Este artículo ha sido revisado en profundidad para garantizar que la información presentada sea lo más precisa posible, cumpla con nuestros estándares de calidad y presente datos respaldados por fuentes confiables, reflejadas en la bibliografía y los enlaces dentro del texto.
5 minutos
En un mundo dominado por las redes sociales, la premisa es publicar todo lo que hacemos. Sin embargo, en este artículo hablaremos sobre la discreción como un valor importante para educar a nuestros hijos.
Escrito y verificado por la pedagoga María Matilde.
Última actualización: 10 abril, 2020
Exponernos y exponer todo lo que hacemos está de moda. Da igual de lo que se trate: lo que cocinamos, cuándo viajamos, qué ropa utilizamos y dónde la compramos, qué hacemos cuando nos aburrimos, y hasta qué hace nuestro perro.
El objetivo es compartir y exponer la vida privada, la cotidianeidad de cada uno, para que la vea nuestro círculo más cercano, pero también, y este es el objetivo final, la mayor cantidad de gente. Así, en un mundo de infinitos escaparates, la discreción parece ser un valor que ha quedado en desuso, o en todo caso, pasado de moda.
La discreción hace referencia a la cautela o reserva para no contar lo que uno sabe o para guardar un secreto cuando no hay necesidad de que lo sepan o conozcan los demás. La discreción tiene relación con la prudencia, tanto para establecer un juicio como para hablar u obrar.
Con lo cual, una persona discreta es aquella que es reservada, moderada, mesurada y que no intenta llamar la atención, ni con sus actos, ni con su aspecto o declaraciones. Una persona discreta no tiene la necesidad de hablar de ella misma ni de los demás, ni tampoco de compartir a cada paso lo que hace o deja de hacer.
Por ello, en ocasiones, se suele describir a personas que son discretas como personas que no destacan ni sobresalen, lo cual es muy relativo y discutible.
Un valor es una cualidad por la que una persona es apreciada o bien considerada. Y, como hemos mencionado al principio, la discreción como valor no está del todo considerada.
A través de las redes sociales, sobre todo adolescentes y adultos jóvenes, no tienen la costumbre de ser discretos y dejar en un segundo plano la vida más cotidiana y privada, sino todo lo contrario. L a forma de ser de nuestra sociedad actual es mostrarse mucho, hablar mucho de uno mismo y de los demás, meterse en la vida de los otros y permitir que se metan en la nuestra.
Ahora bien, la discreción sí está bien considerada según los ámbitos y los ambientes de los que se trate y la gente de la que nos relacionemos. Es decir, en algunos trabajos o en determinados contextos sociales la discreción es un valor importante, y las relaciones interpersonales se establecen procurando respetar algunas parcelas de intimidad de las personas, generalmente relacionadas con el ámbito de la vida privada.
Además, muy ligado al contexto o al ámbito de relación, la discreción también está bien vista en relación a la forma de hablar, cómo hablar, con qué tono y en qué momento. Es más, la discreción está bien vista en relación a las acciones y a las formas de moverse, incluso, a la forma de vestirse. La opulencia o la extravagancia no están bien aceptadas según el contexto y según para quién o quiénes.
“No puede haber gracia donde no hay discreción”.
-Miguel de Cervantes-
Para considerar la discreción como un valor importante para educar a nuestros hijos, podemos enseñarles cuestiones como las siguientes:
Precisamente porque vivimos en una sociedad cuya forma de ser es estar abierta al mundo para hablar a la ligera de todo y de todos, hay que educar a los hijos en el valor de la discreción. Precisamente por los tiempos en que vivimos, de constante exposición y extroversión, hay que enseñar a los hijos a ser discretos. Hay que procurar que comprendan que existen determinadas parcelas de su vida que deben seguir siendo privadas. Por su futuro y por su seguridad.
Incluso, cuando la personalidad de nuestro hijo se caracterice por ser más extrovertida, deberíamos enseñarle a ser discreto, ya que, con seguridad, por más sociable e histriónico que pueda ser un hijo, deberá saber comportarse de forma discreta en algún ámbito o contexto a medida que crezca y se desarrolle. O, en todo caso, agradecerá dar con personas discretas en algún momento de su vida.
