Review of the Kawasaki ER-4 motorcycle (ER-4N, ER-4F, Ninja 400R, Ninja 400)

Kawasaki ER-4N naked model

was first introduced in August 2010 along with the
Kawasaki Ninja 400R
. In essence, both models were 400 cc domestic versions of the Kawasaki ER-6N and ER-6F. The main differences from older models were the engine, as well as the intake and exhaust systems. In all other respects they were almost identical.

The Kawasaki ER-4N and Kawasaki Ninja 400R models are produced in Thailand for the domestic Japanese market, but some models were also sold in Canada and New Zealand.

Main modifications

:

• Kawasaki ER-4N
  - naked version.
• Kawasaki Ninja 400R
  is a version with a full plastic body kit in a sporty style.

The models were based on a 2-cylinder in-line liquid-cooled injection engine with a volume of 399 cc. see, producing 44 hp. power and 37 Nm of torque. The main characteristics of the motor are achieved at 7500-9500 rpm.

By 2014, the Kawasaki ER-4N model was discontinued, leaving only the “sports” version of the Kawasaki Ninja 400R on the market, which by that time had been restyled (based on the base from the 2nd generation Kawasaki ER-6F) and removed the letter “ R" from the name - Kawasaki Ninja 400

.

Among the features of the Kawasaki ER-4 are a steel frame, an injection engine, a simple telescopic fork and a monoshock absorber (adjustable by preload), a 6-speed gearbox, powerful 2-disc (300 mm) front brakes with ABS as an option, a fuel tank for 15 l and 199 kg curb weight.

2017 was the last year of production of the series, after which it was replaced by a sports model - the Kawasaki Ninja 400 (2018+).

The main competitors of the Kawasaki ER-4 in the class

:

• Suzuki SFV400 Gladius
• Honda CB500F/Honda CBR400R
• Yamaha MT-03

Brief history of the model

• 2010 - start of production and sales of the Kawasaki ER-4 (Ninja 400R) model.

Model:

Kawasaki ER-4N / ABS (Japan), Kawasaki Ninja 400R / ABS (Japan, Canada, New Zealand).
Frame number:
ER400B-XXXXXX.
Factory designation:
ER400BBF, ER400CBF - Kawasaki ER-4N; EX400CBF, EX400DBF – Kawasaki Ninja 400R.

• 2011-2012 - no significant changes.

Model:

Kawasaki ER-4N / ABS (Japan), Kawasaki Ninja 400R / ABS (Japan, Canada, New Zealand).
Frame number:
ER400B-XXXXXX.
Factory designation:
ER400BCF, ER400CCF - Kawasaki ER-4N; EX400CCF, EX400CCFA, EX400DCF – Kawasaki Ninja 400R.

• 2013 - no significant changes.

Model:

Kawasaki ER-4N / ABS (Japan), Kawasaki Ninja 400R / ABS (Japan, Canada, New Zealand).
Frame number:
ER400B-XXXXXX.
Factory designation:
ER400BDF, ER400CDF - Kawasaki ER-4N; EX400CDF, EX400CDFA – Kawasaki Ninja 400R.

• 2014 - the Kawasaki ER-4N model is discontinued, and the Kawasaki Ninja 400R is restyled and changes its name to Kawasaki Ninja 400.

Model:

Kawasaki Ninja 400 / ABS (Japan).
Frame number:
EX400E-XXXXXX.
Factory designation:
EX400EEF / EX400EEFA

• 2015 - no significant changes.

Model:

Kawasaki Ninja 400 / ABS (Japan).
Factory designation:
EX400FFF / EX400FFFA

• 2016 - no significant changes.

Model:

Kawasaki Ninja 400 / ABS (Japan).
Factory designation:
EX400EGF, EX400FGF

• 2017 is the final production year.

Model:

Kawasaki Ninja 400 / ABS (Japan).
Factory designation:
EX400EHF, EX400FHF

Commentary to Art. 4 of the Criminal Code

1. The principle of equality of citizens before the law corresponds to Art. 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which declared that all people are equal before the law and are entitled, without any distinction, to equal protection of the law, and Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which enshrines the principle that everyone is equal before the law and the court.

2. The criminal law principle of equality of all before the law means that every citizen (this means not only Russia, but also a foreigner and a stateless person) who has violated the criminal law must be held accountable if his actions contain elements of a crime.

This principle is not limited to the requirement of an equal obligation to bear responsibility for the crime committed, but also implies an equal opportunity to legally avoid it.

3. Equality of all before the law does not exclude the existence of special rights and benefits for certain categories of persons. Some exceptions are provided for by the criminal law itself in relation to women, elderly men, and minors. Such persons are subject to criminal liability, and all benefits are based on the law and are equally applicable to all citizens and, accordingly, do not constitute violations of the principle of equality of citizens before the law.

Specifications

Technical characteristics of Kawasaki ER-4N (Ninja 400R, Ninja 400):

Second commentary to Art. 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

1. The principle of equality of citizens directly follows from Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, reflects the provisions of international law. This principle is manifested in the establishment of the same grounds and limits of criminal liability, the same grounds for exemption from criminal liability and punishment, and the same conditions for repaying the criminal legal consequences of a criminal record.

2. Equality before the law also means that when applying the Criminal Code, nothing should worsen a person’s position in comparison with others prosecuted.

3. The principle of equality of citizens before the law applies only to bringing a person to criminal liability, but it does not apply to the measure of punishment, which is always individualized.

Third commentary to Article 4 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation

Article 4 of the Criminal Code almost textually accurately reproduces a similar principle enshrined in Chapter. 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. This principle, due to its obviousness and clarity, does not require extensive commentary. However, in relation to criminal law, as well as other branches of law, it requires some additional clarification.

