International experience in criminalizing interference with the judiciary

The study of international experience helps to unify approaches to criminalizing interference in judicial activities, which contributes to the harmonization of national legislation with international norms. Moreover, such an analysis of best practices from different countries allows us to identify effective practices for protecting courts from external pressure and interference, which is key to ensuring fair justice. The study of legislative initiatives and their consequences in different jurisdictions helps to identify the shortcomings and advantages of existing legal norms, which contributes to the improvement of national laws. The article analyzes the international experience of criminalizing interference with the judiciary. The study covers legal mechanisms and legislative initiatives aimed at protecting the independence of the judiciary in different countries of the world, namely: The United States of America, Slovakia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Poland. It is established that liability for obstruction of justice and pre- trial investigation is criminalized in the following countries: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan. The author examines different approaches to determining criminal liability for such actions and compares the effectiveness of the measures applied. The article emphasizes the need to adapt national legislation to international norms in order to ensure the effective functioning of the judicial system and protect it from external interference. It is concluded that national legislation on protection of the judiciary from interference is in line with the main trends in criminal legislation of European countries. However, having studied the international practice of criminalizing interference with the judiciary, it can be concluded that the US experience can be a useful example for national legislation, since the transparency and detail with which the US legislator approached the regulation of such a sensitive matter as interference with the judiciary require attention and are worthy of borrowing.