<<
>>

§ 3. Representation, research and an estimation as proofs of the information presented in electronic form, by consideration by criminal case court in essence

In the given paragraph we will finish the analysis of the problematics connected with use in criminal procedure proving of the information, presented in electronic form. The judicial stage is the closing stage in formation of any proof.

Is not in this plan an exception and the proof, obrazuemoe on the basis of the information presented in electronic form. Told in the previous two paragraphs about reception by the parties during pretrial stages of the given version of the information and its use for the purpose of a substantiation of the positions and simultaneously - for fact-finding on business, should be appreciably rethought taking into account specificity of proving in stages of the criminal trial which are led by court. It so because the judicial factor, the factor of an estimation the judge of proofs on the internal belief plays definitive transformation of the information as proof and an establishment of circumstances on business a main role. In judicial stages there is not so much reception of proofs, how many representation, presentation, demonstration already received by parties «actual materials» to judgement, (sometimes - reconsideration) the information containing in them. On the foreground in technology of proving there are the technicians connected with ability of the participant of litigation to convince the judge in reliability, the relevancy of the proofs, in legality and a correctness of actions on finding-out of actual facts (to court and in session of the court). From the party of the opponent crucial is so to investigate represented "proof" as much as possible to "clear" from possible party - subjective semantic stratifications, that is obektivizirovat in -

LIO

Formation.

We will spend the given ideas further at an explanation of how the information presented in electronic form is used, to stages of judicial [347] trials [348 [349]. We will state a little bit more in detail them as the author's position depends on it how it is necessary to change the form ugolovnoprotsessualnogo provings. And it is inevitable, as the information, presented in electronic form, will occupy the increasing relative density in criminal procedure proving of the facts. Thus we will use a special conceptual number: "fact", "evidence", "argument" (judicial), «procedural (judicial) knowledge», «judicial dokazatelst - in» which is developed by the Nizhniy Novgorod school protsessualistov and became means of expression new (sostjazatelnoj) to the theory of criminal procedure (judicial) proofs.

We divide sights of those scientists which consider, that the criminal trial essence is reduced to process judicial, and only judicial proving gives the facts on which basis the decision on business is made. Supporters sostjazatelnoj ideologies as already we repeatedly marked, believe, that on each of pretrial stages the cycle of formation of "proofs" takes place, on end of each of them the certain standard of validity of the facts, sufficient for acceptance of the total remedial is reached

Decisions in a stage. Process of judicial proving on it is absolutely defensible identify with reality modelling in which of sources, data carriers the facts - means of belief of court are formed (osno -

351

vanija arguments). The Court of evidence as the fact, that is «the authentic knowledge of a reality» to a certain extent is result of an estimation the judge on the internal belief of that information which is represented in session of the court by the subject of proving.

«Actual materials», received by the parties that or a different way during pre-judicial manufacture, including the information presented in electronic form, after representation and research during examination during trial turn to judicial arguments - means of formation of internal belief of the judge (juryman). As P.S.Pastuhov writes, «actual materials», including «electronic data carriers», serve as sources of storage and transfer of the evidentiary information which authenticity should be guaranteed, that assumes its verification (or only even possibility that) during examination during trial [350 [351] [352] [353].

Pre-judicial character of stages causes incompleteness of process of formation of "procedural knowledge», that is the proofs, occurring on them. Only in those stages which are led by court, process of formation of the proof receives (can potentially receive) such completeness which is necessary for a recognition their bases for application of the criminal law, acceptances of other final judgements under merits of case. «Any data» (in the formulation of a part of 1 article 74 UPK the Russian Federation) or «any information» (including electronic) turns to the court of evidence - the proving fact - after its estimation court in the conditions of the competitive environment of fair proceeding. These conditions are necessary for objective, all-round check and a comparative estimation (force, persuasiveness) each proof separately and their sets.

Persuasiveness (force) of the court of evidence has not only objective, but also a subjective component, that is depends on actions on representation, research and that obobshchenno name art (arguing) of the subject of the proving acting as the party in business.

