REVIEW units 1 -2



REVIEW units 3 -4



REVIEW units 5 -6



REVIEW units 7-8



REVIEW units 9-10



REVIEW units 11 -12




REVIEW units 13-15






Part 1


Jonathan Cunningham


Bad laws, whether they reflect and outdated mode of thinking or are just plain stupid contribute to a lack of popular support. They weaken the moral authority of the law as well as encourage citizens to ignore or circumvent the law. I've given three examples, but I've tried to stay away from laws that are obviously racist/sexist/homophobic. Unless you're a racist, sexist or homophobe I think it's safe to say we all disagree with those laws (mandatory minimums discrepancy for crack/powdered cocaine, sodomy laws, etc.); Marijuana is illegal. As long as a completely harmless and immensely popular intoxicant is grounds for hard time, we're going to be putting an unnecessary and extreme burden on our law enforcement.

Cash in excess of 10,000 is illegal to carry. Of course, even if you can prove that the search used to find the money was illegal, or that the money wasn't at all drug related, the US can still just sue the money. Since money isn't a citizen, it doesn't have the same rights you do and the rules that the prosecution plays by get real loose real fast.

Identification is required almost across the board in the United States. This is less on the written law side (though Hiibel v. Sixth set the standard that a state could make it illegal to refuse to ID yourself if you're detained for a crime), but in practice not carrying an ID is almost guaranteed to get you a visit to the local precinct if you're stopped, even on suspicion without hard evidence. Seriously cracking down and stopping this will go a long way to rid Police Officers of the mindset that their responsibilities and authority lies beyond just the law.

Inefficient Law Enforcement– Our law enforcement is silly, wasteful and abusive. To ensure the safety of the citizens of the United States, we need to start cutting costs and stopping abuses of power:

•There exists an overemphasis on traffic laws and drugs in United States law enforcement. Funding and manpower that should be used keeping citizens safe and good laws enforced is being misallocated in massive amounts.

•Getting rid of the «Blue Shield of Silence» is vital. I've spoken in length about this before so I won't elaborate here.

•There aren't sufficient checks or balances for local law enforcement. Even without a «Blue Shield» where internal affairs officers and whistle blowers are demonized, hated and punished for their work, local officers have far too much leeway in terms of power of search and seizure, which of course bleeds over into other law enforcement.

Overcrowded and Underfunded Prisons – With so many prisoners from bad laws and bad law enforcement, as well as innocent prisoners who are working on appeals or have fallen through the cracks, it's important that we ensure that the human rights of the prisoners are maintained while keeping the prisons secure. We won't be able to do this with the number of prisoners we have now:

•There are far too many prisoners. 1 in 131 US citizens is in prison. That means for every 132 people, 131 of them has to pay $22,650 per year for the fourth person to be incarcerated.

•Prison rape rates are ridiculous. At least 140,000 people are raped in prison every year. For comparison, there are 272,350 rape cases each year outside of prisons. 1/132nd of the population has more than half of the rape cases of the rest of the country.

•The current prison structure generates artificially low standards of performance by keeping closed doors, closed books and punishing both officers and inmates who criticize the administration. Protections for these whistle blowers are vital for a prison to successfully incarcerate prisoners.

Misplaced Burden of Proof– The concept of «Innocent until proven guilty» is an powerful and necessary one that we've placed less and less emphasis on as communications technology exponentially improves. We need to keep the laws up to date with the technology to keep this precept in place:

Pedophilia is such a grotesque and horrific crime that we often overlook lack of evidence and skip right to judgement. In «at will» states, employment is often terminated at even an accusation, especially in the case of religious or educational institutions.

Spousal abuse is another such crime. Often the guilt of the husband will be assumed in these cases with just an accusation and he'll spend the night in jail before being able to post bail the next day (if he's able to post at all). This is regardless of the actual evidence at hand.

Public nudity and other «sexual crimes» that include consensual public intercourse and public urination often result in the offender being placed on a sexual predator list or database which is accessible online, even if the offense was completely innocuous. Imagine peeing on a tree and being thrown out of your house because it happens to be within 5 miles of a school.

