scholarly journals Understanding of the concept of criminal procedure in the new Law on Criminal Procedure of Serbia

2006 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 531-545
Author(s):  
Momčilo Grubač

In this paper the author has outlined that the solutions introduced in the new Law on Criminal Procedure of Serbia concerning the concept of criminal procedure, its structure and scope are confusing and wrong. In his opinion those mistakes have caused the largest number of other wrong solutions in the new Law, especially in regulation of presentation of evidence. Unlike the former pre-criminal proceedings, which was constantly and justifiably considered to be with no criminal procedural effect, the new Criminal Procedural Law treats even the police "pre-investigation" and prosecution investigation as parts of the criminal proceedings and enables that verbal evidence (statements of the witnesses and accused) presented in those administrative proceedings can be used later for rendering the judgment in the later criminal proceedings. The author has demonstrated that by introducing the prosecution investigation instead of the judicial one investigation is not part of the judicial criminal proceedings anymore and that therefore principals of directness and contradictoriness in the main proceedings should have been more elaborated than before in the new Law, in stead of making them questionable by introducing number of new exemptions. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure the new criminal procedure now consists of the non-judicial investigation and judicial main criminal proceedings. In the field of legislature, this change has raised two major issues before the legislator: (1) to secure protection of human rights in the non-judicial investigation and (2) to secure court judgment that will be based on the evidence, presented according to the rules of contradictoriness and directness, in the judicial part of the criminal proceedings. Based on these requests, the evidence presented in the non-judicial previous proceedings cannot be used, in author's opinion, for rendering the judgment although the new Law allows that, even in a broader sense comparing it to the time when the investigation was a judicial activity.

2020 ◽  
pp. 252-261
Author(s):  
O. Mazur

The article deals with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding evidence and evidence, which are disclosed in the provision of paragraph 3 of Article 6 “The right to a fair trial” of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the latest practice of the Supreme Court regarding the criteria for admissibility of evidence and analysis of the current criminal procedural law. As you know, the attitude of the state towards the protection of human rights and freedoms is one of the indicators of its democracy. Ukraine has chosen the European Community as the main strategic vector of development. Such a vector provides for the unification of the regulatory framework in accordance with European legislation, as well as compliance by law enforcement agencies with international standards for the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. That is why, the corresponding rule is enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, providing that the rule of law in criminal proceedings is applied taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (part 2 of article 8). A detailed analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings and the relationship of these norms with the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights is carried out. They also examined the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the admissibility of evidence in decisions in which a violation by the state of the norms of the Convention was found, and in decisions in which such a violation was not found. So, summarizing and analyzing the practice of the ECHR, we saw that the Court emphasizes that a guilty verdict cannot be generally based only on inadmissible evidence, and if such a sentence is pronounced, then this is a violation of Article 1 6 of the Convention in respect of an unfair trial. Therefore, the investigator, prosecutor, investigating judge and judge should take into account the relevant practice of the ECHR and the norms of the Convention in their procedural activities in order to avoid these violations and to submit complaints to the European Court of Human Rights in the future.


2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160
Author(s):  
Andrіy Shulha ◽  
◽  
Tetyana Khailova ◽  

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.


2020 ◽  
pp. 377-386
Author(s):  
Я. Ю. Конюшенко

The purpose of the article is to define the prosecutor's supervision over investigative (search) actions as a legal guarantee of human rights, as well as problematic issues in its implementation and to make proposals to improve the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine. The article defines doctrinal approaches to the concepts of "prosecutor's supervision over compliance with the law during the pre-trial investigation" and "prosecutor's procedural guidance of the pre-trial investigation" in the context of investigative (search) actions. The author came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in terms of regulating the functions and powers of the prosecutor during the pre-trial investigation. Based on the study, it is proposed to consider procedural guidance as one of the forms of prosecutor's supervision over the pre-trial investigation, which is implemented directly by the prosecutor or a group of prosecutors who are appointed to carry it out in a particular criminal proceeding. The author also emphasizes the existence of forms of supervision of the highest level prosecutor on the legality of these actions, which are implemented through the demand and study of information on the progress and results of pre-trial investigation, criminal proceedings and certified copies of court decisions and study of compliance with criminal procedure. A number of problematic issues during the prosecutor's supervision in pre-trial criminal proceedings are outlined, which relate to the relationship between the prosecutor's supervision and judicial control over the legality of investigative (search) actions; subjects and subject of supervision of the prosecutor in this sphere; providing the prosecutor-procedural manager and prosecutors of the highest level with instructions and instructions during the investigative (search) actions. To address these issues, it is proposed to amend the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine. The study of the materials of criminal proceedings and the survey of the subjects of criminal proceedings indicate the existence of a number of problematic issues that exist during the implementation of the prosecutor's procedural guidance of investigative (search) actions in the context of human rights.