On formation of internal belief of the judge, it is equal as the juryman, influence, as the information presented in electronic form, and investigatory and other legal proceedings of the parties, the vessels connected with its representation and research. As the internal belief of the judge concerning presence or absence of the fact proving it is marked in the scientific literature, develops under the influence of many factors of a judicial-investigatory situation. Certainly, convinces the maintenance of the information, but not only it one [354 [355] [356].

The court of evidence is an element in system of the judicial argument; therefore investigatory actions in which course of the proof are represented and checked by court and other participants of examination during trial, are elements is investigatory-argumentatsionnoj a situation causing formation of the court of evidence. It is important to understand, that the information presented in electronic form, despite all its specificity, finally it is perceived and estimated - it is understood by court as any other proofs. Value of the technical factor, computer (machine) technologies of verification of the information do not cancel that final judgement about that, to be or not to be recognised to the fact, the judge accepts. Participants of examination during trial can or complicate or facilitate understanding court of this information, technical - the special factor here can play the role.

Let's give an example that as the remedial opponent anticipates the argument and prepares a basis for the - alternative interpretation is (made comments) by sense of charge used by the party in a kind of the proof of the information presented in electronic form: « Your honour! We now will face research of proofs, but not always these proofs will be indications of people. We would like to take advantage of the right and at any moment of process to state the relation to that occurs in a court hall, to those or other proofs, in that case if we find in them certain lacks. For example, at research of detailed elaboration of phone calls it is said, that citizen N was flagrante delicto. Meanwhile, that fact, that in detailed elaboration of phone calls is specified any address, does not mean, that this person was to the given address at the moment of a call. Thus, we consider necessary to pay to this attention of jurymen, to avoid their introduction in error ». It was the warning of the defender about a forthcoming course. And further, when the charge party has directly declared representation of this proof the defender (with the permission of the chairman) declares the following:« Your honour!... We did not refer to item 75 UPK the Russian Federation and on inadmissibility of this card as proofs. We speak about inadmissibility of its studying at the given stage of process in the presence of jurymen as it does not contain the facts, it contains a version of the investigation. It all the same what to hang out here increased to - [357] piju decisions about attraction as the convicted. As to acquaintance and not acquaintance defenders did not refuse acquaintance with material evidences. I, probably, unique, and can and not unique who has familiarised with this card. Others have not familiarised for the reason, that our dear clients got acquainted with business materials in SIZO, and this card hung in the Technical lane the house 2 in one of offices of investigatory group Garibjana where I and have familiarised with it. Our clients really had no such possibility, meanwhile they have signed the report within the limits of item 217 UPK the Russian Federation. And from a permission of my dear colleague it is objection on a card I will remove. Us the being of the given proof, instead of its status as recognised as the inspector really interests. Inspectors so work for us, that can Picasso's picture recognise as a material evidence, but it does not mean, that we should study here it before jurymen. Your honour! Besides, I speak not about inadmissibility of the proof, as the phenomena of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. I do not say, that at its manufacturing the law of procedures is broken. Not without reason I at the very beginning of litigation was interested about, whether it is possible to make comments on them on a course of representation of proofs, whether it is possible to state an estimation to proofs, it is possible

359

Whether to state the version of quality of this proof ».

"Proof", accusatory or justificatory, proves (convinces) to the full when the subject of proving directly uses it, participating in its representation, research, during session of the court, addressing directly to the addressee of the information - to the composition of the court, authorised to estimate and to make of it the decision. The information presented in electronic form, becomes belief means when will be presented court and other participants of process for free and objective research in comparison with other proofs. Thus, in stages of proceeding the information presented in electronic [358] kind, turns to the facts (if it will be favoured by conditions of session of the court), that is authentic data which are capable to act as means of an establishment of an actual basis of criminal case [359].

Elements of judicial proving, according to experts, this representation of proofs proponentom both research of proofs by the opponent and court. Each "proof" comes under in the beginning to representation, and then research [360]. Use in judicial proving by already received party of the information and fixed on the electronic carrier develops, thus, of two certificates: representations and researches. Whether other informative operations are possible with this information? If the information presented in electronic form, is fixed and transferred in the form of a material evidence or other document - the electronic document it is quite enough these two actions. But, according to the Item With. Pastuhova [361] which we join, the electronic information can be not only on portable (non-volatile) «electronic data carriers», but also in telecommunication and other technical communication channels, in system the Internet where it can be directly apprehended court, other participants of session of the court, as is fixed in the report of session of the court. Whether there can be during examination during trial an information presented in electronic form, "is withdrawn"? We believe, that is not present, only it is examined and copied. The reason of it we will explain more low.

