Each driver today is obliged to insure the car operated by the car by the special policy of the OSAGO. If a road accident occurs, the victim will necessarily receive monetary compensation from the insurance company of the culprit.

Dear readers! The article tells about the typical ways to solve legal issues, but each case is individual. If you want to know how solve your problem - Contact a consultant:

Applications and calls are accepted around the clock and seven days a week..

It is fast i. IS FREE!

But sometimes controversial situations occur, and none of the drivers want to recognize their guilt - such cases are resolved according to different accidents depending on the various circumstances.

Who solves the degree of guilt of the incident participants

All drivers today are obliged to insure their car with a special policy of OSAGO. Based on this document, it will be possible to obtain reimbursement of the corresponding value in the event of an accident.

This moment is reflected in detail in the current legislation currently regulating this time - Federal Law No. 40-FZ dated 25.04.02.

This regulatory document discloses in detail all the most important issues - including the order of determining the guilt.

Today, the following institutions correspond to the definition of guilt:

• insurance companies themselves - both the culprit and the victim;
• road police - constitutes a special scheme of the incident, and also determines the culprit on the spot, enters the relevant data to the protocol;
• the court of the appropriate instance - the choice of concrete is carried out on the basis of the amount of the claim.

It is very important to maximize how to pay exactly the procedure for drawing up an accident circuit. Since it is on the basis of this document a corresponding decision will be made.

This document is usually drawn up directly at the site of the road and traffic accident. That is why it is a traffic police officer for a significant impact on the establishment of the perpetrator.

But at the same time, the drivers themselves play a very important role, as well as eyewitnesses - since it is from their words that the DTP scheme is also drawn up, and the rest of the accompanying documentation.

When all the necessary documents are already formed and transmitted to the insurance company, the degree of guilt of a particular person will already be carried out to it. At the same time, the insurer's opinion may differ significantly from the rules of the road police.

If for some reason the result of the consideration of the case is simply not satisfied with any participant in the accident, it will be necessary to apply to the world (suit to 50 thousand rubles) or a district (suit - more than 50 thousand rubles) court.

It should be known that the decision made by the court has one feature - it is not subject to cancellation. But if necessary, you can try to challenge this document.

To do this, it will be necessary to submit a special cassation complaint. The situation when one of the participants in the accident for some reason does not consider itself guilty, quite often arises.

What documents indicate

All drivers, even if they are not participants in the road accident, it is necessary to familiarize themselves with the full list of all documents, where the guilty of the road accident is indicated.

The list of documents includes the following:

• special Protocol at the scene;
• administrative offense protocol;
• the protocol describing the circumstances that are the basis for bringing to criminal liability;
• - if all the conditions are made to compile it;
• road traffic circuit;
• special accident form - Insurance companies make this document directly to the OSAGO insurance policy issued.

But it should be remembered that in some documents, the culprit of an accident can only be indicated if he agrees with the fact of establishing its fault. For example, it is eurrethocol, an accident form.

If a protocol on an administrative offense is compiled - a participant in a road accident may not agree with it. To do this, it will be enough for him to sign and make a record - I do not agree with the protocol, I need to clarify the circumstances.

If one of the participants in the accident does not agree with its fault, he needs to flow in this way with all the documents, where it is indicated as the guilty.

Since if there really be a place to be a controversial moment, it agrees at the scene of the incident with all the arguments of the police officer and another participant in the accident, in the future it will be difficult to prove innocence.

If the culprit of an accident does not recognize the guilt - what to do? In such a situation, another member of the incident must act according to the instructions of the insurance company - to make all the necessary documents and to transfer them to the SC office as soon as possible.

It is advisable to make copies, since later they are likely to be needed for trial.

Procedure

A variety of emergency situations on the road are almost always controversial. If for some reason the culprit does not recognize his guilt, it is necessary to observe the following procedure:

• leave the car in the initial position, do not move it;
• enable an alarm, set all the corresponding signs;
• call traffic police, make up all the necessary documents;
• call representatives of the insurance company - if the accident is really serious.

After completing all the necessary procedures and the notation of the fact of the disagreement of one of the participants in the accident with their guilt, it will be necessary to contact directly into the traffic police.