Te podría interesar…
Discreción es un término polisémico. En primera instancia, se trata de la cautela que posee un individuo y que le permite reservarse para sí mismo los secretos que tiene o la información que posee, datos en los que otras personas podrían interesarse. Es así como también se le denomina a la prudencia que se tiene al momento de hablar y obrar, en especial cuando existan circunstancias que requieren de actitudes sensibles. Puede emplearse para recalcar que queda a juicio, voluntad o criterio del alguien más la potestad sobre algún asunto.
Tabla de Contenido
En la lengua española, la palabra “discreción”, fue tomada del latín “discretio”, también conocida como “discretionis”, hacia el siglo XIII; esta puede traducirse como “el acto de discernir” y fue a partir de esta definición que se fue construyendo el significado actual de la palabra que hace referencia a la prudencia. En contraposición a esta, se encuentra la indiscreción, aquella actitud que se caracteriza por la falta de sensatez y cordura, al momento de intervenir en una conversación o al realizar determinadas acciones; es una especie de “falta de tacto”, al dirigirse a otras personas.
La discreción es una virtud que es requerida en algunos ambientes, sin importar la naturaleza de este. En algunos trabajos, en especial aquellos que involucran estar relacionado con el Estado o entes gubernamentales, esperan que sus empleados sean prudentes y discretos, es por ello que se pide seriedad y moderación en el área laboral. Cuando se mantienen relaciones interpersonales con otros individuos y estos le confieren sus intimidades a alguien, esperan que este mantenga cierta reserva con respecto a estos.
Existen diferentes sinónimos de discreción, entre ellos, cautela, silencio, disimulo, etc.
Actualmente, existen diferentes elementos de suma importancia para mantener a flote las relaciones personales en una sociedad, entre esos elementos está la discreción, pues con ella las personas tienden a sentirse más cómodas y seguras de acuerdo a los temas o situaciones que se presenten. La discreción en la oficina, por ejemplo, mantiene un ambiente acorde entre los trabajadores, más cómodo, más ameno. Se necesitan de muchos valores para mantener una relación estable indiferentemente del rango o contexto del que se hable, pero más aún, se necesita dejar a discreción algunas situaciones, es por ello que el término es tan importante en una sociedad. Publicidad
Ninguna persona puede sentirse segura en un ambiente hostil o donde se sepa que existen sujetos que comparten la información suministrada en otros ambientes, es incómodo saber que alguien puede compartir información íntima de una o más personas con otro grupo de sujetos, por ello, aparte del respeto y la solidaridad en los grupos sociales, se pide discreción, a veces esto está implícito, pero en otras ocasiones es necesario decirlo o estipularlo. Se puede decir que una persona es discreta cuando actúa con sensatez, autocontrol, respeto, solidaridad y sinceridad en los grupos sociales.
La discreción puede abarcar diferentes contextos y situaciones, es por ello que en este apartado se van a brindar 5 ejemplos prácticos de acuerdo al tema que se aborde.
Significa ser un sujeto respetuoso, audaz, cauteloso, de confianza y que transmite paz y amistad.
Leer más
Se trata de la importancia de mantener relaciones personales en base a la cautela.
Leer más
Luchar por todos los frentes de la batalla.
Leer más
Ser cauteloso a nivel laboral o profesional, no divulgar información.
Leer más
No es más que renunciar a diferentes hábitos o actitudes deplorables.
Leer más
AcomplejadoVoluntadActitud
Comparte este artículo
Bozrov Vladimir Mairovich, Head of the Department of Judicial Activities
Ural State Law Academy, Doctor of Law,
professor, federal judge of the highest qualification class (retired), emeritus
Lawyer of the Russian Federation, Laureate of the Themis Prize
A peasant stole a bag of potatoes to feed his family and sat down
to prison, and the minister who stole tens of millions of public money was convicted
conditionally. Unfortunately, such examples of anti-justice are not isolated.[1] In this at
desire, it is not difficult to make sure if you look at the sentences against 80
million fellow citizens convicted from 1961 years old.[2] However, it’s not about
quantitative description of the problem, but in its qualitative side, that is, in
how fair the sentences of the courts are in general, whether they should be so
and what are the criteria for judicial fairness. In this regard, there is quite a
a natural question: who, when and by what rules created the standard
justice for the courts, including the courts of the entire world community? Answer to this
the question is especially relevant at the present stage of maximum globalization
legal activity. Justice, since it is proclaimed inalienable
component of criminal justice,[3] should in such
case of being a single concept on all continents for all mankind outside
depending on time, nationality, religion, etc. She then
must be real, objective, provable, specific, and not
illusory-abstract, so that both the Tungus and the friend of the steppes – the Kalmyk perceive this
justice is the same as the sun, moon, water, air, colors and smells.
