<<
>>

§ 1. Activity of the inspector at the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement as object of criminalistic research

At the present stage of development of the state special value is got by the crime control, differing organisation, corruption communications in a state machinery, terrorist methods, use of electronic resources and intrusion into economy.

Considering complexity of this struggle, the legislator has been forced to address to development of the norms, allowing to stimulate positive behaviour of the persons who have committed crimes, by softening of punishment by it or even clearings of the criminal liability. But used by the state thus such legal institutions as mitigation of punishment, the active repentance, the special bases for clearing of the criminal liability, the special method of adoption of a judgement at the consent convicted with the charge shown to it, not to the full solved problems of counteraction of the organised crime. As a result the Federal act from June, 29th, 2009 № 141-FZ «About modification of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation» in the domestic criminal trial the institute of the special method of adoption of a judgement has been entered at the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement. It is analogue of institute «plea bargain» (transactions with justice), effectively used in the United States of America already more than 70 years. In the western and European countries thanks to similar "transactions" reveals to 90 % heavy преступлений1 though, for example, in the Great Britain similar compromise procedure is strongly limited [1 [2].

Necessity of occurrence for the Russian Federation of institute of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement (further - DSoS) has ripened for a long time already. Its application provides productivity of activity of investigating agencies on disclosing and investigation of the crimes made during the various periods of time, on an establishment and bringing to criminal liability of organizers of crimes and other accomplices, search of the stolen property, compensation of a damage by victim and civil claimants at the least use of forces and means of law enforcement bodies.

In an explanatory note to corresponding bill it was noticed, that institute DsoS is necessary with a view of disclosing and investigation of "custom-made" murders, the facts of gangsterism, plank beds to crimes, corruption displays. For this purpose «it is extremely important to give to law enforcement bodies possibility to involve in cooperation of the persons consisting in organised groups and criminal societies, under condition of considerable reduction to such persons of punishment under criminal law and distribution on them of measures of the state protection of victims, witnesses and other participants of the criminal trial» [3]. At discussion of the project of the decision

Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation «About practice of application by vessels of a special order of proceeding of criminal cases at the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement», accepted on June, 28th, 2012, it was underlined, that application of the given institute is caused by necessity of stimulation of positive behaviour of the person who have concluded DSoS, and also aspiration to more operative consideration of criminal cases in vessels at the expense of the reduced form of examination during trial.

For today the legislator defines the pre-judicial cooperation agreement as the agreement between the charge and protection parties, in which the specified parties adjust conditions of responsibility suspected or convicted depending on its actions after criminal case or indicting excitation (and. 61 items 5 UPK the Russian Federation). In item 317.1 UPK the Russian Federation is regulated an order of the statement of the petition for the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement according to which suspected or convicted have the right to declare the petition for the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement from the moment of the beginning of criminal prosecution to the announcement of the preliminary investigation termination.

The petition for the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement moves suspect (convicted) in written form addressed to the public prosecutor through the inspector. This diploma should contain the information on those actions which the suspect (convicted) undertakes to make, having agreed to co-operate with the investigation, regarding crime disclosing; exposure and criminal prosecution of other accomplices of a crime and participants OPG; search of the property extracted as a result of fulfilment of criminal acts.

Incentive measures to the persons who have satisfied condition DSoS, are regulated item 62 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation (further - UK the Russian Federation) where the awarding punishment order is defined. In case of the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement in the presence of the extenuations provided and. « And »ch. 1 items 61 UK the Russian Federation, and absence of aggravating circumstances term or the size of punishment cannot exceed half of maximum term or the size of the most strict kind of the punishment provided by corresponding article of Special part UK the Russian Federation (item 2). In case of the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement if the Russian Federations are provided by corresponding article of Special part UK lifelong imprisonment or a death penalty, these kinds of punishment are not applied. Thus term or the size of punishment cannot exceed two thirds of maximum term or the size of the most strict kind of punishment in the form of the imprisonment provided by corresponding article of Special part UK the Russian Federation (item 4).

Similar "transactions" with law enforcement bodies at times are unique possibility to open and investigate a crime, including to receive mathematical evidences of guilt of the person in fulfilment of a concrete crime. In the given context such example is remarkable from is investigatory-judiciary practice.

