<<
>>

§2. History of development of a previous conviction in the Russian right

That fact, that a previous conviction originates in the properties inherent to human mentality still since the prehistoric period, means, that such property should find expression in rules of law, since the most ancient times.

Really, it is possible to track, that, anyhow the norms similar by the social nature with norms of investigated institute, existed in many civilisations at various times. In history have found reflexion as stigmatizatsija, and decrease in social value. The last was frequent step depending on quantity of perfect crimes, and was reflected directly on physical and material welfare of the person. For example, in Digestah (Pandektah) JUstiniana, dated 530-533 years d.C., observe belittling of the laws of persons which have made an offence. So, those who has been condemned for grave crime fulfilment could not compear for other persons; Also it was forbidden to act even in inferior courts as that who has been condemned state vessels for the informer (paragraph 6 of the Title of I Book of the third, Ulpian) 795. However, the given document provides, that terms of an interdiction for representation of persons in court were not termless. Papinian referred to the rescript of emperor Tita Antonina that the person it was forbidden to them to be the representative in court, after five years can make demands in court on affairs of any person. It was based [198]

That irrespective of perfect act punishment was not stretched in time contrary to imposed and established сроку7 ". According to Digestam, the number of persons admitted using evil repute: except other categories them concerned condemned by the state court for the slander, condemned for larceny, a robbery, insult causing, for malicious intent or a deceit. However condemned under the claim attracting disgrace, it is not considered that while its complaint to cases revision is considered, but it is considered that from the moment of awarding judgement, if it has dropped appeal terms (paragraph 1 of a title of II Book 3, Ulpian) 2"

Decrease in the social importance of the person was frequently reflected in corporal integrity of the criminal. So, in the Eclogue (the processed Institutions, the Code, Digesty and Short stories) the progressive system of punishment for larceny has been fixed: made theft is paid for the first time by the penalty or is exposed to corporal punishment and exile, however in second time to the thief cut a hand [199 [200] [201]. The book about Haradzhe (Abu Jusuf Ja'kub Kitab It is scarlet-haradzh) contained VIII centuries the instruction, according to which thief chop off a hand on a bend and if it makes again theft to it chopped off the left foot [202]. In Bulgaria the Law Judgement Ljudem (about 845855) in article XXVI established, that the thief of cattle is for the first time beaten, second time — is proscribed from the country (earth), in third time is on sale in slavery [203].

The domestic law in many respects reflects the model investigated in the previous paragraph. The persons who have committed a crime, were exposed to exile, klejmeniju and to belittling of a circle of the accessible rights and privileges. So, the right of Ancient Russia knew such punishment, as the reference ("potochenie") which meant exile in other countries together with the wife and children where the criminal perished from poverty and голода204.

Klejmenie it has been fixed in the Dvinsky authorised reading and writing of 1397 where in item 5 progressing rigidity of punishment for theft was provided: larceny in third time attracted the higher punitive measure in a kind смерти205. Besides, in Dvina branded ("stained") any thief. Similar position was contained by the Pskov judgement reading and writing (item 8 206). The code of laws of 1497 enters concept «the dashing person» which admitted to that not depending on the committed crime, and owing to danger most it личности207. For these purposes by the end of XV century special legal proceeding - "oblihovanie", by the certificate of a criminal craft of the person a considerable quantity of respectable inhabitants develops. Features of process "oblihovanija" according to which a testimony of a considerable quantity is necessary for killing tatja the person or its recognition, suggests, that any marks on a body of the criminal, allowing to identify it as the malicious criminal, did not do.

In XVII century some time klejmeniju a sign "thief", according to the decree from February, 10th, 1637, began to be exposed and counterfeiters whereas earlier for a similar crime chopped off hands and poured out the fused lead in a throat. However, former brutal punishments

204

Rejts A.M. F.Opyt of history Russian state and civil laws / And. M.Rejts, lane F.Moroshkin. - M: F.Moroshkina's Edition, 1836 - With. 188.

205 Monuments of Russian right. M, 1953. Vyp. 1. Monuments of the right of Kiev state X-XII centuries - With. 303.

206 Monuments of Russian right. M, the shattered Russia XII-XV centuries - With. 192.

Southerner V.E.Otvetstvennost

1957. Vyp. 2. Right monuments it is feudal -

207

For repeated relapse of crimes under the legislation of Russia (historical aspect). The person: a crime and punishment. 2015.

- WITH. 55.

