Ensuring the Completeness of Materials Submitted to the Court in Criminal Proceedings amid the Tension between Publicity, Investigative Secrecy, and Adversarial Principles

The paper examines the challenges of ensuring the completeness of materials submitted to the court by investigative bodies in criminal proceedings, considering the competing principles of adversarial proceedings on one hand and publicity alongside investigative secrecy on the other. Problematic situations caused by imperfect legislation are revealed using examples of judicial precedents. Specific solutions to the identified problems are proposed, namely, the establishment at the legislative level of the obligation of the prosecution (the prosecutor and/or the investigative body) to provide evidence (materials) to the court specifically at the court hearing. The investigative body may provide the court with some materials in a restricted access mode, i.e., without granting access to all trial participants, including in the electronic form (via the Interdepartmental Electronic Interaction System (SIEI) for the judge’s exclusive review). This approach aligns with the evolving concept of the «electronic criminal case», long debated in legal scholarship. While this might initially appear to restrict the principles of publicity and adversarial proceedings, it would allow the court making a decision to properly assess the merits of motions, ensuring not only investigative secrecy but also the legality and validity of judicial decisions. Materials submitted confidentially could effectively supplement those presented openly. In addition, in order to study a number of issues, in particular the financial status of a participant in criminal proceedings, it would be very useful for the court to use software tools available to it, such as the software tools of the State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP). Additionally, for certain matters, such as assessing the financial status of a trial participan, the court could leverage available digital tools, for example, State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP), to request and obtain relevant case-related information.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Actual Problems of Russian Law
Published
2025-07-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.17803/1994-1471.2025.175.6.130-136
Primary Topic
Digital Transformation in Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Ensuring the Completeness of Materials Submitted to the Court in Criminal Proceedings amid the Tension between Publicity, Investigative Secrecy, and Adversarial Principles

A. Yu. Safronov
Actual Problems of Russian Law
Digital Transformation in Law
article

Ensuring the Completeness of Materials Submitted to the Court in Criminal Proceedings amid the Tension between Publicity, Investigative Secrecy, and Adversarial Principles

A. Yu. Safronov
article en

Abstract

The paper examines the challenges of ensuring the completeness of materials submitted to the court by investigative bodies in criminal proceedings, considering the competing principles of adversarial proceedings on one hand and publicity alongside investigative secrecy on the other. Problematic situations caused by imperfect legislation are revealed using examples of judicial precedents. Specific solutions to the identified problems are proposed, namely, the establishment at the legislative level of the obligation of the prosecution (the prosecutor and/or the investigative body) to provide evidence (materials) to the court specifically at the court hearing. The investigative body may provide the court with some materials in a restricted access mode, i.e., without granting access to all trial participants, including in the electronic form (via the Interdepartmental Electronic Interaction System (SIEI) for the judge’s exclusive review). This approach aligns with the evolving concept of the «electronic criminal case», long debated in legal scholarship. While this might initially appear to restrict the principles of publicity and adversarial proceedings, it would allow the court making a decision to properly assess the merits of motions, ensuring not only investigative secrecy but also the legality and validity of judicial decisions. Materials submitted confidentially could effectively supplement those presented openly. In addition, in order to study a number of issues, in particular the financial status of a participant in criminal proceedings, it would be very useful for the court to use software tools available to it, such as the software tools of the State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP). Additionally, for certain matters, such as assessing the financial status of a trial participan, the court could leverage available digital tools, for example, State Automated System «Justice» (PI SDP), to request and obtain relevant case-related information.

Actual Problems of Russian LawVol. 20(6)
Altaiskiy State Nature Biosphere Reserve (RU)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 68%
Digital Transformation in Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.