Dmitriy Igorevich Nurumov, PhD in Law, Senior Legal Advisor at the Legal Policy Research Centre, has prepared an expert opinion on the draft law proposing the introduction of a mixed court model with the participation of jurors in the consideration of parole (conditional early release) and substitution of the unserved part of a sentence with a more lenient punishment.

The full text of the expert opinion is available via the link.

The expert opinion emphasizes that the stage of sentence enforcement differs in its legal nature from the determination of guilt and requires a professional, forward-looking assessment, including evaluation of recidivism risks, the degree of rehabilitation, and prospects for social reintegration. According to the author, involving jurors in such decisions creates a risk of institutional confusion between different functions of justice and may increase inconsistency in judicial practice.

Special attention is given to international standards and comparative practice, which demonstrate that parole-related decisions are usually entrusted to professional courts or specialized quasi-judicial bodies with institutional continuity and expert competence.

As a more sustainable reform option, the expert suggests focusing on the development of specialized jurisdiction for sentence enforcement, standardized risk assessment mechanisms, and strengthened probation oversight.Dmitriy Igorevich Nurumov, PhD in Law, Senior Legal Advisor at the Legal Policy Research Centre, has prepared an expert opinion on the draft law proposing the introduction of a mixed court model with the participation of jurors in the consideration of parole (conditional early release) and substitution of the unserved part of a sentence with a more lenient punishment.

The full text of the expert opinion is available via the link.

The expert opinion emphasizes that the stage of sentence enforcement differs in its legal nature from the determination of guilt and requires a professional, forward-looking assessment, including evaluation of recidivism risks, the degree of rehabilitation, and prospects for social reintegration. According to the author, involving jurors in such decisions creates a risk of institutional confusion between different functions of justice and may increase inconsistency in judicial practice.

Special attention is given to international standards and comparative practice, which demonstrate that parole-related decisions are usually entrusted to professional courts or specialized quasi-judicial bodies with institutional continuity and expert competence.

As a more sustainable reform option, the expert suggests focusing on the development of specialized jurisdiction for sentence enforcement, standardized risk assessment mechanisms, and strengthened probation oversight.