Представлен анализ практики применения и исполнения меры пресечения в виде домашнего ареста в уголовном судопроизводстве. Обосновывается вывод о том, что действие современного правового механизма избрания и исполнения указанной меры пресечения не позволяет достичь целей избрания мер пресечения, влечет нарушение прав и законных интересов подозреваемого, обвиняемого, а также лиц, совместно с ним проживающих. Вносятся предложения правового характера по совершенствованию уголовно-процессуальной деятельности в обозначенной сфере.

Inclusion of house arrest as a measure of restraint that is less stringent than detention in the system of procedural compulsion measures is a manifestation of humanity of the criminal policy of the Russian state. However, the analysis of the application and execution of house arrest (Article 107 of the RF Code of Criminal Procedure) shows a considerable number of problems. These problems lead to delays in criminal proceedings, which prevents the achievement of the purposes of the application of the preventive measure and entails an unjustified restriction of the constitutional rights of the suspects, the accused and persons living together with them, etc. This situation is a result of the insufficient elaboration of the legal framework of the choice and execution of house arrest as a preventive measure. In particular, the probation department is devoid of the ability to consistently respond to the violation by persons under house arrest of the ban and/or the restrictions imposed by the court that the persons made at the stage of preliminary investigation and trial. The negative consequences of this are red tape in the processing of materials about the suspect's violation of the terms of house arrest, an increase in the number of these violations and failure of the imposed measure. The imperfection of the legal regulation of house arrest execution is evidenced by the fact that the probation department was deprived of the right to appeal the court's decision on refusal to satisfy petitions of the department to change the measure of restraint from house arrest to detention. The negative impact observed is that the suspects, the accused, the defendants under house arrest form the idea of permissibility of violations of the conditions of house arrest, which frequently leads to their subsequent concealment from the bodies of preliminary investigation, judgment, from execution of criminal punishment. A negative consequence of choosing house arrest as a measure of restraint is also manifested in the fact that in frequent cases persons living together with a person under house arrest block the access of the probation department to the technical devices that monitor the behavior of this person. This prevents the enforcement of the legislative regulation under Part 10 of Article 107 of the RF Code of Criminal Procedure. Given the above, elimination of gaps and inconsistency of legal norms in the legal regulation of house arrest as a measure of restraint is required. The author makes relevant proposals.