Shatalov Alexander - Professor, Department of Judicial Power and Justice, Law Faculty, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Doctor of Juridical Sciences. E-mail: asshatalov@rambler.ru
Address: National Research University — Higher School of Economics, 20, Myasnitskaya str., Moscow, 101000, Russian Federation.

The article deals with the questions relating to the appeal process enacted January 1 2013. It features the genesis of this legal phenomenon and the problems of optimizing its regulations in the current RF legal procedure law. Describing new procedural stages, the author tries to understand the necessity to spread the process of appealing on court decisions on all the Russian legal system levels. The author argues that a wide range of competencies for appeal courts promotes to the implementation of the right of citizens to legal defense stipulated in article 46 of the RF Constitution. This right presupposes not only providing the opportunity to people to strive for correcting mistakes if they were when the cases were considered by local courts but allows the parties to be involved in studying proofs, show new evidence and stand their ground in court actions. Having analyzed new legal proceedings, the author makes a conclusion that the current legal proceedings has some advantages, the main of which is that the institution of appeal ensures the opportunity to implement the only legal means intended to provide justness of preliminary and final procedural decisions on criminal cases. This paramount procedural guarantee is supported with the option to review of each decision should be done by a higher court, i.e. experienced and competent judges. Secondly, the process of checking their legality, validity and fairness must be based on oral and scrutinize examination of research of not only the evidence those collected but additional evidence, but not on the basis of studying the materials of the criminal case. Finally, to correct mistakes, courts of appeal may deliver its own judgment without returning the case to the court of the first instance and the decision may be absolutely different from the one which was appealed.