International cooperation in the fight against crime. International cooperation to combat crime. International criminal justice. UN bodies dealing with crime issues

1. The concept of criminology as an academic discipline Criminology as an academic discipline deals with the study of crimes, their causes, types of their relationship with various phenomena and processes, as well as the effectiveness of measures taken in the fight against crime. Criminology

1. History of the development of the prosecutor's office The history of the development of the prosecutor's office begins from the time of Peter I, when the positions of prosecutor general and chief prosecutor under the Senate of Prosecutors were first established. The prosecutor general is the person who heads the activities of all prosecutors,

§ 1. The place of criminal punishment in the fight against crime The most acute measure of state coercion that is used by the Soviet state is criminal punishment. It is possible to correctly understand the place and evaluate the role of punishment in the fight against crime

International cooperation in crime prevention.

Transnational (international) crime is a set of crimes committed that harm the development of human society. Transnational crimes: crimes against peace, including planning, preparation, initiation or waging war in violation of international treaties, agreements (genocide, ecocide); crimes against humanity, including murder and other atrocities committed against civilians before or during war (biocide, mercenary activities); war crimes involving violations of the laws or customs of war.

Major crimes of an international (transnational) nature. Crimes detrimental to peaceful cooperation and normal interstate relations (terrorism, aircraft hijacking, hostage-taking, theft of nuclear weapons, illegal radio broadcasting); crimes harmful to the economic and socio-cultural development of states and peoples (illicit trafficking in drugs and psychotropic substances; counterfeiting, smuggling, illegal immigration, criminal attacks on the environment, criminal attacks on national and cultural heritage)

Activities of the United Nations Committee on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders. UN International Congresses on the Prevention and Treatment of Offenders. International organizations with consultative status at the UN. International Association criminal law; International Society of Criminology; International Society social protection; International Penitentiary Society.

International criminal police organization Interpol. Goals, objectives, functions, structure of Interpol. Interpol in the international search and extradition of criminals. Interpol in social and legal control over: organized and economic crime; terrorist activities; drug trafficking; theft of items of cultural value; counterfeiting and forgery of documents; high technology crime; motor vehicle crimes, etc.

Forms of international cooperation in the fight against crime. International crime control refers to the cooperation of states in the fight against certain types of crimes committed by individuals. This cooperation has gone through a long evolution. The first form of such cooperation was cooperation in the extradition of criminals. At a certain stage, the need arises to exchange experiences. As scientific and technological progress develops, cooperation in this area is also changing and playing an increasingly significant role in relations between states. The same thing happens with the provision of legal assistance in criminal cases, including searching for criminals, serving documents, questioning witnesses, collecting material evidence and other investigative actions.

Recently, the issue of providing vocational and technical assistance has occupied a prominent place in relations between states. Many states are in dire need of equipping their law enforcement agencies with the latest technical means necessary to combat crime. For example, detecting explosives in the luggage of air passengers requires very complex and expensive equipment, which not all states are able to acquire.

Cooperation between states is developing at three levels.

1. Bilateral cooperation. Here, bilateral agreements are most widespread on issues such as the provision of legal assistance in criminal cases, the extradition of criminals, and the transfer of convicted persons to serve their sentences in the country of which they are citizens. Interstate and intergovernmental agreements, as a rule, are accompanied by interdepartmental agreements, which specify the cooperation of individual departments.

2. Cooperation at the regional level is determined by the coincidence of interests and the nature of relations between countries in a certain region. For example, in 1971, 14 OAS member states signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Acts of Terrorism in Washington. Within the CIS, such cooperation is developing very quickly: in January 1993, in Minsk, the Commonwealth countries (except Azerbaijan) signed the Convention on Legal Assistance in Civil/Family and Criminal Matters.

3. Cooperation at the universal level began within the framework of the League of Nations and continued at the UN. Currently, a whole system of multilateral universal treaties in the field of international criminal law has been created.

International cooperation in the fight against crime involves states solving several interrelated tasks:

a) harmonization of the classification of crimes that pose a danger to several or all states;

b) coordination of measures to prevent and suppress such crimes;

c) establishing jurisdiction over crimes and criminals;

d) ensuring the inevitability of punishment;

e) providing legal assistance in criminal cases, including the extradition of criminals.

Forms of international cooperation in social and legal control over crime: international consultations; development of cooperation programs in the field of crime prevention; exchange of law enforcement experience; transfer of persons sentenced to imprisonment to serve their sentence in the state of their citizenship or permanent residence. Transfer of supervision over suspended sentenced or conditionally released offenders to authorities of another state, extradition of criminals to another state, or international body for criminal prosecution, training, provision of expert services, supply of special scientific and technical equipment and provision of logistical assistance to other states.

Related information.

The international fight against crime is one of many areas of cooperation between states. Like all cooperation, it develops on a unified basis of the basic or general principles of their communication historically established in international law. These principles discipline cooperation, subordinate the rules and procedures for interaction between states in all areas, since they are endowed with the property of imperativeness.

As the highest criterion of legality, they serve as the normative basis for the law-making and law-enforcement process in all areas of cooperation between states, including in their joint fight against criminality. The basic principles form the foundation of the international legal order, which is created and maintained by the state. The very level of legal order depends on the degree to which they recognize these principles and follow their instructions.

The most authoritative international legal documents, where they were first collected, were the Charter of the United Nations, adopted in 1945, as well as a special document with the lengthy title “Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” ", adopted in 1970. The Declaration called on states to “be guided by them in their international activities and develop their relationships on the basis of their strict observance.

Both documents contain 7 principles. Now there are more of them. The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, signed in 1975 in Helsinki by all countries of the continent of those years, as well as the USA and Canada (a total of 35 states), names ten principles. The first five: non-use of force and threat of force, inviolability of state borders, territorial integrity of states, peaceful resolution of conflicts, equality and the right of peoples to control their own destinies - are united into a common group of principles that ensure peace and security on Earth.

In the above list, each of the ten principles is strong because of its interconnectedness with all the others: “the weakening of the unity of the basic principles undermines their effectiveness as a whole. Only in unity, in close interaction, can they function properly.

