#1
Moscow Times
November 27, 2001
Editorial
The Devil Ended Up in The Details
Proponents of the Kremlin-backed judicial reform package approved last week by the State Duma have hailed it as the "cornerstone" of a new relationship between the judiciary and the public -- long skeptical, and rightfully so, about the courts' impartiality and competence.
There is no doubt that the Soviet-era system of criminal law needs an overhaul. But a close examination of the Criminal Procedural Code and the new legislation on judges, which are swiftly moving toward becoming law, suggests that Putin's touted reform fiddles with details without addressing some of the system's fundamental flaws.
For example: One of the plan's greatest achievements is considered the introduction of jury trials, a right guaranteed in the Constitution. Under the new legislation, jury trials, now held in only nine of the country's 89 regions, are to be available by 2003 for cases involving violent crimes in all courts at the regional level. But there's a proverbial spoonful of tar in the honey: Under the new code, the powers of judges to overturn jury verdicts have been augmented.
Some of the reform's supporters have also pointed out that the power of prosecutors has been diminished; however, prosecutors -- known for their selective approach to opening investigations -- made up one of the two powerful interest groups that helped shape the reform. And pro-Kremlin lawmakers have acknowledged that, first impressions notwithstanding, "the supervisory functions of prosecutors would grow."
Prosecutors will still play a role in the presidential advisory commission for appointing judges, and their approval will be required for the start of any criminal probe.
Liberals who back the reform are excited about a new provision that takes effect in 2004, transferring the right to issue arrest and search warrants from prosecutors to the courts. But it remains to be seen whether the court's approval will be based on impartial judgments rather than a mere formality.
The reform, whose stated purpose is to level the judicial playing field, has not discarded certain glaring inequities between the defense and the prosecution. For example, lawyers still need the approval of prosecutors to call a witness in a criminal case.
The Kremlin has said that it is trying to make the courts' activity more transparent, in part by implanting officials from the presidential administration into the tight-knit corporations of judges known as qualifications collegia. These corporate bodies hand down major decisions concerning judges -- appointing and dismissing them, punishing or commending them. Perhaps, scrutinizing these decisions will help the public understand the real direction of judicial reform.
Next Article