In the Russian Federation, justice is authorized to carry out only a court. The judicial system is established in federal laws and in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In the Constitution, the judiciary is considered as a kind of state power, which the courts exercise independently, regardless of the will of the executive or legislative branches. Courts are considered the only body authorized to administer justice. The creation of other bodies to achieve justice, including emergency courts, in the Russian Federation is unlawful.
Judicial branch in the Russian Federation
The Constitution guarantees the monopoly of the courts in the administration of justice. In turn, law enforcement or enforcement is entrusted to executive authorities. This restriction of functions is called the “principle of separation of powers”; it acts to avoid the interest of other authorities in the outcome of court cases and to ensure fair justice. The judiciary is an independent and independent structural element of the public administration system. However, the judiciary interacts closely with the executive and legislative branches.
The subjects of judicial power are all judicial institutions that are part of the judicial system.
The legal framework of legal proceedings in the Russian Federation
The main law that ensures the rule of law in the judicial branch is considered the Constitution of the Russian Federation. It describes the powers of the courts as justice bodies according to the principle of separation of powers. Four types of legal proceedings are also defined : criminal, constitutional, civil and administrative.
And also in the Main State Law contains a direct answer to the question of whether the creation of emergency courts in the Russian Federation is allowed. No, not allowed. Their activity is contrary to the norms of the Constitution, which describes the guarantees of every citizen for primary rights and freedoms, including fair trial and justice.
The Constitution does not include a complete list of courts, it lists only the three highest bodies of judicial power: the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Arbitration Court.
The Law on the Judiciary of the Russian Federation is the main source of regulation of the judicial system. It contains a complete list of courts, their responsibilities and competencies. All other state acts can only supplement the article of the Law, but not contradict them.
The activities of courts of various jurisdictions are regulated by the Law on the Constitutional Court, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Arbitration Procedure Code, the Family, Civil, Labor, Land Codes, the Code of Administrative Offenses.
The Law on the Status of Judges discusses the principles of their election, their duties and competencies.
The judicial system of the Russian Federation
The Constitutional Court carries out exclusively constitutional judicial proceedings, that is , it decides cases on the clarification of the norms of the Constitution, on amendments to the basic law.
Courts of general jurisdiction are headed by the Supreme Court, they are considering civil, administrative, criminal lawsuits.
Arbitration courts hear cases in economic disputes, headed by the Supreme Arbitration Court. Arbitration courts, in turn, are divided into appeal courts, which consider the case for the second time in essence, and cassation courts, which consider the legality of a court decision of general jurisdiction.
Also, the judicial system of the Russian Federation includes the arbitration and international commercial arbitration court at the Chamber of Commerce.
Extraordinary courts, their features and tasks
Extraordinary courts are judicial bodies of a special category that are created in exceptional historical circumstances: during wars, revolutions, coups d'etat, and also during a state of emergency or martial law. In modern times, the creation of emergency courts is unacceptable in the Constitutions of most democracies in the world, even in emergency conditions. Although history has known cases of the creation of emergency courts in peacetime.
In fact, such courts have a very special legal, or rather, anti-legal orientation. The key function of legal proceedings is justice, and this legal truth, one way or another, is spelled out in the constitutions of all democracies. And excuses, punishments, compensations - this is the sphere of activity of executive authorities. In emergency courts, all their eligible functionality has been simplified, if not said, brought to the primitive.
Firstly, the essence of the creation of emergency courts in the Russian Federation in past centuries consisted of punishment, not justice. The presumption of innocence did not apply in these courts, and the more so the accused did not have the right to legal defense or appeal.
Secondly, such courts combined the functions of sentencing and, in fact, executing a sentence - punishment. It was the punitive nature of their activities that preceded the fact that the principle of banning the creation of emergency courts was now spelled out in the Constitution of the Russian Federation - the main document of the state, namely in article 118.
How emergency courts differ from special courts
In no case should you mix emergency courts with special ones. The creation of emergency courts in the Russian Federation is illegal and contrary to the norms of the Constitution. But the creation of special courts is a normal practice in our country, in its federal districts and in other states. Specialized courts hear cases that are not subject to consideration in the courts of general jurisdiction. They operate on an ongoing basis, and are not created in force majeure circumstances as extraordinary.
The system of special judicial proceedings in our country is only being introduced, but world experience in this is quite successful. Today, Russia is creating a Specialized Court of Intellectual Property Rights. Special courts can also try cases involving minors.
Special courts are fully institutionalized. The supervisor for these instances is the Supreme Court. Funding for these judicial organizations is provided by the federal budget.
Historical examples of emergency vessels
Emergency courts in some parts of history took over the functions of the military. The creation of emergency courts in the Russian Federation was allowed and was declared in areas that were in martial law. In 1906–1907 they were introduced in 82 provinces.
Courts consisted of the chairman and members of the court (three to five). The composition of the court was appointed by the head of the garrison of combat officers on the orders of the governor or general. Naturally, there was no discussion of any neutrality of judges and jurors.
The trial was quick and was not preceded by any preliminary investigation. The role of the conviction was played by the act of bringing to trial. It was signed by the commander of the military division. He could have mercy on the criminal. The execution of the sentence was mainly carried out through public hanging.
Later, the right to use hard labor was introduced in emergency courts. Naturally, in such conditions it was not necessary to reflect on the absence of the presumption of innocence or neutrality of judges.
