Artificial Intelligence — a New Form of Using Special Knowledge in Investigating and Solving Cybercrimes

A participant to the criminal proceedings is a person who is authorized by procedural rights and obligations to perform criminal procedural actions and enter into criminal procedural relations with other participants in the process of exercising their rights and obligations. Certain common features are characteristic of all the participants to the criminal proceedings: a) the law assigns them certain procedural rights and obligations, which is why they can enter into criminal procedural relations with each other and perform criminal procedural actions, and b) they must have a legitimate interest in the criminal proceedings. In addition, the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation prescribes certain requirements that participants to the proceedings must meet. Thus, an expert can only be a person who has a special knowledge (in science, technology, art, craft) and who is appointed in accordance with the procedural law for conducting court expert examination and giving opinions (Article 57 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation). The requirement for participation of a person as attesting witness is that he must not have an interest in the criminal case (Article 60 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation). This paper analyses the participants to the criminal proceedings on the side of the prosecution (the injured party, the civil prosecutor, the private prosecutor and the representatives of the injured party, the civil prosecutor and the private prosecutor).

One of the frequently assumed major differences between civil law and common law systems is the standard of persuasion applied by each in civil (non-criminal) cases. In most civil law jurisdictions, it is commonly assumed that the standard of persuasion is the same for criminal and civil proceedings. The plaintiff in a civil case, as well as the prosecutor in a criminal case, must provide sufficient proof to convince the trier of fact of the truth of the facts at issue on the particular occasion. Although it is recognised that absolute certainty is impossible to achieve, the required degree of belief is often expressed in terms of a virtual certainty, or at least a very high probability. However, a mere statistical probability, no matter how high, will not suffice in the absence of the required conviction or belief in the truth of the facts at issue. In common law jurisdictions, there is an explicit distinction between the standard of persuasion in criminal and civil proceedings. In criminal proceedings, the standard is very high: the prosecutor must prove the defendant’s guilt ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’. In civil proceedings, however, the plaintiff generally only needs to prove his case by the much lower standard of a ‘preponderance of the evidence’ (the usual formulation in the United States) or a ‘balance of probability’ (the usual formulation in the British Commonwealth and Scandinavia). Both standards are often interpreted by academics, and sometimes by judges, as merely requiring a 50 per cent probability. For both standards, as so interpreted, it would be better to employ the term ‘standard of proof’ rather than ‘standard of persuasion’, since the latter implies an element of conviction or belief that is lacking when all that is involved is a class-based statistical probability. I have argued that the supposed major differences between the standards of persuasion in common law and civil law jurisdictions are greatly overstated. I retrace that argument in section II of this paper. I conclude that, in general, the common law as well as the civil law continues to view the applicable standards of persuasion in civil as well as criminal actions as requiring the formation of a belief in the truth of the facts at issue in the particular case, rather than a mere class-based statistical probability, and that concrete ‘particularistic evidence’ specific to the particular case is necessary to support such a belief. Although the available evidence is slim, I also conclude that in the civil law as well as the common law the strength of the required belief is lower in civil actions than in criminal actions. In section IV of this paper, I consider various types of problematic causal situations that courts around the world have struggled to deal with in recent decades. Clear recognition of the issues in these cases and their proper resolution has often been hindered by an unanalysed assumption that the standard of persuasion in civil actions is a mere statistical probability standard, which however is not consistently applied, since doing so would generate significant problems and paradoxes. The considerable confusion that now exists could and should be greatly reduced simply by replacing the highly misleading phrases ‘more likely than not’ and ‘balance of probability’, and even the less misleading phrase ‘preponderance of the evidence’, with ‘a minimal belief’.

The use of special knowledge in Russian criminal procedure has a long history, but there are still disputes about what special knowledge is and in what forms it can be used in criminal proceedings. Discussions continue regarding the procedural status of a specialist, his rights, duties and responsibilities. The issue of the correlation between the status of a specialist and an expert has not been resolved, there is no unified position on how a specialist is interrogated, and what criteria should be used to evaluate his opinion. All these issues, which are important to ensure the admissibility of the obtained evidence, in the collection of which special knowledge is used, require resolution. The foregoing indicates the need for further research into the problems of the procedural status of a specialist and his participation in criminal proceedings, which determines the relevance of the chosen topic. Purpose: to analyze the problems of specialist participation in investigative and procedural actions. The methodology of the study is based on general scientific (dialectical, systemic) and specific (formal-legal, system-structural, descriptive-analytical) methods. Results: the article establishes that the specialist participation in criminal proceedings is possible in various procedural and non-procedural forms, with the most in-demand specialist participation in the production of investigative actions. The article reveals significant gaps in the procedural regulation of the status of a specialist, in particular, there are no clear norms regulating the procedure for obtaining a specialist opinion and his interrogation. The author proposes to amend the criminal procedural legislation by including independent articles regulating the receipt of a specialist opinion and the procedure for interrogating this person, which will contribute to increasing the effectiveness of the use of special knowledge in criminal pr oceedings.