References to general principles - all together or two or three of them - are found in many such agreements. For example, the preamble to the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation, signed in Rome on 10 March 1988, calls on its parties to strictly adhere to the general principles of international law. The UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, adopted the same year, states that “... the parties shall implement their obligations under this Convention in accordance with the principles sovereign equality And territorial integrity states and the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of other states" (Article 2, Part 2).

Three of the general principles, namely cooperation, non-interference in each other's internal affairs and respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms, must be considered, since they operate in the field of international cooperation in the fight against crime not only as general, but also as special.

General principles of international law in cooperation between states in the fight against crime.

The principle of cooperation between states is codified in the above-mentioned Declaration of 1970, where its normative content is revealed as follows: “States are obliged to cooperate with each other, regardless of the differences in their political, economic and social systems, in various fields of international relations with a view to maintaining international peace and security and promoting economic stability and progress, the general welfare of peoples..."

This equally applies to cooperation between states in the fight against crime. Although criminality does not pose a fatal threat to the security of states and the world as a whole, nevertheless, for each of them it is a huge evil. Let us remember, for example, that American presidents Since Lyndon Johnson, who was the first to name crime in America's No. 1 problem in his 1967 State of the Union address, the same assessment has been repeated every year.

According to survey results public opinion, crime is now turning into a similar problem in Russia. Crime has reached alarming proportions in many other countries. Each of them spends a lot of effort and money to contain it. But it cannot be otherwise. Otherwise, crime, especially transnational crime, can crush or subjugate everything state institutions, accept universal scales and forms, establish your power and your laws in the world.

According to Interpol estimates, currently political regimes in 11 countries around the world may fall under the pressure of the drug mafia.

States try to combat crime together through constant and constructive cooperation. There is no other alternative. Therefore, cooperation between states in the fight against crime, even without the requirements of the principle in question, has long acquired the character of an immutable imperative. This is confirmed by the large number of bilateral and multilateral treaties on combating crime concluded by states, the total number of which today is no longer countable.

Some crime researchers deny the obligation of international cooperation in the fight against it. Indeed, with the exception of an insignificant number of types of crimes, such as maritime piracy, pirate broadcasting from the high seas and some others, committed, as they say, in “no man's” (neutral) territory - in international waters, all other crimes are committed within the boundaries of territorial jurisdiction any particular state. Each of them itself, without the help of other states, is able to find, expose and punish the culprit (if, of course, it wants to do this and if it manages to “get” him), that is, if he has not fled abroad. If the act he committed does not pose a great danger, the state may generally refuse to prosecute and punish the perpetrator.

To follow or not to follow in such cases the principle of “inevitability of responsibility for a crime committed” is the internal matter of each state. However, states always strive not to leave those who have committed a serious crime unpunished, even if this means turning to other countries for help.

The increase in the number of such cases in the world practice of fighting crime has turned such cooperation from optional into an “urgent necessity” Sielaff W. Interpol - Europole - "Kriminalistik" (Hamburg). 1974. N 7. S. 304.

A similar conviction was expressed in the preamble of the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Sentences, signed in 1970 in The Hague by the member states of the European Council, in which they noted that “... the fight against crime is beginning to grow into an international problem.”

Principles of non-interference of states in each other's internal affairs.

Cooperation between states in the fight against crime is steadily expanding to include new problems that require their joint regulation. The object of such regulation also becomes individual issues that are traditionally classified as the “internal affairs” of states, but in the solution of which all of them (or the majority of them) turned out to be extremely interested.

Based on their own sovereignty, states themselves determine what exactly from the sphere of their “internal affairs” their own competence and to what extent can and should be transferred to international regulation. At the same time, “states shall refrain from making the object of the treaty issues that are exclusively within the internal competence of states.”

1. Each state determines for itself the problems and areas of cooperation with other countries, legal and organizational forms, in which it is ready to support it, the volume of its participation in each of the forms.

2. States also themselves determine the scope of obligations assumed under each concluded agreement, fixing this by introducing reservations into it.

For example, the USSR, when signing the 1970 Hague Convention against the Hijacking of Aircraft, made a reservation not to recognize the binding jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in possible disputes between two or more states concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention (Article 12) Gazette of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR . 1971. N 327. Art. 12, paragraphs 1 and 2.

3. Even decisions made in the fight against crime within international organizations- for example: the UN, ICAO, the World Health Organization (WHO) or Interpol - do not have the nature of interference for states in their internal affairs, since their legal force is only advisory in nature.

Let us now turn to the treaties that shape the policies and practices of states in their joint fight against crime.

Above we divided these agreements into two groups:

a) treaties, or more correctly, multilateral conventions on combating certain types of crimes;

b) agreements, mainly bilateral (there are only a few multilateral agreements of this type), regulating procedural institutions of cooperation - legal assistance in criminal cases, extradition, departmental (administrative) assistance (see below for details).

Each of the treaties of the first or second group in its own way refrains from interfering with the internal competence of the participating countries.

The principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, as the main provision of this policy, is formulated in the treaties of the first group. Thus, Article 18 of the International Convention against Counterfeiting of Currency states that “... this Convention leaves unaffected the principle that the actions provided for in Article 3 (acts that fall within the scope of the Convention are defined. - Author’s note), shall in each country be prosecuted, prosecuted and tried according to the general rules of its domestic law."

Each of the conventions of the first group has a mandatory article containing variants of the same norm. Let us present it as it is presented, for example, in paragraph 4 of Article 36 of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961: “Nothing contained in this article affects the principle that the crimes to which it relates are defined, prosecuted and punished by the Party in accordance with internal law of that Party."

A norm similar in content and almost identical in wording is in the UN Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (Vienna, 1988) - Article 3, paragraph 11: “Nothing in this article affects the principle that the description of the offenses referred to therein is within the scope of the national law of each Party and that such offenses will be prosecuted and punished in accordance with that law."

In a different way, but the same norm is formulated in Article 7 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (The Hague, 1970), which states that criminal prosecution persons who have committed a crime under the Convention is carried out “in accordance with the legislation of that State.” The same rule is in the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Security civil aviation(Montreal, 1971). In both Conventions, the norm in question is contained in Article 7.