Law, as is generally recognized, is a universal legal scale for the comparison and equal legal assessment of actions that are identical in content and negative consequences within the framework of typical, general manifestations. But the same action (inaction), from the point of view of their general legal assessment based on the law, is committed by different people and under completely different specific circumstances. To the latter, the law, regardless of the act committed, gives legal significance to circumstances either mitigating or aggravating the punishment. Due to this immutable fact, subjects who have committed the same crime may find themselves in a position of actual inequality: some of them will be prosecuted and subjected to penalties, while others are exempt from the specified criminal legal consequences of their illegal behavior.

Thus, the principle of equality of citizens before the criminal law carries, by its very nature, certain contradictions: to any citizen, regardless of gender, race, nationality, language, origin, property and official status, place of residence, attitude to religion, beliefs, affiliation to public associations, etc., the law, on the one hand, makes absolutely the same requirements and establishes the same measures of criminal liability (within the sanction of the article of the Criminal Code), and on the other hand, it takes into account the personality of the offender and other specific mitigating circumstances of the crime committed , allows for the possibility of imposing a punishment below the lowest limit or even exemption from criminal liability and punishment.
The criminal law, and this is its specificity, to a certain extent corrects the principle of equality of citizens before the law by the norms of three institutions of criminal law - sentencing (Chapter 10, Articles 60 - 70, 73), exemption from criminal liability (Chapter 10, Articles 60 - 70, 73). 11, Art. Art. 75 - 78) and exemption from punishment (Chapter 12, Art. Art. 79 - 83). Outside the framework of the regulations of these legal institutions, which oblige one to take into account the individual and other circumstances, the criminal law imposes absolutely identical requirements (prohibitions or orders) on any person, which are predetermined by the principle of equality of citizens before the law. And these provisions of criminal legislation in no way contradict the constitutional principle of equality of citizens before the law, for law is just an equal scale of assessment of similar actions, which, however, are committed by different people acting in different life situations and under different specific circumstances. The latter, but again in accordance with the requirements of the law, can mitigate or aggravate the punishment. ‹ Article 3. Principle of legalityUp Article 5. Principle of guilt ›

Article 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Equality of rights of the parties (current version)

1. This article talks about the equality of rights of the parties in a court hearing, i.e. about their formal equality, however, in order for real competition to be observed in legal proceedings, it is not formal equality that is necessary, but equality of opportunity for the parties to realize their interests. Formal equality is sufficient to create conditions for a fair confrontation only when the parties are not only legally, but also actually equal to each other. If initially they have significantly different capabilities, they should be provided with different rights, which in this case balance the total positions of the parties. Therefore, in public adversarial proceedings, where virtually unequal subjects - the state and the individual - argue, the latter has the so-called advantages of protection, the main one of which is the presumption of innocence. Even in a court hearing, where the parties have apparently identical rights to present and examine evidence, file challenges and motions, express opinions and speak in judicial debates, in general their procedural position is far from the same. The burden of proof lies with the prosecutor, and all doubts are interpreted in favor of the accused.

2. Within the meaning of Art. 15 (“Adversarial nature of the parties”), the court is obliged to create equal conditions for both parties to defend their procedural positions. However, this alone may not be enough to ensure justice and make a substantively correct and fair decision in a criminal case. If the parties were objectively placed in unequal or unfair conditions by the course of the proceedings, threatening one of them with an unfavorable outcome of the case, and the efforts of the weaker party are clearly insufficient to independently correct the situation, the court should not allow the process to end prematurely with an easy victory of the party that took the other by surprise, but must restore the balance of the parties so that the matter is brought to its logical conclusion. For this purpose, it appears that a certain subsidiary (auxiliary) activity of the court in finding out the truth in the case, including its carrying out investigative actions, is acceptable. Such subsidiary activity is aimed at restoring balance, or actual equality of the parties. For example, during a trial, one of the parties is presented with new evidence (for example, witnesses previously unknown to the other party are called to testify), the independent verification and refutation of which in a court hearing clearly exceeds the capabilities of the other party, i.e. is too much for her. In this case, the court has the right and obligation to call the necessary witnesses, request objects and documents, etc., that can shed light on these circumstances and in this way prevent injustice and violation of equality of the parties. It is clear that in the vast majority of cases the defense risks finding itself at such a disadvantage, while the public prosecutor almost always retains the potential to gather rebuttal evidence. Therefore, the proposed rule can be regarded primarily as an element of the institution of advantage of protection. The need for subsidiary activity of the court may also arise in the case when the clarification of facts essential to the case in favor of the accused is jeopardized due to the fact that the accused’s defender reveals obvious incompetence or dishonesty; when the victim, who, due to lack of funds, did not invite a lawyer, does not know how to manage his rights, etc. Finally, investigative actions initiated by the court are conceivable to verify the emerging data on procedural violations in order to resolve the issue of the admissibility of evidence presented by the parties and protect the rights of persons participating in the process. For example, having received information about the use of illegal violence against the accused, the court may, on its own initiative, interrogate this person, order his examination, etc. The court's initiative is also appropriate when the law provides for the mandatory conduct of any investigative actions, but neither party receives a request to conduct it. In such cases, when the initiative of the court is dictated directly by the interests of compliance or execution of the law, we can talk about the legal subsidiary activity of the court.

Comment source:

Ed. A.V. Smirnova “COMMENTARY ON THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION” (ARTICLE BY ARTICLE), 5th edition

SMIRNOV A.V., KALINOVSKY K.B., 2009