Fairness as a requirement to the decision on the application of precautionary measures

Introduction: the article examines justice as a requirement that should be applied not only to court decisions, but also to other procedural decisions, including the choice of a preventive measure. The author analyzes justice in the substantive sense, emphasizing that all decisions of the inquiry officer, investigator and court when applying interim measures should be based on the desire to restore the balance of interests of the guilty person and the victim. It is in the selection of preventive measures that justice is the criterion that distinguishes law from arbitrariness. Materials and methods: during the study, the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, international legal acts, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation «On the practice of applying by courts legislation on preventive measures in the form of detention, house arrest , pledge and prohibition of certain actions» dated December 19, 2013 № 41, as well as the opinions of scientists and law enforcement officials on the advisability of including the category «justice» in the criminal process were studied. The research methods were the general dialectical method of scientific knowledge, as well as comparison, analysis, generalization and description. The results of the study: the study made it possible to conclude that the fairness when deciding on the application of a preventive measure should be assessed not only on the basis of an accurate definition of the qualification of the crime, but also taking into account the circumstances of the criminal case related to the personality of the suspect, the accused, analysis of the actions of the persecuted persons, preceding criminal encroachment, as well as their post-criminal behavior. Findings and conclusions: preventive measures significantly limit the right to liberty and security of the person. Choosing a measure to ensure the criminal process, officials stop before choosing the one that will not only effectively perform a suppression function, but also be proportionate to the committed act and the personality of the victim, i.e. to legally and fairly restrict the rights and freedoms of the suspect, the accused.