scholarly journals GENESIS OF THE PROTOCOL FORM OF PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LEGISLATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN

2021 ◽  
pp. 32-37
Author(s):  
Р.О. Абдульдинов ◽  
T.A. Khanov

The article discusses certain issues related to the protocol form of pre-trial investigation of criminalcases. A hypothesis is tested that defines protocol proceedings as a simplified (accelerated) form of pre-trialinvestigation used in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Kazakhstan. A comparative analysis of theprotocol form of pre-trial preparation of materials has been carried out. This form was in force in the 1959Criminal Procedure Code of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic. The simplified procedure for pre-trialproceedings was introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan in 1997.The accelerated procedure for pre-trial investigation has been in force in the criminal procedurelegislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan since 2014. The authors came to the conclusion that the protocolform is a full-fledged procedural production of the pre-trial investigation. This form practically does notcontain elements of simplification, and the introduced changes and additions have brought to naught theaccelerated procedure. This led to the fact that most of the cases are terminated due to violation of thetimeframe for the investigation.

2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 161-168
Author(s):  
Kateryna Kurnaieva ◽  

The article is devoted to the genesis of the investigative experiment as an independent investigative (search) action. The author analyzes the historical stages of origin, development, and determination of the place of the investigative experiment in the system of procedural actions in Ukraine. It is noted that the investigative experiment as a way to verify the evidence arose in the practice of pre-trial investigation. And then it became the object of study of legal science research. It is noted that the basis of the investigative experiment is the use of the method of scientific research method – testing to verify certain information. This is a sign of the introduction of truly scientific methods in the activities of law enforcement agencies. In this way the obtained evidence is given signs of belonging and admissibility. The testimony of the participants in the criminal proceedings and the investigative versions are checked by conducting an investigative experiment. Thus the reliability of the received information and the maintenance of a criminal offense is established. That is why the investigative experiment became widespread in the pre-trial investigation. Investigative experiment is a way to verify and to obtain evidence, but one of the most complex in its preparation and content. It is established that there is no detailed clear historical periodization of this procedural institution. The article compares the content of art. 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic dated 28.12.1960 «Reproduction of the situation and circumstances of the event» from art. 240 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine dated 13.04.2012 «Investigative experiment». The conclusion that the investigative experiment is an independent investigative (investigative) action is substantiated, but some questions concerning its conduct remain ambiguous. Currently, this is the basis for discussions, which indicates the relevance of this procedural institution and its development.


Author(s):  
Oksana V. Kachalova ◽  
◽  
Viкtor I. Kachalov ◽  

The aim of the article is to identify the meaning of the category “validity of the charge” in criminal proceedings and the scope of its application. After analyzing the content and legal essence of this category, as well as procedural situations in which it is necessary to establish the validity of the charge, the authors come to the following conclusions. Any coercive measures against suspects and accused persons can be applied only if there are serious grounds to assume that a person is involved in the commission of a crime since the restriction of the most important constitutional rights of citizens who, by virtue of the presumption of innocence, are innocent of committing a crime is possible only in exceptional cases. The validity of the charge (suspicion) assumes that a person is involved in the commission of a crime, as well as the fact of the criminal prosecution of this person. It is established if there is sufficient evidence that a person may have committed a crime (a person was caught committing a crime or immediately after it was committed; the victim or witnesses identified the person as the perpetrator of the crime; obvious traces of the crime were found on the person or their clothing, with them or in their house, etc.). The validity of the charge may be confirmed by a decision to initiate a criminal case and bring a person as an accused, by protocols of detention, interrogations of the accused, the victim, witnesses, and other materials. In the procedural sense, the conditions for establishing the validity of the charge differ significantly. When resolving the issue of the use of detention and other preventive measures, the validity of the charge is established within the framework of a court session in the conditions of adversariality with the participation of the parties. When giving the court permission to conduct investigative and other procedural actions in accordance with Article 165 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, to ensure the secrecy of the investigation, the issue is resolved in the absence of adversariality with the possible participation of only the prosecutor, the investigator, and the inquirer. The category “validity of the charge” is significant in legal terms in a criminal case with the special order of proceedings. A prerequisite for the court to consider a criminal case in a simplified procedure is the validity of the charge and its confirmation by the evidence collected in the case. The validity of the charge in the appointment of a trial in the special order provided for by Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is established by the court outside the court session in the absence of the parties. In any of the above situations, the court is responsible for establishing the validity of the charge since failure to establish it means that the decision made is unfounded.


