scholarly journals ACTUAL QUESTIONS ABOUT INVESTIGATOR'S WORK IN LATVIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (80) ◽  
pp. 39
Author(s):  
Marina Sumbarova
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Educational Process ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law

In this article author considers the questions connected with activity of the investigator at investigation of crimes, gives the characteristic of his procedural activity, defines his legal status in Latvian criminal procedure, characterizes important functions that this participant of criminal trial has. Along with consideration of a legal status of the investigator in criminal trial of Latvia, the analysis of the relevant procedural characteristics connected with investigation of criminal trials has determined the scientifically based directions in modern educational process of Latvia by training of specialists lawyers and, in particular, investigators. As a results of a research are given offers to change separate standards of the Criminal procedure law.

ASSURANCE OF LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE PROCEDURAL DECISIONS MADE BY THE INVESTIGATOR IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING

2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (71) ◽  
pp. 28
Author(s):  
Marina Sumbarova
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Law ◽  
Procedural Decisions ◽  
Procedural Instructions

One of participants of criminal trial – the persons directing process, according to the Criminal procedure law (CPL) existing now in Latvia is the investigator. According to point 1 of part 2 of article 29 CPL, it has rights in the order established by the law to make any procedural decision and to make any procedural action or to charge its production to participants of an investigation team or the performer of procedural instructions. In article the author investigates conceptual essence of criminal procedure decisions, the legal characteristic of the resolution of the investigator, decision-making in the form of resolutions on the beginning of criminal trial, refusal to begin criminal trial, and also the resolutions directed on collecting and fixing of proofs in criminal trial and other resolutions. Making procedural decisions is a guarantee of high-quality investigation of criminal trials and observance of the rights of its participants.

scholarly journals USE OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE DURING THE EXAMINATION OF THE SCENE OF A CRIME IN THE ORDER OF PART 3 ART. 214 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF UKRAINE

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160
Author(s):  
Andrіy Shulha ◽  
◽  
Tetyana Khailova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Law

The article deals with the problem of specialist’s participation in the scene examination, which is carried out before entering information into the Unified Register of the pre-trial investigations. The essence of the problem is that the current criminal procedural law of Ukraine recognizes the specialist’s participation only in the pre-trial investigation, the litigation and the proceedings in the case of the commission of an unlawful act under the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine states that a specialist in criminal proceedings is a person who has special knowledge and skills and can provide advice and conclusions during the pre-trial investigation and trial on issues that require appropriate special knowledge and skills. In other cases, the specialist has no procedural status. In addition, Part 1 of Article 237 of the CPC of Ukraine «Examination» states that the examination is conducted to identify and record information on the circumstances of the offense commitment. It is an act provided by the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. However, there are the cases in the investigation, when a report is received, for example, about a person's death, other events with formal signs of the offense, which must first be checked for signs of a crime, and only then the act can be considered as offense. In this case, a specialist takes part in the scene examination. However, the current criminal procedure law in accordance with Part 1, Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine determines the legal status of a specialist only as the participant in criminal proceedings. The paragraph 10, part 1 of Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine defines the criminal proceedings as pre-trial investigation and court proceedings or procedural actions in the case of the commission of an unlawful act. Therefore, when the inspection of the scene is based on the uncertain status of the event (there is no clear information that the event contains signs of an offense), the specialist’s participation is not regulated by law. The authors propose to consider the specialists as «experienced persons» in cases mentioned above and to include their advices to the protocol of the scene examination, as the advices of other scene examination participants.

Witness Proofing in International Criminal Tribunals: A Critical Analysis of Widening Procedural Divergence

2008 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 683-698 ◽  
Author(s):  
RUBEN KAREMAKER ◽  
B. DON TAYLOR ◽  
THOMAS WAYDE PITTMAN
Keyword(s):  
Critical Analysis ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Early Stage ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Trial Process ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Criminal Trials

AbstractWitness proofing – or preparation – is an adjunct of the adversarial criminal trial process. It is also a common practice at the UN international criminal tribunals, where it has been repeatedly challenged, analysed, and endorsed. Recently, a trial chamber at the ICC prohibited the prosecutor from proofing witnesses, seemingly calling upon the institution, at an early stage, to break with the established practice of proofing at the UN international criminal tribunals. This article examines witness proofing in international criminal procedure with the aim of describing and weighing its relative merits, and arguing that proofing – as practised at the UN international criminal tribunals – appears to be a better modality for enhancing the efficiency, integrity, and legitimacy of the truth-seeking function of international criminal trials than does prohibiting the practice.

