Gender rights of citizens in Russian legislation and law enforcement practice

Madatov Oleg Yakovlevich General adviser, Interregional Public Movement for the Protection of the Rights of Servicemen and Their Families "Conscience of the Law" 350072, Russia, Krasnodar Territory, Krasnodar, Moskovskaya str., 61, sq. 32 oleg_madatov@rambler.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

One of the tasks of a democratic state is to ensure equality of rights of citizens without dividing them by gender. At the same time, existing social barriers in the form of legislative acts, political aspects, moral beliefs and worldview positions lead to the problem of forming a just society.

Despite the principle of equality of rights of men and women enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 3 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), Russian legislation, in terms of its norms, establishes various rules of conduct for citizens of different sexes in the form of prohibitions, restrictions on rights, granting additional rights or imposing legal obligations. This leads to an increase in men's level of responsibility when imposing a constitutional duty on them.

Such scientists as V. V. Lazarev, M. S. Permilovsky, E. V. Naumova and others dealt with issues of constitutional law.

V. V. Lazarev believes that the basic constitutional rights in their essence "fix the established balance of social forces claiming political dominance", where "with the balance of forces, one can expect a certain compromise, as a result of which the opposing forces will "share" power" ^{[1, p. 13]}.

It is difficult to agree with this position, since the Constitution of the Russian Federation contains the basic rights, freedoms and duties of citizens, equally relevant to both men and women. The described correlation of social forces is reflected in laws and by-laws, where the enshrined constitutional rights in some cases are granted to a greater extent to one than the other, depending on the gender of the subjects of the described right.

According to M. S. Permilovsky, the legal positivism manifested in our state has created a situation in which power decisions (normative legal and by-laws) are made not in favor of citizens as a whole, but in favor of the interests of individual social groups and subjects of law. Such decisions are not consistent with the constitutional principles of the priority of a person, his rights and freedoms ^{[2, p. 7]}.

This position confirms the author's arguments that, although the Constitution of the Russian Federation enshrines the principle of equality of citizens regardless of gender, the power decisions made by officials in the sphere of their powers lead to the fact that the rights, freedoms and duties of citizens become different. The basis of this difference is the fact that legislators take into account the physiological characteristics of only the female body and ignore the physiological characteristics of the male.

E. V. Naumova also noted in her research the importance of observing constitutional and legal provisions when adopting and issuing normative legal acts, which are based on the principle of equality, which allows for legal protection of the interests of every citizen ^{[3, p. 104]}.

Thus, the analysis of scientific research has shown that at present there is a need to differentiate the gender constitutional rights of citizens, to conduct a comparative analysis of the application of legislation in relation to men and women, depending on the physiological characteristics of the subject of the law in question, as well as to compare law enforcement practices applied in relation to them in homogeneous processes, which It will be the novelty of the ongoing research.

In the course of the work, the following methods were used: dialectical, logical, systemic, functional, formal-legal, comparative-legal research methods.

Comparison of issued legislative acts and court rulings in relation to men and women in the Russian Federation

Thus, Part 5 of Article 23 of the Federal Law "On Police" prohibits the use of firearms with the production of a shot to kill against women. The same is provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 24 of the Federal Law "On Weapons". Accordingly, firearms can be used against a man to kill (depriving him of the constitutional right to life) ^[4], which creates prerequisites for the manifestation of gender inequality.

An analysis of law enforcement practice has shown that previously the issue of gender inequality in these legal norms was not discussed or considered.

However, on July 1, 2015, Bill No. 828616-6 was proposed to amend the Federal Law "On Police", allowing the use of firearms to kill women, which could partially equalize the rights of women with the rights of men. At the same time, the draft was rejected after the first reading (Resolution of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation dated 07.02.2018 No. 3428-7 of the State Duma "On the draft Federal Law No. 828616-6).

According to S. A. Starostin, Bill No. 828616-6 could not be supported and adopted because it violates the constitutional right of women to life ^{[5, p. 114]}. It is impossible to agree with this position, since citizens have an equal right to life. Therefore, the law enforcement aspect should apply to both sexes.

A. I. Kaplunov expressed a point of view on the issue under consideration, similar to the point of view of the author of this article. The professor believes that the use of firearms to kill is a forceful method of coercive influence, where the object of influence is a person committing a socially dangerous act. A police officer is obliged to comprehensively assess the situation, regardless of the gender of the subject ^[6].

