 415, decided to lead all efforts of the world community to combat crime and assumed responsibility for its prevention, including the resocialization of offenders in order to prevent relapse on their part. This work has become a permanent part of the programs of the UN and its Economic and Social Council. In order to periodically monitor the state of affairs in countries, familiarize themselves with the dynamics of crime and the measures taken by countries to combat it, the UN began to regularly, once every five years, hold International Congresses on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.
In the light of the principle of humanity, it is necessary to pay special attention to the final part of the name of these congresses - “treatment of offenders”. The English phrase "treatment of offenders", used in the original source, means the treatment regime, treatment of criminals, non-punitive influence on them with the aim of correcting them. And this best conveys the content of the principle of humanity in the UN policy of resocialization of offenders, especially those sentenced to imprisonment, with the aim of returning them to life in society as law-abiding members.
Therefore, the principle of humanity cannot be discarded by states in their joint criminal prosecution of persons guilty of committing a crime and the implementation of the principle of the inevitability of responsibility for the evil they have committed.
It is directly or indirectly present in many international legal documents that require or recommend that states adhere to agreed rules in the treatment of persons who are subject to criminal prosecution as a suspect or accused, detained or arrested, convicted or imprisoned, or simply a witness in the case .
a) The first block of international documents with a humanistic focus concerns specifically the treatment of persons arrested or taken into custody as a preventive measure, as well as persons sentenced to imprisonment. This:
Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders on August 30, 1955 and approved by ECOSOC as a recommendation for their application by practical bodies;
Procedures for the effective implementation of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted and recommended by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in 1984;
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 43/173 in 1988
United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules), adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 45/110 in 1990.
b) The second block is documents aimed at ensuring that in the practice of law enforcement agencies in combating crime, torture and facts of cruel, inhumane treatment and punishment of persons with whom employees of these bodies have to deal, especially persons deprived of liberty, are forever eliminated. All persons deprived of their liberty have the right to humane treatment and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Article 10, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; principle 1 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons... 1988).
The adoption of special international documents on this issue was preceded by the requirement to prohibit torture and cruel methods of treatment of people, formulated for the first time in Article 5 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The reasons for the appearance of such articles in the named documents, as well as the adoption after them of two special international acts, speak for themselves, but the speed of their following one after another at short intervals indicates that each previous one did not have the effect for which it was intended . Particular concern was expressed by the international community when such a fate actually befell the first special document, which was the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1975 as a recommendation to countries. Nine years later, in 1984, the UN adopted a more effective document dedicated to this problem - the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It differed from the Declaration not only in volume (33 articles, 12 in the Declaration), but also, mainly, in the fact that all its provisions were binding for the countries that signed it. In particular, the Convention obliges all its parties, within the limits of their national jurisdiction, to take effective measures to prevent the use of torture and similar forms of treatment or punishment. To do this, they had to criminalize all acts of torture mentioned in Article 1 and acts constituting participation, complicity, instigation or an attempt to commit torture.
Crime as a complex social phenomenon has typical patterns, trends and forms of development in different regions not only of one state, but of different countries. International law enforcement cooperation is therefore essential.
International crime is a negative social phenomenon that consists of the entire set of illegal actions of legal entities and individuals. Today it is becoming particularly dangerous for the international legal order. Object The most dangerous types of crimes, such as terrorism, smuggling, drug trafficking and the emergence of transnational criminal communities, are increasingly receiving special attention from many states.
Modern international criminal law also combines rules defining the elements of crimes, the organization of international criminal courts, process, and cooperation between states in the field of criminal justice.
Subjects of international cooperation between states in the fight against crime are states, international intergovernmental and interdepartmental organizations.
Based on the principles of international law, states in this environment have the following responsibilities:
Recognize a criminal act as a criminal offense;
Provide assistance in searching and apprehending criminals;
Provide assistance in the search and return of stolen valuables;
Bring to trial or extradite accused persons;
Provide assistance in carrying out investigative actions on their territory, etc.;
States delegate part of their competence to national bodies and departments to organize interstate cooperation. (For example, Interpol). The scope of transferred competence is determined by the contractual basis.