Since the employees of this service should decide on the submission of the relevant verdict, recognizing any or guilty. Typically, the proceedings are assigned after a while.

It is mandatory to invite with you to the analysis of the following persons:

• witnesses of the road accident;
• competent autory.

Thus, it will be possible to avoid a large number of difficulties. In some cases, traffic police officers propose to wait 2 months - after this period, the initiation of an administrative offense is becoming impossible.

But in this case, problems may arise to obtain a compensation payment from the insurance, since all documents must be submitted as soon as possible.

What if the culprit first recognized the guilt, and then refused

The traffic accident in most cases is quite large stress. This is especially true of situations when an accident is really serious.

In such situations, it often happens that one of the participants of the emergence on the PE road recognizes its guilt, but after changes its position.

Motivation of this act may be the most different. But the consequences are always the same - the guilty writes a special statement of claim in court.

In such a situation, the victim will need to be applied as follows:

• collect all the required documents and make copies from them;
• submit the required list of papers in:
  • insurance company;
  • judicial authority (world, district - depending on the price of the claim).
• wait for the court session.

It must be remembered that the procedure for consideration of this kind of affairs sometimes takes a sufficient time.

If you realized your guilt, then you should not be difficult to express our regret. However, most people still have difficulty. It is necessary to understand that the recognition of guilt is power, and not weakness. And no special skills are required for this, the main thing is to be honest in front of yourself and others. Another thing, if you do not recognize your guilt, but you need to keep good relationships. In this case, you apologize to return the location of the person. You can consider in more detail these situations.

First of all, assess the amount of damage, moral or physical, which you inflicted another person or group of people. It will depend on it, in what form to prevent your apology. In shallow misconduct you can reassure in writing or by phone. But for more serious situations, these ways are not suitable, because they put you with a coward. Always try to ask for forgiveness personally.

The recognition of your guilt is often not enough, a vulnerable person wants to see in you the desire to correct errors. Even if you fix them seems to be too complicated for you, you should express your intention to try to do it. Very often, people are offended by each other because of the different perception of the same things. If you notice one of these differences in another person, take it to a note and try to continue to be enjoyable.

How to behave

Some people simply do not know in which words to recognize their guilt. They are afraid to choose stupid, look weak or funny. If you are from those people, think over your words on the eve. No need to present yourself as an actor who makes certain things at certain points. The possession of your body and gestures are not important, the content is important. Try in your words to transfer the depth of your repentance. Avoid excuses, they annoy. Keep the power to take responsibility for the deed.

Figuratively expressing, crawling on his knees - also a bad reception that can pour out a person even stronger. Express your readiness to work on the situation in a solid and confident tone, without crushing. Tell me what the conclusions did. Such formulations inspire confidence. Try to reinforce your words in the near future. If it is impossible to correct in principle, we do not even go for a person's decision to forgive you. It is not necessary to humiliate in this case.

After the recognition of their faults, thank the person. Even if he has not forgiven you yet or is not going, he spent his time and listened to you. Show that you respectfully take any decision. Do not impose a person if it makes it difficult to decide. Acute resentment greatly interferes with objective thinking of the problem, it takes a little time.

It is justified - it means for half a person to recognize itself guilty.
Andrey Belyanin

Today I want to tell about one important rule of completion of the protocol on an administrative offense. Applying this rule only one day, You are thereby Save not one thousand rubles Your his family budget, and also significantly facilitate the return procedure Your his driver's license.

So, the rule sounds as follows:

Let's try to figure out what it means, and how to apply the rule.

The administrative process differs significantly from the criminal topics That in the criminal process, repent of and recognizing his guilt, you will soften the punishment.

In the administrative process, on the contrary, recognizing your guilt, You personally subscribe to yourself that kind of punishment that deserve, on the basis of the article on which you are trying to attract.

When considering the administrative case, the judge only will need to agree with you and make Yours confession, in a judicial act.

The judge when considering the administrative case, first of all, pays attention to whether your signatures are available in the protocols (we talked in detail in detail in the article " " ), as well as on what You specified In the protocol on an administrative offense in the column "Explanations".

Most drivers give written explanations, under the dictation of traffic police officers and thereby recognize their guilt.