Author(s):  
Gunārs Kūtris ◽  

The confiscation or forfeiture of crime proceeds is an important challenge in the fight against crime in every country. The Latvian Criminal Procedure Law (2005) provides ability of confiscating criminally acquired property before the sentencing of the guilty person, as well as the ability to apply extended confiscation for a convicted person. However, in recent years, practices and amendments to the law show trends that raise doubts about respect for human rights and principles of criminal proceedings in confiscation processes. The article deals with other countries’ experience in the confiscation of property of uncertain origin in various processes – administrative, civil and criminal proceedings. The summary gives the author’s conclusions on the legally correct confiscation process.


2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1102-1115
Author(s):  
Botirjon Khayitbayevich Ruzmetov

In this article author had searched the questions devoted the protection of human rights in the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan and comparing with the legislation and worldwide experience of the foreign states.The article reveals the ongoing liberalization of the criminal law policy in the Republic of Uzbekistan, which is aimed at expanding human and fair norms, strengthening the protection of the rights, legitimate interests of a person andsociety. Against this background, the significance of investigative actions and the theory of evidence in the country's criminal procedural legislation is being revised. The development of science and technology leads to the improvement of methods of committing crimes using computer technology, taking into account which the timely disclosure and effective investigation of socially dangerous acts requires extensive use of mathematical tools and computer technologies.In this regard, changes are taking place in the investigative practice aimed at increasing knowledge in the field of computer technologies among law enforcement officials and increasing the responsibility of the personal of the investigative and judicial authorities in the implementation of their activities.The author emphasizes that despite significant restrictions on the rights and legitimate interests of a person in the conduct of investigative actions, all of them are necessary for obtaining sufficient evidence to expose the guilt of the offender, in the manner prescribed by law.Compliance by investigators, prosecutors and judges of all criminal procedural requirements established by the legislation of the country is a key requirement for the recognition of evidence as lawful and sufficient for a fair sentence.It should be noted that the article highlights that, since 1994, the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan enshrines the right to defense by involving a lawyer in the case from the moment a person is detained on suspicion of committing a crime, as well as the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings. An addition to the liberalization of legislation is the fact that now the courts are freed from such unusual functions as the execution of court decisions.In addition, the article expands on the author's proposals for improving the legislation of Uzbekistan, as well as expanding the power of lawyers, especially in the conduct of investigative actions, aimed at expanding the process of liberalization of criminal law in the country and improving the situation with the protection of human rights in the investigation of criminal cases.


Author(s):  
Artem Shapar ◽  
◽  
Yuriy Yelaiev ◽  

In this scientific article, the continuation of the gnoseological (epistemological) research of legal doctrine as a source of criminal proceedings is carried out. In this scientific work, theoretical perception of scientific concepts of Ukrainian and foreign legal scholars in the field of legal doctrine as a source of law (in general), taking into account the legal significance of legal doctrine as a source of criminal procedural law (in particular) is carried out. In this scientific work, the attention is paid to the research of the fundamental and systemic relationship of legal doctrine with other sources of criminal proceedings (in particular, with the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine on a particular constitutional and judicial case). The text of this scientific article studies, inter alia, the fundamental and systemic relationship of Legal Doctrine with Separate Opinion of the Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (in a particular constitutional and judicial case), as sources of criminal procedural law of Ukraine. At the same time, the peculiarities of constitutional and judicial legal regulation in the field of criminal proceedings and in combination with the study of theoretical and legal and philosophical and legal bases (foundations) of the abovementioned two sources of criminal process in Ukraine are taken into account. The scientific knowledge of the theoretical and legal and philosophical and legal relationship of the Legal Doctrine with the Separate Opinion of the Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (as sources of criminal procedural law of Ukraine) is carried out with consideration of the scientific and theoretical features, specified in the text of Separate Opinion of the Judge of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of legal (in particular, philosophical and legal, doctrinal and legal, general and legal, criminal and procedural) definitions. In the text of this scientific article, the attention is paid to the humanistic legal doctrine on which the acts of international law in the field of human rights (in particular, human rights in the field of criminal procedure) are based. In this scientific article, the attention is paid to legal doctrine as a manifestation of a person's ability to learn (including knowledge of the sphere of criminal process).