Have soon been returned [204]. It is possible to notice, that, according to a number ugolovnopravovyh documents of pre-Pertine time, existed chlenovreditelskie the punishments pursuing a dual purpose: police — to leave on the criminal a mark ("proof"), and retaliatory. To "markirovochnym" to punishments concern ear reduction (for theft and swindle in first and second times, for robbery for the first time — in Ulozhenii 1649 (XXI, 9, 10, 15, 16, 90)), klejmenie — in the Dvinsky authorised reading and writing [205]. Even in days of Peter the Great board, despite set of innovations, "klejmenie" the criminal remains main means to make sure in the previous previous conviction of the person. In the Criminal code of 1845 in item 28 it has been established, that condemned on a forehead and cheeks the brand «K.A.T was put to some categories.» (Convict); avoided such fate of the woman and the persons who have reached of 70th years [206]. Imposing of a brand and signs on a body of criminals was forbidden by the Decree from April, 17th, 1863 [207].

With an interdiction corporal klejmenija positions about deterioration of a legal status of the person who recognised guilty of committing a crime and have served time began to develop. In the Criminal code of 1903 of feature of position earlier sudimogo persons are stated rather in detail, and norms are detailed, extensive and directed on podverganie some criminals all-round ostrakizmu. However not from them it is possible to consider all concerning previous conviction institute.

The term "previous conviction" was at that time used in the scientific literature in a context of reasonings on «repetition of crimes» - relapse in modern understanding [208]. Accordingly, criminally-legal value of the fact of the previous condemnation in Ulozhenii consisted 1903 that criminal record represented itself as circumstance aggravating punishment that has been fixed in article 67 Ulozhenija [209]. However the fulfilment fact not any crime, and only identical with former or homogeneous with it, so-called "repetition" was considered as the aggravating circumstance.

Criminally-legal value of a previous conviction, besides, that it was the circumstance aggravating punishment, consisted that she participated at definition of special relapse at fulfilment of such crimes as larceny, robbery, extortion and swindle. It is possible to tell, that as a previous conviction in 1903 understood the fact of the previous condemnation, instead of the special status of the person.

Other negative consequences of condemnation consisted in residence restriction, will lock to occupy state or church offices, to be engaged in pedagogical activity, to become the trustee or the trustee, in restriction of free movement, deprivation of privileges which were given by an accessory to certain estates, a confiscation, the disherison and rupture of the marriage

~? 14

And parental relations [210].

For the reason that substantially specified positions of the Criminal code are similar with positions of laws in force of the Russian Federations providing obshchepravovye consequences of a previous conviction, some authors consider, what exactly it is possible to see rudiments of institute of a previous conviction in the Criminal code, in particular, item 34 and item 35 Ulozhenija [211]. Such position is vulnerable enough for criticism. Really, character of the interdictions established nearby of articles of the Criminal code, in many respects coincides with the restrictions joining in the list obshchepravovyh of consequences of a previous conviction. For this reason it is easy to draw between them an equal-sign. However the similar maintenance is not the basis to recognise the legal phenomena related each other. For example, the maintenance of the control over probationeers, the control for uslovnodosrochno released and the control over observance of a delay of enduring the punishment are practically identical. However they have the different legal nature that excludes possibility of their association in one institute [212]. In the same way, the measures established by the Criminal code concerning condemned, have the excellent legal nature from a previous conviction and its consequences as it is presented in the current legislation. In the pre-revolutionary doctrine the first were considered as additional punishments whereas items 2 Ulozhenija were listed only the basic punishments [213]. Directly about a previous conviction in it was spoken in narrow enough sense and only concerning article 67 Ulozhenija (awarding punishment at repetition of crimes) [214].

In the legislation the term "previous conviction" was fixed in the XX-th century beginning in Decree VTSIK RSFSR from May, 1st, 1920 «About amnesty by May, 1st 1920г.» [215]. In the document it was provided, that «amnesty does not extend on active counter-revolutionaries, gangsters, deserters, the professional thieves, especially harmful speculators or the speculators having more of one previous conviction» [216]. It is visible, that for that moment of time the tendency to recognise a previous conviction for the persons making crime against property, as a category which representatives and admitted earlier inclined to formation of a criminal habit («conducted dashing») remains.