Article 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, based on the Constitution of the Russian Federation (Part 2 of Article 1 of the Criminal Code), states: "Persons who have committed crimes are equal before the law and are subject to criminal liability regardless of gender ...". However, Part 2 of Article 59 of the Criminal Code limits the possibility of applying an exceptional measure of punishment (death penalty) for women. The death penalty can only be applied to men between the ages of 18 and 65. Consequently, this norm is of a blank nature, that is, the right to life is not gender-neutral in legislative acts.

Another example is Federal Law No. 350-FZ of 03.10.2018, which establishes the retirement age, which gives the right to an old-age insurance pension (for men 65 years old, for women 60 years old).

The right to an old-age insurance pension is also closely linked to the constitutional right of citizens to life and health. Judicial practice takes as a basis the fact that in certain cases a pension is the only source of livelihood. If the pension is not paid, the very life of a citizen is put at risk (ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation No. 854-O dated April 2, 2019) ^[7]. In this regard, the establishment of different retirement ages, which is based on the gender of citizens, does not comply with the principle of gender equality laid down in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Law enforcement officers who do not accept complaints from citizens about the retirement age and discrimination of certain provisions against men note that this differentiation between men and women on the issue of retirement age is necessary to ensure equality between women and men. Such actions cannot be considered as infringement of the applicant's rights (ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated December 19, 2017 No. 2914-O) ^[8], since the female body is more susceptible to adverse production factors. Law enforcement officers also pay attention to the social role of women in society.

O. G. Dmitrieva, V. P. Chernov and N. R. Petukhov believes that the retirement age was determined taking into account the concept of universal welfare and life expectancy ^{[9, p. 34]}.

At the same time, the research conducted by the author allowed us to establish that in Russia the average life expectancy of women is 78.5 years, and men is 68.5 years ^[10].

These arguments are confirmed by the research work on the state assignment of the RANEPA in 2021 by Yu. V. Zinkina and A.V. Korotaev, who studied the life expectancy of men and women. In the course of their research, they found that in 1994, women's life expectancy exceeded men's by 13 years (this indicator has now decreased). In their opinion, the nature of the gender gap in life expectancy between men and women is explained by a complex of various factors, in particular, karyotypic differences (a set of XX chromosomes compared with XY). This allows double X chromosomes to increase the chances of correcting defects in the female body, which cannot be said about male single X and Y chromosomes. Men are also more prone to telomere depletion (progressive decrease in chromosome length), which leads to a shorter life expectancy. The analysis of the data they obtained showed that adult men have shorter telomeres than women ^{[11, p. 109]}.

Consequently, with a shorter life expectancy, men retire later, that is, they have fewer rights to social security in old age. At the same time, about half of all men do not live to retirement age ^[12].

At the initial adoption in 1928 of the retirement age in the USSR for a number of categories of citizens (workers in the mining and textile industries), and subsequently for all urban workers and employees, studies were conducted, during which it was concluded that there was a significant decrease in working capacity: "[...] for the bulk of workers and employees in men at 60, and for women at the age of 55" ^{[13, p. 121]}. The described study served as the basis for establishing different ages of receipt of the state old-age pension for men and women.

However, this conclusion, according to the author, was based on the political and social situation in the country at that time, namely:

1) not so long ago, women received the right to work in various fields of work on an equal basis with men (after the October Revolution of 1917) ^{[14, p. 29]}, that is, society was just beginning to accept this innovation;

2) the losses of the male population in the First World War amounted to 1 million 300 thousand dead and 350 thousand dead from wounds ^{[15, p. 39]}, which created the need to restore the economic processes of the country by attracting the female segment of the population to work, including granting them equal rights with men. On the one hand, they were granted the constitutional right to work, and on the other, work obligations were imposed on women (on 05.10.1918, labor service was introduced, on 10.12.1918, labor service was extended to all citizens of the RSFSR in connection with the introduction of the Labor code) ^[16];

3) gender stereotypes that indicate that a man is a breadwinner, and therefore should work more than a woman.