Karimova [4], being the bookkeeper of settlement group of Open Company «Kurgan ATP», fraudulently and breach of confidence from the director and the chief accountant of the given organisation regularly made plunders of the money resources intended for payment of wages to employees of Open Company. Criminal case investigation became complicated that to the inspector the scheme of fulfilment of swindle was not known. It could not and receive proofs on business as necessary accounting documents have been destroyed. When by manufacture operativnorozysknyh actions and investigatory actions participation in committing a crime Karimovoj has been established, it was possible to involve it in a cooperation with the investigation by conclusion DSoS. As a result the inspector managed to finish in rather small term preliminary investigation and to direct criminal case to court where Karimova it has been recognised vi - novnoj in fulfilment of the crimes provided ch. 3 cm. 159 UK the Russian Federation ich. 5 cm. 33, ch. 3 cm. 160 UK РФ1.

The analysis of materials of the specified criminal case has shown, that without conclusion DSoS with bookkeeper Karimovoj, possessing all completeness of the information on the scheme of fulfilment of swindle, hardly udalosv is high-grade раскрвітв the mechanism of committing a crime and ustanoviti all at - частнвіх to it of persons. Anyway, on it prishlosv potratiti it is a lot of bolvshe forces, means and time.

C O.V.Klimanovoj's points of view, a duty of the suspect (convicted) under the agreement can бвітв классифицированві on разнвім to criteria: depending on character of activity of assistance - on objazatelvstva on rendering of information assistance and dejatelvnogo assistance; from concrete definition degree формві assistance - on конкретнвіе actions, которвіе under - zrevaemyj (convicted) should sovershitv, and questions, in the decision которвіх it should sodejstvovatv within the limits of agreement execution. Depending on subjects, with whose criminal dejatelvnostvju the given information is connected, its actions can kasatvsja crime investigations of which fulfilment it is suspected (is convicted), crimes, is made - HBix by its accomplices, and also criminal dejatelvnosti tretvih the persons who are not accomplices of the suspect (convicted). Depending on kinds of crimes granting concerns obligations of the suspect (convicted) as information on the crimes, earlier not known to law enforcement bodies, and the additional information on known crimes [5 [6].

At the same time, according to O.J.Baeva, cases of conclusion DSoS with the suspects, convicted can (and should) to be an exception, instead of a rule, to be caused only by emergency when without it and taking into account possible legal grounds there is no practical possibility to expose other accomplices of a crime. The scientist considers, that the legislator adhered to the similar logic at acceptance of the Federal act from August, 12th, 1995 № 144-FZ «About operatively-search activity» where in item 18 the following is underlined: « The person from among members of the criminal group, the made illegal act which has not entailed heavy consequences, and involved in cooperation with the bodies which are carrying out operatively-search activity, actively promoting disclosing and investigation of the crimes, indemnified the caused loss or otherwise smoothed down damnified, is released from the criminal liability according to the legislation of the Russian Federation ». The Russian Federation (emergency) [7] Is a question of application to the given persons of positions of item 39 UK.

We partly agree that cooperation agreements should not consist on all criminal cases. We believe, that the inspector can involve the suspect (convicted) to cooperation, proceeding from the investigatory situation which have developed at this or that stage of investigation. So, during preliminary investigation of criminal case the inspector in some cases gets to a situation when counteraction of the suspect slows down a consequence or does its ineffective. Having estimated available or predicted counteraction, and also judicial prospect on business, it can come to conclusion, that achievement of the compromise with the protection party will give the chance objectively and to investigate criminal case comprehensively. Usually it happens at investigation mnogoepizodnyh criminal cases on group crimes.

Outside of pravoprimenitelnoj activity "compromise" the agreement on the basis of reciprocal concessions »1 is understood as«. Otherwise considers N. V.Petrov, approving, that «finally dispute conflicting parties come to the compromise... That one of the parties accepts conditions another, thereby partly recognising correctness of conditions of the counter party of the conflict and finding the decision comprehensible to both parties» [8 [9].

Investigating contractual essence of compromise procedures, JU. V Ky - valdina comes to conclusion, that «compromise remedial decisions can be considered as the specific public contract based on a mutual consent of the parties to resolve the criminally-legal conflict on conditions established in the law. Thus the consent in each case has the form of expression» [10].

A.F.Rehovsky defines a compromise situation as «the situation which has arisen at a stage of preliminary investigation, which is characterised by presence of positive postcriminal behaviour convicted (appearances with guilty, active repentance, reconciliation with sustained, the conclusions of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement)» [11 [12] [13].