Let's return to concepts "representation" and "research" of proofs of court. The term representation of proofs (in session of the court) is used in point 3 of a part of 7 articles 108, parts of 3 and 4 articles 235, articles 244, 274 UPK the Russian Federation.

The term research of proofs is used in articles 274, 291, 294 UPK the Russian Federation. With concept "research" more and more or less clearly. The majority of authors identify it with check [362]. Though is among them and such who sees a basic difference between these concepts [363]. We will treat research of the information presented in electronic form, as remedial activity of the parties and court on finding-out of presence of all properties of proofs at it by carrying out of investigatory actions with attraction of the expert, the expert and with use of necessary means and ways (software).

In a science there is as investigatory treatment of concept «a proof representation» [364], and sostjazatelnaja, namely: representation of proofs is carried out by each party, in the sequence defined by her, by manufacture of investigatory actions and other legal proceedings (statement of questions, the statement of petitions and so forth) [365]. In the light of the concept about equality of the parties in reception of actual materials, their subsequent representation to court and A.O.Mashovets's their research thus has characterised key parametres of judicial proving: (1) party has the right in an order, statutory, to collect or is independent, or through court, to represent and investigate proofs, (2) party has the right with the consent of the chairman in session of the court to show proofs available for it, (3) during a legal investigation court admissible are only those proofs which authenticity proves to be true [366].

The investigatory actions spent during proceeding, are the main ways of representation and comprehensive investigation of the data received during pre-judicial manufacture, including the information presented in electronic form. In this occasion some authors express opinion, that the estimation of "electronic proofs» is spent not only during investigatory actions, but «at promotion of investigatory versions, acceptance of remedial decisions (it is allocated by us - S.I.Kuvychkov)» [367 [368] [369] [370] [371] [372]. However to speak nevertheless about investigatory actions, as about means of representation and research of proofs more correctly. A proof estimation as cogitative activity, occurs in process of formation of belief which leads to promotion of the assumption (version), and then and to acceptance to the decision.

The list of investigatory actions, admissible during examination during trial, is provided UPK the Russian Federation. Though there is a point of view according to which in examination during trial it is possible to spend any investigatory actions provided UPK the Russian Federation, including, for example, a search, dredging. That the court has the right to make a search and dredging at a legal investigation, a particular, V.D.Arsenyev wrote in 1957 in the master's thesis about material evidences. However are more right, in our opinion, those who believes, that judges and participants of proceeding can spend only those investigatory actions which are directly provided by chapter 37 UPK the Russian Federation. Search, dredging, other actions connected with withdrawal of objects and subjects, court at a legal investigation to spend have not the right, because these actions are interfaced, in - the first, with compulsion, and secondly, with fulfilment of such actions on search, withdrawal, entering upon the record of subjects which are incompatible with the status of court and function of justice carried out by it. So in this plan quite defensible, and the law in this case it is necessary to interpret the decision of the legislator literally. From here follows, that actions connected with withdrawal of the electronic information and its carriers in judicial stages are excluded.

In the bench warrant there is also such legal proceeding on reception of the information presented in electronic form, as inquiry. About this way of reception of the evidentiary information with reference to specificity of our theme we already wrote in the previous paragraphs. In judicial stages calling for acceptance by court under the initiative or under the petition by litigants () the required information is carried out. Including, in our opinion, court the decision in the form of the decision (definition) about reception of the information on connections between subscribers and (or) user's devices (in conformity point 12 of a part of second article 29, 186.1 UPK the Russian Federation) can be accepted. As it was already specified in the previous paragraph by the law the rights of competent state bodies on calling for acceptance of the information presented in electronic form, at the organisations which work with it are expanded. We believe, that such powers can be realised and court at a legal investigation as the court authorises such inquiries during pre-judicial manufacture.