Article 10 of the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (Rome, 1988) states that criminal prosecution of persons who have committed any of the crimes named therein is carried out “in accordance with the legislation of the given state.”

The same norm is in the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism (Strasbourg, 1977) (Article 7), as well as in the International Convention against the Taking of Hostages (Article 8, paragraph 1).

So, in the international fight against crime, the principle of non-interference in internal affairs is manifested primarily in the fact that: a) each of the states participating in cooperation, in maintaining it, relies on its own legislation; b) significantly limits the ability of treaty norms to interfere with national legislation.

This is also expressed in the fact that the norms of the agreements of the first group, which form the criminal legal basis for cooperation in the fight against crime, by their design (structure) are incomplete and not ready for their use for practical purposes. For this they do not even have a sanction, without which not a single norm of a repressive nature can be considered complete. States parties must first finalize and finalize the convention rules and only then introduce them into their domestic criminal legislation. Only after such a legislative procedure can the norms of international law be implemented “within the territorial supremacy of states where national law operates.” As a result of this procedure, they are transformed from international norms into norms of internal state law - criminal or criminal procedural.

Thus, the introduction on the territory of a state of norms that are incomplete in their design requires additional rule-making on the part of each of them and the adoption of a special legal act that turns an unaddressed international norm into a norm of domestic criminal law addressed to the subjects of the relevant domestic relations. This result is achieved by issuing a legal act by the state, which introduces a corresponding change or addition to its criminal legislation.

As for the treaties of the second group, in them states go even further in protecting their sovereignty from outside interference.

The treaties of this group regulate only the procedures, the procedure for maintaining contacts between countries in specific cases of providing legal assistance in criminal cases, extradition, and providing departmental assistance. The terms of cooperation, the procedure and channels for sending requests, the language in which the request sent abroad and the response to it are written are determined, and the possible reasons refusal to provide legal assistance in criminal cases, extradition of accused persons and criminals, and provision of departmental (administrative) assistance.

The norms of the treaties of this group (with rare exceptions) practically do not require additional rule-making from the states that have signed them. They are self-executing and in their self-execution do not affect the internal interests of states and do not interfere with the sphere of their internal competence and internal affairs.

The principle of respect for human rights and freedoms is “the obligation of states to respect and observe these rights without any discrimination in relation to all persons who are within the sphere of their jurisdiction, that is, to whom their power extends”

The first place of legal acts is occupied by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 Text of the Covenant. See: Collection of the most important documents on international law. Part 1., General. M., 1996. S. 143 - 163 (or Gazette of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. 1976. N 17. Art. 291). It was proclaimed "as an objective to which all peoples and all States should strive to... promote respect for these rights and freedoms and to ensure... universal and effective recognition and implementation (from the Preamble of the Declaration)."

Collection of the most important documents on international law. Part 1., General. M., pp. 96 - 102, as well as: Collection of United Nations standards and norms in the field of crime prevention and criminal justice. Ed. UN. New York, 1992. pp. 275 - 279.

According to Article 5, paragraph 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966<*>"no restriction or derogation of any fundamental human rights... is permitted." This norm forms the foundation on which all other norms must function. All others must be based on the requirements of this norm. Therefore, it is not surprising that many norms of both the Covenant itself and other international legal documents echo it.

Both cited documents contain a norm directly addressed to the police, militia and criminal justice authorities. This is Article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: “no one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or expulsion.” Article 9 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is similar in content, but more detailed: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one may be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention.

No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law."

Further, paragraph 2 of this article states that “every person arrested must be informed of the reasons for his arrest and the essence of the charge. Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge must be urgently brought before a judge or other official exercising local judicial power.”

In criminal proceedings, many Western countries Preliminary investigation bodies are vested with broad powers to apply preventive measures. The police also enjoy greater powers of arrest. The length of police detention in many countries is not regulated. However, the final decision on pretrial detention rests with the judges.

Article 9 of the Covenant introduces the concept of a “reasonable period” during which an arrested (or detained) person has the right to have his case resolved or to be released. Moreover, as follows from the text of the same article, the detention of persons awaiting such proceedings “should not be a general rule.” But release can also be made conditional on the provision of guarantees of appearance before the investigating authorities, the court, or for the execution of the court sentence.

In accordance with paragraph 4 of the same article 9, everyone “who is deprived of liberty as a result of arrest or detention” has the right to demand a trial of his case, so that the court can immediately decide the issue of the legality of his detention and order his release if detention is illegal.

And finally, the last provision of Article 9 of the Covenant, which is practically unknown to Russian justice: “everyone who has been a victim of unlawful arrest or detention has the right to enforceable compensation.” Such a norm, introduced into the legislation of a number of countries, is, of course, unable to stop law enforcement officials from illegal arrests or detention, since compensation is made not at the expense of officials, but from state budget funds. And yet, the presence of such a norm in the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in the legislation of countries, allows victims of illegal arrests or detentions to at least hope for compensation for the moral and physical suffering caused to them.

A prominent place in the international legal acts under consideration is also given to the protection of the rights of persons appearing before the court.

According to Article 14 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, all people are equal before courts and tribunals. Everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal.

Everyone accused of a criminal offense has the right to be considered innocent until his guilt is proven by law in court (presumption of innocence - Article 14, paragraph 2). When considering a charge brought against him, every person has the right to be informed in detail, in a language which he understands, of the nature and grounds of the charge brought against him; have the time and opportunity to defend himself and meet with a lawyer of his own choosing; to be tried in his presence, without undue delay, to have the assistance of a defense lawyer even in the absence of funds to pay for his work; have the right to call his own witnesses, as well as witnesses against him; use the help of an interpreter if you do not know the language in which the process is being conducted; not be forced to testify against oneself or to admit guilt.

The UN General Assembly in 1975 adopted a special Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment Compendium of United Nations Standards and Norms in the Field of Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice. Ed. UN. New York, 1992. pp. 259 - 260. But with the adoption of this Declaration as a non-binding document, inhumane and criminal practices were not stopped. On December 10, 1984, the UN General Assembly adopted the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or degrading treatment and punishment.