Let's specify, that besides convicted by the subject of a compromise situation can be and the suspect. Thus it is necessary to notice, that the majority of the works devoted to the compromise at disclosing and investigation of crimes, carry at golo vno-remedial character. It brings us, as well as. P.Garmaeva, to thought, that a criminalistic science, «ignoring norms material and the law of procedure, still„ исповедует11 the uncompromising approach in crime control »1. Aspiring partially to compensate this lack, we offer the following - criminalistic - compromise definition: the compromise in the course of disclosing and investigation of crimes - combined action of the inspector and the person counteracting it (suspected or convicted), directed on improvement of an investigatory situation by certain concessions of the inspector concerning such person.

Visually shows efficiency of the compromise permission of problem situations the following example.

In October, 2015 in Perm on suspicion in fulfilment of some armed assaults on collectors have been detained Sergeys, Peters, Patchin and Nikolaev. All of them have selected a position of counteraction to a consequence in the form of refusal of evidence. At an initial stage of investigation to establish a site of the stolen property and money resources, tools of crimes (the traumatic weapon) it was not presented possible. Then the inspector as item 4 ch. 2 cm. 38 UPK the Russian Federation has given the commission to establish to agency in charge of preliminary investigation who from suspects is most inclined to cooperation and possesses necessary volume of the information. As a result of carrying out of tactical operation the inspector together with the operative employee of agency in charge of preliminary investigation managed to involve in cooperation by conclusion DSoS earlier not sudimogo Sergeeva. It has provided successful disclosing and investigation of some heavy and especially grave crimes and promoted the prompt direction of criminal case in court. Petrov, Patchin and Nikolaev has been sentenced to long years of imprisonment for fulfilment of the crimes provided ch. 2 cm. 209, podp. "And", "in" ch. 4 cm. 162, the item "z" ch. 2 cm. 105, ch. 3 cm. 222 UK the Russian Federation. Sergeys has been condemned in a special order for smaller term заключения1. [14 [15]

Thus, one of ways of achievement of the compromise with the protection party is the conclusion with it of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement. Introduction in modern legal dejstvitelvnostv institute DsoS ввіводит on novvsh urovenv possibilities правоохранителвнвіх bodies on opposition corruption and the organised crime, and also under prevention HOBBix of crimes (including acts of terrorism). It is reached thanks to inclusion of recommendations about effective application of norms of institute DsoS in criminalistic maintenance deja - telvnosti правоохранителвнвіх bodies, in particular in them is criminalistic maintenance.

Cooperation agreement appointment consists in achievement of those purposes, которвіе legislators before it has put. In ch. 2 items 317.1 UPK the Russian Federation are said, that cooperation consists in «assistance to a consequence in раскрвітии and crime investigation, exposure and criminal prosecution of other accomplices of a crime, розвіске property, добвітого in rezulv - tate crimes». According to Ampere-second. Aleksandrova, appointment of the institute provided by chapter 40.1 UPK the Russian Federation, ввітекает from a criminal trial general purpose (item 6 UPK the Russian Federation); it consists in protection of the rights and freedom - through attraction to criminal prosecution of all who dejstvi - telvno has made heavy and especially grave crimes, i.e. In restoration of the broken right of a society on the law and order, restoration of legal relations, suppression organised преступности1. In the ocheredv O.J.Baeva's position of appointment of institute of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement is pragmatic enough: It qualifies it as means on вві sh enija efficiency борвбві with any group prestupnostvju which is especially useful at exposure интеллектуалвнвіх accomplices of such crimes [16 [17].

With a view of the decision of problems of the present research we consider DSoS: 1) in a narrow sense - as the document; 2) in wide - as dejatelv - nostv the inspector on preparation and signing of such document, maintenance vvsholnenija participants of the agreement of the duties, inclusions received from the person, with kotorvsh it is concluded DSoS, information in a complex dokazatelvstv on criminal case etc.

Certainly, in dejatelvnosti on investigation and раскрвітию crimes inspectors polvzuetsja all spectrum of criminalistic means and methods. However by consideration of institute DsoS as object of criminalistic research by us ввіявлен a number of the problems arising before the inspector at application of norms gl. 40.1 UPK the Russian Federation. Most vazhivshi from them are: definition следственнвіх situations, in которвіх institute DsoS application will be necessary; ispolvzovanie criminalistic complexes at conclusion DSoS and realisation of its positions; maintenance of safety of the person who have concluded DSoS; moralvno-ethical and psychologically основні attraction to cooperation of the suspect (convicted) etc. It is obvious, that without the decision of these problems pravoprimeniteli in the name of body predvaritelvnogo investigations, co-operating with under - zrevaemvsh (obvinjaemvsh) and the representative of the party of protection, can stolk - nutvsja with problems more serveznogo character.