The article deals with the issue of defining the meaning of terms used in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, namely the notion of «special knowledge». It analyzes the definitions of this notion that were made in different periods of time by both national and foreign researchers based on the criteria of the significant features that are distinguished by these researchers in their definitions of the given term. By consequently highlighting faults in these definitions the article distinguishes those features that are the most accurate to reflect the essence of special knowledge in the criminal legal proceedings. Based on the obtained findings the article offers its own definition of this notion: special knowledge in criminal proceedings includes knowledge, skills and competences in any sphere of human activity that the investigator or the judge may not have at all or have to an insufficient extent, the use of this knowledge is at the discretion of the latter or directly regulated in the criminal procedure law, in order to establish the circumstances to be proved or to establish other circumstances relevant to the criminal proceedings.

The investigation of criminal offenses, especially in modern conditions, is difficult to imagine without the assistence of persons with special knowledge in various fields of science, technology, art, craft and more. The main forms of using such knowledge are the involvement of specialists in criminal proceedings (Article 71 of the CPC) and forensic examinations (Articles 242–244 of the CPC). A significant number of works of scientists have been devoted to the development of theoretical aspects of the institute of special knowledge in criminal proceedings, but the unity of opinion on the relationship between general knowledge and special knowledge has not been achieved. Special knowledge is considered to be knowledge that is not common, well-known, but only those acquired by professionals in a particular field of science, technology, art, crafts, and so on. It should be noted that the attribution of certain knowledge to the well-known is conditional. Some thing that was for some time considered to be unknowable, becomes widespread over time, becomes public. The use of special knowledge facilitates a full, objective and comprehensive investigation, ensures the collection of information and the formation of the necessary evidence base. Information is the substantive side of court evidence, which is established from sources due to the order prescribed by law. Sometimes this information is called evidence. However, in criminal proceedings, not only the information that constitutes the essence of the evidence is used. The problem of information support of the investigation has become especially important in connection with the adoption of the Law «On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine to Simplify the Pre-trial Investigation of Certain Categories of Criminal Offenses». The authors of the article consider the peculiarities of the special knowledge using during the pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses in the form of inquiry. According to the current CPC of Ukraine, the investigator may conduct an inspection of the scene and a medical examination before entering the information into URPI. The means of information support of the inquiry, which requires the use of special knowledge in the field of medicine, should include a medical examination (paragraph 2, part 3 of Article 214 of the CPC). It can be conducted before the information is entered into the URPI, and its results are recognized as a source of evidence (Article 298-1 of the CPC). Unfortunately, the legislator did not specify the purpose of the medical examination and the procedural document, which should reflect the results of this procedural action. Establishing the condition and features of the human body requires appropriate research, which is the subject of forensic examination. The use of special knowledge in the process of information support criminal offenses investigation, requires further research and regulation. A clear distinction at the regulatory level requires the purpose of examination and forensic examination. As this issue arises at the initial stage of the proceedings, changes are required to the CPC of Ukraine, as the authors note in this article.

Special knowledge is important in the formation of the evidence base in criminal proceedings. With the help of special knowledge, it is possible to establish facts and reproduce events that cannot always be determined through the testimony of participants in the process or through investigative actions. The use of special knowledge is regulated by law, but in practice there are examples of inappropriate compliance with the procedure for attracting specialists and experts as carriers of special knowledge, assigning and conducting examinations and special studies, and correctly assessing the results obtained. In this connection, the purpose of scientific research is to study the procedural requirements for the use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings and to identify problems that arise in law enforcement practice. The authors used methods of comparative analysis, formal logic and documentary control in the research process. As a result, the authors formed their view on the use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings in order to assist specialists in assessing evidence and their sources at the stage of pre-trial proceedings, presented criteria for analyzing the quality of the use of special knowledge (expert and specialist opinions) and the materials of a criminal case that influence their quality, used in the conclusions of experts and specialists in accordance with the requests of legal practice. The value of the study lies in the fact that the authors proposed independent solutions to overcome problems associated with the use of special knowledge in criminal proceedings.