Copying of the electronic information in session of the court, in our opinion, can be spent within the limits of such investigatory action, as survey [373 [374] ("material evidence", «other document»). The given investigatory action is provided by a part of first article 284 UPK the Russian Federation. Available in a criminal procedure and criminalistic science the works devoted to given investigatory action in court, almost do not mention specificity of survey of electronic data carriers [375 [376]. In those scientific researches where it becomes mainly suggest to equalise the parties in the rights on a presentation of such material evidences and their research, and also on obligatory participation of the expert and application of the certificated computer equipment and the software, in order to avoid its inadmissible updating or loss.

«Electronic data carriers» can be represented only through a presentation of material evidences and other documents. Besides, during announcement of reports of investigatory actions appendices to them in the form of video-or audio records which also represent the information presented in electronic form can be shown.

It can be accompanied by carrying out still other investigatory actions, namely: interrogations of persons by which this information has been received, interrogations of experts, experts; therefore the sense of this information is explained. Certainly, special value has carrying out during a legal investigation of the judicial is computer-technical expert appraisal, as an element of technology of use of the given proof in court when its reliability is challenged.

Representation and research in examination during trial of the information presented in electronic form, in the form of material evidences or documents hardly demands change of the legal organisation of judicial proving. We agree with a conclusion according to which it is not required to make any changes of an existing order of carrying out of judicial survey in connection with use in judicial proving of the information presented in elek -

378

Throne kind.

Certainly, concept «an electronic data carrier» the information presented in electronic form, is not settled. There can be also a subject of a presentation and survey of other sort «an electronic information». We will underline one moment connected with specificity of survey in court of such material evidence or other document as «an electronic data carrier». On it P.S.Pastuhov who writes has in detail enough stopped, that in quality of "an electronic material evidence» (1) material carriers of the electronic information («electronic data carriers»), (2) electronic documents, but also (3) phenomena, processes in telecommunication communication channels, including the Internet which are objectively connected with the event which has become by a subject of criminal investigation can act. Thus, «as an electronic material evidence the electronic information which has become by result of criminal act, generated in the information environment as a trace of a crime [377 [378] [379] can act.

Such cases often take place by consideration of criminal cases about the crimes provided by articles 282, 354.1 UK the Russian Federation. So, for example, by criminal case consideration № 1-114-2016 were investigated a photo kreshchenskih the bathing, placed by the defendant of M. K in a social network "VKontakte". By consideration of criminal case concerning V.Luzgina convicted of committing a crime, provided to article 354.1 UK

The Russian Federation, the information constituting a subject of a crime, also was perceived from

301

sotsseti.

So, the proof appears in court, becomes accessible to perception and understanding, in "cover" of investigatory actions. The concept developed in a remedial science "evidence" which we already repeatedly used, is convenient for the further finding-out of specificity of transformation of the information presented in electronic form in the actual basis of argument with which the party in business for the purpose of formation at the judge of internal belief available or absence of the proved fact [380 [381] acts. So belief means - the evidence turns out. As scientists mark, it is necessary to understand «complex formation», «cumulative size» which is formed, first, by the information which has been found out as "evidence", received, analysed, checked up and placed on trial the parties on the certain carrier ("source"), and, secondly, investigatory action or even a little investigatory, legal proceedings in which form all operations with the information participants of examination during trial are performed. "Evidences" are tools of modelling of the criminal procedure validity [382 [383] [384] and, thus, actual wasps -

384

novaniem for a court sentence.

Force of the court of evidence as the complex evidence, depends on the elements formed proponentom specially for rendering of influence on internal belief of the judge. It can be strengthened or opposite - is weakened by actions proponenta and the opponent of the given proof. The information presented in electronic form, gives some special (technical) possibilities for this purpose.

We will mention in this connection a presentation problem in a hall of court of this information and its transformation at creation of model of investigated event. The given theme already became a subject of studying of some scientists. So, A.S.Alexander and R.A.Bostanov have drawn conclusions that "presentation" in court of the model created from several transformed program «electronic proofs» does not constitute the new, independent proof. Created in the programming language from separate sources of the evidentiary information presented in electronic form, a new information product there is only a way of "representation of proofs» and a position of the subject of proving on a certain question or business in the whole. And, such way, certainly, raises persuasiveness, presentation of proofs, strengthens its mental influence on consciousness of judges (jurymen), develops in argu -

387

mentatsiju the parties.