Owing to the criminalistic maintenance of the conclusion told process and executions DSoS we consider as three самостоятелвнвіе tactical operations:

1) tactical operation «Attraction of the person to cooperation by the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement»;

2) tactical operation «Check of indications of the person, with kotorvsh the pre-judicial cooperation agreement» is concluded;

3) tactical operation «Maintenance of safety of the suspect (convicted), concluded the pre-judicial cooperation agreement» 1.

The detailed analysis указаннвіх tactical operations and algorithm of their carrying out is given in paragraph 3 главві 3 present researches. Zdesv it is important otmetitv, that within the limits of application of norms about a special order of the criminal trial at conclusion DSoS can бвітв the considerable tactical potential of the inspector, and how it will be used is realised, and tactics of preliminary investigation will be built.

The decision of the inspector on application of any tactical operation is closely connected with investigation situations in which pre-judicial manufacture proceeds. Therefore efficiency of its activity on investigation of crimes regarding planning and the organisation of tactical operations substantially depends on use of resources of the situational approach. The investigatory situation acts as an information skeleton the priest to in activity of subjects of proving, i.e. That «an information-structural developing element which is learnt under the necessary corner of sight caused by the purposes and problems of the criminal trial, proceeding from criminally - remedial powers and stages of investigation by agency in charge of preliminary investigation, the inspector, the public prosecutor and court during realisation of the practical activities» [18 [19].

The carried out research has shown, that not only the desire to open and investigate a crime in the short terms moves the inspector at application of norms gl. 40.1 UPK the Russian Federation. Frequently the inspector is interested in a criminal case direction in court for its consideration in essence in a special order owing to that judicial prospect under condition of exact execution protses the sou alv HBix requirements can бвітв is estimated as "good" 1: such criminal case practically garantirovanno will not return court or the public prosecutor for manufacture dopolnitelvnogo investigations. Privle - katelvnostv a special order of the criminal trial E.I.Popovoj [20 [21] is most in detail investigated, we lishv will address to most znachi - MBiM to its advantages.

During the period with 2014 on 2017 we бвіло interrogate 150 inspectors следственнвіх divisions of law-enforcement bodies and Investigatory committee of Sverdlovsk, Chelyabinsk, Kurgan, Tyumen, Kemerovo areas, the Perm edge, Republic Tatarstan, autonomous region Hantv_-Mansijskogo - Югрві (see enc. 3). Two thirds опрошеннвіх have specified, that заинтересованві in that, чтобві the criminal case which is in their manufacture, in dalvnejshem бвіло is considered by court in a special order as it umenvshaet to probability of returning of business in an order of item 237 UPK the Russian Federation and leads to the sentence decision even at presence отделвнвіх nesushche - ственнвіх [22] law-breakings. It is caused by that according to gl. 40.1 UPK the Russian Federation examination during trial at a special order judicial razbira - telvstva is not spent, dokazatelvstva in the general order are not investigated, so law-breakings if they бвіли допущенні during investigation, in dalvnejshem can бвітв and not ввіявленві.

M. With. Would eat kovy ls ky and E.S.Gurtovenko notice, that many practising lawyers the special method of adoption of a judgement perceive as an order releasing from deep involving in consideration of criminal case and putting the last on judicial "conveyor" with absolute predskazuemvsh the ending in a kind accusers but go приговора1. S.A.Rogovoj considers, that thus «... It is obvious zainteresovannostv the inspector who has collected insufficient quantity dokazatelvstv, or constructed charge iskljuchitelvno on косвеннвіх dokazatelvstvah, or admitted the law-breaking attracting a recognition dokazatelvstv nedopustimimi, in carrying out of session of the court without studying of those самвіх dokazatelvstv and with removal obvinitelvnogo a sentence, start up even with restrictions in penal terms, которвіе its indicators работві and раскрвіваемости crimes do not influence» [23 [24].

E.I.Popova in the work mentioned by us results резулвтатві inter - vvjuirovanija 43 practical workers with опвітом работві сивіше five years: in отделвнвіх cases heads of the organ of inquiry, the public prosecutor, seeing, that in criminal case materials the petition of a special order of carrying out convicted about application judicial razbiratelvstva contains, showing unconscientiousness, also can ishoditv from those reasons, that available law-breakings will not be ввіявленві in court, poskolvku research dokazatelvstv in session of the court provoditisja will not be [25]. Thus it it is perfect pravilvno notices, that «express indication ch. 5 items 316 USHS the Russian Federation about impossibility of research in the general order dokazatelvstv by consideration of criminal case by court in the reduced order in any measure gives chance not to quite diligent inspector izbezhatv нежелателвнвіх for it consequences, for example, in a case vvshesenija opravdatelvnogo a sentence and the decision court of a question on a direction of criminal case for manufacture before - varitelvnogo investigations and establishments of the person who is coming under to attraction as convicted (ch. 3 items 306 UPK the Russian Federation) »[26].