Only under this condition can justice be considered the dominant of justice in
anywhere in the world. Meanwhile, despite the abundance of international legal acts on
this occasion,[4] to achieve a unified
understanding of justice turned out to be daunting, in connection with which fair
justice not only in Russia but throughout the world is more like a crossroads
with a dim traffic light, the correctness of the movement on which everyone determines in
strength of the level of one’s own color perception. You don’t have to look far for examples.
So, in the newspaper “Sovershenno sekretno” under the heading “The most humane court in the world”
the following has been published. Taliban publicly stoned to death in northern Afghanistan
a couple in love – a 28-year-old man and a 23-year-old engaged woman. young
people were publicly executed in the marketplace. The execution took place a week after
after the Taliban publicly flogged and then
shot a woman who, according to the conclusion of the Sharia court, became pregnant in
the result of adultery. Endorsing “taliban justice”
Afghan clerics demanded that the authorities return Sharia law, and
along with them the death penalty. Taking this call as a guide to action,
the Taliban in the territories they control began to introduce a parallel legal
a system based on strict Sharia norms.[5] Note that in
during his reign in Afghanistan (1996-2001) the Taliban systematically
carried out public executions in football stadiums accused of adultery
stoned to death, and thieves had their limbs cut off.
You can object, they say,
the Taliban and the clergy do not currently represent state power.
The remark is correct. However, it is also indisputable that the basis of such examples
“justice” lies in the diversity of ideas about it in Afghan society, and in
if the Taliban seizes power, their criteria will develop into an official criminal
politics, and, consequently, judicial practice, as happened, for example, in
Iraq: Chief Justice of Iraq “rightly” sentenced to death by those
whom he in turn also “justly” sent to prison. Such
there are many system-forming examples in world history, which indicates
subjective, and not the legal nature of the category of justice, about its
derivatives from politics in general and criminal – in particular. nine0003
For example, for Nigeria and the United States, unlike most
European countries, the death penalty fits well into their ideas about fair retribution.
And this is understandable. Thus, in Nigeria, despite the protests of the world community, in
In 1995, nine activists of the Movement for the Rights of National Minorities were hanged
and environmentalists, among whom was the famous writer and public figure,
prominent ecologist, laureate of many international awards Kennas Raviv, nominated for
Nobel Peace Prize at 1996. At the same time, the condemned were on the gallows
in the blink of an eye, while in the prisons of Nigeria bandits, robbers, murderers,
sentenced to death, for years waiting for the execution of the sentence.
In the USA they also execute people. However, it seems to me that they are rather
it is not the justice of retribution that worries, but its economic component,
because the death penalty there is cheaper than life imprisonment. At that
same time in the USA not in all states
there is a penalty. Probably here, too, discord intervened in
defining social values about good and evil. nine0003
So, what is justice in criminal
justice? To this question, everyone will give his own, as it seems to him, the only
correct answer. Moreover, the range of opinions of scientists on this issue is so
striking that finding common ground between them represents a certain
complexity. For example, according to the deep conviction of some, “today in Russia there is no
there is no justice and judicial justice. ”[6] Other,
on the contrary, they categorically state that the Russian criminal and
criminal procedure law, as never before, is focused on
justice.[7] nine0003
Despite the polarity of opinions, they are still united by the fact that
everyone wants truth and justice from the court, but it is not entirely clear which one:
fairness of trial or fairness of sentence. And maybe that
another together? In this regard, it is appropriate to refer to Art. 6 European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which considers
category of justice as a requirement related to the dynamics of the judicial
proceedings as a whole, and to the final act of justice. nine0003
Without imploring the significance of the commented document, I could not
refrain from remarking that in this case we are dealing with
declarative norm, which is based on universally recognized human
values, not a formula of law. In support of this thesis, I believe it is appropriate
invoke Section 2 of Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America, in
which law and justice are presented as two independent value
category of justice.