Moreover, the study of the 1920s could not form the basis of the federal law of 2018 when raising the retirement age after almost 100 years, since there is a difference in the legal norms of that time compared to the present (men and women did not have equal rights, freedoms, obligations and opportunities for their implementation). In the 1920s, there was no medical equipment to perform a more accurate and scientifically based study that would help establish the age of disability for men and women, and in modern Russia there is no political and social need to establish a different retirement age.

In order to study law enforcement practice in this aspect, open court rulings were analyzed. The results of the analysis are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 – Indicators of court rulings issued when considering the issue of discrimination of citizens on the basis of gender related to retirement age

The analysis of this table allows us to conclude that the district courts satisfy the requirements only in 3.67% of cases, the appellate instance — in 28.57%, the cassation instance — in 29.99%, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation — in 81.08%.

It should also be noted that the indicator of the cassation instance is close to the indicator of the appellate instance. This is due to the fact that until October 1, 2019, the cassation instance was in the courts of appeal, which determines the similarity of the judicial acts adopted.

Moreover, let's pay attention to the difference in the grounds for making a decision and its cancellation in subsequent instances. If for the correct decision it is necessary to determine the circumstances, their evidence, compliance with the stated conclusions, the correct application of the norms of substantive and procedural law (Chapter 16 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), then the courts of appeal and cassation check how the lower courts comply with these requirements (art. 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, art. 379.7 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). At the same time, the cassation instance eliminates the need to verify the correctness of the definition of circumstances (paragraph 1, part 1 of Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) and their evidence (paragraph 2, part 1 of Article 330 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). In the cassation instance of the judicial collegium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, when appealing court rulings, the basis for cancellation is a significant violation of the norms of substantive law and (or) norms of procedural law, that is, the previous elements required for verification are excluded, but the main emphasis is on restoring and protecting violated rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, as well as protecting those protected by law public interests (Article 390.14 of the CPC of the Russian Federation).

According to paragraph 18 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 16.10.2009 No. 19, a significant violation of rights is understood as "violation of the rights and freedoms of individuals and legal entities guaranteed by generally recognized principles and norms of international law, the Constitution of the Russian Federation." Consequently, the process of restoration and protection of violated constitutional rights and freedoms, as well as legitimate interests, is carried out at the stage of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

In the order of the supervisory instance of the judicial board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, one of the grounds for the cancellation of a court decision is a violation of human and civil rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, generally recognized principles and norms of international law, international treaties of the Russian Federation (art. 391.9 of the CPC RF), with the complete exclusion of previously verified arguments.

It can be concluded that the higher the judicial instance, the more fairly the constitutional rights of citizens in matters of gender inequality are taken into account. This is confirmed by an increase in the percentage of satisfaction of cases in violation of constitutional principles.

According to statistics, 60.61% of the applicants were men, and 39.39% were women. This indicates an increase in the level of legal awareness among men and their desire to defend their rights within the judicial system.

In accordance with Article 3 of Federal Law No. 256-FZ of December 29, 2006 "On additional measures of state support for families with children", women with Russian citizenship who gave birth to children after the date established in the legislation receive the right to additional measures of state support in the form of maternity capital. On 30.04.2022, the legislator amended this rule of law, affecting the provision of maternity capital to the male population.

Despite the changes made, a man cannot receive similar state support, except in cases of death of the child's mother, deprivation of her parental rights or the mother committing a crime against the child. However, unlike a man, a woman has a full list of rights and opportunities with the same initial data.

Part 1 of Article 61 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation establishes equality of rights and obligations for parents in relation to their children (parental rights), which are based on Part 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Consequently, the rule of law in question actually gives women a prerogative over men in terms of parental rights. One example is the position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, set out in the ruling of 06/23/2015. No. 1518-O, where the court refused to accept the complaint of the father of two children. "A man's right to additional measures of state support on the occasion of the birth of a child is derived from a woman's right and can be realized only when the woman's right to these measures has ceased," the court notes. ^[17]. A similar point of view is set out in the Constitutional Ruling of 13.10.2009 No. 1085-O-O, in which the court noted: "In the case of adoption of a child by both spouses, the priority right to receive additional measures of state support is also granted to a woman" ^[18].

Thus, the equality of parental rights is only a formality, since the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation recognized in the aspect of law enforcement that the father's right to state support is derived from the rights of the mother.