Author(s):  
Maryna Vandzhurak

Problem setting. This article examines the legal regulation of the institute of inquiry in Ukraine and abroad. It is concluded that the institution of inquiry in foreign countries is inherently different from the national form of pre-trial inquiry, but has some similarities. In particular, the differences are in the establishment of different terms of pre-trial investigation, the subjects of the criminal investigation procedure, the specifics of the use of additional evidence, the presence of a mandatory condition – a guilty plea to the suspect, the prosecutor’s participation in the proceedings. The author identifies common features and differences of the institute of inquiry in Ukraine and other countries, which in turn allows to identify ways to improve existing legislation. The purpose of the article is to compare the legal regulation of the institution of inquiry in the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine and similar pre-trial investigation procedures in France, Germany, Austria, the Czech Republic (here in after – the Czech Republic), the Republic of Poland (here in after – Poland), Great Britain, Belarus, Kazakhstan in order to identify positive features in order to improve it. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The scientific works of Ukrainian scientists: N. I. Brovka, S. I. Simakov, O. V. Kerevych, K. B. Kalinovsky, etc. are devoted to the study of various aspects of inquiry in foreign countries. However, due to the lack of thorough research on the comparative analysis of the legal regulation of the institution of inquiry, as a simplified form of pre-trial investigation, with other countries, there is a need for such an analysis and highlight the positive aspects. Articles main body. The institute of inquiry belongs to a simplified form of pre-trial investigation, which speeds up the trial in order to ensure greater efficiency of the criminal justice system and reduce costs. Thus, the investigated form of pre-trial investigation came into force on July 1, 2020 in criminal procedure legislation, in accordance with the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine to Simplify Pre-trial Investigation of Certain Categories of Criminal Offenses” № 2617-VIII of 22.11.2018. The need for inquiry as a simplified form of criminal proceedings is due, in particular, to the heavy workload of investigators (for example, the National Police) in cases of minor crimes, which are now called criminal offenses. Inquiry is conducted during the investigation of criminal offenses, special subject – the connoisseu of the subdivisions of the inquiry or the authorized persons of other subdivisions; inquiry is carried out in a short time – 72 hours in case of notification to the person on suspicion of commission of a criminal offense. Additional sources of evidence in criminal proceedings on criminal offenses, in addition to general sources of evidence, are also explanations of persons, results of medical examination, expert opinion, testimony of technical devices and technical means that have the functions of photography and filming, video or photo and filming, video recording. The procedure of simplified investigation of minor criminal offenses operates successfully in many foreign countries, in particular in the French Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, Kazakhstan, Germany, Austria, the Republic of Belarus, the Czech Republic, Poland. The simplified procedure in Poland does not apply to: – accused persons deprived of liberty, except in cases of prior arrest to the perpetrator of certain types of crimes; – minors; deaf, dumb or blind; – in the presence of reasonable doubts about the sanity of the suspect; – if the person does not speak Polish. The bodies investigating cases under the simplified procedure are the police, as well as other bodies authorized to conduct investigations (Article 471). The total term of the simplified investigation is 1 month. Regarding the legal regulation of the institute of inquiry in Austria, it should be noted that the preliminary investigation is carried out only in the form of inquiry. Immediate investigative actions related to the identification of the perpetrator, as well as other circumstances, are conducted by the police before the initiation of a criminal case and end with the transfer of all materials to the prosecutor. At the same time, the body of inquiry is authorized to carry out any investigative and operative-search actions (which is unique in comparison with Ukraine). It should be noted that a comparative analysis of the criminal procedure legislation of foreign countries allows to state the existence of a tendency to improve the pre-trial investigation towards its simplification. In international activities in the field of simplification of criminal procedure, there is a direction to adhere to such forms of justice that would optimally take into account the gravity of the crime, the consequences that may occur as a result. It is as a result of such simplification of criminal proceedings that it is possible to ensure procedural savings of forces, time and resources of participants in criminal proceedings. Conclusions and prospects for further research. As for the overall impact of criminal offenses on the criminal justice system, it should be agreed that it is mostly positive. The system itself has become more humane as the number of detentions has decreased and the number of precautionary measures applied during the investigation has been minimal. This is one of Ukraine’s important commitments to the Council of Europe. The average length of a pre-trial investigation has accelerated by about half. This article will be useful for scholars studying the features of forms of pre-trial investigation, as it contains a comparative study of the institute of foreign inquiry and national criminal procedure law. Attention is also focused on some problematic issues related to the simplified form of pre-trial investigation. It can serve as a springboard for scientists to further research the institute of inquiry.


Author(s):  
V.V. Djafarov ◽  

The article considers problems of substantiating certain types of decisions in the criminal process. The author’s views are based on recent changes in the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan and the existing experience of the Russian Federation. The article focuses on provisions of the current criminal procedure code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The author refers to Russian proceduralists whose works are devoted to the problems of studying the validity of procedural decisions at the pre-trial stage. The author indicated types of decisions, which are not recognized as criminal procedural, but for which justification should be a mandatory criterion according to the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The article provisions justify the need to enshrine the definition of «reasonableness» in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a mandatory requirement that must be met when taking decisions by the prosecuting authorities.


Author(s):  
Gulom Mahammatovich Shodiev ◽  

This article discusses the legal basis of rehabilitation in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Uzbekistan. The most constructive theories of the institution under discussion are discussed, their advantages and disadvantages are emphasized. The article also analyzes the volume of rehabilitation in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.