It is obvious, that special attention inspectors should obrashchatv on feature of consideration of criminal case by court in a special order and uchshyvatv that fact, that judicial razbiratelvstvo is perfectly in order gl. 40.1 UPK the Russian Federation can бвітв is at any moment ceased, and it will entail consideration of criminal case by court in the general order, with objazatelvnvsh research of all собраннвіх dokazatelvstv, ввіявлением допущеннвіх infringements and impeachment of persons, their admitted. We will notice, that указаннвіе негативнвіе факторні can and должнві бвітв ликвидированві by introduction in practice of investigation of crimes конкретнвіх criminalistic recommendations (times - работаннвіх, including, during the present research). Knowledge of features of legal regulation of the special method of adoption of a judgement at conclusion DSoS and taktiko-op hectares низационнвіх laws of practice of its application will allow izbezhatv следственнвіх errors.

Thus, inspectors should honesty osushchestvljatv investigation on criminal case and not dopuskati law-breakings in hope, that they will be "prikrvpy" osobvsh rather.

Within the limits of interrogation already mentioned by us bolvshinstvo inspectors have noticed, that feel obvious counteraction with сторонні protection approximately in 65 % уголовнвіх affairs, связаннвіх with dejatelvnostvju the criminal of groups and gangsterism. Thus practically three quarters of respondents have noticed, that assistance of the suspect convicted at realisation of investigation on criminal case concerning organised criminal группві or a gang extremely important for successful investigation. And it is clear, as «there is no on light of the best witness, than the one who has committed a crime» 1.

At presence достаточнвіх даннвіх, указвівающих on crime signs (ch. 2 items 140 UPK the Russian Federation), inspectors according to law requirements it is obliged vozbuditv criminal case to signs of the act provided by norm of Special part UK the Russian Federation. As marks JU. P.Garmaev, already during this period the subject of criminal prosecution estimates so назвіваемую «judicial prospect on criminal case». It раскрвівает this term as value judgment pravoprimenitelja concerning what can be court final judgement if to start with the situation on it at the moment of an estimation and prospects of development of this situation from the point of view: 1) presence or absence of the corpus delicti; 2) prospective proofs; 3) intensity of counteraction to criminal prosecution [27 [28].

Along with it one of the problems of the inspector assigned to it by the state, carrying out of full and fast investigation on criminal case in strict conformity with the law is. In UPK the Russian Federation, unlike UPK RSFSR [29], is not present norm about necessity of carrying out of fast investigation. In item 6.1 UPK the Russian Federation «Reasonable term of the criminal trial» is said, that the criminal trial should be carried out in the terms established by the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia. But carrying out of fast investigation of criminal case is not identical to manufacture realisation on it. Despite lacking in the express indication law on it, we consider, that realisation of fast and qualitative investigation remains to one of priority problems of preliminary investigation [30].

In particular, if the inspector expects, that the suspect (convicted) can take advantage of the right to conclusion DSoS, it can use it for improvement of quality and speed of manufacture of preliminary investigation. So, the inspector taking into account criminalistic receptions applied by it and means for lawful basises can quite use the realisations of a special order remedial and caused by features in advantage practice to convince the protection party to refuse counteraction and to co-operate with the investigation.

Besides, it is necessary to notice, that gl. 40.1 UPK the Russian Federation contains a number of the remedial short stories which have essentially changed the current legislation. So, the legislator has included in the law of procedures concept «crime disclosing», has specified also the ultimate fact, having included in and. 4 ch. 2 items 317.3 UPK the Russian Federation circumstance provided pi. \\\ch. 1 items 73 UPK the Russian Federation. These remedial short stories have essential practical value as differentiated concepts "disclosing" and crime "investigation", focused attention of inspectors and operative employees on specificity of such important stage of process of proving as crime disclosing, it versionnom character, was underlined by a role of legal proceedings and operatively-search actions in transition from problem to simple (not problem) situations. The named norms allow to allocate from the list of the circumstances provided by the item 73 UPK the Russian Federation, the most difficult for proving, revealing and which establishment often gives the chance to pass from heuristic (versionnogo) to diskursivnomu (logic) process of its investigation.