The scientific article deals with some aspects of the investigation of crimes against morality. The peculi-arities of the use of special knowledge in the investigation of this category of criminal offenses are con-sidered. The author emphasizes that during criminal proceedings at the stage of both pre-trial investigation and in court, questions may arise, which, due to their narrow specialization and unlawful nature, may not be within the power of the investigator and the court. In such cases, other participants in the criminal process are involved in the process of proving - persons who have special knowledge sufficient to make a qualified solution to the problem. It is noted that special knowledge is a set of theoretical knowledge and practical skills in the field of science, technology, arts, crafts obtained as a result of vocational training and professional education used for the prevention and investigation of criminal offenses. The view is maintained that the following should be attributed to independent forms of the use of specialized knowledge: the direct application of specialized knowledge in science, technology, art and craft by the judge himself; appointment of examinations; appointment of audits; knowledge that is inherent in various types of professional activity, except knowledge that is professional for the investigator and the judge, and is used in the investigation of crimes and criminal proceedings in court in order to facilitate the establishment of the truth of the case in cases, forms and procedures determined by criminal- procedural legislation; consulting assistance of a specialist without involving him personally in court actions; expert's participation in court actions. It is emphasized that specialized knowledge can be used directly and indirectly by an authorized person. Based on the analysis of judicial investigative practice, the following were distinguished among the main forms of use of special knowledge in the investigation of crimes against morality: direct (use of special knowledge by investigators in carrying out individual procedural actions); mediated (appointment of forensic expertise and involvement of relevant specialists in individual procedural actions).

This article examines the possibilities of using machine-readable law technologies in criminal procedural legislation and criminal proceedings; the analysis of the Concept of development of technologies of machine-readable law is carried out in order to determine the possibility of applying its provisions in the context of criminal procedural law. According to the author, the development of the technology of machine-readable law sets the legislator the task of starting the process of adapting the norms of the criminal procedure law to their subsequent presentation in formal language. Legislative acts should be structured as much as possible, within the acts, norms are more clearly divided into certain categories and groups with the building of logical connections between them. The norms of legislative acts need to be formalized, their content should not have legal and linguistic uncertainties, normative conflicts and broad discretionary powers. The conclusion is made about the need for legal transformations, formalization of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, based on the principle of legal certainty. If the adaptation of legislation to machine-readable norms is the future in the development of science and the system of legal regulation of the state, then the use of digital technologies in criminal proceedings is a matter of the present. It seems that modern digital technologies are sufficiently developed to start developing an automated information system at the state level that meets the formal requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, within the framework of which a preliminary investigation will be carried out. Moreover, we are talking not only about the «electronic criminal case» in its generally accepted understanding. The author proposes the creation of a comprehensive universal program that provides for the automated application of the ontology of machine-readable law (descriptions in the formal language of many objects in the field of law and the connections between them) in the investigation of criminal cases using the method of teaching artificial intelligence based on a large array of data (including data, constituting the empirical base of research, which was studied in the development of private methods for investigating certain types of crimes).

Modern criminal justice faces new challenges due to digitalization and the potential implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Despite their potential to enhance the efficiency of criminal justice, these technologies pose risks and threats to the fundamental principles of criminal procedure, such as fairness, transparency, adversarial proceedings, and judicial independence. Special attention is given to the opacity of AI algorithms, which may undermine trust in the justice system. Furthermore, the lack of a clear regulatory framework for the use of AI creates additional legal risks for participants in criminal proceedings. The study aims to identify the risks and threats of integrating AI into criminal justice and to develop recommendations for establishing a risk management system. The goals include detection challenges arising from the digital transformation of criminal procedural activities, study of regulatory frameworks governing the digitalization of public administration, assessing the compatibility of AI technologies with traditional principles of criminal procedure, and proposing measures to mitigate risks. The study employs a risk-oriented approach, which involves risk identification, analysis, and management. The authors categorize risks into several types: geopolitical, infrastructural, operational, project-related, information security, and legal risks. The methods used include analysis of regulatory frameworks, forecasting, and a systematic approach to integrating AI into criminal justice. The study outlines the stages of creating a risk management system, including planning, identification, analysis, and management. In conclusion, the article emphasizes the need for a legal framework to regulate the use of AI technologies in criminal proceedings and highlights the importance of establishing a system to monitor, prevent, and manage risks. Such a system would facilitate the effective integration of new technologies while preserving the fundamental principles of criminal justice. In this context, enhancing the transparency of the criminal justice system and defining a core risk management strategy are of particular urgency and significance.

