Presumption of innocence, Ensuring the legality of the application...

2.3.3. The presumption of innocence

The presumption of innocence also applies to the fundamental postulates of US law on administrative violations.

The presumption (from Latin praesumpdo) is an assumption that is valid until the opposite is proven. The US Constitution determines the content of the presumption of innocence only in relation to crimes: according to Part 1 of Art. 49 each accused of a crime is considered innocent until his guilt is proven in accordance with the procedure provided for by federal law and established by an effective court verdict.

According to the meaning of Part 1 of Art. 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Penalties, the presumption of innocence applies to individuals and legal entities. The guilt of a person suspected of committing an administrative offense must be proved during the examination of the case and established by an enacted administrative punishment order.

The presence of evidence of the guilty act must be proved by an authorized state or municipal body (administrative administrative body) or their officials, but not by a person suspected of committing an administrative offense: the suspect is not obliged to prove his innocence, but has the right to do so, guided by the subjective world outlook , without moral or physical coercion on the part of these bodies.

The principle of presumption of innocence applies at all stages of the proceedings in the case preceding the day on which the decision (decision) of the judge, body, official about the imposition of administrative punishment comes into force.

The presumption of innocence applies to persons against whom an administrative violation case has been initiated, i.e. to persons suspected of one or more misdemeanors provided for by the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses, and in some cases to persons participating in the proceedings (for example, the same person, depending on the stage of the proceedings, may participate in the proceedings as witness, and later as a suspect).

If an official who initiated or is considering a case on an administrative offense raised doubts about the reliability of the evidence, then in these cases the necessary procedural actions are carried out, for example, an expert examination is appointed, an additional survey of persons is conducted. The person considering the case has no right to use evidence, in the authenticity of which he has doubts (see Part 4 of Article 1.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses), if the above-mentioned extraordinary measures did not lead to the desired result.

The presumption of innocence refers to the fundamental procedural principles of public law and is not applied in private law: in accordance with civil law, a person suspected of committing a tort has to prove his innocence (see paragraph 2 of Article 401 of the Civil Code, Part 1 of Art. 56 CIC).

Presumption of innocence means above all procedural guarantees of the rights and interests of a person suspected of committing an administrative offense. In accordance with this principle, the official who initiated the case, it is necessary not only to establish the existence of circumstances that confirm the existence of the administrative offense, but also to prove the guilt of the suspect in the consideration of the case by a judge, body, official. The absence of the administrative offense may be revealed at any procedural stage preceding the stage of the enforcement proceedings: when preparing a case on an administrative offense for consideration or directly in its consideration, in these cases a decision is issued to stop the proceedings in the case of the specified offense.

2.3.4. Ensuring the legality of the use of administrative coercion measures

The content of the principle of ensuring legality when applying measures of administrative coercion is established art. 1.6 of the Administrative Code. The legal (lawful) application of administrative coercion measures is incompatible with actions (inaction), causing property damage, moral damage to an individual or harming the business reputation of a legal entity. Thus, under the humiliation of human dignity (Part 3 of Article 1.6 of the Code of Administrative Offenses) is meant the infliction of bodily (moral) harm to an individual, caused by:

o the application of administrative restraint in cases not related to the consideration of the case (for example, when assessing the socially dangerous consequences of an offense and establishing evidence is possible without applying the above measures);

o the imposition of an administrative penalty that is not commensurate with the socially dangerous consequences of the act (for example, when assigning the maximum administrative fine prescribed by the sanction of the relevant article of the Special Part of the Code of Administrative Offenses in case of causing property damage);

o improper performance of official duties established when applying measures of administrative coercion (for example, in cases of delay in their execution, failure to take measures resulting from the order to terminate the proceedings).

Also We Can Offer!

Other services that we offer

If you don’t see the necessary subject, paper type, or topic in our list of available services and examples, don’t worry! We have a number of other academic disciplines to suit the needs of anyone who visits this website looking for help.

How to ...

We made your life easier with putting together a big number of articles and guidelines on how to plan and write different types of assignments (Essay, Research Paper, Dissertation etc)