Irina Podnosova, a candidate for the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, commented on the possibility of reinstating the death penalty. She stated that her position aligns with the view previously expressed by former Chief Justice Vyacheslav Lebedev. According to Podnosova, the matter is intertwined with constitutional considerations and would ultimately require a formal amendment to the constitution. She underscored that as part of the law enforcement apparatus, the proper path is to await resolution of the constitutional questions before any definitive enforcement is pursued, indicating that the issue must be resolved through lawful processes and legislative action, rather than through unilateral decisions at the court level, as reported by RIA News.
During a meeting of a Federation Council committee, Podnosova clarified that she does not present a personal opinion in isolation. Instead, she emphasized that her stance mirrors Lebedev’s perspective. The recognition of this alignment signals the ongoing debate within the Russian legal establishment about whether the country should return to capital punishment and how such a shift would be institutionalized within Russia’s constitutional framework. The emphasis on a constitutional amendment reflects a belief that any change of this magnitude would need broad legislative support and careful constitutional review, rather than a unilateral move by judicial bodies.
Earlier, Valery Zorkin, who leads the Constitutional Court, indicated that the court is prepared to engage in discussions about lifting the moratorium on the death penalty. This readiness would only come into play after a formal request is received from authorized applicants. The court’s position highlights its role as a constitutional arbiter, waiting for a clear and recognized procedural trigger before it would consider any changes to the moratorium. The process described stresses the importance of formal channels and documented authorization when addressing sensitive constitutional questions of this scale.
Officials have also noted the procedural requirement that a group of at least 90 deputies must file a formal objection to prompt the Constitutional Court to undertake an examination of the constitutionality of a specific norm. This threshold underscores the careful procedural safeguards in Russia’s constitutional system, where substantial political backing is deemed necessary to initiate such constitutional inquiries. The balance between legislative initiative and judicial review is a central feature in how major constitutional amendments might be contemplated and debated in the public arena.
In related discussions, Denis Volodin previously addressed questions about why a national referendum is not deemed necessary to restore capital punishment. His arguments suggested that the decision rests more directly with formal constitutional and legislative processes rather than a direct popular vote. The nuance here points to a preference for structured legal and constitutional mechanisms to determine whether a change of this magnitude should occur, rather than bypassing established procedures. The dialogue continues to unfold in parliamentary and judicial circles as lawmakers and judges weigh the implications for Russia’s legal landscape and international alignment.