Poor Appeals System– Without a way to appeal the decision of a court, you are completely at the mercy of the Judge, Jury and Lawyers you're dealing with. All too often one or more of these entities have a prejudice, predisposition or conflict of interest, or evidence is found that exonorates the convict, or any number of events unfold that come to light only after the conviction.

Recently you may have read about Louisiana's appeals denial– Jarrold Peterson, an aid appointed by Chief Judge Edward Dufresne to review appeals request (he handled over 2400 of these cases) committed suicide. The note he left said he killed himself because of overwhelming guilt.

He said: «Dufresne had instructed him to deny every appeal not prepared by an attorney. Peterson said he was instructed to write up and file the denials without ever showing the appeals to the judges»

The Texas conviction overturn rate demonstrates exactly why our appeals system needs to be better. Over 30 cases have been overturned since 2001, including several death row cases and life sentences. Troy Anthony Davis had seven of his 9 witnesses recant (and claim that one of the final two was the real criminal, but he has now disappeared and police are not looking for him), but Georgia still denied his appeal. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals saved his life by less than three days.

Appeals results are almost directly determined by the amount of money a citizen has.


1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell it in Russian.


2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the text below.

days pain fourth way resolve create persecution country

property peasants challenges mainly confession

pressure remain mill confession fate push almost


Anyang, China – For three 1)________ and three nights, the police wrenched Qin Yanhong's arms high above his back, jammed his knees into a sharp metal frame, and kicked his gut whenever he fell asleep. The 2)________ was so intense that he watched sweat pour off his face and form puddles on the floor.

On the 3)________ day, he broke down. «What color were her pants they demanded. «Black»,  he gasped, and felt a whack on the back of his head. «Red»,  he cried, and got another punch. «Blue»,  he ventured. The beating stopped.

This is how Mr. Qin, a 35-year-old steel 4)________ worker in Henan Province in central China, recalled groping in the darkness of a interrogation room to deduce the «correct» details of a rape and murder, end his torture and give the police the 5)________ they required to close a nettlesome case.

On the strength of his coerced confession alone, prosecutors indicted Mr. Qin. A panel of judges then convicted him and sentenced him to death. He is alive today only because of a rare twist of 6)________ that proved his innocence and forced the authorities to let him go, though not before a final 7)________ to have him executed anyway.

Justice in China is swift but not sure. Criminal investigations nearly always end in guilty pleas. Prosecutors 8)________ never lose cases brought to trial. But recent disclosures of wrongful convictions like Mr. Qin's have exposed deep flaws in a judicial system that often answers more to political leaders than the law.

«Our public security system is the product of a dictatorship», Mr. Qin wrote his family when he was on death row. «Police use dictatorial measures on anyone who resists them. Ordinary people have no 9)________ to defend themselves».

The viability of China's Communist Party depends more than ever on its ability to 10)________ a credible legal system. The party needs the law to check corruption, which has eroded its legitimacy. The authorities want people to turn to the courts, rather than take to the streets, to 11)________ social discontents that have made the country more volatile than at any time since the 1989 democracy movement.

The law, in other words, has become a front line in China's struggle to modernize under one-party rule. Yet Mr. Qin's 12)________ and similar miscarriages of justice that have come to light this year suggest that China is struggling with a fundamental question of jurisprudence: Do officials serve the law, or do laws serve the officials? Or, to put it another way, is the Communist Party creating rule of law or rule by law?

Twenty-seven years after Deng Xiaoping declared at the outset of China's economic reforms, that «the 13)________ must rely on law»,  the Communist Party realizes that it cannot effectively govern a thriving market-oriented economy unless people trust in law. Hundreds of thousands of new lawyers, stronger courts and a blizzard of Western-inspired codes protect 14)________, enforce contracts and limit police powers.

Disgruntled 15)________, displaced urban homeowners and newly wealthy entrepreneurs demand that the authorities respect constitutional rights long treated as notional. Even inside the system, some policemen, prosecutors and judges have tried making the law into a more independent force.

But the transition has been arduous, and the outcome remains uncertain. Beijing draws the line at legal 16)________ to senior officials or important government agencies. The courts rarely if ever rule in favor of political protesters. Even in business cases, political influence often proves decisive.