If we abstract from what has been said and take a position
respected colleagues who uphold the legal nature of justice in the judiciary
activity, then as a result of such a curtsy, a problem will certainly arise
the provability of justice and the means to achieve it. This is first. Secondly
it will be necessary to include justice among the circumstances to be
evidence in a criminal case. Thirdly, there will be a need to disclose
justice in Art. 5 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation as a legal category. Otherwise
the meaning of the category of law sought by the court is lost. However, is it possible to solve these
questions in a situation where the court and the parties have their own idea of justice,
and the law does not name its objective criteria? An attempt to solve the problem
the legislator seems to have done, obliging
Part 2 Art. 367 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the appellate instance should give grounds in its decision
recognition of the verdict of the court of first instance fair. Meanwhile, at
interpretation of the term “grounds” in analogy with “grounds for initiating
criminal case”, it means the totality of objective facts. Hence, according to
elementary logic, the justice they justify must also be
category is objective, that is, provable, and not subjective – evaluative, which
comes into conflict with the facts of objective reality. It is no coincidence that in the Code of Criminal Procedure
In the Russian Federation, there was no place for justice among the principles of criminal justice.
There is no such principle in the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. nine0003
It can be assumed that in criminal proceedings
category of justice in its essence is most characterized by
substantive, and not procedural law, and therefore its content is enshrined in
Art. 6 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. One can agree with this argument, but only in part, since in
This rule is only about punishment. But
whereas to be with the right to a fair trial or
fair application of one or another measure of procedural coercion, and in
first of all – measures of restraint, although they are not criminal penalties,
however, the legitimacy of the application of which in such a case must also be
provided with fair justice? It turns out that justice has bypassed them
attention? Or is the principle established for modern Russian justice
double standards? nine0003
Efforts to find comprehensive answers to these and other
questions of the designated problem within
short speeches are no more than futile, and therefore I have to limit myself to
a brief analysis of some of its etiological aspects.
The problem of justice in general, its content, properties and
criteria has been the subject of discussion since the time of Pythagoras of Samos. If
believe biblical mythology, then Jesus added fuel to the fire of eternal disputes
Christ, who rewarded each participant in the grape harvest equally.[8] Meanwhile
the act of Christ was also considered fair not by all the workers, since some
they worked all day, others half a day, and still others even less. Continues
this discussion and the current generation of philosophers. At the same time, philosophical duels on
this matter gradually seeped into the realm of law. nine0003
In everyday life we often use the term
“fairness”, citing it as a criterion in assessing certain
actions of officials or individuals, as well as in many other cases. If
the offender is brought to criminal responsibility, it is customary to say that this
justly, and when condemning the innocent, we note injustice.
Justice is perceived as a concept of due, it is associated with historical
changing perceptions of inalienable human rights. As a category
public consciousness justice covers the ratio of real
the importance of various individuals (social groups) and their social position,
their rights and obligations, deeds and rewards, labor and rewards, etc.
justice usually include the idea of equality of all members of society in their
relation to material goods and person to person. Any inconsistency in
These ratios are mostly assessed as unfair. “People
resort to the vocabulary of justice, – said E. Kahn, – when they collide
with a real or imagined example of injustice.”[9]]
In scientific terms, scientists note the heterogeneity of the content
justice. “Justice has many aspects: social, economic and
etc. but all of them, – writes O.V. Martyshin, in a developed society acquire
political character are mediated by politics.”[10] As for the concept itself
justice, then, according to O.I. Rabtsevich, it is abstract,
needs specific implementations and can therefore have multiple meanings.
First, justice acts as a kind of ideal value,
concept of what should be. Secondly, justice can be identified
with truth. Thirdly, the concept under consideration can be used for
designation of a set of ideal (that is, desired) regularities
social interaction (how people should interact with each other).
