Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction. In June 2025, Russia hosted a high-level premiere Seminar on depoliticized cooperation in criminal matters for BRICS member states and partner countries. The article is based on the author’s report and its discussion and other key deliverables of the seminar as well as takes stock of available solutions to overcome the current unacceptable state of affairs in this field. Materials and methods. The article explores relevant international treaties, domestic laws and regulations, and draft legislation. It is also sourced from case law of international courts, national and foreign jurisprudence, legal practices of interstate, domestic and foreign law enforcement and judicial authorities, as well as scholarly literature. The applied methodology includes the formal legal and comparative methods, methods of systemic and structural analysis, and synthesis of social and legal phenomena. Results of the study. The impact of global politics on international cooperation between judicial, police and other law enforcement authorities and financial intelligence units is a matter of fact. However, the domestic legislation on “unfriendly states” per se does not concern the area of interstate cooperation in criminal matters. The question is whether that impact is reasonable and/or lawful under international law. Currently, on the subject’s major points we have to answer in the negative, since the refusals of mutual assistance mostly run counter to the refusing countries’ binding international legal obligations, violating the pacta sunt servanda principle, and in many cases are against common sense. The article breaks down these political denials into categories and then analyzes each of them. They are (infrequent) direct political refusals of assistance, those camouflaged under the human rights cover blaming Russia for not being party to the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights anymore, as well as the phenomenon of “ghosting”. Switzerland’s destructive approach of a “judicial smoke screen” and the selective one by the United States and Canada stand out from the pack. The total damaging effect for various areas of life, assessed in the publication, is hard to overestimate. Discussion and conclusion. The paper takes stock of the prospects and all available solutions, such as exercising reciprocity, various peaceful means of settlement of disputes, submission of the dispute to the International Court of Justice, discusses its case law on the subject of judicial assistance, as well as evaluates the feasibility of each option. It offers insights into relevant domestic legislative initiatives worked out by the Prosecutor General’s Office and aimed at enhancing the application of the principle “aut dedere aut judicare”, blocking foreign and international extraterritorial operations to gather evidence and intelligence on Russian soil, including electronic evidence in cyberspace, and in parallel strengthening Russia’s own use of extraterritorial mechanisms within what is permissible under international law, among others, within the framework of the new UN Convention against Cybercrime and improving the use of consular legal assistance by videoconferencing. At the same time, the Russian principal central authority for legal assistance in criminal matters opposes any dismantling of the existing treaty base, termination or suspension of the operation of bilateral and multilateral anti-crime and counter-terrorism treaties, including the Council of Europe conventions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it