scholarly journals HAKIKAT PEMBUKTIAN MELALUI MEDIA ELEKTRONIK DALAM PRESPEKTIF SISTEM PERADILAN PIDANA INDONESIA

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Muslim Mamulai
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Electronic Media ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
The Law

Proof via electronic media in criminal trials, still based on the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, namely with reference to the theory of proof under the law negatively, but in practice there is still a criminal trial the pros and cons. However, in fact the truth of the witness examination teleconference remain equal value, with a witness who was not present at the trial because the witness has been sworn in. Keywords: Electronic Media in the criminal justice system.   Abstrak Pembuktian melalui media elektronik dalam persidangan pidana, masih didasarkan pada ketentuan yang terdapat dalam Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Acara Pidana, yaitu dengan mengacu pada teori pembuktian berdasarkan hukum secara negatif, tetapi dalam praktiknya masih ada persidangan pidana pro dan kontra. Namun, sebenarnya kebenaran teleconference dari pemeriksaan saksi tetap bernilai sama, dengan saksi yang tidak hadir di persidangan karena telah saksi telah ditetapkan. Kata kunci: media elektronik; sistem; peradilan pidana

scholarly journals ASPECTS OF ENSURING RIGHTS OF PERSONS DURING EXPERT-EXAMINATION IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2015 ◽  
Vol 1 (70) ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Marina Sumbarova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Key Issues ◽  
Forensic Expert ◽  
The Right

The key issues in this article are related to procedural activity of participants of criminal procedure at investigation of crimes and, in particular, the victim are considered. The separate criminal procedure provisions relating to the legal characteristic of the victim are defined; situations of a legal regulation of appointment and production of examinations are analyzed during pre-judicial criminal trial, the characteristic of the right of acquaintance of participants of criminal trial with the judgment and questions of interaction of the persons directing process with the expert at investigation of crimes. In the conclusion in the context of the designated problems, the author offers recommendations of organizational and tactical character for improvement of interaction of the investigator and the forensic expert at investigation of crimes and, in particular, at purpose of examinations. In the conclusion offers on a being of the executed research on improvement of concrete standards of the criminal procedure law are also formulated.

scholarly journals Protections for vulnerable accused in Malaysian criminal trials: Are they sufficient? Proposal for reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Naziah Mohd Alias
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Proper Treatment ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Support Person ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

<p>This dissertation argues that the protections for vulnerable accused in Malaysian criminal trials are not sufficient. It is crucial to ensure that vulnerable accused receive proper treatment when dealing with the court. After thoroughly scrutinising the law and practice in several other jurisdictions, this dissertation proposes several amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act 1950 to provide clear guidelines as to how to deal with vulnerable accused in a criminal trial. It is ultimately recommended that the right to give an unsworn statement be modified so that it is more effective and fair in its operation. This dissertation further recommends the introduction of an adverse inference clause for the right to remain silent at trial so accused person can better understand the effect of their choice. Recommendations are also made to introduce an intermediary service for those vulnerable accused who choose to give sworn evidence in court, and to allow a support person to accompany a vulnerable accused during trial. These amendments aim to assist vulnerable accused persons physically and emotionally, and to protect their fair trial rights.</p>

scholarly journals Koncepcja podziału procesu karnego na dwie fazy – 50 lat później

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 11-37
Author(s):  
Bartosz Łukowiak
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Final Part ◽  
Two Phase ◽  
Functional Link ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
History Of ◽  
Two Phases

This paper aims to answer the question whether the concept of dividing a criminal trial into two phases is still useful now, more than half a century after its last broader analysis. It also attempts to solve some specific problems related to the said analysis. The starting point for the considerations contained in the paper was to look at the concept of a two-phase criminal trial as a purely procedural construction and thus to reject its functional link with any model of substantive criminal law. The first part of the paper discusses the history of the concept of a two-phase criminal trial, as well as some of the arguments put forward by its supporters and opponents. In the course of further deliberations, the focus is on searching for elements of the concept in the current legal status. The final part of the text deals with the question whether and, possibly, in what form the concept of division of jurisdictional proceedings should become an element of the Polish criminal procedure. This is followed by numerous and widely justified de lege ferenda conclusions.