In this sense, the term social justice can still be used.[11] nine0003
Abstract, subjective content
justice, its criteria and means of achievement were noted by thinkers of different
periods of development of human society. In Plato’s Phaedrus, Socrates
asks the question: “And if someone calls justice and good? Doesn’t he interpret
each of them in his own way, and are we not at odds with each other and ourselves with
yourself?”[12]
For Aristotle, justice consists in the common good.
At the same time, he does not deny the relationship between equality and justice: “According to the general
justice is such a kind of equality … equals should have
equal.” [13] However
justice, he continues, can be unequal: equality for equals, and
inequality for unequals. [14] nine0003
Mark Thulius Cicero put justice above all else:
“This valor alone is the sovereign and queen of all valor,” he exclaimed. [15]
Kant’s judgments of justice are based on
biblical covenant: love your neighbor as yourself. Representation
Proudhon on this occasion are also based on the Christian principle of love for
neighbor.[16]
In the modern understanding of a number of philosophers, justice is
criterion for evaluating all political and state-legal phenomena, although,
of course, not the only one, because the real socio-economic circumstances
dictate their demands and limit the application of the principles of justice,
act in relation to them as a necessity.[17] Other interpretations of justice are also known, representing a variety
the above formulations.[18] But perhaps
only Cicero succeeded for the first time in translating the concept of justice from the language
philosophical reasoning into the exact language of legal formulas.[19] It was his view of the ratio of law
and justice reflects real objectivity. The great Roman claimed
that the achievement of absolute justice is hardly possible, our
attempts to enjoy exceptional justice, because “we do not have a genuine
and a clear idea … of real justice, and we use only
shadows and outlines.”[20]
In the light of the above judgments, it is appropriate to look at the category
justice from the point of view of the judge. According to Art. 297 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation sentence
only then possesses the property of justice when it is established in
in accordance with procedural law and is based on the correct application
criminal law, and vice versa, in accordance with Art. 383 Code of Criminal Procedure unfair
there will be a sentence according to which a punishment was imposed that does not correspond to
the severity of the crime, the identity of the convicted person, or a punishment that, although not
goes beyond the limits provided for by the relevant article of the Special Part of the Criminal Code
RF, but in its form or size is unfair as a result of
excessive softness, and due to excessive severity. In this way,
these legal norms as a criterion of justice refer to the very
same justice, voluntarily or involuntarily erecting it, in contrast to the views
Cicero, to the level of an absolute legal category, which must necessarily
triumph in the administration of justice and find expression in
sentence. nine0003
There is also no unity in legal science on this issue
opinions. Some scientists believe that justice characterizes the sentence only with
moral side.[21] Wherein
some of them explicitly state that the justice of the sentence cannot be
reduced to its legitimacy and validity. She acts as a moral
their evaluation in the eyes of society should be a reflection of social justice.
However, a lawful and justified sentence, they believe, cannot always be
fair. For example, if the current applicable criminal law is no longer
meets social needs. The law may not reflect changing
moral and legal views of society. A verdict that meets the requirement
justice, the authors of this point of view argue, should take this into account. [22] nine0003
Others consider fairness as a criterion
justice of the sentence is a category of legal, which “is formed on
based on the assessment of compliance with legal
norms and acts, their application. It is in line with the law. To be legal
means to have the quality of legal justice. Conversely, who violated
legality, does not comply with legal norms, he acts contrary to the legal
justice.”[23]
Finally, according to others, justice in criminal
process plays the role of a principle, the requirements of which apply to all
procedural documents, including the verdict of the court. nine0003
If we turn to the history of the issue, then the right to a fair
Judgment has biblical roots. For example, requirements for a fair trial
procedure are found in the Old Testament. As a condition of justice
the law in question and its components are found in the most ancient sources
the rights. So, in the code of King Leogvild (Liber Judisiorum) 572; in Japanese
Constitution of Shotoku 604; in Art. 3, 4, 59, 77, 78 of the Pskov Judicial Charter; in
the Magna Carta of 1215; in the English Judges Ordinance of 1346 and
in many other documents of various periods of history. On modern
stage almost everywhere where there are written constitutions, the right to
a fair trial is constitutional.[24] nine0003
In relation to Russia of the Soviet period, justice as
the obligatory property of the sentence was enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR in 1922,
according to Art. 63 which the decision was considered fair only if
if justified by the actual circumstances of the case, was not
unfounded, and the punishment imposed on the convict was recognized as proportionate
the severity of the crime committed and the degree of danger to the identity of the perpetrator.