2018 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 01010 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Kaija

The term ‘criminal procedural function’. has historically been used by scientists. In order to identify primary issues in procedural functions, the competition principle was analyzed. This strengthened such important issues as separation of prosecution and court functions, parties’ equality, independence of courts etc. Therefore, the concept of three concept functions – prosecution, defence and adjudication - was developed in criminal proceedings. In the context of the Criminal Procedure Law having taking effect, this term was included into the law, including the principle of separation of criminal procedural functions. The aim of this paper is to offer the insight into interpretation of the concept of the criminal procedural function with the special focus on specific issues in function separation. Section 17 of Criminal Procedure Law determines the function of control of restrictions of human rights in a pre-trail. The functions of prosecution, defence and adjudication do not determine their priority over all other criminal procedural functions. These functions are claimed to be separate and therefore cannot be applied to the same person. This paper examines the equivalence of procedural functions as one of the most fair of the court elements. In the end, key conclusions are summarized.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 154-165
Author(s):  
E. V. Mandzhieva

Achieving the aims of criminal proceedings is impossible without coercion, which significantly restricts human rights and freedoms, including constitutional ones, and, therefore, it is permissible only if there are grounds and in the manner prescribed by the criminal procedure legislation. The grounds, conditions and procedure for applying measures of restriction in criminal proceedings largely depend on the correct systematization of criminal procedure legislation, which may be the basis for a systematic interpretation of the text of the law. Combining other measures of procedural coercion in Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not have clear criteria, which is fraught with the erroneous use of procedural coercion against participants in criminal proceedings. The purpose of the paper is to assess the directions of possible improvement of the legislation regarding the systematization of procedural coercion measures. Measures of procedural coercion should be structured and systematized in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation on clear and uniform grounds, including coercive measures, which are not measures of restriction. Currently, there are no such grounds in relation to other measures of procedural coercion, united in Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which impedes their reasonable application. The contents of Ch. 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation should be revised taking into account logical and legal ties. As a result of the research the author developed the ideas on logical connections as one of the main bases for the classification of the norms governing the use of procedural coercion, affecting its legality and validity.


2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (11) ◽  
pp. 7
Author(s):  
Armend Podvorica ◽  
Adelina Rakaj

The paper "The guarantees of the human rights of the defendant in the law system in Kosovo" aims to treat the access of the Republic of Kosovo in the delivery of constitutional guarantees and legal guarantees to protect the defendant in the criminal procedure. Within these guarantees, special emphasis is placed on the judicious acts in force that provide these guarantees in the Republic of Kosovo. A special analysis with regard to this paper is dedicated to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), the practice of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and the Criminal Procedure Code of Kosovo (CPCK). The analysis of those acts clarifies that the guarantees of the Legal System in Kosovo coincide with the rights of the defendant. Another dimension that finds space within the paper is the practical implementation of the guarantees provided by the aforementioned acts in terms of the rights of the defendant. The role of the Constitutional Court in the Republic of Kosovo in the past and now has been mainly analyzed in the formation of the constitutional and international guarantees, applicable in Kosovo concerning the rights of the defendant in the criminal procedure.


2021 ◽  
pp. 124-134
Author(s):  
T.V. Korcheva

For a certain category of persons in particular cases legislator provides for a special procedure of criminal proceedings as well as mandatory participation of a defender (Article 52, The Code of Criminal Procedure) to create additional person defense guarantees in criminal proceedings. The article is devoted to study of problem aspects of legislative regulation of defense mandatory participation in criminal proceedings. The importance of defense mandatory participation is emphasized as rendering legal aid to a person in criminal proceedings. This article is devoted to study the importance of the mandatory participation of a defender in criminal proceedings and on the basis of obtained data, with due consideration of international standards of human rights protection in criminal proceedings, to submit substantiated author’s proposals as regards the expansion of the circle of grounds for the mandatory participation of a defender in Ukrainian criminal proceedings. Within the topic of study we analyzed criminal procedural legislation in force, research works in this area, decisions of European Court oh Human Rights, aiming to reveal deficiencies in law and submit author’s proposals as regards their elimination.  According to normative sense of Article 52, The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the article gives classification of the grounds for mandatory participation of a defender depending on: 1) consideration of severity of a crime; 2) consideration of personal data of a defendant held criminally liable; 3) peculiarities of criminal proceedings.  Proposals are presented aimed to improve legislative regulation of Ukrainian criminal procedural law. It is proposed to add one more reason connected to the circumstance that the defendant denies suspicion against him/her and/or denies his/her guilt in commission of criminal offense. The proposal consists in addition to Article 52, Part 2, The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine of new Item 10 postulating the mandatory participation of a defender in criminal proceedings against persons who deny a suspicion as specified in Suspicion Notice on deny pleading guilty at court session.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document