Criminal law poses one of the biggest challenges – and most pointed sources of discontent. The police and courts still rely 17)________ on pretrial confessions and perfunctory court proceedings to resolve criminal cases instead of the Western tradition of analyzing forensic evidence and determining guilt through contentious court trials.

China's criminal laws forbid torture and require judges to weigh evidence beyond a suspect's 18)________. But lawyers and legal scholars say forced confessions 19)________ endemic in a judicial system that faces 20)________ to maintain «social stability» at all costs.


3. Read the following article and make a rendering of it in English.




О коррупции в системе российского правосудия с начала судебной реформы принято говорить как об одном из главных ее пороков.

Анализируя претензии общества к судебной системе, В. И. Полудняков в 2002 г., в бытность председателем Санкт-Петербургского городского суда, назвал коррупцию одним из трех главных обвинений в адрес российской судебной власти (наряду с волокитой и «абсолютной безнаказанностью судей»), хотя настаивал на том, что в общественном сознании масштабы коррупции в судах явно завышены(1). О соответствии этих стереотипов действительности по имеющимся в литературных источниках сведениям судить невозможно, поскольку обвинения в коррупции судей, как правило, статистическими или социологическими данными не сопровождаются. Однако если бы данные о привлечении судей к уголовной ответственности за так называемые «коррупционные преступления» и придавались широкой огласке, они, скорее всего, тоже были бы обречены на недоверие в обществе, убежденном в высокой латентности этих преступлений и в корпоративной замкнутости судебной системы.

Обсуждение на страницах печати проблем коррупции вообще и в системе правосудия особенно обычно перегружено эмоционально-ажиотажными моментами, которые не способствуют не только решению проблемы, но даже и деловому ее анализу. Публичная демонизация коррупции и коррупционеров, превращение антикоррупционных мотивов в главную составляющую всех организационных преобразований в судебной системе чреваты не меньшими издержками для правосудия, нежели сама коррупция. Важно понимать, что за каждым «антикоррупционным демаршем» неизменно будут стоять субъективные интересы и устремления конкретных людей, которые далеко не всегда совпадут с интересами и целями правосудия. Едва ли оздоровлению российского правосудия могут способствовать такие спровоцированные в антикоррупционном запале меры, как тотальная электронная слежка за судьями со стороны спецслужб или волна доносительства внутри аппаратов самих судов. Антикоррупционная политика в системе правосудия допустима лишь до тех пор, пока она не уничтожает собственно правосудие в общесоциальном его понимании.

Профессионализм анализа глобальной для современного российского государства проблемы коррупции требует, как представляется, признания того, что противодействовать коррупции должны, главным образом, не сами люди, облеченные властью, а правовые условия их властной деятельности –  правовые статусы и правовые процедуры, в которых эта деятельность осуществляется.

В Федеральном законе от 25 декабря 2008 г. № 273-Φ3 «О противодействии коррупции» среди «мер по профилактике коррупции» названо «введение антикоррупционных стандартов, то есть установление для соответствующей области социальной деятельности единой системы запретов, ограничений, обязанностей и дозволений, направленных на предупреждение коррупции» (п. 5 ст. 7). Термин «антикоррупционные стандарты» (anticorruption standards) достаточно широко используется в международно-правовой практике и воспринят в современном российском законодательстве.


Part 2


By  Anthony V. Curto 


For more than fifty years, I’ve practiced commercial law with a singular mindset: Isolate the issues and bring them to a conclusion, swiftly and judiciously. But despite this day-to-day philosophy, I’ve come to a troubling conclusion. The civil justice system today – whether dealing with simple or complex matters – takes so long and costs so much that it no longer serves as an effective tool in regulating society’s legal matters. In the end, the system has become so dysfunctional that it’s virtually impossible for the average person to rely on it as a means of resolving disputes.

The problem is not with our basic democratic principles. Over the years, the American legal system has evolved according to the will of its people, ensuring continuous moral and lawful equality. But the administration of the law has not evolved fast enough to match the needs of a culture driven by accelerating technological change.

Today, our courts are mired in delay, bogged down with tens of thousands of cases. Lawsuits often take years, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, drain us psychologically and produce outcomes that no one can predict.

Day by day, with each legal experience, people are losing confidence in our system’s ability to deliver justice.