The article deals with the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings as a separate element of the Belarusian criminal procedural law, is determined by its nature, legal nature, importance, goals, objectives. Consideration of this issue in the future, will determine the possible directions of development of the refusal to institute criminal proceedings in the context of the evolution of the Belarusian criminal procedural law. The refusal to initiate criminal proceedings has the goals, objectives, regulated remedial order. The refusal to initiate criminal proceedings is a "filter". He avoids conducting the investigation if it is not needed. This is due to the end of the application or report a crime and the termination of criminal procedure relations. Therefore, the purpose of the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings is to stop the body's activities, carry out checks on materials, if there is reason to. For immediate tasks refusal to initiate criminal proceedings include: the prevention of illegal and groundless institution of criminal proceedings; preventing unjustified suspicions, accusations and criminal prosecution of innocent persons; identification of the causes and conditions of committing crimes; the impact on the person who committed the crime without criminal prosecution. These objectives are not exhaustive and are derived directly from the overall objectives of the criminal proceedings under Art. 7 Code of Criminal Procedure. In the article the discussion the question of finding the refusal to institute criminal proceedings in the legal system. The refusal to open a criminal case has the features of a legal institution: the union of the law, certain social relations. For this reason, the author of the article concludes that the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings is subinstitution law. This allows us to offer the author's failure wording of the criminal case, which is an independent subinstitution criminal procedural law, which on the basis of set of rules laid down in the Criminal Procedure Act, regulates the activity of the body of inquiry, the head of the investigative division of the investigator and prosecutor for the imposition of the same name resolution , due to the presence of circumstances precluding criminal proceedings during the audit by the statements and reports of crimes. The author proposed to introduce in Article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the hours 22 marked with one of the following terms: "the refusal to institute criminal proceedings - Procedural decision of the inquiry body, the head of the investigative unit of the investigator or the prosecutor, issued as a result of consideration of applications and reports of crimes in the absence of. grounds under Art. 167 of this Code". In order to address the identified inconsistencies standards Code of Criminal Procedure, the author proposes a new version of h. 1 tbsp. 178 Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus: "If there were no grounds for criminal prosecution body of inquiry, the head of the investigative unit, the investigator, prosecutor shall make a reasoned decision on the refusal to institute criminal proceedings." In conclusion, the author concludes that the refusal to open a criminal case should be seen as a means of implementing the rights and freedoms of citizens. This will determine the possible directions of development of the refusal to initiate criminal proceedings.

This is a book about the law of legal professional privilege and its practical application in criminal cases and internal investigations. It is intended to be a single point of reference for all criminal practitioners regardless of the type of case in which they are involved. Although aimed primarily at criminal defence lawyers—both solicitors and barristers—it also contains guidance for others involved in the criminal justice system more widely, including prosecution lawyers, investigators, independent counsel undertaking privilege reviews, and members of the judiciary who are asked to determine privilege issues in criminal proceedings. The content and structure of the book are determined first and foremost by the practical issues that criminal lawyers encounter and the stage in proceedings at which they typically arise. Topics include communicating with third parties to obtain evidence for trial, invoking the crime-fraud exception in criminal proceedings, the effect on privilege of disclosing the reasons for advice to answer no comment, the relationship between privilege and powers of search and seizure, conducting privilege reviews, compelled interviews, reference to privileged material in an expert’s report, prosecution privilege and disclosure obligations, corporate cooperation and waiver of privilege, inadvertent waiver by lawyers at court, appeals based on criticism of previous legal representatives and fresh evidence, and the extent to which privilege can apply to internal investigation witness interviews and fact-finding reports.