If in Decree VTSIK RSFSR «About amnesty by May, 1st, 1920» the previous conviction interfered with amnesty of some speculators in Criminal code RSFR of 1922 in the item "e" item 25 it was already specified, that at punitive measure definition is considered, whether the crime is committed by the professional criminal or the recidivist, or it is made for the first time [217]. Hence, value of a previous conviction as one of the signs, defining presence or absence of relapse, has raised before, that it began to influence owing to law express indication weight of appointed punishment.

Since this moment value of a previous conviction raises practically in each new criminal law. So, in Special part UK RSFSR of 1922 the previous conviction began to represent itself as a qualifying sign. In particular, the item ch. 2 items 142 UK RSFSR of 1922 established, that a premeditated murder is qualified if it is made by the person, already left punishment under criminal law [218]. However term of such previous conviction has not been established by the legislation and as marked C. M.Kanarsky, «in similar cases takes place relapse in close sense» [219]. Besides, in the item

In"item 114 UK RSFSR of 1922 as new qualifying signs of reception of a bribe at aggravating circumstances fulfilment of the specified actions« in the presence of the former has been provided

224

Previous convictions for a bribe or neodnokratnost bribe receptions ».

As well as in pre-revolutionary criminally-legal certificates, the previous conviction, according to Fundamental principles of the criminal legislation of USSR and union republics of 1924, at an establishment of relapse of crimes influenced at awarding punishment, being the circumstance aggravating the criminal liability (the item "g" item 31) [220 [221].

In further, after previous conviction fastening in the criminal law, the basic tendency consisted in softening of its conditions. So, one of the most important stages in formation of domestic institute of a previous conviction is occurrence of rules of cancellation of conviction which have been established in Decree VTSIK and SNK RSFSR from February, 9th, 1925 «About addition to item 37 UK RSFSR»: «If during the trial period established by court probationeers do not make identical or kindred offence or any other crime involving imprisonment, a court sentence it is considered become invalid and the probationeer admits the person not having legal proceedings» [222].

The same position was applied to condemned to imprisonment for term not over six months or to any softer measure of social protection if within three years from the date of the introduction of a sentence into validity it does not commit any other crime, and also to condemned to imprisonment for term over six months, but no more than three years if it does not commit other crime within six years. The current of term of a previous conviction, except for terms of cancellation of conviction at probationeers is characteristic, that, was estimated from the moment of the introduction of a sentence into validity, instead of from the date of punishment departure. As enduring the punishment time joined in time cancellations of conviction, at different condemned remains different terms of cancellation of conviction after enduring the punishment.

The decree, except fastening of rules of cancellation of conviction, has established connection between cancellation of conviction and probation. M.V.Grammatchikov writes, that such communication was not casual: probation was appointed only to the persons who have committed a crime for the first time at confluence of heavy vital circumstances, taking into account that the social danger of such person did not demand its obligatory isolation from a society [223]. In turn S.P.Mokritsky explained it so: «social danger of these persons even earlier, at the moment of a sentence shows Convention of condemnation, that, was for court doubtful. The successful expiration of a trial period if is not definitive, has even more weakened fears. Also there is no more a sense to consider an old previous conviction, to put slingshots on a way by the new ordered life» [224].

Positions of the Decree from February, 9th, 1925 have found the development in UK RSFSR of 1926 in which initial edition it was established, that if the person condemned conditionally, will not make during a trial period of grave crime new not less the court sentence is considered become invalid and the probationeer is considered not sudimym. Given article extended the action only on the persons condemned for term not over six months if they within three years from the date of the introduction of a verdict of guilty of court into validity do not commit other crime, and also the persons condemned for term over six months, but no more than three years of imprisonment if they within six years from the date of the introduction of a verdict of guilty into validity do not commit any new crime [225]. So at the persons sentenced to punishment in the form of imprisonment by term over three years, the previous conviction was lifelong and could be removed by amnesty or the pardon [226].

Changes from February, 25th, 1927 with acceptance of the Decision of the Central Electoral Committee of the USSR «About changes of Fundamental principles of the criminal legislation of USSR and union republics» have fixed positions about cancellation of conviction at allied level (item 10-1 of fundamental principles of the criminal legislation of 1924). And SNK RSFSR from June, 6th, 1927 of item 55 UK RSFSR of 1926 has been stated by decision VTSIK in the same edition, as in the allied

The law [227].