All of these problems relate to time: Time is the enemy. Time is money and frustration that blunts the moral imperative of any court attempting to dispense justice. The old saying, «Justice delayed is justice denied»,  is more than an axiomatic statement. It has a deep and abiding meaning for our civilization.

Still, there are ways the legal system can not only be fixed, but substantially improved.  For instance, we can require that the same judge be assigned each case, from beginning to end. Facing a different judge at each legal appearance de-personalizes all judges. Judges must be seen as a people, not anonymous manikins in black robes; they should not appear remote; they belong in the case.

Judges who follow a case to its conclusion would be able to learn much more about litigants’ motives. Deliberate stalling by either party would be more difficult, since it’s harder to do so in person than on paper – particularly when facing the same judge at every session.

For their part, judges would have more opportunities to develop a sincere interest in the fair resolution of each case, and litigants, in turn, would likely sense the judge’s true interest.

Furthermore, much less paperwork and time would likely be wasted on painstaking analysis, passed from court to court.

Some other examples of «time-killing» methods:

• Streamline pretrial paperwork, eliminating the endless exchange of written bills and motions. Discussions could take place in front of a judge, with clarifications and questions addressed until they’re mutually understood and settled.

• Require plaintiffs to pay expenses if an appeal is lost. Everyone deserves a fair trial, but if a plaintiff loses a case and appeals, then he or she should pay the defendant’s expenses accrued beyond the trial. Under this procedure, a malicious plaintiff could no longer prolong a suit without personal risk.

• Bar contingency fees. Many litigants choose a contingency deal with their attorney because it appears cheaper; they don’t have to put any money up front. But the real solution is to strip time out of the legal system, so litigation requires less money and people would be less pressured to gamble on their lawyer’s success.

• Require litigants to attend their pre-trial procedures. Today, few litigants go to court with their lawyers, often because the cases are confusing and time-consuming. But the courts were meant for ordinary people; plaintiff and defendant must be made to feel that justice is in their hands, too.

• Expand the role of magistrates. Thousands of these appointed lawyers already assist federal district court judges who cut the judicial caseload by performing various duties. An expansion of the Magistrate Judge System is long overdue.

These are just a few possible «time fixes» to improve our civil justice system. And fix the system we must, for if we fail, we risk losing our hard-won legacy system of swift and accessible justice. And given that almost all business interactions have legal components, such a loss of access would constitute a fatal blow to a just and moral society.

Time, indeed, is of the essence. Before some dreadful hour, we must reestablish a base of support for our legal system to reflect the good in its people, rather than  their defiance. Through our mastery of time, the judicial system would derive great strength, ensuring future generations of Americans of their freedom.



1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell it in Russian.


2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the text below.

judicial strong wrong citizen good law authority

people need provides powerful effectively point

members strengthened stronger


The 1)__________ system in Cambodia requires the strong enforcement of the law. This means that the rule of law in Cambodia is not 2)__________ enough to control the society in order. People who are powerful are not afraid to do something 3)__________, for when they face any problem, they use their money to help them. In addition, the lack of knowledge of law of Khmer 4)__________ is also providing some disadvantages the 5)__________ implementation of law. For instance, when a person does something wrong, sometimes he or she does not know that it is against the 6)__________, and it easy also for the court to cheat on them.

The lack of getting the information from authority also has some bad effects for Khmer citizen. The local 7)__________ seems serve the interest of the people who have money to corrupt them. In practice, when we face a problem and 8)__________ the help from the authority, we must have some money to pay for them. In addition, the lack of understanding between 9)__________ also provides a lot of issues in the society, and the issue sometimes is solved with violent act. Besides this, the local authority seems ignore with the social problem. They serve only something that 10)__________ the interest for them. The morality of their professional mostly is not acceptable. For instance, the official who works in some ministry or departments is so rude when we need something to be helped.

In addition, Constitution of Cambodia states that all Khmer citizens have equal rights, and their rights are protected by the Constitution. However, in practice, the 11)__________ people are still superior to normal people. This issue needs strong commitment of the government to settle more 12)__________. The government should pay more attention to reform this system in order to balance the isolation of right of the citizen in the society.

