Comparative Legal Analysis of the Procedural Features of the Interrogation of Minors

The article provides a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of procedural institutions and guarantees protecting the rights of minors during interrogation in criminal proceedings. Using the legal systems of the Russian Federation, the Republic of Uzbekistan (continental legal family), England and the USA (Anglo-Saxon legal family) as examples, two main national regulatory models are identified and characterized in detail: the "procedural-guarantee" model and the "rehabilitation-pragmatic" model.

The purpose of the study is to identify the most effective legal guarantees through a comparative analysis of approaches in different legal systems, assess their real (not just formal) effectiveness through the prism of modern psychological data on suggestibility and age-related characteristics of children, and develop specific, scientifically based recommendations for improving the procedural norms of the Russian Federation. Special attention is paid to the influence of international legal standards (UN Convention on the Rights of the Child), as well as psychological and cultural aspects that necessitate a specialized approach to the interrogation of minors.

The author concludes that there is a need for convergence of formal guarantees and empirically based practices, proposing specific amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and departmental regulations, including the implementation of elements of the "appropriate adult" institution and a legislative recommendation for the use of evidence-based interrogation protocols (using the NICHD protocol as an example).

The theoretical significance of the work lies in deepening scientific understanding of the models of legal regulation of interrogation of minors and the criteria for their effectiveness. The practical significance lies in the fact that the formulated recommendations can be used in legislative activity when improving the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, as well as in the practical activities of investigators and interrogators.

1. Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации от 18.12.2001 № 174-ФЗ (ред. от 25.02.2024) // СЗ РФ. 2001. № 52 (ч. I). Ст. 4921.

2. Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Узбекистан: утв. Законом РУз от 22.09.1994 г. № 2013-XII (в действ. ред.). Ташкент, 2024.

3. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. London: The Stationery Office, 1984. URL: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/60/contents (дата обращения: 10.05.2024).

4. Code of Practice C (PACE 1984): Revised Code of Practice for the Detention, Treatment and Questioning of Persons by Police Offi London: The Stationery Offi 2023. URL: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/police-and-criminal-evidence-act-1984-pace-codes-of-practice (дата обращения: 10.05.2024).

5. J.D.B. v. North Carolina, 564 U.S. 261 (2011). URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/564/261/ (дата обращения: 10.05.2024).

6. Конвенция о правах ребенка (одобрена Генеральной Ассамблеей ООН 20.11.1989) // Сборник международных договоров СССР. 1993. Вып. XLVI.

7. Ceci S.J., Bruck M. Jeopardy in the courtroom: A scientific analysis of children's testimony. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1995. 338 p.

8. Lamb M.E., Orbach Y., Hershkowitz I., Esplin P.W., Horowitz D. A structured forensic interview protocol improves the quality and informativeness of investigative interviews with children: A review of research using the NICHD Investigative Interview Protocol // Child Abuse & Neglect. 2007. Vol. 31. №. 11-12. P. 1201–1231.

9. Матвеев С.В. Участие специалиста-психолога в допросе несовершеннолетних // Законность. 2019. № 5. С. 45–48.