The author of the article realizes that women and men have different anatomical features ^{[19, p. 85]}, however, from a legal point of view, this cannot be a reason for the difference in their rights, freedoms, duties and opportunities for their realization, as it is enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The issues raised do not affect physiological aspects, and, therefore, the rights of any gender should not be infringed, nor should men or women be given more rights just because of a criterion related to gender.

Moreover, if we consider the process of conception and birth of a child, then both a man and a woman are currently needed for it. Therefore, the upbringing of a child is an equal right and obligation of both parents (Part 2 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Part 1 of Article 63 of the RF IC).

Let's turn to the statistical indicators of divorces of married couples with children. According to Rosstat data, in 2021 in Russia, no more than 5-6% of decisions are made in favor of fathers in divorce ^[20].

In accordance with Part 2 of Article 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, state support for family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood is provided in Russia. However, only motherhood, childhood and family are under state protection in this direction (Part 1 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), paternity has been removed. Consequently, women are given the right to make an independent decision on the issue of having a child, without taking into account the opinion of a man. In other words, if a woman decides to have an abortion, and a man is against it, in accordance with the specified rule of law, his vote will mean nothing. At the same time, if a woman wants to keep a child, and a man is against it and demands an abortion, the woman can refuse him, and the legislator will be on her side (paragraph 1 of Article 56 of Federal Law No. 323-FZ dated 11/21/2011 "On the basics of protecting the health of Citizens of the Russian Federation"). Law enforcement practice has shown that courts more often leave children to women, since only motherhood is under state protection.

At the same time, a man may be required to pay alimony. It turns out that the father must fulfill his duties, although his voice is not taken into account when making decisions about the child. The Russian Federation does not provide for a "legal abortion" procedure when additional obligations are not imposed on the dissenting party.

Men in Russia have no rights at all on this issue and are only obliged to make a woman's decision, regardless of life circumstances.

Moreover, according to Article 56 of Federal Law No. 323-FZ dated 11/21/2011 "On the Basics of protecting the health of Citizens in the Russian Federation", the procedure for terminating pregnancy can be carried out up to 12 weeks. At the same time, only from the twelfth week begins the formation of the uterus (an increase in the abdominal area), that is, there is a manifestation of external signs of pregnancy ^{[21, p. 130]}. Thus, a woman may not inform a man about her situation until the twelfth week of pregnancy, without providing the partner with the necessary information in time.

This approach of the legislator (the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has the right of legislative initiative in accordance with Part 1 of Article 104 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) creates an opportunity for different interpretations of gender rights, as it introduces into law enforcement practice the concept of primacy of women's rights in relation to men's rights.

Table 2 shows the indicators of court rulings when considering the appointment of state support for men.

Table 2 – Indicators of court rulings when considering the issue of assigning state support to men.

These tables allow us to establish that men are less protected in terms of parental rights than women. If there is a spouse, men cannot use maternity capital.

These circumstances allow us to conclude that the child's father is a kind of defective parent who cannot exercise all parental rights.

According to N. A. Zhivodrova, who in her works relies on Part 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the protection of reproductive rights is also a constitutionally guaranteed right of citizens of our country ^{[22, p. 156]}.

This statement is confirmed by the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated June 13, 2006 No. 195-O, in which the court initially laid the foundation for law enforcement practice. The definition says: "[...] established by the legislator on the basis of constitutionally significant goals and independent constitutionally protected values, the basis of which, in relation to the contested norm, is the protection by the state of the health and social well-being of the mother woman (according to a combination of physiological and moral-psychological factors), cannot be considered as violating any constitutional rights and freedoms of other categories of citizens" ^[23].

Thus, the courts recognize that the legislation is based on the issue of State protection of the health and social well-being of a woman-mother, and not a man-father. The latter are denied protection of their gender freedoms and rights, which indicates gender inequality. At the same time, in the case of raising a child by a single father, law enforcement practice primarily provides for the protection of the rights of the child, and not the rights of the man, which is confirmed by the fact that the courts are obliged to respect the legitimate interests of child offenders (definition of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated 10/15/2020 No. 2375-O ^[230]), as well as to ensure a legal balance.

Law enforcement officers in this matter rely on a decree that establishes that men's rights are derived from women's rights, and women also have a prerogative over men's rights.

