doctoral candidate
Dushanbe, Tajikistan
UDC 343.13
Introduction: the article examines judicial discretion as a specific form of law-enforcement discretion manifested in the evaluation of the results of operational-search activities in criminal proceedings. It is argued that judicial discretion performs a compensatory function by filling the legislative gap concerning the procedure for verifying the legality and reliability of operational information. Unlike the discretion of operational-search bodies, which is guided by expediency and effectiveness, judicial discretion is aimed at ensuring legality and fairness, thereby serving as a safeguard for individual rights against arbitrary interference by the state. Materials and Methods: the study reveals the features of judicial discretion as a type of law-enforcement decision-making characterized by normative limitation, publicity, adversarial procedure, and mandatory reasoning of judicial acts. Judicial discretion is considered not as a manifestation of subjective freedom, but as a rationalized process of legal verification, in which the court correlates factual circumstances with statutory requirements and constitutional guarantees. Results: the author proposes the concept of a “model of judicial filter of admissibility of the results of operational-search activity,” understood as an institutional mechanism for assessing the legality and ethical acceptability of operational information before it becomes evidence in a criminal case. This model includes a set of criteria: the existence of a lawful basis for conducting the activity, procedural legalization of the obtained data, documentary confirmation of all its stages, observance of the rights of the person subjected to the operation, and the consistency of operational information with other evidence. Discussion and Conclusions: it is concluded that judicial discretion in the field of operational-search activity functions not as arbitrary freedom of the judge but as an instrument of human-rights protection that ensures the supremacy of law and maintains a fair balance between public interests of the state and the personal freedoms of the individual.
judicial discretion; operational-search activity; admissibility of evidence; law-enforcement discretion; legality; fairness; criminal proceedings
1. Azarova E.S. Ontologicheskie osnovaniya usmotreniya suda. Moskva: Rusajns, 2024. 200 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/LXMTBU
2. Azarova E.S. Pravovaya priroda sudebnogo usmotreniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Moskva: Rusajns, 2022. 128 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/MXCLVJ
3. Nahova E.A. Konkretizaciya kak forma sudebnogo usmotreniya pri opredelenii predmeta dokazyvaniya // Nauchnye trudy. Rossijskaya akademiya yuridicheskih nauk. Vyp. 22. Moskva: Izdatel'skaya gruppa Yurist, 2022. S. 284–287.
4. Berg L.N. Sudebnoe usmotrenie i ego predely: obshcheteoreticheskij aspekt. Moskva: Prospekt, 2020. 128 s. DOI: https://doi.org/10.31085/9785392337668-2020-128; EDN: https://elibrary.ru/RAIGPL
5. Vytovtov A.E., Rossinskij S.B. Rezul'taty operativno-rozysknoj deyatel'nosti kak sredstva dokazyvaniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Moskva: Yurlitinform, 2021. 168 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/HNXZMX
6. Mashinnikova N.O. Usmotrenie suda pri rassmotrenii ugolovnyh del pri soglasii obvinyaemogo s pred"yavlennym emu obvineniem. Moskva: Yurlitinform, 2022. 212 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/BOCTVS
7. Gvaj A.M., Zaharcev S.I. Ugolovnaya otvetstvennost' za ubijstvo v kontekste operativno-rozysknoj deyatel'nosti i dokazyvaniya. Moskva: Yurlitinform, 2021. 272 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/SJTECG
8. Stel'mah V.Yu., Titov P.M. Rezul'taty operativno-rozysknyh meropriyatij v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Moskva: Yurlitinform, 2020. 344 s. EDN: https://elibrary.ru/OUDLMX