Despite undertaken steps to fastening of institute of a previous conviction, its full registration, including concerning consequences for a legal status sudimogo persons have not been fixed in the legislation. Some motions have occurred owing to acceptance of the Decision of Presidium of the Central Electoral Committee of the USSR from November, 2nd, 1927 «About amnesty», published to execute the manifesto of the Central Electoral Committee of the USSR from October, 15th, 1927 in honour of a decade of October revolution. Point 11 of the given Decision the previous conviction «concerning the workers who condemned for the first time and have left by day of the edition of the present Decision about amnesty the basic measure of social protection, or ahead of schedule released persons or sentenced to probation or forced hard labour» [228] acted in film.

Obviously, injustice of positions about a previous conviction was realised distinctly enough as in the literature offers on possibility of cancellation of conviction at certain categories of persons have been extended. Approximately at this time articles with the offer are published to enter possibility of cancellation of conviction at certain categories condemned. For example, B.A.Janchevsky defended incongruity of a lifelong previous conviction at the persons condemned conditionally to imprisonment or to softer kinds of punishment. He has fairly been convinced, that concerning the person condemned for the first time, the previous conviction not only did not promote achievement of the purposes of correction, but, on the contrary, could promote fulfilment of a new crime. He suggested to repay a previous conviction at the persons who positively have transferred a trial period at probation, and also at those who has committed less dangerous crimes [229].

Instead of returning to initial, pre-revolutionary, to a variant when the previous conviction has been directed against the persons making, as a rule, kindred offences — that is on the subjects who are mainly engaged in a criminal craft, in the literature new "softening" of position of the persons having a previous conviction was offered.

Besides, absence of possibility of cancellation of conviction was an obvious lack. The similar estimation of an innovation which was a previous conviction, promoted occurrence of norms about the cancellation of conviction, fixed by Decree VTSIK and SNK RSFSR from February, 9th, 1925 «About addition of item 37 of the Criminal code» [230]. Besides, instructions concerning cancellation of conviction it was given in «the Report on work UKK on the affairs which have arrived from glavsudov, oblsudov and gubsudov for 1924 in a cassation order and in the exercise of supervisory powers». In this document vessels were recommended not to specify in a sentence in a previous conviction in case condemned in the past has been condemned conditionally and during a trial period has not made new crimes [231].

The purpose of introduction of positions about previous conviction removal consisted, as usually was considered, in granting by the worker of possibility to become full and useful builders of a socialist society [232]. M.M.Isaev so has explained the fact of occurrence of these norms: «Guilty can serve time, the court can, recognising its guilty to release from the punishment, and still given person is considered having« a previous conviction »- a consequence, heavy for each citizen. Therefore in the Soviet criminal law there should be a question on removal and cancellation of conviction» [233]. Contemporaries of the given document, certainly, estimated the short stories entered by it positively [234]. Now an establishment of terms cancellation of conviction regard as an initial link of development

Previous conviction institute whereas in the subsequent the legislator only expanded

239

The given positions [235].

In the course of the further perfection of norms about a previous conviction the Decision of the Central Electoral Committee of the USSR from February, 25th, 1927 by which item 10-1 of the Fundamental principles which have defined a circle of persons was installed, admitting not having to a previous conviction was accepted. Nevertheless, the innovation has not eradicated all blanks arising in connection with application of norms about a previous conviction. Obvious lacks there was, for example, that the persons condemned for the term of more than three years, remained sudimymi practically for life if only in their relation the certificate of amnesty or the pardon [236] has not been accepted. Further, it was spoken nothing about cancellation of conviction in case the person has been released from punishment in statutory cases. Moreover, conditions of cancellation of conviction have not been defined at fulfilment by the person of a new crime and collisions in definition of the starting and final moments of term of cancellation of conviction [237] have not been settled.

Gradually, in process of development pravoprimenitelnoj experts and development of scientific discussions, legislative guidelines were supplemented, including instructions of the higher degree of jurisdiction. So, the question on the beginning of a current of terms of a previous conviction has been solved by the Decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR from December, 20th, 1929. The given instructions were then are detailed by Decisions of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR from March, 20th, 1953 and the Legal Decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the USSR from September, 17th, 1954 [238]. Despite the observable positive tendency, more half a century remains opened a question on since what moment previous conviction term if to the person additional punishment — from the moment of departure of the basic punishment has been appointed starts to flow, let at even not left additional punishment or only after departure as the basic, and additional punishments. In a science of unity of opinions on the given question it is not observed till now. For example, one authors hold the opinion, that the person should leave the basic punishment then the terms of a previous conviction specified in the law start to be counted. So, Skobelin S supposes dependence of a current of terms of a previous conviction only from the basic punishments, though in ch. 4 items 86 UK the Russian Federation are specified both the basic punishment, and additional [239]. Other authors adhere to position that a necessary condition of a reference mark of term of a previous conviction is departure both the basic punishment, and additional [240]. Judiciary practice also is ambiguous. For example, the court can give up in preschedule removal of a previous conviction on the basis of that the person has not been released from additional punishment in the form of an interdiction to occupy certain posts or to be engaged in certain activity [241]. In some cases the court underlines, that removal of a previous conviction before the expiry of the term of serving of additional punishment is not provided by the criminal law [242].

