THE PROBLEMS OF OBTAINING AND PROCESSING DNA SAMPLES IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (74) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Aldis Lieljuksis

The article deals with the issue raised in the society regarding constitutional complaint a submitted to the Constitutional Court against the national DNA database and the compliance of the legal norms with Section 96 of the Satversme. The author of the article writes about the issues related to the legal framework of DNA and biometric data sampling from suspects in the context of the EP Resolution No. 2008/615 / JHA, the requirements of the ECHR and the Estonian Criminal procedure regulation. In conclusion, the author is of the opinion that the current DNA sampling legislation does not provide many options for process facilitator and DNA samples must be obtained from all suspected persons to whom such status is applied regardless of the qualification of the offence and the need for criminal proceedings.

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-396
Author(s):  
Mircea Damaschin

AbstractThis article analyzes the special procedure for compensating material or moral damages where there has been a wrongful conviction—or other wrongful injury to individual liberty—caused by error in Romanian criminal proceedings.This remedy is provided for by the 1969 Romanian Criminal Procedure Code; however (perhaps inevitably), tension has risen between these provisions and those of the 1991 Romanian Constitution resulting in amendments to both the Code and the Constitution. The most significant of these amendments have flowed from decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court; in turn, the Constitutional Court has been guided in its determinations of constitutionality by interpretations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.In the present article, the author presents the evolution of Romania's legal framework in this field, analyzing key decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court. Also considered here is the jurisprudence of Romanian ordinary courts dealing with the compensatory remedy for material or moral damages awarded to victims of judicial error in Romanian criminal proceedings. The relevance here of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which has been critical of Romania in this regard, cannot be overestimated.Finally, this article considers the potential effect of changes contained the new Criminal Procedure Code, which has been adopted in mid-2010 by the Romanian Parliament.


2017 ◽  
pp. 67-86
Author(s):  
Arkadiusz Krajewski

The Constitutional Tribunal is defined as the Polish constitutional court and at the same time the judicial authority. It was created at the turn of 1982. Not long after that it began its jurisprudence; more precisely it was in 1986. Describing its basic tasks, it is pointed out that judicial review of so-called constitutional law deserves a closer look. This is particularly true about controlling the compliance of lower legal norms with higher legal norms. Here attention is drawn towards the connection of the Constitution with some international agreements, ie. the court of law. The purpose of the paper below was to analyze the constitutional principles of criminal proceedings in the context of the case law of the Polish Constitutional Court. At the beginning the concept, the division and the role of the constitutional rules of criminal procedure were presented. In this section, it was emphasized that all the rules of the criminal process are considered superior norms of a very significant social importance. Then the principle of objectivity, which is reflected in the Constitution of the Republic, was described. A following aspect was the discussion of the principle of the presumption of innocence and the principle of in dubio pro reo. It has been emphasized that the essence of the principle is that the person who was brought before the court is treated as innocent until a lawful judgment is pronounced against the defendant. The author also pointed out the principle of the right to defense. According to this rule, the defendant has the right to defend themselves in the process and to use the help of a defender. Another described principle is so-called rule of publicity. It concerns the fact that information about criminal proceedings should be accessible to the public. Then it was pointed to the principle of the right to the trial and the independence of the judiciary. The first one is reflected in national law and acts of international rank. The second shows that the independence of the judiciary is determined by the proper exercise of the profession of judge and becomes a guarantee of freedom and civil rights. The humanitarian principle and the principle of participation of the social factor in the penal process are shown in the final section. At the end of the paper a summary and conclusions were presented.


Author(s):  
Svitlana Patiuк ◽  

"Definitions of categories, the goal and objectives of criminal proceedings in modern criminal proceedings" analysed the legal norms and provisions of doctrinal concepts to determine the goals and objectives of criminal proceedings. The author formulated conclusions and generalizations that since criminal proceedings are a sphere of state activity, it depends on the direction of the political course of the state, changes in state policy, which always leads to a change in the ideology of the criminal process as a whole, including the transformation of goals and objectives criminal proceedings. The purpose and objectives of criminal proceedings depend on the historical form of the criminal process, a common feature of which is the ratio of freedom (interests) of the individual and the state, expressed in the procedural position of the main participants in the process. Criminal procedure legislation and doctrine define the resolution of a dispute (conflict) between the state and the accused arising as a result of the commission of a crime as the goal of the criminal process in most countries in which the adversarial nature of criminal proceedings prevails. As the goal of criminal proceedings in the modern theory of criminal procedure, it is proposed to consider the protection of the individual, society and the state from criminal offences in the settlement of criminal-legal conflicts arising as a result of these offences. The goal in the criminal process determines the setting of tasks and represents the ultimate conclusion from the sum of all the tasks being implemented. The task of criminal proceedings should be determined taking into account the functional purpose of the subjects of criminal proceedings, and therefore the task is the fulfilment of his duty by a participant in criminal proceedings, which is determined by his functional purpose, based on the principle of competition of the parties.


Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  

The article is devoted to the issues of formulating the definition of such a criminal procedural concept as «procedural costs». Emphasizing the importance both for science and for law enforcement of clarity and clarity when formulating the definition of criminal procedural concepts, the authors point out that the formulation of this concept present in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is far from being improved. Having studied the opinions on this issue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a number of procedural scholars, the authors propose their own version of the definition of the concept of «criminal procedural costs» with its allocation in a separate paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.


Author(s):  
Kristīne Laganovska

On June 14, 2018, the Constitutional Court delivered the judgment in the case no. 2017-23-01 On Compliance of the Second and the Third Part of Section 573 of the Criminal Procedure Law with the First Sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. The Constitutional court held to recognise the second and the third part of Section (573) of the Criminal Procedure Law, insofar it provides that the matter on initiating cassation proceedings in criminal procedure is decided by one judge, without providing reasoning for refusal to initiate cassation proceedings in criminal procedure, as being incompatible with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Constitution of the Republic of Latvia. Subsequently, the Criminal Procedure Law was amended and amendments came into force on October 25, 2018. The amendments provide that in order to decide on an issue regarding the initiation of cassation proceedings, cassation complaint or protest shall be examined by three judges. The composition of the court and the time when the court will be decided on the initiation of the cassation proceedings shall be notified to the person who lodged the complaint or protest, as well as to the person whose rights and interests are violated by the complaint or protest.


Author(s):  
El'vira Mirgorodskaya

The purpose of this study was an attempt to theoretically understand the subject of judicial consideration of complaints against decisions, actions (inaction) of officials carrying out criminal prosecution. The research was carried out on the basis of comparative legal, formal logical, empirical, statistical methods. Judicial statistics for the year 2020 have been provided, and legislation has been studied from a historical and contemporary perspective, taking into account the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The problem is that, in practice, for about 20 years the courts have had difficulties in determining the subject of complaints, since neither in theory nor in practice a consensus has been developed on this issue. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation also does not contain a definition of the concept of «subject matter». The situation is aggravated by the presence of evaluative concepts in the text of the law, leading to a varied understanding of the subject of appeal by the courts, which leads to a violation of the constitutional rights of citizens at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. In the article, taking into account the analysis of the practice of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, legislation and the opinion of scientists, a recommendation was made to amend the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to specify the subject of consideration of complaints in accordance with Art. 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation in order to eliminate existing contradictions in practice and increase the level of protection of individual rights in pre-trial proceedings.


Author(s):  
Mariia Aleksandrovna Iurkevich

Legal regulation of the use of video technologies in the Russian criminal procedure is conducted on the international and domestic levels. However, based on the primacy of international law recognized by the Russian Federation, the marker is the position of international community that is reflected in the normative legal acts of its special bodies, as well as on the doctrinal level. This article carries out the chronological analysis of the acts issued by international bodies and organizations pertaining to the use video conferencing in criminal proceedings. The subject of this research is the acts of international bodies and organizations that underlie the development of the national legal framework for the use of video conferencing in the Russian Federation. The analysis of normative acts that regulate the use of video conferencing in the Russian criminal procedure demonstrate that for the most part this question is being addressed in the international agreements ratified by the Russian Federation, rather than in the national legislation (considering the provisions of the Part 3 of the Article 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation). Leaning on the acquired results, the author concludes that such tendency can be explained by a number of circumstances, namely lag in the rates of digitalization compared to the leading European practices, insignificant period of approbation of the results of using video technologies, as well as relatively short period of intensive implementation of such technologies due to the amendments in criminal procedure policy of the country, which now requires exhaustive normative regulation. The author believes that it is more appropriate to begin the analysis of normative acts that determine the legal framework for application of video conferencing in criminal proceedings of the Russian Federation with the general principles and norms of international law and international agreements, since their role in intensification of the process of digital transformation of criminal procedure in Russia cannot be overestimated.


Ius Poenale ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-86
Author(s):  
M. Kemal Pasha Zahrie

The presence of Constitutional Court Decision Number 65/PUUVIII/2010 expands the meaning of witnesses in Article 1 point 26 of the KUHAP, resulting in the emergence of various interpretations in criminal justice practice concerning the position of verbal witness testimony as evidence. Juridically, the decision creates problems considering that the Criminal Procedure Code or Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) does not recognize verbal witnesses' testimony as evidence. This study examined the position and the strength of verbal witnesses' testimony as evidence in criminal proceedings. After gathering all the data using normative and empirical juridical research, this paper concludes that the testimony of verbal witnesses is grouped in the evidence of guidance in Article 188 Paragraph (1) of the KUHAP because the testimony of verbal witnesses is not primary evidence. After all, its existence is contingent on the judge's willingness to employ it. The strength of proof of testimony of verbal witnesses is that they must satisfy the elements of Article 188 paragraph (1) of the KUHAP, namely the information referred to in the form of events or circumstances concerning a criminal act, as well as conformity with other evidence, as required by Article 188 paragraph (2) of the KUHAP.