According to Art. 1311 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Art. 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), the prosecutor in criminal proceedings supervises compliance with the laws during the pre-trial investigation in the form of procedural guidance. In essence, this means that it is the prosecutor who is responsible for organizing the pre-trial investigation process, determining its directions, coordinating the conduct of procedural actions, and ensuring compliance with the requirements of the laws of Ukraine during criminal proceedings. When carrying out procedural guidance of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor has constant access to procedural information, is aware of all key decisions made by the investigator, is obliged to promptly eliminate violations of the law, and on the basis of the evidence collected under his leadership, subsequently supports the public prosecution in court. The prosecutor is the official who takes part throughout the entire criminal proceedings. Of course, at each separate stage, the functions and powers are different and reflect the peculiarities of a particular stage of criminal proceedings. The article examines the features of the prosecutor’s participation in the process of providing evidence during the pre-trial investigation. This stage is regulated by criminal procedural law and is aimed at the rapid, complete and impartial establishment of the circumstances of the criminal offense committed, so that everyone who committed it was held accountable to the extent of their guilt, no innocent person was accused, no person was subjected to unjustified procedural coercion and that due legal procedure was applied to each participant in the criminal proceedings. Evidence in criminal proceedings has always been one of the most discussed problems among scientists and practitioners. This situation is primarily explained by the importance of evidence and the process of providing evidence. In general, it can be noted that the main purpose of criminal proceedings is the establishment of circumstances stipulated in Art. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this article that determines the actual direction of criminal procedural activity, because in order to achieve the goal of the investigation and a fair trial, it is necessary to establish the event of a criminal offense, the person who committed it, the causal relationship between the act and this person. In fact, the process of proving determines the essence of the entire criminal proceedings, because it is aimed at achieving the main objectives of the criminal process. Its authorized participants play a key role in this activity. This especially applies to the investigator (investigator) and the prosecutor, who are charged with the duty of proof by law. Accordingly, it is these participants in the criminal process, by collecting, verifying and evaluating evidence, form the vector of criminal proceedings, which will determine the course of both the pre-trial investigation and the trial. And although the subject authorized to conduct the pre-trial investigation is the investigator, it is the prosecutor who has a more significant influence on the process of proving in criminal proceedings. He, as the procedural leader, must control the course of the pre-trial investigation, and at the time of drawing up suspicion and approving the indictment, objectively assess all the collected evidence, primarily from the point of view of its relevance, admissibility, reliability and sufficiency. Therefore, this article is devoted to the study of the prosecutor’s activities as a subject of evidence in criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation. The work analyzes the current legislation of Ukraine, scientific research on the evidentiary activities of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings. The materials of the article are of both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further scientific research of the features of domestic criminal procedural evidence, as well as for proper understanding and implementation of its law-enforcement criminal procedural activity.

In the criminal process, without the judges’ rigorous knowledge of the criminal act, actually produced, of the perpetrator’s person, of the objective circumstances that preceded, accompanied or followed the commission of the crime, of the subjective circumstances, as well as without clear knowledge of other circumstances. related to the case, the administration of justice is sometimes impossible. In order to ascertain the objective truth in the criminal cases of the factual data in the vast majority of cases it is necessary to apply special knowledge. In all the cases in which the expertise is spoken, a research carried out by the judicial expert is considered in order to clarify some questions that require special knowledge in one area or another. The most frequently asked questions are in the field of science, technique, art or craft. The law on judicial expertise and the status of the judicial expert defines judicial expertise as a scientific-practical research activity, carried out in the civil, criminal or contraventional process (hereinafter referred to as the judicial process) in order to find out the truth by carrying out methodical investigations with the application of special knowledge and technical-scientific procedures for drawing some argued conclusions about certain facts, circumstances, material objects, phenomena and processes, the human body and psyche, which can serve as evidence in a judicial process