Russian judge ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 10-15
Author(s):  
Eldar K. Kutuev ◽  
◽  
Vadim S. Latypov ◽  

In this article, the authors attempt to analyze the types of counteraction provided against persons who assist in the administration of justice and determine the possible consequences of such impact. Such concepts as “assistance”, “counteraction”, “abuse of rights”are considered. The author argues for the need to ensure the safety of this category of persons by introducing an independent Chapter in the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation devoted to measures to ensure the safety of participants in criminal proceedings and other persons, similar to the procedural legislation of the Republic of Belarus.


It is established that today many problems arise in the activities of the pre-trial investigation bodies, their legal status, probity and other important issues specified in the legislation are not always clearly and consistently. It is noted that there are various problems with the implementation of investigators of his powers, there are complications with the understanding of his independence. It was argued that it is important to identify and analyze the problems that arise in the work of the pre-trial investigation bodies, the problems of implementing the legal status of the investigator, including by comparative analysis of the regulation of these issues in the 1960 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, 2012 , as well as expressing their own position on the reform of these bodies. It has been established that the comparative analysis of the current criminal procedural legislation with the 1960 law also suggests the procedural functions that can act as a certain link between the tasks and the legal status of the participant in the process, since they determine the procedural status of the investigator, his rights and duties , which are specified in separate criminal procedural institutes and procedural norms. It is noted that the knowledge of the system of procedural functions of the investigator as the main directions of his activity allows the most fully to determine the role of the investigator in the execution of the criminal proceedings, to correctly understand and apply each legal institution and each legal regulation regulating its activities. As future state representatives, investigators have legally established procedural powers that are both for them and for rights (as they allow for procedural actions and procedural decisions), and duties (due to the inappropriate or untimely use of their rights may be an offense if there is no evidence of a crime). It has been argued that within the criminal process there were significant procedural transformations related to the change of the law, some of which were rather substantial, but not always consistent and such that increased the efficiency of the functioning of state authorities aimed at bringing individuals to legal liability.


2021 ◽  
Vol 93 (1) ◽  
pp. 43-86
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Kvastek

This paper will analyse the position of the injured party in an investigation conducted by the public prosecutor's office, which was implemented in the Republic of Serbia in 2011. After we have given the definitions of the injured party and the difference with the term victim, as a criminological category, we will discuss whether the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code (2011) takes a step back when it comes to the position of the injured party in criminal proceedings. First of all, the ability of the injured party to become a subsidiary prosecutor was limited, as it was prescribed that the injured party can take over criminal prosecution only after the confirmation of the public prosecutor's indictment, so the opportunity to acts as a subsidiary prosecutor does not exist in the manner in which it existed under the Criminal Procedure Code from 2001 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Then, we shall demonstrate how the position of the injured party was exacerbated in relation to deferred prosecution, as the injured party cannot submit an objection to the higher public prosecutor to re-examine the decision not to prosecute and the injured party's consent is not needed for this decision. The research conducted among deputy public prosecutors and attorneys for the purposes of this paper confirms the presumption that the Criminal Procedure Code in force downgraded the injured party's impact on the criminal proceedings.


2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-110
Author(s):  
Artur Ghambaryan ◽  
Liana Ghazaryan

This article argues about the importance of gathering written evidence (testimony) which, as a prototype of judicial deposition, may be regarded as an effective instrument for criminal procedure. The article incorporates the works of the British, German, and Russian theorists of the 19th century, and the legislative regulations of this period. Despite the fact that the concept of “judicial deposition” has only recently entered into practice in the new criminal procedure codes of post-Soviet states, its roots can be traced back to the 19th century English law. This paper focuses on the legislative regulations of the post-Soviet countries, in particular, the procedures set out in the new criminal procedure codes, including the novelties and peculiarities of the Draft Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia. The authors have referred, in more detail, to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, which has substantial peculiarities. In this respect, the article presents the opinions of the experts on judicial deposition testimonies. Discussing the differences in the legislative regulations of several countries, this article, through a comparative analysis, points how different countries approach deposition of testimonies. Additionally, the article examines the fundamental differences between deposition testimonies and hearsay evidence.


Author(s):  
Veljko Ikanović

The author deals with the new position of the injured party in criminal proceedings, persons who may refuse to testify and exceptions from the direct presentation of evidence due to the unavailability of witnesses after the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Republika Srpska from 2021. Starting from the current regulation of this matter, pointing to the solutions in the comparative legislation, the analysis of these changes indicates the consequences of such inconsistent and in some institutes unnecessary and erroneous standardization of this sensitive matter. Attention is drawn to the contradiction between the decision on the privileged witness and juvenile legislation, which is in line with the conventions protecting their position, and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In that sense, the legislator is critically pointed out the shortcomings of certain solutions and suggests appropriate changes and additions in order to eliminate the problems that may arise during their practical application.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document