Consequently, the constitutional rights of men and women are not equal. The legislator, when dividing the rights of men and women, as research shows, proceeds from constitutionally significant goals, which are based on the principle of state protection of the health and social well-being of mothers, that is, their physiological and moral and psychological factors are taken into account.

However, the use of these factors has also had negative consequences in the form of restrictions on women's constitutional freedom. According to Part 1 of Article 37 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, a woman has the right to work, as well as the freedom to dispose of her abilities to work, choose her type of activity and profession. At the same time, the order of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation dated 07/18/2019 No. 512n "On approval of the list of industries, jobs and positions with harmful and (or) dangerous working conditions in which the use of women's labor is limited" restricted women's constitutional freedom due to factors taken into account by the Ministry of Labor and Social Protection of the Russian Federation, which are "dangerous for reproductive health of women, affecting the health of the future generation and having long-term consequences" (information letter of the Ministry of Labor of the Russian Federation reg. No. 55594 dated 08/14/2019).

As a result, women who do not want to give birth to a child, are infertile due to physiological characteristics, etc., are not only deprived of the constitutional right to work due to their gender, but also cannot take advantage of all the advantages provided to them, since they do not have children.

Accordingly, the legislator's consideration of gender in the issuance of laws and regulatory legal acts in order to combine equality of rights and health protection of individual subjects of legal relations has adverse consequences for both sexes, which once again makes it necessary not to take gender into account when adopting laws.

Proposals for improving legislation and law enforcement

The conducted research has clearly shown that in the Russian Federation there are legislative provisions that can be qualified on the basis of gender inequality, namely, in connection with the consideration of gender by the legislator when adopting laws. In this regard, in order to eliminate the identified conflicts, it is proposed:

Firstly, to review the existing legislation of the Russian Federation and regulatory legal acts in the aspect of equality of rights, freedoms, duties (duty) and opportunities for their realization of men and women, where the gender of the subjects of legal relations is not taken into account (refrain from specifying the words "man" and "woman"), except in certain cases: the realization of reproductive rights functions (childbirth), pregnancy, medical certificates issued by specialized medical institutions.

To introduce the imperative of the concept of "gender equality", it is initially necessary to amend and revise the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in accordance with Article 134 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

In this regard, we consider it advisable to supplement Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation with paragraph 4 as follows: "4. It is prohibited to issue laws and other normative acts that establish different norms of law for citizens of the Russian Federation regulating their rights, freedoms, duties and duties."

Table 3 also shows the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that need to be modified to match the direction of gender equality.

Table 3 – Proposed amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation

When implementing this mechanism, rights, freedoms, duties (duty) and opportunities for their realization in relation to men and women will be equalized from a legal point of view, since gender will not actually be taken into account, and therefore there can be no discrimination. Regarding the addition of state protection of paternity, improvement of equality of parental rights will be carried out in this direction, where motherhood and fatherhood will be equivalent, which will additionally create protection for single fathers. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph "J.1" of Part 1 of Article 72 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the joint jurisdiction of Russia and its subjects already includes "protection of the family, motherhood, fatherhood and childhood", which makes it possible to specify Part 1 of Article 38 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation in this aspect.

The introduction of the concept of parental duty will be a novelty, since duty in the domestic understanding is the highest form of obligation, which will give importance to parents in the performance of their duties, while mothers and fathers will have equal rights and bear equal responsibilities.

Further, by norm-setting, to bring into line the legislation of the Russian Federation the provisions of the new gender concept defining the unconditional equality of rights, freedoms and duties (duty) of men and women.

Secondly, to change the approaches to hiring citizens, their appointment to positions in legal entities, including commercial and non-profit organizations, public authorities and local governments, etc., as well as those engaged in entrepreneurial activities without forming a legal entity.

This approach should be based on fairness towards citizens when they are hired or appointed to a position, which means that the appointment is carried out on the basis of an open and objective competition according to the criteria established by the regulatory act, with the opportunity for the contestant to familiarize himself with the results of the winner according to the established selection criteria.

Accordingly, the employer is given the right to establish selection criteria that should exclusively evaluate the applicant's labor functions. Any criteria that establish discriminatory norms based on gender, age, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, membership in public associations, as well as other circumstances (for example, attitude to military duty, which actually indicates gender) are prohibited.

