Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 [2013]
VKS RF 2013, No. 4, p. 16 · Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation · Russia
Russian Lawrussian-lawRussian LawRight to life; death penalty
Issue
Whether the death penalty can be introduced after the moratorium is lifted, given constitutional protection of the right to life.
Held
The Court declared that the death penalty cannot be restored due to the constitutional commitment to the right to life and evolving standards of humanity.
Exam use
In an exam, introduce Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Right to life; death penalty, then move quickly to analysis.
Summary
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 is included in the Russian Law case database because it gives students a concrete authority for Right to life; death penalty. The reported citation is VKS RF 2013, No. 4, p. 16, and the decision is associated with Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. In revision, treat the case as a way to connect the legal issue to a real dispute rather than as an abstract rule. The key exam move is to state the holding, identify the fact pattern that made the rule matter, and then decide whether a new problem question should apply, distinguish, or limit the authority.
Facts
The material factual signal for Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 is: Review of the continued moratorium on the death penalty in light of the new jury trial provisions in all regions. Students should read the linked source and turn that signal into a short fact table: parties, transaction or public-law setting, procedural posture, conduct in dispute, and the fact the court treated as decisive. This prevents vague case-dropping. In an answer on Russian Law, use the facts to explain why Right to life; death penalty was live, then compare the problem facts against the facts in the case before stating any conclusion.
Procedural History
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 is reported as a decision of Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The procedural route should be checked against the linked source before formal citation. For study notes, record whether the decision was an appeal, judicial review, trial judgment, tribunal ruling, or constitutional/application proceeding, because that posture affects how confidently the rule can be used.
Issue
Whether the death penalty can be introduced after the moratorium is lifted, given constitutional protection of the right to life.
Held
The Court declared that the death penalty cannot be restored due to the constitutional commitment to the right to life and evolving standards of humanity.
Ratio Decidendi
The right to life under Article 20 has been interpreted to effectively abolish the death penalty in Russia indefinitely.
Obiter Dicta
Check the linked source for concurring, dissenting, or obiter observations before quoting this case. If the case includes non-binding reasoning, use it as persuasive support rather than as the core rule.
Reasoning
For reasoning, start with the ratio: The right to life under Article 20 has been interpreted to effectively abolish the death penalty in Russia indefinitely. Then read the source and separate three things: the legal test, the facts used to apply that test, and any policy or institutional reason the court gave. This structure makes Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 easier to use in essays and problem questions. In Russian Law, the case should be compared with related authorities on Right to life; death penalty; if the jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs from the exam problem, explain that limit explicitly instead of treating the authority as automatic.
Plain-English Explanation
Plainly, Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 is a case to use when a Russian Law answer needs an authority on Right to life; death penalty. Do not just list it. Explain the problem the court had to solve, the rule or holding it used, and the fact that made the result persuasive. That turns the case from a memorised name into evidence for your legal analysis.
Essay-Ready Explanation Generator
Version 1 of 4
Reference to Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 (VKS RF 2013, No. 4, p. 16) strengthens a Russian Law answer because the case reflects the principle that The right to life under Article 20 has been interpreted to effectively abolish the death penalty in Russia indefinitely. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Whether the death penalty can be introduced after the moratorium is lifted, given constitutional protection of the right to life. The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.
Underlying Concepts
russian-law
Russian Law
Right to life; death penalty
case authority
exam application
Key Passages
Verify exact wording in the linked source before quoting.
Significance
Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 is significant for LawConquer users because it supplies a named authority for Right to life; death penalty in Russian Law. The case can anchor a paragraph, support a rule statement, or provide a contrast point when another authority points the other way. Its practical value is strongest when the student links the holding to the material facts and then explains whether the present problem is analogous or distinguishable.
Related Cases
No related cases listed.
Exam Tips
In an exam, introduce Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 with the citation only if you can remember it accurately; otherwise use the case name and court, then focus on the rule and application. A strong answer should say what Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 decided, why the facts mattered, and how the authority helps resolve the new facts. Avoid treating the case as a decorative reference. Use it to prove a doctrinal step in Right to life; death penalty, then move quickly to analysis.
Revision Checklist
Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.
Problem Question Use
Use Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Judgment No. 8-P of 28 June 2013 in a problem question by matching the factual trigger to the new scenario. If the fact pattern aligns with Review of the continued moratorium on the death penalty in light of the new jury trial provisions in all regions., apply the ratio and explain the likely result. If a crucial fact, jurisdiction, statute, or procedural posture differs, distinguish the case and use it as a boundary rather than a controlling answer.