Another wave of the creation of emergency courts took place in the 30s, during the purge period. Courts were called "Troika", subordinate to the People's Committee of the Interior. Their key function was not the administration of justice, but the compaction of the regime by means of purges among those who disagree. In total, from October 1, 1936 to November 1, the 38th Troika arrested (repressed) 1,565,041 people. 50% of all those arrested were shot.
Those "criminals" who were considered "less active, but still hostile elements" were sentenced to camps for a term of eight to ten years, and in case of disobedience they were shot.
Agree, history has given our country an impressive vaccination. This experience was enough to prohibit the creation of organs of such a perverted judicial system forever.
But it does not need to be considered that the creation of emergency courts was allowed only in the Russian Federation, such atrocious instances took place in almost every country, and settled on the way to a legal and conscious public order.
Another example of an inhumane legal order took place in the United States after the Civil War, called the Lynch court or lynching. Usually, without trial or investigation, a person who was suspected of violating public order was sentenced to be hanged and sentenced into action among a street crowd. This measure was applied to the black population and was part of a kind of racial genocide. This is not an event that belongs to the gray-haired story, the last Lynch trial took place in 1981 in Alabama.
Reasons and prerequisites for the creation of emergency courts
Despite the fact that the system of emergency refereeing was perverted, reduced to absurdity, became one of the types of crimes against humanity, its creation in some historical circumstances was logical and justified. Indeed, emergency situations, wars and disasters do not create circumstances isolated from crimes of any kind. On the contrary, in such periods of social failure, the soil for the realization of criminal intentions is more fertile than ever. When government bodies were not able to fully fulfill their functions, the creation of emergency courts in the Russian Federation was allowed and seemed a good way out.
It is absolutely easy to understand the logical need for such legal proceedings in a historical context. Thus, the government tried to provide justice and a semblance of legal protection for weak citizens.
The nature of justice in emergency courts
The court session in the extraordinary court is closed, the composition of the court assessors is simplified. Most often it consists only of a judge, this role is played by the military commander or the head of the community and the jury (up to five people).
The urgent and biased course of such a process is incompatible with modern concepts of the neutrality of judges and jurors.
Such courts acted under their own laws of justice, outside the competence of criminal or administrative law.
Considering that the legal process in extraordinary courts takes place outside the norms of jurisdiction or criminal law, its decisions are not legally binding, but they are mandatory and do not leave the defendant the right to justify or protect interests.
In fact, even though such instances take over the functions of the courts, they are not. They played the role of a kind of “state gang”, which repaired the court or even lynching, without maintaining neutrality.
Are emergency courts allowed in the Russian Federation
Not. The Constitution of the Russian Federation contains a direct ban on the creation of such courts. Moreover, in a modern democratic society, any logic of creating this type of court has disappeared. Courts are the only instances authorized to administer justice. A network of them in each federal district allows you to consider cases of accusations of each criminal, even in cases of emergency under the laws of a democratic society.
Due to the fundamentally unsuccessful judicial practice in the 30s, the creation of emergency courts in the Russian Federation is prohibited today. Allowed only election in the districts of justices of the peace. However, their election is also preceded by debates and amendments to the Judicial Power Act. The famous "Troika" of the NKVD, in fact, never were the organs of justice, because their activities had nothing to do with it.
Distinguished regional, regional and republican "Troika". They often sentenced in absentia, without the presence of the accused, thus leveling out any possibility of the defendant to justify himself. Drafted preliminary lists of the accused, searched for them, sought confession and sentenced. They sought recognition - in the most literal sense they “achieved” by inhuman torture.
The decisions of the “Troika” were not subject to appeal; convictions were final documents. The state archives have preserved many protocols of such a lawsuit.
Evolution and degradation of emergency proceedings
In the history of almost every country, the creation of emergency courts has taken place. Perhaps because of the bitter historical experience of emergency proceedings, the creation of extraordinary courts in democratic states is not allowed today.
At the dawn of the creation of state communities and elementary social boundaries, almost the entire court, according to the logic of the meeting, was extraordinary. Family, material and other disputes came to be resolved by the ruler, he reconciled the arguing, resolved the dispute and administered justice. In different areas, such a role was played by the heads of administrations, church lords, etc.
The judicial system was assigned to a separate, independent category of power after the eighth century.
With the development of legal proceedings, emergency courts also performed the functions of military courts. They acted outside the limits of administrative and criminal law. The legal proceedings, in turn, were simplified, and the guarantees for the protection of the defendants were practically canceled.
Such courts were created to punish war and civil criminals who were charged with murder, robbery, robbery, violence and other serious crimes. If the evidence of the crime leaves no doubt, like the identity of the criminal, there is no need for additional investigations, of course, the criminal must be punished. But in a state of emergency or martial law, it is very difficult to assemble a court hearing in a form with representatives of the prosecution and the defense. In such cases, the perpetrators were tried in emergency courts. Most often, such courts were administered by local authorities and consisted, for example, of the head of administration, a military commander, and a group of highly respected, unbiased citizens.
The practice of creating emergency courts may look logical in the context of wars or terrorist attacks. But like every easily accessible form of power, emergency proceedings very soon became subject to abuse. It has turned from organs of gross and undemocratic justice into punitive instances, where a certain group of judicial activists composed lynching or removing people who disobeyed. Loud examples: the famous “Troika” of the NKVD, the Lynch courts, the Feudal assemblies of France, the tribunal in Bulgaria, etc., which had nothing to do with the judicial authorities in the modern sense, pursued only ideological and punitive goals.