Thirdly, to discuss in society, in scientific circles, public authorities and local governments the issues of equalizing the rights, freedoms and duties of men and women, based not on a century-old research, when a legal awareness of the need for equality had not yet been achieved and there was a lower average life expectancy, but to conduct a new study taking into account modern realities.

Thus, the proposed concept of gender equality through amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and legislative acts will have a beneficial effect on achieving equality of rights, freedoms, duties, duties and opportunities for their realization for both men and women.

In the course of the study, the difference between law enforcement practices applied to men and women was established. The reason for the formed gender gap is explained by the issued legislative and regulatory acts, which in part can be attributed to discriminatory, as well as various social aspects, where the courts take into account the physiological characteristics of only the female body, without taking into account the characteristics inherent in the male, despite their shorter life.

At the same time, according to the author, changing the current legislation, although it is a prerogative way to ensure gender equality, there are also additional mechanisms that allow the law enforcement officer to reduce the existing legal gender gap.

Firstly, the application by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of the right of legislative initiative.

In accordance with Part 1 of Article 104 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, "the right of legislative initiative also belongs to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on issues of their jurisdiction." According to Article 3 of the Federal Constitutional Law of 07/21/1994 No. 1-Federal Law Code "On the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation" this court "resolves exclusively issues of law" and may take a legislative initiative.

Thus, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation cannot consider issues of constitutionality of freedoms and duties from a legal point of view, but due to the blurring of these concepts in domestic legislation and their application by the legislator in conjunction with constitutional law, the powers extend to all constitutional bases (rights, freedoms, duties, duties and opportunities for their implementation, in particular including the restrictions imposed).

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in accordance with Part 6 of Article 2 of Federal Constitutional Law No. 3-FKZ dated 05.02.2014 "On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation", has not only the right to legislative initiative on issues of its jurisdiction, but also "develops proposals to improve the legislation of the Russian Federation on issues of its jurisdiction", which allows summarizing law enforcement practice on In civil, administrative, criminal cases and economic disputes, make proposals to improve the current legislation, including in the gender aspect.

If the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation checks federal laws for compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, then the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, as a court of first instance, has the right to consider administrative cases challenging normative legal acts, including those issued "in the form of resolutions, orders, rules, instructions and regulations" (paragraph 2 of the Rules for the Preparation of Normative Legal Acts approved by the resolution Government of the Russian Federation No. 1009 dated 08/13/1997). At the same time, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation itself has the right to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request to verify the constitutionality of laws, other normative legal acts and treaties (Part 7 of Article 2 of the Federal Law "On the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation").

Secondly, the application of the Romano-German legal system in resolving issues related to gender equality.

The main difference between the Romano-German legal system and the Anglo-Saxon one is that it takes into account the law, and not similar precedents. In this regard, the mechanism for improving law enforcement practice suggests that courts take into account, first of all, the provisions of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which guarantees equality of rights, freedoms and duties of men and women, and not normative legal acts, which will allow observing constitutional equality before the law and the court (Part 1 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation). Since the proceedings are conducted on the basis of adversarial parties (Part 1 of Article 9 of the APC of the Russian Federation, part 1 of Article 14 of the CAS of the Russian Federation and Part 1 of Article 12 of the CPC of the Russian Federation), the court, when receiving arguments from participants in the trial about the discrimination of certain provisions that form the basis of the final judicial act, must either give them a proper assessment, alternatively, apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation to verify their constitutionality, which will not only form a positive judicial practice, but also reduce the number of normative legal acts with discriminatory provisions.

Thirdly, the implementation of justice by judges based on inner conviction, where men and women have equal rights, freedoms, duties (duty) and equal opportunities for their realization.

When making the final judicial act, the judge is guided by internal beliefs on the basis of evidence previously assessed by him (Part 1 of Article 17 of the CPC of the Russian Federation, Part 1 of Article 71 of the APC of the Russian Federation, part 1 of Article 67 of the CPC of the Russian Federation and Part 1 of Article 84 of the CAS of the Russian Federation). Considering that no evidence has a predetermined force for the court, they are independent, and in the administration of justice they are subject only to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal law, the implementation of this concept will allow in law enforcement practice to ensure equality of men and women by issuing judicial acts according to the internal conviction of judges.