Introduction. 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, adopted by the State Duma on November 22, 2001 by Federal Law No. 174-FZ. The development of criminal procedure legislation in these years was not always consistent, often characterized by chaotic and hasty measures. Nevertheless, the main factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, as well as the key trends in the legal regulation of criminal procedure legal relations, have remained fairly stable for twenty years. Theoretical Basis. Methods. The object of the study is the norms of criminal procedure law that have emerged and developed during the period of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation since 2001. The methodological basis of the study is the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, which allowed us to study the subject of the study in relation to other legal phenomena, as well as general scientific methods of knowledge (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, and modelling) and private scientific methods of knowledge (formal legal, historical-legal, and comparative-legal). Results. Among the variety of various factors that determine the development of modern criminal procedure legislation, there are several main ones: 1. The impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal proceedings. Having ratified the European Convention for the Protection of Citizens’ Rights and Freedoms in 1998, Russia voluntarily assumed obligations in the field of ensuring citizens rights and freedoms, as well as creating the necessary conditions for their implementation. Among the most important criminal procedure norms and institutions that have emerged in the system of criminal procedure regulation under the influence of the positions of the ECHR, the following are notable: a reasonable period of criminal proceedings, the rights of participants in the verification of a crime report, the disclosure of the testimony of an absent witness at a court session, and alternative preventive measures to detention. 2. Optimisation of procedural resources and improvement of the efficiency of criminal proceedings. From the very beginning of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, there was a special procedure for judicial proceedings, which is a simplified form of consideration of criminal cases, provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. In 2009, this procedure was extended to cases with concluded pre-trial cooperation agreements (Chapter 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), and in 2013, the institute of abbreviated inquiry appeared in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation (Chapter 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). 3. Social demand for increasing the independence of the court, and the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings. Society’s needs to improve the independence of judges, increase public confidence in the court, transparency and quality of justice led to the reform of the jury court in 2016 (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 190-FZ). As a result of the reform, the court with the participation of jurors began to function at the level of district courts, the jurisdiction of criminal cases for jurors was expanded, the number of jurors was reduced from 12 to 8 in regional courts and 6 in district courts. However, practice has shown that sentences handed down by a court on the basis of a verdict rendered by a jury are overturned by higher courts much more often than others due to committed violations, which are associated, among other things, with the inability to ensure the objectivity of jurors. In the context of a request for an independent court, Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the independence of judges (Federal Law of 2 July 2013 N 166-FZ) was adopted. 4. Reducing the degree of criminal repression. In the context of this trend, institutions have emerged in the criminal and criminal procedure laws that regulate new types of exemption from criminal liability. In 2011, Article 281 “Termination of criminal prosecution in connection with compensation for damage” was adopted, concerning a number of criminal cases on tax and other economic crimes (Federal Law of 7 December 2011 N 420). In 2016, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation introduced rules on the termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution in connection with the appointment of a criminal law measure in the form of a court fine (Federal Law of 3 July 2016 N 323-FZ). 5. Digitalisation of modern society. The rapid development of information technologies and their implementation in all spheres of public life has put on the agenda the question of adapting a rather archaic “paper” criminal process to the needs of today, and the possibilities of using modern information technologies in the process of criminal proceedings. Among the innovations in this area, it should be noted the appearance in the criminal procedure law of Article 1861 “Obtaining information about connections between subscribers and (or) subscriber devices” (Federal Law of 1 July 2010 N 143-FZ), Article 4741 “The procedure for using electronic documents in criminal proceedings” (Federal Law of 23 June 2016 N 220-FZ), the legal regulation of video-conferencing in criminal proceedings (Federal Law of 20 March 2011 N 39-FZ), and the introduction of audio recording of court sessions (Federal Law of 29 July 2018-FZ N 228-FZ), etс. Currently, the possibilities of further digitalisation of criminal proceedings, and the use of programs based on artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings, ets. are being actively discussed. Discussion and Conclusion. The main factors determining the vector of development of modern criminal justice should, in our opinion, include the impact of international standards in the field of criminal justice on Russian criminal justice; optimisation of procedural resources and the need to improve the efficiency of criminal justice, social demands for strengthening the independence of the court, adversarial criminal proceedings; the needs of society to reduce the degree of criminal repression, and digitalisation of modern society.

The institution of encouragement in criminal proceedings is an alternative form of making a final decision on a criminal case. The resolution of a criminal case through the use of incentive forms entailing the release from criminal liability of the defendant involves active actions of participants in procedural relations: the will and desire of the parties to terminate the criminal case in one of the alternative ways to the court verdict; negotiating to determine the main mutually beneficial conditions and their coordination; the fulfillment of these conditions and the final confirmation of such agreements by a single «conventional» petition for the termination of the criminal case on the appropriate grounds. The parties exercise active procedural powers within the framework of the principles of disposability and adversarial criminal proceedings. This indicates the universality of the incentive norm. It is possible to effectively apply alternative measures in criminal proceedings with the mandatory explanation by the court to the persons participating in the case of the procedural possibilities of these measures. The conducted analysis indicates the need for legislative consolidation of the procedural obligation of the court when considering criminal cases against persons brought to criminal responsibility for the first time on charges of committing a crime of small or medium gravity, to explain to the participants of the process the non-rehabilitating grounds for termination of criminal prosecution provided by the current legislation. The author believes that this duty of the court will allow to resolve the issue of initiating the procedure for the application of incentive norms by the parties, as well as the court to understand the procedural perspective of this procedure for resolving a criminal case.