The drafters of the Convention took into account the diversity of actions that in practice often mask torture and harsh treatment of detainees, suspects and prisoners. And therefore, in the very first article of the Convention, the concept of “torture” was defined: this is “any act by which severe pain or suffering, physical or moral, is deliberately inflicted on a person in order to obtain information or a confession from him or a third person, to punish him.” for an act which he or a third party has committed or is suspected of having committed, or to intimidate or coerce him or a third party, or for any reason based on discrimination of any nature when such pain or suffering is caused by a public official or other person acting in an official capacity, or at their instigation, or with their knowledge or acquiescence."

The Convention obliged the signatory states to take effective legislative, administrative, judicial and other measures to prevent each of them. And at the same time, firmly adhere to the position that “no exceptional circumstances, no matter how serious, can serve as a justification for torture” (Article 2 of the Convention).

In Article 4, the Convention required states to consider all acts of torture as a crime. Attempts to use torture, complicity or participation in it are also subject to punishment. Courts should not use evidence obtained under torture unless it is necessary to do so against a person accused of torture.

According to Article 16 of the Convention, states must prevent on their territory any other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that do not fall within the definition of torture given in Article 1 of the Convention, when such acts are committed by a public official acting in an official capacity. capacity, or at their instigation, or with their knowledge or acquiescence.

Among the documents aimed at protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners deserve due attention. They were adopted at the 1st UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1955 in Geneva and approved by the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) ECOSOC Resolutions 663 (XXIV) of July 31, 1957, 2076 (XII) of May 13, 1977 and 1984/47 dated 25 May 1984..

The problem of punishment and resocialization of convicts, including those sentenced to imprisonment, is beyond the scope of our study. However, it is necessary here not only to name these Rules, but also to consider a number of their norms. And that's why. Contrary to their name, the Rules concern the detention of two categories of persons in places of isolation from society:

persons under arrest, investigation or awaiting trial, held either in police stations (pretrial detention centers) or in prison institutions, but not as convicted persons. This category of persons is called in the Rules “prisoners under investigation” (Articles 84 - 93);

persons sentenced to imprisonment by a court. They are called "convicted prisoners" in the Rules.

The rules emphasize their different legal status: “prisoners under investigation”, whose guilt has either not yet been established by the investigation or not recognized by the court, must be kept in conditions and conditions different from those of “convicted prisoners”. This difference is clearly emphasized by the Rules: until a court verdict, they are “considered innocent” (Article 84, paragraph 2) and a special regime should be applied to them:

young (namely young, and not just minors. - Our note, G. N) prisoners should be kept separately from adults “and, in principle, in separate institutions.”

The rules define other conditions that make the detention of “prisoners under investigation” different from the maintenance of convicted prisoners. In particular, they are allowed to receive food from relatives or purchase it at their own expense, wear their own clothes, and also purchase newspapers, books, writing instruments and other items with their own money that allow them to usefully occupy their time. But at the same time, the Rules contain a warning “not to forget about the safety and normal course of life in the establishment” (Article 90).

Untried prisoners must be given the opportunity to work, and their work must be paid (Article 89). They are also allowed “within reasonable limits” to enjoy the opportunity to communicate with relatives and friends “enjoying an unblemished reputation” (Article 37), to receive them in prison, subject only to those restrictions and supervision that are necessary for the official administration of justice, compliance with the requirements security and ensuring the normal operation of the establishment (Article 92).

Every untried prisoner has the right to seek free legal assistance, meet with a lawyer, and transfer to him confidential documents prepared by him. His meetings with his lawyer must take place in the presence, but out of hearing, of police or prison officials (Article 93).

All countries must implement the Standard Minimum Rules in their national legislation and, once implemented, they must be communicated to every detainee whenever he is placed in an appropriate pre-trial detention facility.

In our opinion, four special principles can currently be named:

1. Limiting cooperation to cases of ordinary crimes only.

2. The inevitability of responsibility for the crime committed.

3. Humanity.

4. Carrying out actions requested by foreign law enforcement agencies - procedural or operational - investigative - only in accordance with their national legislation.

International treaties on the fight against crime also name other special principles. But at the same time we are always talking about principles, the scope of which is limited by some institution of cooperation. For example, in extradition practice such principles as non-extradition of one’s own citizens are known, which are not applicable to persons who have gone through the procedure of issuing capital punishment, etc. Regarding these principles, and these are really special principles, it should be noted that, firstly, how We have already indicated above that they only apply to one or two international legal institutions, and secondly, even here each of them is not generally recognized: some states follow them, others do not.

The principle of limiting cooperation only to cases of ordinary crimes. Cooperation in the fight against criminal crime is carried out only for crimes that are called ordinary crimes abroad. This name covers the most significant part of the crimes found in the criminal legislation of countries. But their number does not include a number of specific groups of crimes, primarily political ones or crimes based on a political motive for their commission. Therefore, political crimes, as well as the persons who committed them, are not subject to international agreements of states on the joint fight against criminal crime.

Cooperation is also not supported on military crimes. And in Article 3 of the Interpol Charter, in addition to the two named groups of crimes for which members of this organization should not assist each other, cases of a racial and religious nature are also indicated. Such crimes create very delicate situations in relations between countries. Therefore, practice makes its own reasonable adjustments to their resolution: assistance in cases of a racial or religious nature is refused only if their perpetrators were guided exclusively by political motives, the crimes were of an overtly expressed or hidden political nature.

The principle of the inevitability of responsibility for an offense committed is accepted in the criminal justice of all countries as a necessary condition for maintaining a spirit of intolerance towards crimes and criminals in society, as an expression of the primordial faith of mankind that all evil must be punished. And a person who has violated the laws of society must answer for it. Punishment of persons convicted of committing a crime is the implementation of this principle.