It is possible to notice, that in first half of XX-th century a previous conviction start to consider, how a separate question standing discussion, however the works devoted to it, as a rule, represent or the comment to the legislation, or a management for pravoprimenitelja. For example, N.D.dope pays to questions of cancellation of conviction steadfast attention, however he has devoted the work to two themes which though are connected with a previous conviction, but consider its only separate aspects: statute of limitation in criminal cases and terms, and also conditions of cancellation of conviction [243].

Thus, the previous conviction was not considered as uniform institute. Moreover, the impression is made, that a subject of reasonings was not the previous conviction in itself, as the status of the person, and only concept and features of its repayment. N.D.dope does not operate with the term "previous conviction"; this word is invariably used only in a word-combination "cancellation of conviction".

In 50-60th years of the XX-th century the circle of the debatable questions connected with norms about a previous conviction, has extended. On the agenda problems not only constructions of statutes and permissions of blanks, not only aspects pravoprimenenija have started to be taken out. Time has come to reflect on the legal nature of a previous conviction, about its place in a science and branch of criminal law [244]. It is connected, possibly, with appreciable expansion of general-theoretical representations in criminal law and development of legal thought as a whole [245].

In 1965 A.M.Jakovlev specified, that simultaneously with development of criminally-legal understanding of a previous conviction «developed obshchegrazhdanskoe, the is administrative-legal concept of this institute which has found the expression in inclusion in questionnaires on employment not only point« has no previous conviction », but even point« was not involved in the criminal liability »2.

Moreover, at this time there was a place and to the critic of a previous conviction as a whole, and not just its separate components. For example, S.S.Stepichev to whom the set of authors refers, at all suggested to exclude consequences судимости251. He considered, that to casual criminals the previous conviction prevents to return to the normal life, and concerning the persons who have repeatedly made criminal actions, the previous conviction is useless. B.S.Nikiforov who was against criminally-legal consequences of a previous conviction owing to unjustified severity of restrictions which were imposed on the persons who have left наказание252 was guided by other motives.

In addition to criticism of institute of a previous conviction as a whole, a number of authors opposed obshchepravovyh the consequences of a previous conviction provided in civil, family, constitutional, state, labour and other branches права253. Others took of an intermediate position, recognising, that will lock to be engaged in some kinds of activity or to occupy certain posts is not unreasonable. For example, V.I.Gorobtsov offered some restrictions connected with a previous conviction, to deduce in the independent legal category which is not coinciding, however, with a previous conviction - «measures of postpenitantiary influence» 254.

250

251

JAkovlev A.M.struggle with recurrent criminality. M: the Science, 1964. With. 35-36. Whether Stepichev S.S.Nuzhen previous conviction institute?//Socialist legality.

1965. № 9. WITH. 14.

252

104.

Nikiforov B.S. About relapse and a previous conviction//the Soviet state and the right. With. 101

253

254

Shargorodsky M.D.Nakazanie on the Soviet criminal law. M. 1958. With. 18. Gorobtsov V. I. A previous conviction: concept, history, prospects of a legislative regulation. An eagle. 1995. With. 42-43.

In the literature the points of view concerning correctness of terms of cancellation of conviction that was supported kriminologicheskimi with researches are resulted. It was supposed, that there is a certain term after which expiration "social danger" of the person disappears and which hypothetically should coincide with disappearance of all legal effects of a previous conviction. However any sensible argument about why in the law the specified terms of cancellation of conviction are established, did not exist and does not exist till now. At the same time fulfilment by persons of new crimes and after has expired previous conviction term, led to doubts that legal and kriminologichesky aspects do not coincide. The Criminally-legal question on previous conviction terms perelagalos to solve methods of criminology and statistics. So, A.P. Safonov suggested to solve a question on an optimality of terms of repayment and removal of a previous conviction by time definition after which expiration the persons who have served time, usually do not make new crimes (owing to correction of these persons) [246].