It should also be said that cooperation in the fight against crime is based on the principle of the priority of the individual in society, on universal human values, that the life, health and well-being of a person is the main task of the state; the implementation of this approach will help to realize the main principle - the inevitability of punishment. This will also be facilitated by the practical implementation of the principles of international law: cooperation between states, voluntary fulfillment of international obligations, respect for human rights and personal freedoms.
International cooperation in the fight against crime takes two main forms:
1. Within the framework of international bodies and organizations /institutional mechanism/
2. By concluding special agreements /contractual or conventional mechanism/
The fight against crimes of an international nature is initially carried out using multilateral international legal forms. By cooperating on the basis of international conventions, states solve immediate problems.
Firstly, the international convention defines the special international and national social danger of such acts that encroach on the international and national legal order.
Secondly, the classification of criminal acts is being agreed upon. And thus the object and objective side of crimes of this kind is determined.
Third, the provisions of the conventions contain a definition and object of crimes.
Fourth, the provisions of the conventions contain direct obligations of states to coordinate measures to prevent and suppress crimes of an international nature.
Fifthly, the conventions contain rules to establish the jurisdiction of states over crimes and criminals. And finally, the conventions contain rules on the provision by states of broad legal assistance in criminal cases arising in connection with the commission of crimes of an international nature.
There is a whole range of interstate agreements:
1. Universal multilateral treaties on the regulation of certain branches or institutions of international law, which also contain rules of liability for certain international offenses (for example, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea/
2. Multilateral agreements to combat certain types of international crimes, which fix in a general form the obligation of states to apply punishment. The determination of criminal sanctions and the conviction of individual criminals for a specific crime is carried out by the criminal legislation of the states parties to these agreements /Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961/
3. Regional multilateral agreements on combating crime.
4. Decisions of the UN and other intergovernmental international organizations.
5. Numerous bilateral agreements between states on combating certain international criminal crimes, providing legal assistance, extraditing criminals, etc.
There are several dozen such agreements in Russian contractual practice. These are mainly agreements on legal assistance in civil and criminal cases.
Recently, active efforts have been made to establish bilateral cooperation in the fight against drug addiction. It should be noted that Russia concluded a network of “framework” intergovernmental agreements to combat drug trafficking and abuse: 1988 - with Great Britain, 1989 - the USA, Italy, Canada, France and Germany, 1990 - with Spain, Argentina and Turkey, 1991 - with Greece and Mexico.
Priority in the legal support for the fight against crime should be given to bilateral agreements and treaties. This is due to the fact that the changing situation in the criminal sphere requires rapid changes in the legislative framework. The two states can quickly reach an agreement. If we consider the geography of individual international crimes, we can see that it is not necessary to conclude universal treaties.
The main efforts to combat crime on an international scale have been undertaken by the UN, Interpol and other international organizations.
The United Nations was created in October 1945. According to the Charter, it is responsible for international cooperation between states on all current issues. Directly issues of cooperation between countries in the fight against crime is handled by one of the UN bodies - Economic and Social Union (ECOSOC), within which the Committee of Experts on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders was established in 1950. In 1971 it was transformed into the Committee on Crime Prevention and Control, and in 1993 into the Commission on Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. The commission (committee) presents recommendations and proposals to ECOSOC aimed at more effectively combating crime and humane treatment of offenders. The UN General Assembly entrusted this body with the function of preparing UN congresses on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders once every 5 years. UN Congresses play a major role in developing international rules, standards and recommendations on crime prevention and criminal justice. To date, 9 congresses have been held. A social-scientific non-governmental organization of the first category - the International Academy of Informatization - operates under the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations.
