The Ministry of justice asked the state Duma to delay the introduction of video recording of court sessions until 2020
The introduction and launch of video system trial can be postponed until 2020. Such amendment, according to “Vedomosti”, the Ministry of justice proposes to amend the government bill has already been approved in the first reading.
Initially it was assumed that mandatory video recording of court hearings in civil and criminal cases and storing these data for 10 years should appear in Russia in 2018, when the courts will be equipped with the necessary equipment. The government has estimated that the project will cost 1.9 billion roubles at a time and 840 million roubles a year. In addition to the postponement, the Ministry of justice is lobbying for the ban on the video recording of the meetings, which will be held behind closed doors.
In the first reading the document that caused a large number of complaints from the deputies and judges, was adopted in March. So, in the opinion of the Supreme court on the bill noted that next year, more than 10 thousand courtrooms will be equipped with systems of audio, while video cameras will provide 10 times fewer spaces, so it would be better to discuss the conduct of audioarchive. Also, according to the sun, you would need to clarify the question about the status of writing – whether it is a part of the Protocol and can be used as evidence.
Lawyer Ivan Pavlov, in comments to “Vedomosti” notes that to implement the system record would be easier and cheaper. He is confident that this innovation, the courts are not interested, because “used to customize the Protocol of the court session under the sentence” and do not wish to pass up this opportunity.
“In fact, in all Moscow courts long ago established all the necessary equipment, but I never got consent to audio or video recording of the court session”, – said the lawyer.
We will add, for the consideration of the previous composition of the state Duma was introduced the bill, designed to require judges to provide the possibility of the presence in open court, accredited media representatives. The authors of the document pointed to the fact that the principles of open justice are often violated under various pretexts. The bill was declared unconstitutional and returned to the developers for deficiencies.