In accordance with paragraph 5 of Article 6 of the Code of Judicial Ethics, approved by the VIII All-Russian Congress of Judges on December 19, 2012: "A judge should not commit any actions or give rise to other persons to commit such actions that would allow one to conclude that influencing the exercise of a judge's powers and doubt the independence and impartiality judges". Paragraph 1 of article 9 establishes that "The objectivity and impartiality of a judge are mandatory conditions for the proper administration of justice."

At the same time, failure to comply with these principles entails diminishing the authority of the judiciary and causing damage to the reputation of a judge (Article 12.1 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On the Status of Judges in the Russian Federation", which is the basis for bringing judges to disciplinary responsibility.

Thus, the internal conviction of judges should be based on the Constitution of the Russian Federation, including in the aspect of gender equality, which makes it possible to improve law enforcement practice by issuing appropriate judicial acts in this direction and begin the fundamental foundation of gender equality in the judicial process.

Fourth, the resolution of conflict of laws issues in the current legislation.

The overwhelming majority of scientists will agree with the existence of a conflict of current legislation in the legislative and regulatory legal acts of the Russian Federation, including D.B. Minnigulova ^[24], S.A. Chernyakov ^[25], A.N. Saunin ^[26], A.N. Nazyrova ^[27], L.A. Berdegulova ^[28] and others.

The presence of conflicting aspects in the field of law creates contradictory law enforcement practice, in connection with which the same subject of dispute may have several variable final decisions (rulings), since there are several regulatory prescriptions in a particular issue.

Therefore, there is a need to minimize conflict of laws issues. Collision reduction can be achieved both theoretically and practically.

The theoretical one implies that the legislator fixes the priority of the actions performed by the courts and the principles used by them in the event of conflict of law issues, which helps to strengthen the equality of participants in the judicial process.

The fundamental principle of justice in the theoretical aspect should be the equality of all before the law and the court (Part 1 of Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

In fact, the court should be guided primarily by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, and last but not least by local regulations. International legal acts are taken into account after the Constitution of the Russian Federation, since in accordance with Part 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the rules of an international treaty apply if otherwise established by domestic law.

If the conflict is caused by normative legal acts of the same legal force, then the law that was issued later or has a more recent version in terms of application (Part 3 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) must be applied.

Thus, the conflict of legislation in theoretical terms can be resolved through the use of a hierarchical structure of normative legal acts, as well as taking into account the date of publication (revision) of the considered part of the law.

In practical terms, it means taking active actions aimed at resolving conflict of laws issues of the current legislation. In particular, in the event of a conflict of laws issue, law enforcement officers have the right to apply to the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation with a request or to federal authorities in respect of regulatory legal acts adopted by them to obtain an explanation in order to clarify their content (Part 1 of Article 14 of the Federal Law "On Mandatory Requirements in the Russian Federation").

When implementing the practical aspect, law enforcement officers actually use the official explanations of the legislator, which allows resolving conflict of laws issues.

The combined application of practical and theoretical mechanisms contributes to the resolution of conflict of laws issues of the current legislation in the law enforcement aspect.

Thus, the prerogative direction of improving law enforcement practice is to change the current legislation, which will allow law enforcement officers to make final court decisions within the framework of the modified law. At the same time, additional mechanisms for the development of law enforcement practice were proposed, where law enforcement officers themselves contribute to changing the current legislation through court rulings issued by them.

Conclusion

The analysis of the conducted research has shown that currently the legislation of the Russian Federation has gender discriminatory provisions. In particular, legislators, when issuing laws, take into account only the physiological characteristics of the female body, whereas the characteristics of the male body are ignored, despite the shorter life expectancy of men. Law enforcement practice in the issue of constitutional law in the gender aspect proceeds from the position that the rights of men follow from the rights of women, whose rights are prerogative. In this regard, there is a need both to improve approaches in law enforcement practice and to adopt (amend) the laws themselves in accordance with the principles of equality of rights.

The author of the study suggests two directions for solving the problem of gender inequality in Russia, namely through the development of constitutional foundations in legislative acts, through the introduction of the described proposals, as well as through the formation of appropriate law enforcement practice.