In my 13)__________ of view, all of these issues can be solved with the reform of the whole system. First, the judicial system needs to be reformed from the top to bottom. The independence of the court should be improved. There should be 14)__________ punishment to the court 15)__________ when he or she works against his or her professional. In addition, our legal system should be 16)__________ more efficiently. The quality of implementing the law by the legal officer should be better than this. Moreover, the law on 17)__________ must be enforced more effectively; the power or influence of the top leaders should be more 18)__________ from the judicial branch. The legal 19)__________ in our education system should be stronger, and the quality of the law should be more debatable during the process of making. For example, as we know, most of the law in 20)__________ by the Council of Ministers. This indicates that most laws serve the interest for the government like the law on corruption spends very long time to make, for this law will provide a lot of bad 21)__________ for the government. In 22)__________, during the debate of law in the National Assembly, the opinion or advice of the members of the 23)__________ is rarely taken for consideration. Therefore, the imbalance of power in law making provides the imbalance of power in the democratic process in Cambodia.


3. Read the following article and make a rendering of it in English.



В силу особенностей развития нашего государства его правоохранительные структуры не всегда и не во всем контролировались даже верховной властью, в иные эпохи становясь влиятельной политической силой. Традиционные для средневековья приемы «производства истины», сводящиеся к широкому использованию агентуры и выколачиванию признаний, так называемому розыску, в России практиковались дольше, чем в других европейских странах. Традиция средневекового следствия и суда, успешно изжитая страной в конце XIX в., была во многом возрождена после 1917 г. Но и сегодня, уже после изменения общественного строя и проведения соответствующих реформ, судам и правоохранительным органам не удается избавиться от обвинительного уклона.

Стереотип обвинительного уклона в деятельности судов, нередко закрывающих глаза на недобросовестную подготовку дел, на фальсификацию доказательств обвинения органами дознания и следствия, превращает суды, по сути, в одну из правоохранительных структур. Отсюда и более широкие, системные проблемы всей сферы юстиции: от переполненности следственных изоляторов и тюрем до большого числа следственных и судебных ошибок.

При правосудии, ограничивающем вынесение оправдательных приговоров, качество предварительного расследования не может быть обеспечено в принципе. Ведь даже уголовные дела, в которых полностью отсутствует доказательственная база в отношении обвиняемого, «успешно» рассматриваются судами и завершаются обвинительными приговорами, правда, иногда с назначением относительно мягкого наказания. В результате компетентность следствия и дознания, качество расследования уголовных дел катастрофически падают.

Одним из свидетельств этому служит тот факт, что органы уголовного преследования нередко прибегают к неправовому доказыванию, т.е. обоснованию обвинения ненадлежащим образом собранными, неполноценными доказательствами. Для этого они, в частности, используют экспертные заключения, полученные от профессионально некомпетентных лиц. При наличии большого числа государственных экспертных учреждений, которые бесплатно проводят для органов следствия и суда исследования, следственные органы и суд обращаются в негосударственные экспертные учреждения или даже в учреждения, не являющиеся экспертными, поручая исследования лицам, не имеющим ни необходимого специального образования, ни подготовки в области конкретной судебно-экспертной деятельности. Например, назначая психолого-лингвистическую экспертизу, исследование поручают не филологу или психологу, а математику, занимающемуся на основной работе «общими вопросами» и не имеющему ни одной публикации, связанной с филологией или психологией. Из таких «экспертов» создаются целые «бригады», услуги которых весьма востребованы, поскольку в силу своей некомпетентности они легко управляемы. Известно немало дел, по которым на основании необоснованных экспертных заключений постановлены обвинительные приговоры.

Получает все более широкое распространение практика обоснования решений следственных и судебных органов, в том числе о применении меры пресечения в виде заключения под стражу и о продлении срока содержания под стражей обвиняемых, результатами оперативно-розыскной деятельности, например справками оперуполномоченных («имеются сведения, что, оставаясь на свободе, обвиняемый может скрыться»; «имеются сведения, что, оставаясь на свободе, обвиняемый может уничтожить доказательства и помешать расследованию»). Заявления стороны защиты по поводу того, что подобные справки и их содержание не отвечают требованиям, предъявляемым к доказательствам УПК РФ, так как не проверены путем производства следственных действий в установленном законом порядке, во внимание не принимаются.

