Grounds for choosing a preventive measure in the form of house arrest and their proof

in modern conditions, the correctness of the election of preventive measures by the courts depends not only on the effectiveness of criminal proceedings, but also on the attitude of citizens to the Russian justice system. At the same time, the problems associated with the choice of house arrest as a preventive measure, which, along with detention, is a measure restricting a person's right to freedom of movement, but more "soft" in terms of its application, are becoming particularly relevant. Despite the existence of this more "mild" preventive measure in the norms of current legislation, its application is associated with a number of practical problems. Firstly, there is a formal approach of the preliminary investigation bodies, laying down unsubstantiated assumptions about whether the accused (suspect) has the opportunity to commit one of the actions listed in Article 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and not providing the court with sufficient information about the identity of the person in respect of whom a preventive measure is being chosen. Secondly, it is important to note the problem of misinterpretation of the provisions of Article 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on the application of house arrest, which leads to the establishment in court decisions of more loyal conditions for serving house arrest than provided for by the norms of Russian legislation. In these conditions, the solution to the problem can only be the development of legislative provisions that clearly regulate both the procedure for making a decision by the courts on the election of house arrest and the mechanism for its serving by the accused (suspects) of committing an illegal act. However, the development of appropriate legislative provisions requires additional scientific research.

criminal proceedings, election of preventive measures, house arrest, detention, restriction of freedom