It is represented, that structural elements of the ultimate fact also differ on complexity of their proving. The analysis of criminal cases has convincingly shown, that the most difficult for proving by circumstances are guilt of the person in committing a crime (on affairs about murders both other crimes against person and the property) and event of crime (in narrow sense of this term), i.e. The fact of fulfilment of criminal act (on crimes of economic character). This fact is confirmed also with other authors [31].

The stated allows to approve, that the pre-judicial cooperation agreement causes scientific interest as object of criminalistic research as its application during preliminary investigation cardinally influences a course of a legal investigation and tactics of conducting a consequence. Well-known, that tactical operation is an element of tactical maintenance of activity of the inspector which is included into structure of its criminalistic maintenance. The pre-judicial cooperation agreement is an element of criminalistic maintenance of activity of the inspector and accordingly can be considered as object of the criminalistic analysis.

<< | >>
A source: Hamidullin Ruslan Sibagatullovich. CRIMINALISTIC MAINTENANCE of ACTIVITY of the INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION of NORMS of the SPECIAL ORDER of the CRIMINAL TRIAL AT the CONCLUSION of the PRE-JUDICIAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT. The dissertation On competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Ekaterinburg, 2018. 2018

More on topic § 1. Activity of the inspector at the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement as object of criminalistic research:

  1. Chapter 1. THEORETICAL BASES of CRIMINALISTIC MAINTENANCE of ACTIVITY of the INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION of NORMS ABOUT the SPECIAL ORDER of the CRIMINAL TRIAL AT the CONCLUSION THE PRE-JUDICIAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
  2. Hamidullin Ruslan Sibagatullovich. CRIMINALISTIC MAINTENANCE of ACTIVITY of the INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION of NORMS of the SPECIAL ORDER of the CRIMINAL TRIAL AT the CONCLUSION of the PRE-JUDICIAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT. The dissertation On competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Ekaterinburg, 2018, 2018
  3. § 3. The tactical operations used by the inspector at the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement
  4. Chapter 3. TAKTIKO-KRIMINALISTICHESKY MAINTENANCE of ACTIVITY of the INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION of the SPECIAL ORDER of the CRIMINAL TRIAL AT the CONCLUSION THE PRE-JUDICIAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
  5. Chapter 2. SCIENTIFICALLY-METHODICAL And ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE of ACTIVITY of the INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION of NORMS ABOUT the SPECIAL ORDER of the CRIMINAL TRIAL AT the CONCLUSION THE PRE-JUDICIAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
  6. § 2. Concept and the maintenance Criminalistic maintenance of investigation of criminal cases at the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement
  7. § 2. Organizational maintenance of investigation of criminal case at the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement
  8. § 1. Scientifically-methodical maintenance of investigation of criminal cases at the conclusion of the pre-judicial cooperation agreement
  9. § 1. Typical investigatory situations and the basic directions of investigations of crimes in case of the conclusion with the suspect, convicted the pre-judicial cooperation agreement
  10. Criminalistic thinking in judicial-expert activity
  11. 4.1. Pre-judicial activity on restriction of the parental rights
  12. the Scheme of financing within the limits of the agreement for joint activity (the society in participation agreement)
  13. §3. Development of institute of the state judicial review behind activity of the international commercial arbitration in pre-revolutionary and the Soviet Russia.
  14. CHAPTER 1. THE CRIMINALISTIC CHARACTERISTIC OF BRIBERY IN THE PRESENCE OF THE INTERMEDIARY AS THE BASIS OF TACTICS OF INTERACTION OF THE INSPECTOR AND OPERATIVE DIVISIONS
  15. attraction by the parties and their representatives of the expert during pre-judicial and judicial manufacture
  16. the COOPERATION AGREEMENT
  17. customs aspects of the Agreement on partnership and cooperation from June, 24th, 1994
  18. 3.3.2 Approaches to substantial filling of the agreement between Russia and EU in the field of customs cooperation
  19. CHAPTER 3. REMEDIAL LIMITS of the JUDICIAL REVIEW In PRE-JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION of REPUBLIC Kazakhstan
  20. CHAPTER 1. CONCEPT And the JUDICIAL REVIEW PLACE, OSUSHCHESTVLJAEMOGOSLEDSTVENNYM the JUDGE BEHIND PRE-JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION In SYSTEM of JUSTICE of REPUBLIC Kazakhstan