Все чаще следственные и судебные органы, в нарушение ч. 2 ст. 75 УПК РФ, обосновывают свои решения показаниями свидетеля, базирующимися на предположении, или показаниями свидетеля, который не может указать источник своей осведомленности («мне кажется, что за мной кто-то следит, и я думаю, что это люди обвиняемого»; «я точно знаю, что обвиняемый может уничтожить доказательства и скрыться, но не могу сказать, откуда мне это известно»).

Случаи, когда подозреваемые в совершении преступления попросту «назначены» сотрудником правоохранительной структуры, проводящим предварительное расследование, к сожалению, не редкость.


Part 3



Half of all Australians will experience a legal problem this year. Most won’t get legal assistance or come into contact with our courts or other legal institutions. In part, this is because Australia’s legal system is «too slow, expensive and hard to understand».

This was a key finding of the Productivity Commission’s draft report of its inquiry into access to justice, released this week.

The 891-page report seeks feedback on a number of findings and recommendations to improve access to justice. But why are they needed? And are the recommendations practical?

In 2008, NSW’s Law and Justice Foundation randomly surveyed over 20,000 Australians about their legal problems. The findings, published in a series of reports in 2012, identified that almost half of respondents experienced a legal problem in the last year. But legal problems are concentrated in a small group of people: around 10% of people account for more than half of these problems.

This research also indicated that people’s social circumstances contribute to their experience of legal problems. In medical parlance, these are gaining prominence as «social determinants of health». Similarities exist with the social determinants of legal problems.

The research found that people with a disability, single parents, unemployed people and recipients of social security payments, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are more likely to have legal problems.

However, most people are unable to access legal assistance. This is because they don’t know where to turn or it is too expensive. The Productivity Commission examined these barriers, among other issues focused on increasing access to justice and reducing costs for the public and governments.

Australia’s system of civil dispute resolution, with a focus on constraining costs and promoting access to justice and equality before the law.

The costs issue is vital. The Australian government spends over A$700 million each year on its own legal advice and representation. It is the largest consumer of legal services and is particularly interested in systemic reforms that could reduce this amount. Businesses also complain about the cost of lawyers.

The commission considers these issues in detail. Its report has recommendations to increase access to alternative dispute resolution, further improve clarity in costs disclosures (a consistent complaint levelled at lawyers), increase competition and reduce regulation of lawyers, and improve access to ombudsmen and lower-level tribunals.

Generally, these are positive reforms that will increase consumer confidence in the legal system. Some may be opposed by the profession and their professional bodies, including increasing access for professional indemnity insurance and allowing solicitors to advertise more and accept cases on the basis of recovering a percentage of clients’ monetary compensation.

These are difficult issues for the legal profession to embrace. They will require significant and thoughtful development by policymakers, legal institutions and the profession if they are to be implemented and be effective.

Australia has four «pillars» of government-funded legal assistance: legal aid commissions, community legal centres, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services, and Aboriginal family violence prevention legal assistance services. The legal profession also provides significant volunteer and pro bono assistance to people.

While the review of the National Partnership Agreement on Legal Assistance Services has sat on the desks of federal attorneys-general Mark Drefyus and then George Brandis for almost a year, the Productivity Commission has examined the operation of these services, and noted their important role in providing people with free legal assistance. It has called for additional resources and better co-ordination of activities.

The commission has also identified that Indigenous Australians are particularly vulnerable to legal problems and require culturally appropriate legal services from specialist experts. Its suggested changes include recognising the increased costs required to meet legal need in remote communities, clarifying targets, benchmarking services performance and additional state/territory government funding in this area.

The report identifies the limitations of pro bono work, which should not be used as a «band-aid» for an underfunded legal assistance program. The commission is looking for ways to increase private lawyers’ capacity to provide assistance.

Other ideas, like a HECS-type scheme for legal expenses, have no future and are likely to be removed from the final report.

Individuals and organisations are invited to respond to the Productivity Commission’s draft report or appear at public hearings to discuss the issues raised in the discussion paper, before a final report is provided to the government in September 2014.

Many of the recommended improvements to Australia’s civil justice system are unlikely to be achieved in the current political and fiscal environment. However, underinvestment in our legal structures and services – a cornerstone of our democratic system  comes at significant social and economic costs.