Despite the similar criticism, criminally-legal value of a previous conviction in due course only increased, and norms, to it devoted, became more numerous. So, Bases of the criminal legislation of the USSR and union republics of 1958 and UK RSFSR of 1960 have transformed a previous conviction into one of tools of struggle against recurrent criminality, thus, having connected two independent criminally-legal institutes with each other — institute of a previous conviction and institute of plurality of crimes.

According to the current legislation the previous conviction is considered at relapse of crimes and at awarding punishment. The existing condition of rules of law about a previous conviction corresponds to the settled tendency of its expansion and deepening, and also toughening of position of the persons having not removed or outstanding previous conviction. So, till the certain moment repayment or previous conviction removal according to UK the Russian Federation cancelled all consequences of a previous conviction. However now after previous conviction terms the consequences fixed directly in the criminal law, but not in other federal acts are settled only. The similar state of affairs was established not so long ago, on June, 29th, 2015, with modification of item 86 UK the Russian Federation that repayment or previous conviction removal cancels all legal effects connected with a previous conviction, provided only UK the Russian Federation [247].

The historical material shows, that elements of that today is called podinstitutom previous convictions, met in the ancient right and totals at least two millenia. The previous conviction has occurred from historical practice of drawing on criminals of designations that was to define probably instantly them in a society. Similar practice starts to meet development of the state system less often while with development of modern document circulation has not disappeared absolutely. Now brand function is carried out by a previous conviction fixed in certain information systems in system of registration of persons, committed a crime.

In criminal law of Russia a previous conviction as the separate legal education has started to be allocated rather recently. Nevertheless, once having appeared, podinstitut previous convictions developed dynamically enough, and all for one century there has passed a way from a mention in normativnopravovom the certificate to numerous, extending in many branches of the legislation, positions.

Further, in the conditions of globalisation and the exchange connected with this phenomenon of experience in the most various spheres of the ability to live, it is difficult to present a full picture of development of institute of a previous conviction without komparativistskih researches. The urgency adds as well that fact, that the legal status of the persons, left criminally-legal punishment substantially differs from the country to the country. Meanwhile, the Russian Federation concludes set of international treaties about legal aid which number includes an exchange of data on previous convictions [248 [249].

<< | >>
A source: Arhengolts Ilona Arkadevna. PREVIOUS CONVICTION And IT OBSHCHEPRAVOVYE CONSEQUENCES. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Ekaterinburg,. 2018

More on topic §2. History of development of a previous conviction in the Russian right:

  1. §1. A previous conviction and its components
  2. §3. A previous conviction and condemnation consequences in foreign countries
  3. § 2. A place of a previous conviction and it obshchepravovyh consequences in system of institutes of criminal law
  4. §1. Main principles of a complex of norms about obshchepravovyh previous conviction consequences
  5. § 1. Preconditions of occurrence of norms about a previous conviction in a human society
  6. §2. An estimation of efficiency of a complex of norms about obshchepravovyh previous conviction consequences
  7. Chapter 1. The theoretical bases of a previous conviction and it obshchepravovyh consequences
  8. Chapter 2. A previous conviction and it obshchepravovoe consequences in prostranstvennovremennoj matters
  9. Chapter 3. Perfection problems obshchepravovyh previous conviction consequences
  10. Arhengolts Ilona Arkadevna. the PREVIOUS CONVICTION And IT OBSHCHEPRAVOVYE CONSEQUENCES. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Ekaterinburg,, 2018 2018
  11. § 3. History of development of the Russian joint-stock and investment legislation
  12. History of development of institute of a special disciplinary responsibility in the Russian Federation
  13. §1.3. The Freedom of worship and creeds as object criminally-right protection in history of development of the Russian criminal legislation
  14. § 4.1. History of development of legal relations on granting and an expenditure of subventions in the Russian Federation
  15. History of development of pre-judicial settlement of disputes, following from tax legal relations, in the Russian Federation
  16. §2. Concept and history of development of institute of clearing of minors from the criminal liability under the legislation of the Russian Federation and Socialist Republic Vietnam
  17. §1. History of development of concepts of terrorism and act of terrorism in the Russian and Belarus legislation
  18. in the first paragraph - «the Executive authority in the Russian Federation. The history and the present» - the author of dissertation investigates historical development of institute of the executive authority in Russia.
  19. history of occurrence and development of commercial concession