The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of the rule of law, ensuring the protection of human rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings. Despite its constitutional enshrinement in Russia, the implementation of this principle faces numerous challenges. Violations of the presumption of innocence are often associated with investigative pressure on suspects and judicial bias [1]. Under these circumstances, the study of the presumption of innocence becomes particularly significant for both legal scholarship and practice.
According to judicial statistics, acquittals in Russia account for less than 1% of all decisions, indicating a prosecutorial bias in law enforcement. In this context, examining the challenges of the presumption of innocence is of particular importance to legal theory and practical application.
Theoretical and Legal Foundations of the Presumption of Innocence
Historical Development of the Principle of Presumption of Innocence
The principle of the presumption of innocence has deep historical roots. It originated in Roman law with the rule "in dubio pro reo" ("when in doubt, favor the accused"). During the Middle Ages, it served as a counterbalance to inquisitorial methods, and in the modern era, it became the foundation of a humanistic approach to criminal law, as advocated by Enlightenment thinkers like Beccaria and Montesquieu. In Russia, the idea was first formalized during the reforms of Alexander II and constitutionally enshrined only in 1993.
International Standards of the Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence is affirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 11), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14), and the European Convention on Human Rights (Article 6). These documents underscore the universal nature of the principle and the necessity of its observance in national legal systems.
Presumption of Innocence in Russian Legislation
Article 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation stipulates that every accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The Criminal Procedure Code (Article 14) elaborates on this principle, establishing that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and any doubt should benefit the accused. Nevertheless, judicial statistics and practical examples reveal significant difficulties in applying this principle effectively.
Presumption of Innocence in Russian Criminal Proceedings
The principle of the presumption of innocence, while formally enshrined in the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Code, faces numerous obstacles in its practical implementation. In criminal proceedings, this principle plays a crucial role in protecting suspects and defendants from unwarranted prosecution and bias.
At the pretrial stage, the procedural implementation of the presumption of innocence often encounters significant challenges. One of the critical issues is the violation of the right to defense through manipulations with procedural deadlines or the practice of unjustified detentions [2]. Investigative authorities frequently exert undue pressure on suspects, undermining their right to defense and the presumption of innocence. Public disclosure of cases also poses a severe threat, as statements from officials or media outlets often shape public opinion about a suspect's guilt before the trial concludes. Such actions erode the legal foundation of the presumption and create a prejudicial public perception that may affect judicial outcomes.
The trial stage theoretically offers more opportunities to safeguard the presumption of innocence, but significant problems persist. As noted by A.Y. Kiryanov, "courts often focus on the prosecution's narrative, ignoring gaps in the evidence" [3]. Judges frequently exhibit bias, giving more weight to prosecution arguments than to those of the defense. Additionally, there is a widespread practice of shifting the burden of proof onto the defendant, which contradicts the principle of adversarial proceedings. For instance, in several cases, courts have cited insufficient defense evidence while disregarding significant flaws in the prosecution's case.
Related Articles: Why Russian Courts Do Not Acquit
Participants in the criminal process—investigators, prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys—play a crucial role in ensuring the presumption of innocence. However, due to prosecutorial bias and insufficient professional training, these participants often fail to uphold this principle fully. Investigators and prosecutors frequently focus on securing convictions, while judges, instead of conducting impartial evaluations of evidence, rely on prosecutorial interpretations.
Another issue is the violation of the principle of equality of arms: the defense is often forced to assume an additional burden of disproving allegations, distorting the very concept of the presumption of innocence. Overcoming these shortcomings requires enhanced oversight of judicial practices and improved professional training for all participants in the process.
Ensuring the effective implementation of the presumption of innocence requires systemic changes at all stages of criminal proceedings. This includes strengthening procedural safeguards and fostering a legal culture that upholds human rights and justice.
References
-
Nagaev A.M. Features and Problems of Implementing the Principle of Presumption of Innocence in Russian Criminal Proceedings // Questions of Russian Justice. 2020. No. 10. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/osobennosti-i-problemy-realizatsii-printsipa-prezumptsii-nevinovnosti-v-ugolovnom-sudoproizvodstve-rossiyskoy-federatsii
-
Dyatchina D.A. Principle of Presumption of Innocence: Implementation Problems // Young Scientist. 2023. No. 9 (456). P. 261-263. URL: https://moluch.ru/archive/456/100378/
-
Kiryanov A.Y. Problems of Implementing the Principle of Presumption of Innocence in Modern Russian Criminal Proceedings // Abstract of Dissertation, 2012. URL: https://lawtheses.com/problemy-realizatsii-prezumptsii-nevinovnosti-v-sovremennom-ugolovnom-protsesse-rossii
Author: V. Ivanenko, Human Rights Defender