We should continue to agitate for fairer, cheaper and more just legal systems. The Productivity Commission’s report provides some useful suggestions to improve the system and is a good basis for more discussion among policymakers, service providers and the community.



1. Sum up the main ides of the text and retell it in Russian.


2. Fill in the missing words from the box into the text below.

main civil cases member government

court cause corruption dismissed system life


The 1)_________ problem in the judicial system of Cambodia is in the Court of the First Instance or Provincial Municipal Court. All of the 2)_________ cases must go to this court first, and the main problem also happens in this court. As we see in the real 3)_________, the cases that involve with the influential person seem usually bias and injustice. The rich or influential people usually win the cases even though they do not provide anything to any 4)_________ of the court. For instance, any cases that have bad affects to the top leaders in the 5)_________, the court does not take that case to consider and find the solution. As in recently, case between a member of the parliament and the opposition party member with the prime minister, the 6)_________ does not take the case that the member of the opposition file against the prime minister to consider, but the court take the case that the prime minister files against her.

In addition, the 7)_________ that is the current issue in the society also affects the judicial system. As we know, the poor rarely win the case when there is any problem with the rich. The main 8)_________ of this issue is from the lack of independence of the court and the lack of serious punishment. By seeing in the rules in the Supreme Council of Magistracy, no judges or prosecutors were 9)_________ from their jobs or positions. So the judges or any other members of the court are not afraid to do any corruption. Moreover, the lack of morality of the judges or prosecutors in their field also affects the 10)_________ of the court in Cambodia. For example, some judges even though he or she is so rich with a high quality of 11)_________, they still do corruption in their job without respect the principle of morality in their professional.


3. Read the following article and make a rendering of it in English.


Мировая практика функционирования судов присяжных однозначно свидетельствует о том, что это одна из наиболее совершенных форм отправления правосудия, позволяющая с большей долей вероятности установить истину по делу и добиться его справедливого исхода. Суды присяжных функционируют теперь и в России, рассматривая наиболее тяжкие преступления, за которые предусмотрено в том числе пожизненное лишение свободы. При этом нареканий к работе этих судов не то чтобы меньше, а наоборот –  во многих случаях даже больше, чем к работе профессионального суда.

Казалось бы, 12 независимых людей, не связанных никак с правоохранительной системой и соответственно свободных от всех ее пороков, должны более качественно рассматривать дела, разрешая прежде всего проблемы «факта». По своему статусу суды присяжных должны оставаться безразличными к разного рода процессуальным ухищрениям и нарушениями как со стороны прокуроров, так и выступающих на другой стороне адвокатов. Но на практике это получается далеко не всегда.

Говоря об уголовной юстиции в современных российских судах, нужно всегда иметь в виду, что в действительности начиная от лейтенанта полиции или оперативника ФСБ, занятого тем или иным делом на начальной стадии расследования, до следователя и прокурора и, наконец, судьи, принявшего дело к рассмотрению, –  все преследуют единую цель: получить обвинительный приговор. Только такое завершение уголовного дела рассматривается правоохранительной системой как единственно возможное и допустимое.

Но в таком случае возникает закономерный вопрос: а есть ли у нас в стране такая ветвь власти, как судебная? Или она стала считаться с некоторых пор всего лишь ответвлением от исполнительных органов власти?

Оправдание человека расценивается как событие чрезвычайного характера и всегда влечет крайне неблагоприятные последствия, чаще всего увольнение, для всех правоохранителей, принимавших участие в уголовном деле. Именно поэтому оперативник и следователь, прокурор и судья (а среди судей преобладают, к сожалению, бывшие силовики) кровно заинтересованы в обвинительном исходе дела, делают для этого все возможное –  от давления на свидетелей до откровенных фальсификаций доказательств –  ради принятия неправосудных решений.

В этой связи ключевое значение приобретает вопрос о том, кем будут эти 12 человек в коллегии присяжных заседателей, возможно ли на них оказывать давление со стороны прокуроров или работников полиции, сотрудников ФСБ или ангажированных судей. К сожалению, существующая практика работы судов присяжных у нас в России делает этот вопрос риторическим.