Author(s):  
Boris B. Bulatov ◽  
◽  
Alexander S. Dezhnev ◽  

The article examines the normative legal basis of the grounds for canceling property seizure in pre-trial criminal proceedings. The problem of the legislator’s usage of evaluative categories in removing investigator’s, interrogator’s or court’s restrictions is also analyzed. The solution of this problem is made dependent on the implementation of public or private interests. Discussing these issues, the authors come to the conclusion that this sphere is neither presented nor analyzed in academic monographic works. This circumstance indicates the novelty of the study owing to the legal positions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation on the issue. The conclusion about the priority of public principles over private interests concerning matters which are not related to civil lawsuits is made on the grounds of empirical data and the analysis of legislative approaches. The contradictions of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation regulating the basis and procedure for canceling property seizure and the laws on bankruptcy are identified. The directions for improving the legal regulation of these issues are presented. The necessity of a multisectoral regulation of some aspects of law enforcement is inferred. The examination of private principles in canceling property seizure is connected with securing a civil lawsuit in criminal proceedings. The authors substantiate the existence of additional opportunities in making decisions in this field via the legal regime. This regime is also used in some other legal acts and may be put into practice in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. However, the imposed restrictions can be canceled on the basis of the decision by a person considering a criminal case. The authors note the incoherence of some provisions of Part 3 and Part 9 of Article 115 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. This incoherence is connected with different approaches to the view on public and private interests in decision making. The authors substantiate the necessity of a legal linking of grounds for canceling property seizure with the decision on imposing this resriction. The conclusion about the comprehensive order of property seizure is made in the final part of the article. It is also stated that this order does not contain distinct criteria of the legality of the decision. Certain parts of the criminal procedure laws should be corrected. Some ways to improve the field of legal regulation concerning the opportunity of canceling seizure are given.


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 153-159
Author(s):  
A A Golikov ◽  
A A Larinkov

The article deals with the actual law enforcement problems associated with violations of legal norms by the bodies engaged in operational-investigative activities in the course of conducting and documenting operational-investigative activities «inspection of premises, buildings, structures, areas and vehicles». The analysis of norms of the Federal law of 12.08.1995 No. 144-FZ «About operational search activities», the criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation, departmental normative acts, decisions of the European Court of human rights and the constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and also the practice of prosecutorial supervision over implementation of laws in the implementation of operative-search activities, identified various approaches to the assessment of the legality of the survey of housing in the framework of the operational-search measures «inspection of premises, buildings, structures, areas and vehicles». On the basis of the obtained data, the problems were identified and some prospects for the development of the operational search activities were identified. The authors in this paper propose possible solutions to the identified law enforcement problems and measures to further develop the possibility of using the information obtained during the operational-search activities «inspection of premises, buildings, structures, areas and vehicles» for the formation of criminal procedural evidence in criminal cases. The authors state their position on the basis of the analysis of the current operational-investigative, criminal-procedural legislation and prosecutorial-Supervisory practice. The methodological basis of the study was made by General scientific and special methods of knowledge of law enforcement problems of conducting and documenting operational search activities «inspection of premises, buildings, structures, areas and vehicles», including the method of system-structural analysis, synthesis method, analysis method, comparative legal method, formal logical method, statistical method. As a result of the study revealed that the information obtained in the course of operational-search activities «inspection of premises, buildings, structures, areas of terrain and vehicles», can be the basis for the formation of criminal procedural evidence in criminal cases only in compliance with the legal norms of the bodies engaged in operational-search activities during the production and documentation of the operational-search activities. At the same time, the admissibility of evidence formed on the basis of the results of operational investigative activities presented in criminal proceedings is made dependent on the implementation of certain legal norms in the production of the operational investigative measures under consideration. In the legal literature, innovations in the legislation of Russia related to various aspects of conducting and documenting operational search activities «inspection of premises, buildings, structures, areas and vehicles» traditionally cause a lively discussion. However, up to the present time in science and did not have a consensus on the concept and essence of the considered operational search activities. Analysis of the practice of prosecutorial supervision over the execution of laws in the implementation of operational-search activity indicates different approaches to assessing the legality of the operational-search activities. Thus violations of the legislation in practice of the bodies performing quickly-search activity during carrying out quickly-search action «inspection of rooms, buildings, constructions, sites of the district and vehicles» is very difficult task. First of all, due to the high requirements of operational-search and criminal procedure legislation, the results of operational-search activity, to the process of proof in General, and to certain types of evidence that are formed in criminal proceedings on the basis of the results of operational-search activity.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document