For instanceThe driver attracts on the article by the control of the vehicle in alcoholic intoxication. Driver, in the protocol writes: "We recognize the guilt. He drank a hundred grams of vodka. "

Either the driver is attracted by the article leaving the strip intended for the oncoming traffic. The driver in the protocol indicates: "I thought. The sign did not notice, so I left the head of the oncoming traffic. "

What decision should the judge make?! The driver himself recognized his guilt. Justice happened.

Remember that the court does not put the goal to deprive you of a driver's license. The court establishes the truth, you are guilty or not in a perfect administrative offense. Is not it You committed That offense, which is indicated in the protocols.

Traffic police officers must prove your fault. They collect evidence of your guilt.

One of the important principles of equitable justice is the principle of competition of the parties. One side accuses (In our case, traffic police officers), the other side proves His innocence. Recognizing his guilt, you will greatly facilitate the process of proving your guilt, performing the main part of the work for DPS officers.

Know that the law allows you to not recognize your guilt In perfect administrative offense. This provision is fixed in the article. 1.5 Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, which sounds as follows:

The person is subject to administrative responsibility only for those administrative offenses, for which its fault is installed.

A person in respect of which proceeds in the case of an administrative offense, it is considered innocent while his fault will not be proved and installedentered into legal force by the decision of the judge, the authority, an official who considered the case.

Person attracted to administrative responsibility not required Prove your innocence.

Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation also enshrines the presumption of innocence: no one is not obliged to To testify against yourself.

Therefore, never justify and do not compose legends. Be calm and judgment. In the protocols, specify: i do not recognize guilt.Let DPS employees prove Yourguilt, let courtsets the truth according to reality.

Everyone must do their job.

Well, we remember the main rule: Driver! Never admit your guilt in a perfect administrative offense.

That's all!

And remember: "walking well, on the car - better!"

Any lawyer knows the following expression: "The recognition of the accused of his guilt is the" queen of evidence. " This is the basis presumption of guiltwhich has long been one of the principles of the criminal proceedings built on the Inquisition type. It is not an exception and our country, where a convinced adherent of this legal formula was A.Ya. Vyshinsky. Such views were generally peculiar to the periods of hard authoritarian rule in Russia. If you appeal to the military charter of Peter I, then there you can find a position, according to which your own recognition of the accused guilt is the most valuable, the best proof.

Art. The 5 Criminal Code of the Russian Federation consolidated the situation according to which the objective imputation is not allowed. Art. 49 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in accordance with international conventions and agreements on human rights, the participant of which is Russia, quite fully reflected the principle of the presumption of innocence. Thus, the accused is innocent considered the basic law. The principle of the presumption of innocence in the process of establishing circumstances in the case guarantees the accused that bias from officials leading the process should be excluded. Art. 273 The current Code provides for the norm according to which the presiding, starting judicial investigation, asks the defendant, whether he recognizes himself guilty.

It should be emphasized that even leading experts in the field of the theory of the criminal proceedings did not escape the element of the subject of interrogation of the accused. This, in particular, is evidenced by the title and content of the article M.S. Strying "Recognition by accused of your guilt as a judicial proof." Such an approach persists in criminal procedural and forensic literature to the present. However, such use of the concept of guilt incorrectly in theoretical plan. After all, wine is a psychological state of the face at the time of the crime, his attitude towards the personal in the form of intent or negligence. This is perhaps the most difficult element of the crime composition and the provision of its content in practice meets the greatest difficulties. Of course, the subject of the indications of the accused may be a description of their mental state at the time of the crime, before it and after it is committing. These data play a significant role in solving the need to appoint psychiatric or psychological and psychiatric examination. But in any case, only the court can give them an assessment (as well as the investigator when interroging the accused under the preliminary investigation). The legal question about the guilt of the person, being a key element of the composition of the crime and the subject of proof is within the competence of the court and the investigator who have the necessary knowledge for this.

In practice, situations are possible when the accused says that he is guilty of a crime that can only be deliberately or even with direct intent, although in fact he committed an act by negligence or, accordingly, with indirect intent. After all, find a line between different forms and the more types of guilt - the task is not from the lungs even for a qualified lawyer. Thus, by putting the question of recognizing them of his guilt, the court uses the legal ignorance of the questioned and may further come to the situation when the defendant declares about the self-shared.