The threat of punishing the guilty does not exhaust the role of this principle in society and the state. This principle also has a great preventive effect on unstable people. The famous Italian criminologist Cesare Beccaria noted that one of the most effective means of deterring crime lies not in the cruelty of punishments, but in their inevitability... Confidence in the inevitability of even a moderate punishment will always make a greater impression than the fear of another, more cruel one. , but accompanied by the hope of impunity. In the area of ​​international cooperation under consideration, the principle of inevitability of responsibility for a crime carries a significantly greater burden. More than a hundred years ago, the famous Russian author V.P. Danevsky expressed this idea this way: every crime, where and no matter who it is committed, is an encroachment on the general legal order that embraces all states, therefore no crime should be left unpunished, and every state that holds a criminal in power must punish him." Therefore, it is this principle that has become the foundation on which cooperation develops, the cement that holds it together, and the engine that pushes states to new joint actions, the search for effective means and methods of fighting crime. And most importantly, it forces states to conclude international agreements that create legal the basis of their constant cooperation, to establish international organizations.

At the II International Police Congress in 1923 in Vienna, where the creation of the future Interpol took place, one of the speakers (Austrian police representative Bruno Schulz) said that “international cooperation in the fight against crime has a dual goal - ideal and real. The first is to achieve recognition of the idea that a criminal is a criminal everywhere and as an enemy of society should not deserve leniency anywhere, he should be denied the right of asylum everywhere and should be subject to criminal prosecution regardless of what country he came from or where he committed the crime.

This idea should receive universal recognition.

The real goal is the practical implementation of this idea, the unification of states into a united international front in the fight against crime. Schultz Bruno. Nachrichtendienst uber internationale Verbrecher. Archiv fuer Kriminologie. Leipzig. Band 76. 1924. S. 33.

On international level Nowadays, the principle of inevitability of responsibility for a crime is realized in the very fact of cooperation between states in the fight against crime. It seems that this is precisely why this principle is not mentioned in the preambles of concluded agreements.

Only rarely can such a reference to the principle in question be found in individual treaties, for example in the preamble to the European Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism of 1977 (Strasbourg). Its signing by the participating countries was motivated by the desire to “take effective measures to ensure that persons committing such acts do not escape prosecution and punishment.” This principle is specifically highlighted in the Convention, since not all countries and not always have the same sharply negative attitude toward every case of terrorism.

The absence of a reference to this principle in a treaty does not mean that states ignore it. This can be seen in the example of two related conventions - the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft (1970, The Hague) and the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (Montreal, 1971). Under both Conventions, states party to them are entitled to exercise jurisdiction over an offender apprehended on their territory, regardless of the place where the crime was committed and his nationality. The jurisdiction of the state is that, in accordance with each of the Conventions, it can take the offender into custody or take other necessary measures and conduct an investigation. When another state requests the extradition of an offender, it either extradites him to the requesting state or, “without any exception and regardless of whether the crime was committed on its territory” or not, it must “refer the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of criminal prosecution.” " (Articles 6 and 7 of the 1970 Convention and also Articles 6 and 7 of the 1971 Convention).

Without any indication of this principle of inevitability of responsibility, it is embodied in the institution of extradition, which is widely used in international cooperation in the fight against crime. The treaties of states that deal with extradition provide that in the event that a criminal cannot be extradited to the requesting state, the country refusing extradition is obliged to initiate criminal proceedings against him under its own legislation. In this case we are talking about a requirement widely known in the West and included in contracts - “aut dedere, aut punire” (either extradite or punish yourself).

In conclusion, we note that the significance of the principle under consideration goes beyond the outlined framework. It not only drives cooperation between states in the fight against crime when it operates on a prepared legal basis. This principle imperatively influences the behavior of interested states even in the absence of contractual ties between them. In particular, it prevents them from groundlessly refusing to extradite the required criminal or provide legal assistance in a criminal case. States, guided by the principle in question, most often fulfill a request on the terms of reciprocity or so-called international courtesy.

The principle of humanity. Encyclopedic dictionaries give a broad meaning of the term “humanity”: humanity, philanthropy, respect for people and their human dignity.

For centuries, humanity was in principle alien to the goals of criminal justice - to punish the guilty. This in itself excluded the manifestation of humanity towards them, respect for their human dignity. And even now, when the ideas of humanism took shape in the principle of the same name in the criminal policy of many states, their criminal prosecution bodies found themselves in very controversial situation: on the one hand, they must ensure the protection of all members of society from criminal attacks by individual members of the same society, and apply fair penalties to the latter.

On the other hand, they must apply the same principle of humanity to them.

Despite the seeming unnecessaryness of mentioning the requirement of a humane attitude towards perpetrators in the fight against crime, the principle of humanity is enshrined in the modern criminal legislation of many countries as a complete denial of the use of unjustifiably cruel and painful punishments. Humanity is manifested primarily in the presence in the criminal laws of countries of several sanctions for the same act, which makes it possible to choose in each specific case a measure of punishment that is necessary and sufficient, and at the same time the least of those that are permissible in this case. When a new law adopted after the commission of a crime establishes a more lenient punishment for such an act, the effect of this law extends to the offender in question, if he has not yet been convicted.

Further, in countries there is a wide practice of mitigating punishment and even releasing minors from it (under certain circumstances), elderly people, pregnant women, terminally ill prisoners. Amnesty and pardon are widely used, and attitudes towards the death penalty are changing, which has already been abolished in approximately half of the countries in the world. Death penalty. Analysis of global trends. International review criminal policy. Ed. UN. New York, 1990. N 38..

L.N. Galenskaya rightly noted the connection between the principle of humanity operating in the fight against crime and the principle of the inevitability of punishment for a crime committed: the perpetrator of a crime should not go unpunished. But the punishment itself should not only be a punishment for what he has done, but also include “the goals of resocializing the criminal”, so that “upon returning to normal life in society, the offender is not only ready, but also able to obey the laws and ensure his existence.”

Back in 1950, the UN General Assembly, by Resolution 415, decided to lead all efforts of the world community to combat crime and assumed responsibility for its prevention, including the resocialization of offenders in order to prevent relapse on their part. This work has become a permanent part of the programs of the UN and its Economic and Social Council. In order to periodically monitor the state of affairs in countries, familiarize themselves with the dynamics of crime and the measures taken by countries to combat it, the UN began to regularly, once every five years, hold International Congresses on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.