In the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR 1923 in Art. 417 justice was understood
compliance with the deed of the punishment imposed by the court, which does not go beyond,
established by law. We see the demand for justice in Art. 347 Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR
nineteen61. However, we note that they are not talking about a fair trial,
but about a fair verdict. Thus, even from the post-revolutionary
procedural law, we see that justice as a requirement
public morality and morality, having received legal accreditation in all
Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR, and then in the current criminal procedure
legislation (for example, articles 297, 367 and 383 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), was transformed
into criminal proceedings as a synthesis of moral and legal
categories. On this occasion, A.F. Koni said: “A judge, deciding a case, never
has neither the right nor the moral grounds to say: ….. I want it that way. He must
say … – I can’t do otherwise, – I can’t because both the logic of things and the internal
feeling, and worldly truth, and the meaning of the law – firmly and steadily suggest
me my decision, and against everyone else my conscience will speak as a judge and
human. ”[25] nine0003
In order to realize in the judgment both “the logic of things and the internal
feeling, and worldly wisdom, and the meaning of the law and conscience “the judge is entitled
at the discretion of. So, according to part 3 of Art. 60 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation when appointing a guilty person
punishment, the court from the point of view of morality and morality is obliged within the boundaries
judicial discretion to assess the public danger of a criminal act and
the identity of the perpetrator, to determine the impact of the imposed punishment on the correction
convict, as well as the living conditions of his family, and taking into account the above
circumstances to choose the type and measure of punishment. If, however, the result of discretion
judge satisfied the parties and coincided with the discretion of the higher courts,
then it is considered fair. Discretion as well as justice in
law enforcement is always associated with a subjective factor. [26] However, any of the alternatives
located within the boundaries of judicial discretion, legal.[27] “For me, discretion, writes A. Barak, –
is the power given to a person who has the power to choose between two or
more alternatives when each of the alternatives is legal.”[28] In this regard, the literature can
meet definitions for every taste, but the most accurate seems to be
definition of Professor K.I. Komissarov. Formulating the concept of judicial
discretion, he writes that discretion is the power granted to the court
make such a decision, subject to specific conditions, on issues
right, the possibility of which follows from general and only relatively certain
instructions of the law.[29]
judicial discretion features that allow it to be attributed in contrast to
justice, to legal phenomena. First, it is nothing
otherwise, as a consequence of the implementation of the will of the judge; secondly, the source of judicial will
is the power given to him by law to decide on legal matters;
thirdly, the powers of a judge are limited by boundaries clearly defined by law, in
within which the judge is obliged (and not entitled) to choose one single correct according to
decision in relation to a particular case. nine0003
With this understanding of judicial discretion, there is little
place for arbitrariness, but enough – for the subjective perception of objective facts,
causing justice. Let me remind you that punishment, as the end result
confirmed accusatory thesis, depends on the level of truth
the amount of the charge. At the same time, to reveal for certain (in absolute) all
the circumstances of the deed, it is unlikely that criminal procedural means
possible. It is no coincidence that the new Code of Criminal Procedure exempts the court from such a duty. That is
truth, allowing the court to make a fair decision, conventional,
depending on the limits of discretion of the judge established by law.
Therefore, justice, which should signify justice, is not
may be different. nine0003
In short, the problem of justice in criminal
judiciary remains among the most relevant, requiring further scientific
comprehension. In the meantime, as in all times, considering a criminal case and
when deciding a sentence, the judge, with an eye to the law, has to be guided by
own ideas of justice.
[1] See about this Padva G. Impossible
count unfair conviction//News of 02.06.2003,
[2] Tamara Shkel. terrible
statistics//Rossiyskaya Gazeta dated 08.12.2004
[3] See Art. 6 of the European Convention for the Protection
human rights and fundamental freedoms.
[4] Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; Convention against Torture
and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment and
punishment; Basic principles of the independence of the judiciary; Minimum
United Nations Standard Rules for the Administration of Justice in Respect of
minors; American Convention on Human Rights; African
charter of human and peoples’ rights and. etc.
[5] Top Secret, No. 09/256,
(09/2010). P. 4.