What then the meaning of the question of recognizing the accused of his guilt? Based on the above, asking such a question to the defendant, you can figure out only one thing - it attitude towards charges.Thus, there is a doubling of the concept of guilt, with which it is difficult to agree. Such a position is unacceptable both in theoretical and practical plan, since it can entail investigative and judicial errors leading to objective imputation. The answers of the accused to the question of "recognition", "partial recognition" or "non-recognition" of their guilt, although they have become traditional, are not related to the understanding of guilt as an element of interrogation of the accused and do not contain evidentiary information that really matters to clarify its guilt. If the accused (defendant) truthfully sets out the circumstances of the act, contributes to the disclosure of the crime, then in this case no special "recognition" is not required.

Wines (her shapes and species) are primarily a criminal law category. She receives his assessment when qualified by the court of a perfect crime on the relevant article of the Criminal Code. To do this, and before that, a real psychological mechanism of committing a crime must be established: its motive, purpose, consciousness of choosing an object of encroachment, knowledge of special signs of the latter, the presence of a certain plan for committing a crime, the selection of partners, or, on the contrary, the surprise of the decision to commit a crime and so Further. Being established, listed subjective circumstances are the evidentiary base on which the court, guided by the norm of the Criminal Code, determines the form and type of guilt of the defendant.

Thus, the state of interrogation of the defendant is the circumstances known to it relating to the case, including the disclosing the subjective side of the Act. The evidence of the defendant about the actual circumstances of the case is the implementation of its right to defense, including the desire to mitigate the penalties, taking into account the dacha of complete and true testimony.

The desire to obtain recognition by the accused of his guilt before the sentence is always a means of pressure on it in order to return the accused to his previous testimony given on the preliminary investigation. The court begins to repel not from the established actual data and the presumption of innocence, and from this recognition.

In recent years, the defendants who recognized their guilt during the preliminary investigation are often refused at the court session from previous testimony and declare that they confessed the crime as a result of the use of violence, threats and other illegal measures from the officials of the investigative bodies. The truth of each such statements is subject to careful check. But in practice, the form of such an inspection is still far from perfection. For a long time, the main method of solving this issue was the interrogation of investigators and operational police officers, on the misunderstanding of the actions of which the defendant referred to as witnesses. At the same time, naturally, the questioned "witnesses" was warned about criminal liability for evading the testimony and for the gift of obviously false testimony. Obviously, such interrogations have nothing but a gross violation of Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, according to which no one must testify against itself, and the respective law enforcement officials have forced to testify about the circumstances that may be imputed to them as a crime. It is clear that the answers were always almost the same. Currently, courts prefer interrogation of persons who have made a preliminary investigation, the direction of the corresponding materials to the prosecutor to verify the truth of the application of the defendant on the application of illegal investigative methods. It seems to be removed from the court the responsibility for the production of illegal interrogations, but the number of procedural disorders does not decrease. Criminal cases of these facts, the prosecutor's office still does not excite.

The question of the reliability of the statement of the defendant in the same way and the other method of verification remains open, the arguments of the defendant - not reliably refuted. By making a conviction, the court comes only from the assumption that the statement of the defendant on the use of violence, threats, etc. forbidden measures on a consequence or inquiry is false. At the same time, in the substantiation of the guilt of the defendant court, in the sentence, they often refer to its testimony, data on the preliminary investigation, although doubts about the legality of their preparation, which means that the admissibility of use as evidence remains unreasonable. Thus, another most important constitutional norm is violated - "Fatal doubts about the guilt of the face are interpreted in favor of the accused."

Article 21 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaimed the principle of respect for the dignity of the individual. It applies equally to criminal proceedings. From these positions to ask the defendant whether he recognizes himself guilty at the moment when the presumption of innocence was not yet refuted by the sentence of an independent, impartial and objective court, when the defendant is innocent for all present and participants in the process right, but also immoral in relation to the defendant.