Among the subjects of work on international cooperation in the fight against crime, it is necessary to highlight non-governmental organizations: International Criminal Law Association (ICLA), International Society of Criminology (ISC), International Society for Social Defense (ISSS) and International Crime and Penitentiary Foundation (ICPF).
International Criminal Law Association founded in 1924. It studies crime, its causes and means of combating it, engages in comparative criminal law research, organizes international congresses on problems of criminal law, advises the UN, UNESCO and other international organizations.
International Society of Criminology founded in 1934 and is directly involved in ensuring cooperation in the fight against crime. It brings together National Institutes and specialists in criminology. The ICE has consultative status with OCOSOS, the UN and UNESCO. The ICE studies the causes of crime at the international level, organizes criminological congresses, seminars, colloquiums, publishes their materials, assists national criminological institutes, establishes and awards scholarships and prizes to stimulate criminological science. Similar work in their field is carried out by the Ministry of Health and Social Protection and the MUPF.
A special place in international cooperation is occupied by International Criminal Police Organization (Interpol), Interpol (Interpol- abbreviated name (since 1956) International Criminal Police Organization(fr. Organization Internationale de Police Criminelle, OIPC, English International Criminal Police Organization, ICPO) is an international organization whose main task is to unite the efforts of national law enforcement agencies of participating countries in the fight against ordinary crime.
Interpol does not interfere in any way in activities of a political, military, religious or racial nature (Article 3 of the Charter). The organization was created in 1923 in Vienna, first as an international criminal police commission. Currently, about 190 countries, including Russia, are members of Interpol. Interpol is the world's second international intergovernmental organization in terms of the number of member countries after the UN. The 77th session of the Interpol General Assembly took place in Russia in St. Petersburg on October 7-10, 2008.
INTERPOL has national central bureaus (NCBs) in each of its participating countries. His main job is to organize cooperation on specific criminal cases by receiving, analyzing and transmitting information among themselves. Each NCB maintains close ties with its own law enforcement agencies and, at the international level, with the NCBs of other countries and with the General Secretariat of Interpol. The main task is to coordinate the efforts of individual countries and pursue a unified policy in the fight against ordinary crime. Other main tasks include coordinating international searches, as well as combating: human trafficking, organized crime, drug smuggling, economic and high-tech crimes, counterfeiting and counterfeiting of securities, and child pornography. Recently, much attention has been paid to public safety and the fight against terrorism.
Interpol in Russia: In 1991, within the structure of the central apparatus of the USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs, the National Central Bureau of Interpol was created with administrative rights - a body that directly interacts with law enforcement and other government agencies of the USSR with the police of foreign countries and the General Secretariat of Interpol. The Russian Federation is the legal successor of the USSR, which was admitted to Interpol on September 27, 1990 at the session of the General Assembly in Ottawa.
The main activities of the International Criminal Police:
Criminal registration. Organized by the General Secretariat using a special methodology in order to identify criminals and crimes, there are two types of registration: general / object - information about international criminals and crimes; special /records fingerprints and photographs of criminals/.
Files are kept for each type of criminal registration:
Alphabetical index of all known: international criminals and persons suspected of criminal activity;
A card index of the verbal portrait of criminals, which contains information about the appearance of criminals according to 177 indicators;
Card index of documents and titles;
Card index of crimes and methods of their commission;
Fingerprint card index of ten-finger registration;
A card index of persons by appearance using photographs or drawn facial details and drawings by type of criminal “professions” /hotel thief, counterfeiter, etc./
2. International search for criminals suspected of committing international crimes; missing persons; stolen valuables and other objects of criminal encroachment.
If the search for the criminal is successful, he is detained and taken into custody, after which negotiations are carried out on his extradition/extradition/ to the state in whose territory the crime was committed or of which he is a citizen.
"pros" and "cons" of democracy
Surveyor. Who is a surveyor? Description of the profession. Profession surveyor Surveyor training
Magellanic clouds: who are they?
Pepper Steak Sauce Creamy Pepper Sauce
How to create a competent portfolio for a designer