[6] See: Istarkhov V. Blow of the Russian Gods.
St. Petersburg. 2001, pp. 378-379.
[7] See: Podolsky N.A. Principle
justice in the criminal process in Russia//Russian judge. 2002. No. 12. S.
13-15.
[8] It is possible that this biblical story
influenced the views of Theodore Rousseau and Proudhon Pierre Joseph, who also considered
the real embodiment of justice is equality. See: Proudhon. What is property or
research on the principle of the right of power. M. 1919. S. 23, 160.
[9] Cahn
E. Justice. – Jn. International encyclopedia of Social sciences., 1968. Vol. 8.
p. 346.
[10] See: Martyshin O.V. justice and
law.//Law and politics. 2000. No. 12. P. 4.
[11] See: Rabtsevich O.I. About the content of the right to
fair trial.//JP. 2004. No. 2. P. 23.
[12] See: Plato. Collected works in 4 volumes.
T. 2. M. 1993. S. 173.
[13] See: Aristotle. Policy. Book. 3. VII. 1. S. 114.
[14] Ibid. Book. 3. V. 8. S. 107.
[15] See: Cicero. About old age. About friendship. About
responsibilities. M. 1975. S. 131.
[16] See: Proudhon. What is property or
research on the principle of law and power. M. 1919. S. 23.
[17] See: Kistyakovsky B.A. Philosophy and
sociology of law. SPb. 1998. S. 77-117.
[18] See: Grinberg L.G.,
Novikov A.I. Criticism of modern bourgeois concepts of justice. L. 1977.
[19] See: Khairullin V.I. One of the classic
concepts of the category of justice. Law and Politics. 2000. No. 12. S. 15-25. nine0003
[20] Cicero. Decree. Op. P. 131.
[21] Textbook of criminal procedure / Ed.
A.S. Koblikov. M. 1995. S. 284; Criminal process / Ed. K.F. Gutsenko. M.
2005, p. 344; Kogan L.N. Live with justice. Sverdlovsk, 1988. S. 12.
[22] Criminal Procedure Law / Ed.
P.A. Lupinskaya. M. 2005. P. 399.
[23] See: Ekimov A.m. Justice
socialist law. L., 1980. P. 98.
[24] See: Rabtsevich O.A. international legal
securing the right to a fair trial.//Consultant Plus.
2004
[25] Koni A.F. Fav. Prod. M., 1958. T. 1.
P. 34.
[26] See: A.B. Abushenko. Judicial discretion
in civil and arbitration proceedings. M., 2002; A.A. Barrack. Judicial
discretion. M., 1999; V.B. Goncharov, V.V. Kozhevnikov. The issue of discretion
law enforcement entity in the law enforcement sphere//State and Law,
2001, No. 3, pp. 51-60; Marfitsin P.G. The concept and meaning of discretion in criminal
legal proceedings / / Russian judge, 2002, No. 2, pp. 38-44; O.A. Papkov.
Court discretion. M. 2005; L.I. Rarog, V.P. Stepanin. Judicial discretion in
sentencing// State and Law, 2002, No. 2, pp. 36-42; A.I. rarog,
Yu.V. Grachev. The concept, grounds, features and significance of judicial discretion in
criminal law//State and law, 2001, No. 11, p. 90-98; Telyatnikov V.I.
Judge’s conviction. M. 2004.
[27] See: A.I. Rarog, Yu.V. Grachev. Decree.
Op. P. 94.
[28] Barak A.: op. Op. P. 376.
[29] See: Komissarov K.I. Judicial discretion
in the Soviet civil procedure / Soviet state and law. 1969, No. 4. S.
49.
1. General provisions
1.1. The St. George Ribbon Literary Competition was established by the Russian Union of Writers to commemorate the Great Victory over fascism. St. George’s Ribbon “the color of gunpowder and fire”, established by Catherine II as a symbol of loyalty and courage, courage and prudence, shown for the glory of the Russian Empire, became the prototype of the ribbons of Soviet awards: the Order of Glory and the medal “For the Victory over Germany”. The holding of the competition is a tribute to the memory of the heroism of our people, shown in the rear and on the battlefields, as well as during military operations in the hot spots of the planet. nine0003
1.2. The purpose of the competition is to strengthen national self-consciousness and patriotism, to revive interest in the heroic history of Russia.
