MELIK MELIKYAN

Acting Chief Expert of the Legal Expertise

Service of the Cassation Court of Republic of Armenia,

Applicant at the Chair of

Criminal Law of YSU Faculty of Law

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.7-9-33

Annotaion.

Provocation of a crime is a phenomenon that has its own place in criminal law, and even in the conditions of rich experience formed around it, in legislations, judicial precedents, doctrines of different countries, has various, often contradictory manifestations.

It is noteworthy that the current RA Criminal Code, adopted on May 5, 2021, did not leave out the provisions on the provocation of the crime, as a result of which new horizons were created for the development of the law in this regard and for carrying out further work on targeted application in practical terms.

An integral part of the theoretical and practical legal base formed around the provocation of a crime is also the reflections of the phenomenon discussed in the circumstances excluding criminal responsibility, exempting from criminal responsibility and mitigating criminal responsibility or punishment, which are correlated with other categories known in criminal law, making the research of the selected topic relevant.

In that context, in order to improve the legal regulation of crime provocation by intertwining the legal regulations of domestic and foreign countries, the positions expressed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Cassation court of RA and the legal theses in a number of theoretical doctrines, it is necessary to highlight the possible gaps and from the point of view of their solution. to come up with scientifically substantiated conclusions and proposals, which are precisely the goals of the chosen topic.

As a result of the work done, with the implementation of the above-mentioned goals, it was possible to show the problems that exist in various criminal law aspects within the framework of the topic, while coming up with appropriate documentation and proposals aimed at solving the existing problems, including legislative amendments and additions, thus adding to the results of the work done theoretically and conveying high importance in practical terms.

PDF

VAHE YENGIBARYAN

Honored Lawyer of the RA, Doctor of Law, Professor,

Professor at YSU Chair of Criminal Procedure and Criminology

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.7-9-22

Annotation.

This article discusses a number of important issues regarding the implementation of secret investigative activities. Secret investigative operations, as operations carried out during pre-trial proceedings, have specific tasks aimed at detection and prevention of crimes, collection of evidence and identification of the person who committed the crime. In the legal and linguistic sense, “covert” means a secret, non-public, inconspicuous practice, the purpose of which is to provide evidence necessary for the investigator’s actions. The probative value of secret investigative operations is largely determined by the protection of the guarantees provided by law during their implementation. Compliance of national legislation with international standards is essential to ensure the legality of covert investigative activities. The position of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue emphasizes that the competent authorities of the states can carry out secret operations to ensure the protection of public safety, but there must always be clear and effective guarantees for the protection of human rights. The guarantees established by the state for the implementation of secret investigative activities are intended to exclude human rights violations, possible interferences and abuses. For example, according to Article 243 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, secret investigative actions are carried out based on a court order and only in the event that gathering evidence by other means is impossible. In the case of conducting secret investigative activities, priority is given to the proportionality of the interference with personal data and the protection of private life and fundamental rights. The legislation of Armenia also sets clear restrictions on the scope of persons against whom secret actions can be carried out, including with the permission of the court. The author concludes that secret investigative actions, being an independent type of state activity carried out by law enforcement agencies within the scope of the functions assigned to them by law, are subject to implementation in accordance with the nature of that activity, its purpose and the legality conditions set by the legislation, always guaranteeing a fair balance between the public interest and the rights of the individual.

PDF

HAYARPI ZARGARYAN

Judge of the RA Appeal Anti-Corruption Court,

PhD in Law

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.7-9-11

Annotation.

The subject of the author’s discussion was some issues of confiscation of property of illegal origin, as a new institution introduced into domestic judicial practice, focusing on the issue of mandatory state registration of marriage in order to confirm the fact of joint household management.

The author referred to the definitions of family members and persons associated with them in the sense of the RA Law “On Confiscation of Property of Illegal Origin”, proposing to make similar changes to the RA Family Code. Then she analyzed the criterion of joint household management from the mandatory valid conditions presented by affiliated persons within the meaning of the law, again noting the absence of equivalent definitions in the RA Family Code.

As a result of a comprehensive analysis of legislative norms, as well as provisions expressed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the author came to the conclusion that in order to consider the existence of factual grounds for “running a joint household”, state registration of the marriage of partners running the household is not a mandatory, but it is necessary to find out whether the partners actually managed the household jointly or not, interpreting the concept of “family” in a broad sense, taking into account the special regulation of running a joint household and its significance, which is essential for legal relations.

PDF

DAVIT SAROYAN

Applicant at the Institute of Philosophy,

Sociology and Law of the National Academy

of Sciences of the Republic of Armenia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.7-9-3

Annotation.

In this article, the author considers the state as a legal value in two aspects. First, the state itself is a legal category. By its nature and content, the state cannot arise, operate and develop without law. Secondly, the state is inextricably linked with positive law, and this is expressed in two ways: first, the state is the main lawmaker, and secondly, the state exercises its functional powers through law. Therefore, the State embodies and represents a legal value. The legal value of the state is not only in the fact that it is inextricably linked to the law, but also in the fact that the state itself has legal content, that is, the state was formed on legal bases and acts in accordance with the principles and norms of law. In this sense, it can be said that the state appears and exists as a fact of life, which is determined by the characteristics and necessity of conscious and material life activity of people.The state as a fact of life is the result of the given norm, the state is the norm itself in its factual, empirical expression.

The normative system arising from the state is a manifestation of its will, which is aimed at subordinating all subjects of public life. The regime of power requires stability, which is ensured by law.

PDF