In addition, itself, such recognition may be caused by various reasons for subjective order from the desire to hide another crime before the self-sharing with the purpose of freeing from the responsibility of a loved one. Recognition of guilt - also a kind of psychological attitude of the defendant to charges (and not to the perfect act, as noted above), psychological response to procedural action. Therefore, it, like other similar reactions, can not have any evidence.

Moreover, it is impossible to agree that the law and judicial practice has become a generally accepted position when, when changing the defendants of its testimony, the data at the preliminary investigation, the court and the public prosecutor begin to seek from the defendant explanations about this. This does not fit into the fact that the date of testimony for the defendant is the right, and not the duty, and therefore, to change or not to change its testimony is his personal matter. Priority in the case of contradictions should be given to indications given in the trial, in conditions of a vowel competition that ensures the highest level of procedural guarantees of the observance of the rights of participants in the process and, above all, the accused itself. Only in the case of a statement of the defendant on the forced dacha testimony as a result of applying unauthorized measures to it under the preliminary investigation, the Court must take appropriate measures to verify this data, including with the help of the defendant's testimony.

Art. 77 Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as a similar Code of Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR states: "Recognition by the accused of its guilt can be based on the prosecution only when confirmed by the set of evidence in the case." So the law approves - "the recognition of guilt may be based on the prosecution." Let's try to argue - it should not, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, and can not, since the appreciation of the accused can be obtained only after giving it such procedural status, that is, after the charges, but the prosecution is at the best charge The aggregate of the actual data collected by the consequence by the time of attracting the person as the accused. The indictment also should not go beyond the accusations established by the decision on attracting as an accused. So, the court is limited by the same framework.

The testimony of the accused cannot be obtained in the production of urgent investigative actions, since the interrogation of the accused is possible only after the charges formulated on the basis of the sufficiency of evidence, which are established: protocols of inspection of the scene, terrain, premises, corpse, search protocols, seizures, detention, examination , indications of suspects, victims, witnesses. The rate of Part 2 of Art. 173 Code of Criminal Procedure, obliging the investigator to ask the accused of recognition of the guilt, does not apply when interrogation of the suspect.

Practice shows that it is the production of urgent investigative actions that allows the investigator to obtain a totality of sufficient actual data that are the basis of the prior investigation and set forth in the decision on attracting as an accused. These proofs provide the opportunity to consider the event of a crime, the qualifications of the crime, the lack of circumstances that eliminate criminal liability and the person to be attracted as the accused. To clarify all these circumstances, no importance is recognized or non-recognition by the accused of its guilt.

Evidence, only the actual data contained in the testimony of the accused may have, recognition of the same guilt in itself is not provided for in the list of evidence species. However, in practice, in sentences of ships and indictments, it is often possible to meet the indication that the guilt of the accused (defendant) is confirmed by the recognition of their guilt. In the case when the accused (defendant) gives testimony about the event of a crime, the circumstances of its commitment, its motives, etc., that is, the expirriage of his testimony, this is definitely the most important source of evidence. When he answers the question of the court or investigator, whether he is guilty of a crime, then there is no such information in response to this question, because it contains not actual data, but the legal category of guilt. The decision of the law is the prerogative of the court. Exploring and evaluating the testimony of the accused in aggregate with other evidence in the case, the judge, based on its inner conviction and norms of the law, should resolve the issue of guilt.

And one moment. Currently, the question of the responsibilities of the defender in a criminal case in the event of recognition by his prosthetic guilt in the crime, which he, judging by the materials of the case, did not make difficulties both in scientific literature and practical work.

Federal Law "On Advocacy and Advocacy in the Russian Federation" in paragraph 3 of Part 4 of Art. 6 prohibits a lawyer to occupy a position in case against the will of the principal, with the exception of cases when the lawyer is convinced of the presence of a self-shaped principal. However, the recognition of his faults can be false not only in the case of self-shaped, but for reasons mentioned above: due to legal illiteracy, the accused may declare his guilt in committing a crime without taking into account that the criminal law recognizes this act with criminal only When making it intentionally or only with direct intent; The accused can recognize himself guilty in a more severe crime than he did in reality, etc.