In the light of the principle of humanity, it is necessary to pay special attention to the final part of the name of these congresses - “treatment of offenders”. The English phrase "treatment of offenders", used in the original source, means the treatment regime, treatment of criminals, non-punitive influence on them with the aim of correcting them. And this best conveys the content of the principle of humanity in the UN policy of resocialization of offenders, especially those sentenced to imprisonment, with the aim of returning them to life in society as law-abiding members.

Therefore, the principle of humanity cannot be discarded by states in their joint criminal prosecution of persons guilty of committing a crime and the implementation of the principle of the inevitability of responsibility for the evil they have committed.

It is directly or indirectly present in many international legal documents that require or recommend that states adhere to agreed rules in the treatment of persons who are subject to criminal prosecution as a suspect or accused, detained or arrested, convicted or imprisoned, or simply a witness in the case .

a) The first block of international documents with a humanistic focus concerns specifically the treatment of persons arrested or taken into custody as a preventive measure, as well as persons sentenced to imprisonment. This:

Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders on August 30, 1955 and approved by ECOSOC as a recommendation for their application by practical bodies;

Procedures for the effective implementation of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, adopted and recommended by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations in 1984;

Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 43/173 in 1988

United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Non-custodial Measures (Tokyo Rules), adopted by UN General Assembly Resolution 45/110 in 1990.

b) The second block is documents aimed at ensuring that in the practice of law enforcement agencies in combating crime, torture and facts of cruel, inhumane treatment and punishment of persons with whom employees of these bodies have to deal, especially persons deprived of liberty, are forever eliminated. All persons deprived of their liberty have the right to humane treatment and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person (Article 10, paragraph 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; principle 1 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons... 1988).

The adoption of special international documents on this issue was preceded by the requirement to prohibit torture and cruel methods of treatment of people, formulated for the first time in Article 5 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

The reasons for the appearance of such articles in the named documents, as well as the adoption after them of two special international acts, speak for themselves, but the speed of their following one after another at short intervals indicates that each previous one did not have the effect for which it was intended . Particular concern was expressed by the international community when such a fate actually befell the first special document, which was the Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1975 as a recommendation to countries. Nine years later, in 1984, the UN adopted a more effective document dedicated to this problem - the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It differed from the Declaration not only in volume (33 articles, 12 in the Declaration), but also, mainly, in the fact that all its provisions were binding for the countries that signed it. In particular, the Convention obliges all its parties, within the limits of their national jurisdiction, to take effective measures to prevent the use of torture and similar forms of treatment or punishment. To do this, they had to criminalize all acts of torture mentioned in Article 1 and acts constituting participation, complicity, instigation or an attempt to commit torture.

INTERNATIONAL

cooperation

V. K. IVASCHUK,

Associate Professor, Department of Organization of Operational Investigative Activities,

Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor (Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia)

V. K. IVASHCHUK,

Associate Professor at the Department of Field Operations, Detection and Search,

Candidate of Law, Associate Professor (Management Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia)

International cooperation in the fight against crime - the environment for the formation of international legal standards

International Cooperation against Crime as Standard Setter in International Law

The article examines the role of international cooperation in the fight against crime in the formation and implementation of international legal standards.

International legal standards, international standards for fighting crime, international cooperation in fighting crime.

The author analyzes the nature and substance of international cooperation against crime. Also looked into is the role of this cooperation in setting and implementing norms and standards of international law.

International legal standards, international standards of combating crime, international cooperation against crime.

The concept of “international standards” is widely used in legal and scientific literature; it is contained in the names of some international legal acts and their texts. By their characteristics, international legal standards are rules in the form of a certain model of behavior. However, they are most often associated with human rights standards. It is also noteworthy that a significant part of such international standards is aimed at protecting persons involved in criminal proceedings (Articles 3, 5, 7-11 of the Universal

Declaration of Human Rights 1948). This allows us to consider international human rights standards in the context of the fight against crime. Moreover, the fight against crime is the state’s response to the violation of certain human rights (the right to life, the right to private property, personal integrity, etc.). In this regard, it seems logical that one of the main conceptual provisions of the fight against crime and national criminal policy should be the restoration of violated human rights.

At the same time, from the meaning of international human rights standards it follows that they are aimed at protecting the rights of persons brought to criminal liability, which is associated with the limitation of their rights “in order to protect the interests of the entire society or state.” Thus, as part of the implementation of national criminal policy, the state solves a dual task: restoring rights violated as a result of illegal actions and ensuring the rights of persons brought to criminal liability. It seems obvious that international human rights standards should be fundamental, conceptual in national criminal policy.

However, despite the conceptual significance of international human rights standards, other international legal standards are created in national criminal policy: sectoral ones, implemented in various branches of law (criminal, criminal procedural, operational investigative); administrative, defining the rules of conduct and requirements for the competence of officials implementing national criminal policy; standards for international exchange of information; standards for assessing the state of crime and other international legal standards in force in the fight against crime. At the same time, it is noteworthy that international human rights standards determine general, fundamental provisions in national criminal policy, while other international standards create conditions for cooperation between states in the fight against crime. They bring together national concepts and ideas about crimes and criminality of states cooperating in the fight against crime, unify certain norms of their law, which creates conditions for interaction between competent authorities. Accordingly, international legal standards can be classified according to sectoral, administrative and other characteristics.

Due to the fact that cooperation in the fight against crime, its level and quality are determined by the level of relations between states, such mechanisms for the unification of national law are clearly expressed in relations between the CIS member states. As O. N. Gromova notes, one of the ways to overcome difficulties in cooperation between states in the fight against crime may be the conclusion of treaties or agreements on the basic principles of legal regulation in the field law enforcement, i.e. the formation of standards in the field of law applied to combat

with crime. Within the framework of cooperation between the CIS member states, the practice of adopting model laws has developed that contain norms-standards, principles-standards. Their implementation at the national level makes it possible to unify the legal framework for the fight against crime, which, as noted above, creates conditions for cooperation between member states of the Commonwealth in this area.