Criminal procedure powers of the head of the institution of the penal correction system as a subject of inquiry: implementation problems

2020 ◽  
pp. 144-149
Author(s):  
Андрей Станиславович Александров
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Correctional Institution ◽  
Correctional Institutions ◽  
Detention Center ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Law ◽  
Implementation Problems ◽  
Correction System

В статье рассматриваются особенности уголовно-процессуального статуса учреждений и органов уголовно-исполнительной системы. Поднимаются вопросы об уголовно-процессуальных компетенциях начальника исправительного учреждения и следственного изолятора в качестве органа дознания. Автором обозначена проблема размытости правового статуса начальника исправительного учреждения в действующем уголовно-процессуальном законодательстве. Отмечены особенности осуществления дознания в целом и дознания в условиях исправительных учреждений в частности. Обозначены противоречия в правоприменительной практике органов прокуратуры и положений уголовно-процессуального закона. В статье рассмотрены различные позиции ученых относительно компетенций начальников исправительных учреждений в производстве неотложных следственных действий. Рассмотрена отдельная практика усиления прокурорского надзора за уголовно-процессуальной деятельностью учреждений и органов УИС исходя из требований ст. 5, 40, 150, 157 УПК РФ. Затронут на сегодня спорный вопрос о способности или неспособности начальника исправительного учреждения возбудить уголовное дело или вынести отказной материал. Делается акцент на недопустимости неоднозначного понимания со стороны правоприменителя норм уголовно-процессуального законодательства. The article discusses the features of the criminal procedural status of institutions and bodies of the penal correction system. Questions are raised about the criminal procedural competencies of the head of the correctional institution and the pre-trial detention center as the subject of inquiry. The author outlines the problem of blurring the legal status of the head of the correctional institution in the current criminal procedure legislation. Peculiarities of the implementation of the inquiry in general and of inquiry in the conditions of correctional institutions in particular are noted. The contradictions in the law enforcement practice of the prosecution authorities and the provisions of the criminal procedure law are indicated. The article discusses the various positions of scientists regarding the competencies of the heads of correctional institutions in the production of urgent investigative actions. A separate practice of strengthening prosecutorial supervision of the criminal procedure activities of the institutions and bodies of the penal correction system based on the requirements of Art. 5, 40, 150, 157 Code of Criminal Procedure. Today, the controversial issue of the ability or inability to initiate a criminal case or to bring out refusal material by the head of the correctional institution will be raised. The emphasis is on the inadmissibility of the ambiguity of understanding by the law enforcer of the norms of criminal procedure legislation.

scholarly journals criminal trial, criminal prosecution, private prosecution, counter claim, connection of statements, private accuser, defendant

2019 ◽  
Vol 2019 (4) ◽  
pp. 146-152
Author(s):  
Pavel Titov
Keyword(s):  
Theoretical Model ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
The Status ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Made In

Introduction. In the presented article problems of acceptance and permission of counter claims for private prosecution are investigated. The matters in details were not considered in science of criminal procedure therefore have numerous gaps. Purpose. The purpose of article is formulation of legal essence of the counter claim and development of optimum theoretical model of permission of the counter claim along with initial one. Methodology. Article is based on the dialectic-materialistic method assuming studying of issues in total and an interconnection. Also special methods were applied: synthesis and analysis, induction and deduction, legallistic. Results. In article the standards of the criminal procedure law regulating an order of consideration and permission of counter claims are analyzed. Criteria of admissibility of connection of the counter claim with initial one are elaborated: indissoluble communication of the facts of reality and impossibility of the isolated research of the circumstances which are subject to proof. Offers on investment with the procedural status of participants of the trial are formulated. Authors of initial and counter statements have to be allocated at the same time with the statuses of the private accuser and defendant, investigative actions with them have to be made in the status of the defendant, without a warning of a criminal liability for standing mute and making obviously untruthful evidences.

scholarly journals VALUE OF OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCEDURAL FORM OF INVESTIGATIVE ACTIONS IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (73) ◽  
pp. 14
Author(s):  
Marina Sumbarova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Criminal Trials ◽  
Legal Policy ◽  
Trial Analysis

In article author considered problems related to compliance of procedural form of investigative actions during criminal investigation. Research is connected with character of procedural form, proofs in criminal trial, analysis of theoretical and practical questions on a subject and opinions of scientists. The author connects observance of a form of investigative actions with quality of investigation of criminal trials, proofs, and their conceptual essence and defines problems of quality of investigation in aspect of implementation of the criminal procedure policy which is a component of criminal and legal policy of the state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document