The defender must first find out the reasons that prompted the person to testify against himself one thing, if it was forced to do it, the other if the accused deliberately burns out the true criminal. As already noted, it happens that the accused simply does not understand the meaning of the charges with which agrees. A lawyer, sawing in the case of the case of the foundation to doubt in the accused recognition, discovering any acquittal evidence is obliged to point out to them to prostrate and suggest abandoning such recognition. If the lawyer is convinced of the fallacy of the guilt of the guilty made, he is not only entitled, but also is obliged to convince him to abandon these testimony.

Ryazanovsky V.A. Unity of the process. M.: Gorodets, 1996. P.30.

Mizulina E.B. The independence of the court is not yet a guarantee of justice // State and Law. 1992. №4. Decree. op. P. 55.

Alexandrov A. On the meaning of the concept of objective truth // Russian Justice. 1999. №1. P. 23.

Vyshinsky A.Ya. The theory of judicial evidence in the Soviet law. M., 1941. P. 28.

Alexandrov A. Decree. op. P. 23.

Pashin S.A. Problems of evidence // Judicial Reform: Legal Professionalism and Problems of Legal Education. Discussions. - M., 1995. - P. 312, 322.

Pankina I.Yu. Some aspects of the evolution of the theory of evidence in the criminal proceedings of Russia // School and the directions of criminal procedure science. Reports and communications at the constituent conference of the International Association for Justice Promotion. St. Petersburg, October 5-6, 2005 / Ed. A.V. Smirnova. SPb., 2005.

Smirnov A.V., Kalinovsky K.B. - Criminal Process: Textbook for universities. - SPb.: Peter, 2005. - with. 181.

See: Vinberg A.I. Criminalistics. Introduction to criminalist. - M., 1950. Issue.1.- S.8; Belkin R.S. Collecting, research and evidence assessment. Essence and methods. M., 1966.- P. 44-53; Belkin R.S. Criminalistics: problems, trends, prospects. General and private theories. - M..1987.- S. 217-218.

See: Larin A.M. The work of the investigator with the evidence. - M., 1966.- P. 43-66; Gorsky G.F., Kokorev LD, Elkind P.S. Problems of evidence in the Soviet criminal process. - Voronezh, 1978.- C.211.

See: Shaper S.A. Collecting evidence in the Soviet criminal process: methodological and legal problems. - Saratov, 1986.- p.41-42.

See: Shaper S.A. Decree. Ob.- S.55-73; Kippenis N.M. Decree. Ob.- S. 65-66.

Zepepov V.P. Subjects of evidence in the Soviet criminal process // Uch. Zap. Luge. - 1958. - p.112.

Jeschem T.B. Judicial investigation. - M.: Jurid. lit., 1979. - P. 9.

Shaper S.A. Evidence and proving on criminal cases: problems of theory and legal regulation. - Tolyatti: University of Volga. V.N. Tatishcheva, 1997. / http://www.ssu.samara.ru/~process/gl2.html.

Kuznetsov N.P. Proving and its features at the stages of the Russian criminal process. Author. diss. For office uch. degrees of Dr. Jeride. Sciences. - Voronezh, 1998. - p.152.

Grigorieva N. Principles of criminal proceedings and evidence // Russian Justice. - 1995. - №8. - P. 40.

Smirnov A.V. The reforms of criminal justice of the late XX century and discursive adversarity // Journal of Russian law. - 2001. - № 12. / http://kalinovsky-k.narod.ru/b/sav-2001.htm.

Shamardin A.A. Some aspects of fastening the elements of the principle of dispositions in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation // The role of university science in the regional community: materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conference (Moscow-Orenburg, September 1-3, 2003). In 2 parts. Part 2. - Moscow - Orenburg: Rick GOU OGU, 2003. - P. 300.

Smirnov A.V. Decree. op.

In chapter 40 and in the text Art. 314 Code of Criminal Procedure refers to the consent of the accused with charged charges, and not about the recognition of guilt. The expression "Recognition of the accused of guilt (recognition of responsible)" is repeatedly used in the Code of Criminal Procedure (Part 2 of Art. 77, Part 2 of Art. 273 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). Most of the accused, agreeing with the charged charge, consider this agreement, as recognition of the Council of Wines, without deepening in the subtlety of legal terminology. Great DP Special procedure for trial: theory and practice. // Russian Justice 2005. No. 4 In the practice of Novosibirsk courts, not a single case was recorded when the accused agreed with the charged charge, but would not admit herself guilty.

