ARTUR GHAMBARYAN

Head of the Department of Legal Theory and Constitutional Law at the Russian-Armenian

University, Professor of the Academy of Public Administration of the Republic of Armenia,

Doctor of Law, Professor,

Honored Lawyer of the Republic of Armenia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-165

Annotation.

The article addresses issues related to the application of preventive measures aimed at ensuring the fulfillment of the defendant’s procedural obligations. The author provides a detailed analysis of Article 116, Part 2, Point 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, which permits the application of preventive measures to ensure the defendant’s compliance with imposed obligations.

Special attention is given to defining the scope of procedural obligations whose fulfillment may be secured through preventive measures. The author emphasizes that such measures may be applied only to ensure the fulfillment of specific obligations listed in Article 43, Part 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, and not all procedural obligations.

The article underscores that the basis for applying a preventive measure must be the risk of future non compliance with obligations, rather than an already committed violation. Otherwise, applying (or modifying) a preventive measure based on an existing violation would transform it into a tool of procedural liability.

PDF

DIANA AVETISYAN

Postgraduate student at the Department of

Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law

Institute of Law and Politics of the Russian-Armenian University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-150

Annotation.

The article analyzes the controversial issues of the relationship between criminal liability and security measures in the criminal law of Armenia (according to the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation – other measures of a criminal-legal nature).The author comes to the conclusion that these institutions of criminal law differ significantly from each other in their nature and objectives. It is stated that both legal and medical purposes should be fixed in the law as the goals of such measures. The author comes to the conclusion that security measures are not a form of criminal responsibility; such measures should be considered as alternatives to punishment that are not punitive in nature. Legislative amendments and additions are proposed, in particular, the need to consolidate in the Criminal Code such principles of security measures as fairness, effectiveness and proportionality.

PDF

ADELINA SARGSYAN

PhD in Law,

Lecturer at the Department of Criminal Law and

Criminal Procedure Law Institute of Law and Politics of the

Russian-Armenian University

VARAZDAT SUKIASYAN

PhD in Law,

Lecturer at the Department of Criminal Law and

Criminal Procedure Law Institute of Law and Politics of the

Russian-Armenian University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-134

Annotation.

This article analyzes some principles of international criminal law that create grounds for bringing persons to criminal responsibility for committing international crimes. The article analyzes the practice of international criminal law, the compliance of national criminal legislation with established international practice and the provisions of the Rome Statute. Based on the conducted research, the vectors of improvement of criminal legislation and the practice of its application are outlined. The principle of commander’s responsibility is analyzed, in particular, in the context of Article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia Inaction during an armed conflict. This principle is of fundamental importance both in international criminal law and in national law, since commanders have an obligation to take the necessary measures to prevent violations by subordinates. Analyzing the principle of the inadmissibility of references to official position, the authors note that the domestic immunities granted to officials are aimed at providing them with guarantees from prosecution by national criminal justice authorities, but should not apply when jurisdiction is exercised by the International Criminal Court. It is necessary to establish in legislation that the extradition of persons to the ICC will not be equated to the usual extradition process to a foreign State.

PDF

MELIK MELIKYAN

Acting Chief Specialist of the Legal Expert Examinations Service,

Staff of the Court of Cassation of the Republic of Armenia,

Candidate of Legal Sciences

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2025.10-12-125

Annotation.

Being a multilayered and complex phenomenon, the provocation of a crime often gives rise to contradictory approaches and various problems in both theoretical and practical aspects.

It is noteworthy that in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Armenia, adopted on May 5, 2021, provisions were included that had no precedent in domestic law before. These new regulations require in-depth research into the discussed phenomenon and the establishment of sufficient clarity to ensure its consistent application in practice.

Innovations concerning the provocation of a crime were introduced in both the General and Special Parts of criminal law, including within the context of circumstances excluding criminal liability.

In this context, with the aim of improving the provisions related to the legal regulation of the provocation of a crime—and combining the approaches found in various legal sources—it is first necessary to identify the potential gaps within these provisions and to propose scientifically grounded theses and recommendations, which form the objectives of this work.

As a result of the research conducted, it was possible to achieve the aforementioned goals and to reveal the problems existing within this scope. At the same time, relevant legislative improvement proposals aimed at solving these issues have been presented, which can contribute to the further development of law in this area.

PDF