The history of the formation and development of international cooperation in the fight against crime goes back to the distant past, and one of the main problems that was solved within the framework this direction cooperation between states is the achievement of a common understanding of the processes and phenomena in crime and the development of coordinated measures in the fight against its individual types. This was especially expressed during periods of intensification of such cooperation, which, of course, was a reaction to the development and spread certain type crime outside the borders of one state. At the initial stages, this was expressed in the form of declarations condemning the criminal activities of associations of representatives of different states. For example, in 1815 the Congress of Vienna adopted a declaration condemning the slave trade. An important achievement of the International Opium Convention of 1912 was the introduction of a ban on smoking opium and restriction of the use of opiates and cocaine for medical and other legitimate purposes. But within the framework of these international acts, the main issue was not resolved - the criminalization of acts that constitute a crime. Only in 1926 did the Slavery Convention specify the actions that constitute a crime, and in the 70s. XX century actions that constitute crimes related to the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances have been criminalized.

It should be noted that the need for the development and adoption of international standards in the fight against crime existed at all stages of the development of international cooperation in the fight against crime. Thus, in 1914, at the First International Congress of Criminal Police, the issue of the need to develop international standards for identifying individuals at a distance was resolved. In the last decade, the UN has initiated the issue of international standardization of crime assessments.

Thus, international standards for combating crime are developed in the conditions of cooperation between states in the area under consideration and are a product of this direction of international relations. Moreover, they act not only when

implementation of international cooperation in the fight against crime, but also in the national law of interacting states, ensuring such interaction. As a result, through implementation at the national level, international crime control standards influence the formation of national legal norms and national criminal policy in general. It follows from this that international legal standards for combating crime are regulators between national and international law, that is, a complex legal phenomenon that regulates the relationship between national and international law.

Analyzing international human rights standards in the context of the fight against crime and national criminal policy as conceptual provisions in this area of ​​legal relations, one should pay attention to the fact that issues of human rights have been considered by philosophers since ancient times, issues of cooperation in the fight against crime began to be studied by states much later. At the same time, the international consolidation of standards in the fight against crime occurred earlier than the consolidation in the field of human rights. This is most likely due to some differences in the nature of these standards.

The first legal recognition of human rights is associated with the French and English revolutions end of the 18th century But, as noted above, human rights standards received international legal status only in the second half of the 20th century. This was not due to cooperation in the fight against crime, but to the urgent need to protect human rights at the international level, including in order to ensure them through international legal measures. The impetus for this was the catastrophe of the Second World War, the danger of the outbreak of the next war.

However, what international crime control standards and human rights standards have in common is that they are implemented and enforced at the national level, but operate as international legal obligations. This correlation of international standards in the fight against crime and in the field of human rights is united by their implementation in national criminal policy.

At the same time, one should proceed from the fact that cooperation with foreign states is only part of the state system of combating crime and performs a supporting function in solving and investigating crimes at the national level.

International cooperation in the fight against crime is a special area of

tions, including the application of both international and national law. This requires an appropriate level of convergence of positions and views, a legal assessment of certain acts as crimes, as well as agreement on mutual actions to combat crime in general and individual crimes in particular. International cooperation in this case performs a supporting function in law enforcement in order to combat crime at the national level.

The need for states to bring together positions, views, legal assessments unlawful acts in the form of the adoption of certain declarative, legal, principled guidelines in the fight against crime, i.e. the formation of international legal standards for the fight against crime, is caused solely by the prerogative of states to bring individuals to criminal responsibility at the national level. Some exceptions are crimes that fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.

This relationship between the norms of international and national law applied to combat crime is determined by the modern world order, based on integration processes, which are inevitably accompanied by an increase in the share of the foreign component in national crime.

By participating in international cooperation relations, the Russian Federation, recognizing and implementing international legal standards, ensures the unification of the norms of its national law. This creates conditions for interaction between the competent authorities of states cooperating in the fight against crime.

In today's international environment, such cooperative relationships are essential. This is due to the internationalization of crime and the expansion of its scope. Accordingly, the development of cooperation between states in this area is their objective response to such processes, since at the national level and by the forces of only one state the fight against international crime is ineffective. In addition, there is often a need to obtain foreign legal assistance or carry out joint actions in order to disclose and investigate certain crimes that do not affect the interests of a foreign state.

Considering international cooperation in the fight against crime as a medium for the formation of international legal standards in this area, attention should be paid to the ambiguity of approaches to understanding international cooperation as a legal phenomenon.

International cooperation in the fight against crime as a special area of ​​international relations at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. highlighted by F. F. Martens, defining it as international criminal law. Revealing the essence of the category “international criminal law,” he viewed it as “a set of legal norms that define the conditions for international judicial assistance of states to each other in the exercise of their punitive power in the field of international communication,” which is the essence of modern international cooperation in the fight against crime.

International cooperation in the fight against crime as a separate branch of international law, which has its own subject of legal regulation, is considered by scientists G. V. Ignatenko, O. I. Tiunov, V. P. Panov, V. F. Tsepelev, A. P. Yurkov, which highlight international cooperation in the fight against crime as a separate sphere of relations, as an independent branch of international law.

A different point of view is shared by I. I. Lukashuk and A. V. Naumov, who consider international relations in the fight against crime as international criminal law, referring to it not only international acts and norms of criminal law, but also norms of a criminal procedural nature. In this case, the authors refer to Chap. 17 textbook edited by G.V. Ignatenko, O.I. Tiunova. In ch. 16 “Legal assistance and other forms of legal cooperation” of this textbook, the authors, along with issues of interaction between states in providing legal assistance in civil, marriage and family, labor relations, consider legal assistance in criminal cases, which relates to the field of international criminal procedure cooperation. Thus, I. I. Lukashuk and A. V. Naumov combine international criminal and criminal procedural law with an identical concept. At the same time, international criminal law is defined by the authors as “a branch of public international law, the principles and norms of which regulate the cooperation of states in the fight against crime.” International criminal law performs the same function as national criminal law - the function of criminalizing acts, that is, defining acts as crimes.