1.3. The task of the literary competition “St. George’s Ribbon” is to encourage authors who turn to military-patriotic topics in their work. Authors of historical and patriotic works that glorify the civil and military prowess of Russian soldiers and home front workers, as well as the importance of maintaining and strengthening peace on earth, can expand their readership, and readers interested in this topic can discover new literary names. nine0003
1.4. Competitive selection is carried out on the basis of the largest Russian literary portals Poetry.ru and Proza.ru, which provide everyone with the opportunity to freely publish literary works.
1.5. The selection of finalists and laureates of the award by voting is carried out by a jury consisting of professional writers and representatives of military professions.
1.6. The composition of the editorial commission and the jury is approved by the Organizing Committee of the competition. In order to obtain an objective assessment of the works put forward for the competition, the composition of the editorial commission is not disclosed. The composition of the jury is published on the competition website. nine0003
1.7. The award competition is held in the following main categories:
2. Procedure for nominating works for participation in the competition
2. 1. Any author at least 16 years old, regardless of nationality, profession and place of residence, who writes in Russian and fully accepts the conditions of the competition, can take part in the competition.
2.2. Works devoid of artistic value, with grammatical and stylistic flaws, as well as those that violate ethical standards or demonstrate disrespect for the history of Russia, cannot be nominated for the competition. nine0003
2.3. The award competition is held in two stages. At the first stage (nomination), the editorial committee considers the author’s works and decides on his participation in the competition. At the second stage, the jury members evaluate the works published in the special almanacs of the St. George’s Ribbon literary competition and select the winners of the competition.
2.4. Applications for nomination for the competition are accepted from authors in electronic form on the literary portals Poetry.ru and Proza.ru on the page of the competition. The editorial committee studies the creativity of the authors of the portals Poetry.ru and Proza.ru, and, on its own initiative, nominates authors worthy of participation in the competition by notifying them by e-mail. nine0003
2.5. The nominated author has the right to nominate for the award competition not only works approved by the editorial committee, but also other works at his discretion.
2.6. To participate in the competition, the nominated author must submit an application for placement of works in a special edition for jury members. Only works published in the prize almanacs participate in the competition. The authors jointly finance the cost of publishing the almanac in proportion to the number of pages that their works occupy. Authors have the right to order author’s copies of almanacs with their works. nine0003
2.7. According to Russian copyright law, a written contract for the publication of works is concluded with each author. At the same time, the authors of the works retain exclusive copyrights and, if desired, can sell them to any publishing house.
3. Terms of the competition
3.1. The St. George Ribbon Literary Competition is held on an ongoing basis, the results are summed up once every five years by the anniversaries of the Great Victory (80 years of Victory in 2025 and so on). nine0003
3.2. An application for participation in the competition can be submitted electronically from the moment the next competitive season is announced until its end. The terms for consideration of applications by the editorial committee are from 3 to 5 working days.
3.3. The selection of the winners of the competition is carried out by an expert jury from May 1 to May 5 in the anniversary year of the Great Victory.
3.4. The names of the winners of the competition are announced at the solemn ceremony of awarding the winners, held on the occasion of the Great Victory Day. nine0003
4. Summing up the results of the competition and awarding the winners
4.1. The jury members consider the works published in the special almanacs of the St. George’s Ribbon competition and evaluate the works of each author according to a ten-point system. Jury members vote for each printed almanac during the competition year.
4.2. After the publication of all competition almanacs, the Organizing Committee of the competition conducts a summing up. Based on the voting results of the jury members, a list of finalists of the competition is formed, which includes the authors who have received the highest scores. After summing up the results of the competition and the end of the festive events, the list of finalists is published on the competition website. nine0003
4.3. The winners of the competition are selected by the jury members from among the finalists of the competition by direct secret ballot.
4.4. The winners of the competition are awarded with commemorative diplomas, and also receive: for the first place – the right to publish their own book at the expense of the Organizing Committee of the competition; for the second and third places – publication of works in the Anthology of Russian Poetry or Anthology of Russian Prose at the expense of the Organizing Committee of the competition.