But what to do, if the accused, who will answer the question of the court: Yes, I agree with the charge, but I do not recognize my guilt. "

The opinions of lawyers on this expense were divided.

So, Aleksandrov A.S., Dubovik N.V. It is believed that the recognition of guilt is important conditions for the possibility of production in a special order. If the wines are not recognized or will be recognized as partially, the judge is obliged to stop production within the framework of chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and to appoint a trial in general. Alexandrov A.S. The grounds and conditions for a special procedure for taking a court decision with the consent of the accused submitted accusation. // State and Law. 2003. № 12. Dubovik N.V. "A deal of recognition of guilt" and "special order": a comparative analysis. // Russian justice. 2004. No. 4.

Petrukhin I.L. It adheres to the same point of view, since it does not even sharpen attention to the differences in the wording under consideration and uses them as equivalent. Verukhin I.L. The role of the recognition of the accused in criminal proceedings. // Russian Justice. 2003. No. 2.

Voskobitova LA Draws attention to the possibility of consent with charges without compulsory recognition of guilt. The accused says only that he does not dispute the charges, but nothing more. Voskobitova LA Criminal procedural law. M., 2004. P. 540

And yet, recognition of guilt and harmony with the accusation - the different actions of the accused, having a different meaning. The recognition of its fault contains an element of repentance, the desire to reconcile with the society, the victim, characterizes the identity of the accused and in certain cases it can serve as a circumstance that mitigate responsibility.

Also, Associate Professor Great D.P. Highlights the legal aspect of the taught theme. Recognition of guilt can be based on the prosecution. The confession of guilt, made at the stage of preliminary investigation, recorded in the prescribed manner and confirmed by other evidence has a purely evidentiary importance. At the same time, the accused, recognizing his guilt, may not declare a petition for deciding in a special order. On the other hand, the accused, refusing to give any testimony on the preliminary investigation and, accordingly, not expressing about his guilt, is not formally understood the right to declare a petition for a special order. The logic is obvious: having familiarized themselves with the materials of the investigation, the accused decided that it was more profitable to use a special order and in this case he should agree with the prosecution.

Consent with the presented charge is a manifestation of dispositionability, the use of accused of their rights that do not have any evidence. This refusal of procedural challenge of the charge without explaining the reasons. Great DP Special procedure for trial: theory and practice. // Russian Justice 2005. № 4

Thus, the recognition of guilt is the action of the accused, aimed at confirming the fact of the commitment of this crime, and the accusation of the accused is the defendant, expressing its consent to carry out production in a special procedure, provided for by Chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

The confession of guilt has material-management, and consent to the charge is procedural.

It should be recognized that the court, wanting to protect himself from any undesirable consequences, it is unlikely that such a situation will go to a special order, but formally the law does not prohibit it.

Redkin A.V. Draws attention to the following. In the case when the accused is charged with the prior investigation authorities and it agrees with the accusation, this means that he recognizes himself a certain crime. The crime, as is well known from the theory of criminal law, has its own composition: an object, objective side, subjective side and subject. The subjective side of the crime is formed by wine, the forms of fault of a subject of crime.

In the case when the accused recognizes himself a certain crime, it automatically recognizes the presence of all elements of the composition of the crime in the committee of the act, including the subjective side. Therefore, it is about the accused who accused can agree with the accusation, without recognizing his guilt in perfect crime, will be somewhat incorrect.

The practice of using OSSR shows that "consent to the accusation", which is stated in ch. 40 Code of Criminal Procedure, the law enforcement equates to the recognition of the defendants of guilt. Redkin A.V. Special procedure for trial. M. 2004. p.88.

The existing practice of applying a special order of trial in the aspect of the need to recognize the accused guilt should be considered legitimate. However, it seems appropriate to change the regulatory regulation of this institution and directly foreseen in the Code of Criminal Procedure the need to recognize the accused faults in a committed criminal act so that the criminal case is considered in a special procedure of the trial.