The objective basis for distinguishing international cooperation in the fight against crime into an independent branch of law is the presence of a separate subject of legal regulation. The formation of a branch of law is not an arbitrary process,

it is formed objectively, as a result of the emergence of a separate, isolated group of relations, the regulation of which is carried out using legal norms that have their own characteristics of formation, as well as their own characteristics of the regulatory regime. A branch of law is a set of legal norms that regulate a special, qualitatively unique area of ​​relations.

International cooperation in the fight against crime is a system of legal regulation of interaction between states and their competent authorities, based on the interaction of not only international and national law, but also their branches regulating relations in the field of combating crime.

To isolate international cooperation in the fight against crime into an independent branch of law, its relationship with other branches of law is also significant. First of all, this is private international law, which has gone through periods of recognition and oblivion and is close in nature to the type of international cooperation under consideration. In relations of international cooperation in the fight against crime, as in relations regulated by private international law, there is objectively a need to apply the law of foreign states, which is due to the presence of a foreign element. But international cooperation in the fight against crime and private international law have both similarities and differences.

The similarity of their nature is evidenced by the applied possibility of combining the institution of legal assistance in civil, family and criminal cases within the framework of a number of international treaties concluded by the Russian Federation with foreign states (for example, the Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Cases of 1993. ). It is unlikely to combine unrelated branches of law in one section of a legal act.

Private international and public international law are distinguished by the spheres of relations they regulate. In private international law, this is the area of ​​civil, family and labor relations. In international cooperation in the fight against crime, these are criminal, criminal procedural and operational investigative law. But both in international private law and in international cooperation in the fight against crime, international law is applied, playing a supporting, connecting role between the relevant norms of national law of interacting states, ensuring

defining their application by mutual obligations of equal subjects of international legal relations.

However, in private international law, regulated public relations are private, but regulated also by international law, whereas in international cooperation in the fight against crime, these relations are exclusively public. In this case, the concept of “international relations” is synonymous with the concept of “interstate relations”. In private international law, the concept of “international” means relations of a private law nature that have a foreign element, which allows the subjects of these relations - physical and legal entities- determine which norms of international law or the law of which state will be applied in their relations. Participants in private international legal relations do not have power, they are separated from state power and in this sense are participants in private

legal relations and have the opportunity to choose the applicable law.

Thus, recognizing international legal standards in the fight against crime as a product of cooperation between states in this area, it should be noted that the legal basis for international cooperation in the fight against crime is a separate interconnected set of norms of international and national law, special legal institutions (legal assistance, extradition, international transfer of criminal prosecution, joint international investigations, international controlled delivery, etc.), regulating a qualitatively unique area of ​​legal relations. It follows from this that the legal basis of international cooperation in the fight against crime has characteristics of an independent branch of law. At the same time, in the formation of this branch of law key role belongs to international legal standards as a special category of international law.

Bibliography:

1. Goncharov I. V. International standards in the field of human rights and their implementation in activities Russian police// Proceedings of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2015. No. 4 (36).

2. Gromova O. N. Main directions of conventional cooperation of the CIS member states in the field of law enforcement // Proceedings of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2013. No. 4 (28).

3. Ermolaeva V. G., Sivakov O. V. International private law: a course of lectures. M., 2000.

4. Zvekov V.P. International private law: a course of lectures. M., 1999.

5. Ivashchuk V.K. On the issue of classification of international criminal law standards // Proceedings of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2013. No. 3 (27).

6. Lukashuk I. I., Naumov A. V. International criminal law: textbook. M., 1999.

7. Martens F. F. Modern international law of civilized peoples / ed. L. N. Shestakova. M., 1996. T. 2.

8. International law: textbook for universities / resp. ed. G. V. Ignatenko and O. I. Tiunov. 3rd ed., revised. and additional M., 2006.

9. Panov V.P. International criminal law: textbook. allowance M., 1997.

10. Tsepelev V. F. International cooperation in the fight against crime: criminal law, forensic and organizational legal aspects: monograph. M., 2001.

11. Yurkov A. P. International criminal procedure law and the legal system of the Russian Federation: theoretical problems: dis. ... Doctor of Law. Sci. Kazan, 2001.

International cooperation in the fight against crime is carried out within the framework established by individual countries, on the basis of existing international agreements, national legislations, technical capabilities and, finally, the goodwill of all interested parties. This is an integral part of international relations. Even those states that do not have close political and economic contacts, as a rule, do not neglect contacts in the field of combating crime.

The forms of international cooperation in the fight against crime are very diverse:

1) providing assistance in criminal, civil and family matters;

2) conclusion and implementation of international treaties and agreements to combat crime, and above all transnational crime;

3) execution of decisions of foreign law enforcement agencies in criminal and civil cases;

4) regulation of criminal legal issues and individual rights in the field of law enforcement;

5) exchange of information of mutual interest to law enforcement agencies;

6) holding joint scientific research and developments in the fight against crime;

7) exchange of experience in law enforcement work;

8) providing assistance in training and retraining of personnel;

9) mutual provision of material, technical and advisory assistance. Strategic issues of international cooperation in the fight against crime are being resolved United Nations. The UN develops basic standards, principles, recommendations, and formulates international norms for the protection of persons accused of crimes and persons deprived of their liberty.

A form of international cooperation in the fight against crime is regularly held meetings of the ministers of justice, police and security services. The meeting of these departments is being prepared by working groups of experts.

In September 1992, the Ministers of the Interior and Justice of the European Community states decided to create Europol– a police cooperation body with headquarters in Strasbourg. Europol's main task– organization and coordination of interaction between national police systems in the fight against terrorism, control over the external borders of the European Community.

To combat criminal groups in Europe, it was created special group“Antimafia”, whose tasks include analyzing the activities of mafia groups and developing a pan-European strategy to counter the mafia.

Interpol, created on September 7, 1923, is not only a criminal police organization. Other law enforcement agencies also turn to its services. And the criminal police currently refers to functions, and not the system of organs itself.

Every year, international conferences, seminars, and expert meetings are held in Russia and other countries, where Russian legal problems are considered not on their own, but in the context of pan-European problems of strengthening law and order.