However, R.A.Bostanova's position on this question is not so unequivocal. As he said, there are nevertheless such new «electronic proofs», named it «summing up proofs» which can be created from several "electronic" and other usual "proofs". Thus, that the summing up proof is a secondary evidence, nevertheless, it has independent evidentiary value. As, for example, created as a result of carrying out of complex examination model any soby -

388

tija

As some scientists mark, during investigation the computer information as the new proof can be created by means of the program. Thus criterion of an estimation of such proof created by the program is the establishment of it is created by what program, and whether is it about - [385 [386] [387] grammnoe maintenance licence and if this software is specially developed for the given concrete case its examination is necessary. The experts (criminalists) working over a problem of use of computer programs for modelling and the analysis of road and transport incidents [388 [389] [390] specify in it also. The engineering mathematical models realised in the form of computer programs, are used both for a reconstruction of the mechanism of road accident, and for its visualisation that allows not only to make comprehensively research, but also it is more clear and nagljad -

391

But to present its results.

More sceptical position concerning evidentiary value of results of machine processing of the electronic information or use of means of computer technics for visualisation of data from several sources of data on business was occupied with P.S.Pastuhov. He considers, that the model created by the program considering the information from several sources, including the electronic information, does not form any new proof. In such a way the party suggests court to agree with the reconstruction of the event which have become by a subject of judicial proving. Configuration of data from several sources, their processing by means of special programs is already interpretation, the arguing having logic is directed - nost [391].

As specifies A.O.Mashovets, the court is obliged not to give in to influence of the derivatives, the modified information products which are presented in a hall of court with use of means of computer technics. This soft suggestion on the verge of dodge, estimation substitution on internal belief. The judge should base the decisions on the facts from initial sources of the information, instead of on their interpretation by the party let and with use

393

The most refined means.

We are inclined to agree with this opinion. The computer, the program cannot replace the judge in that, as to deducing from proofs of conclusions and acceptance on their basis of decisions. Anyway, the opponent in the speech is obliged to pay attention of the judge to the factor of imposing of the opponent of the evaluation of evidence to court under rhetoric cover about objectivity of applied means.

Let's return to a problem of updating of the information presented in electronic form which is sometimes put by an object of research in court at use of such information as the evidence. We will underline that the proof received by one of the parties, we will tell the charge party, in pre-judicial manufacture and represented to court the public prosecutor, it is incomplete just because it accusatory. The same information presented in electronic form, it not simply information, and means of a substantiation of the proved thesis, that is "statement" of charge done by the party or protection which becomes the matter in dispute. It is an element in system of other accusatory proofs and those statements which on them are made by body of preliminary investigation, and then - in the opening statement of the public prosecutor which examination during trial opens.

Any proofs of the parties - accusatory and justificatory should be unilateral, subjectively interpreted in favour of that or [392] other parties. As it is marked in the scientific literature, proofs of each of the parties have an ideological component: accusatory or justificatory [393 [394]. Accusatory proofs because of their orientation - serve as means of a substantiation of accusatory character even if during research other will be found out.

For an explanation of specificity of judicial proving which it is necessary to mention at the analysis of judicial proving with use of the information presented in electronic form is «procedural knowledge». «The procedural knowledge» it is not simple the information, but the information which sense is interpreted in corresponding remedial documents (reports, decisions and so forth) Which are constituted by the body leading criminal case and using this information for the decision of problems of process. The legal standard, the criminal procedure form (first of all, requirements to the relevancy, admissibilities) matter for understanding of the information, as simulars of that object which is the ultimate fact on the given criminal case. So «the procedural knowledge» is the knowledge formatted under the certain legal standard, become by suitable means for the decision of a problem of a stage, but also and capable to transfer on relay race in the subsequent stages - for the further processing and use to destination, finally - for achievement of the purposes of justice. In our opinion, proceeding from basic distinction of pre-judicial and judicial manufactures, the procedural pre-judicial knowledge is investigatory, that is is formed by the inspector (more often unilaterally) for a charge substantiation, judicial procedural knowledge is result of joint knowledge of circumstances has put court and the parties. It is quite fair and for the information presented in electronic form: in pre-judicial manufacture it is used for the decision of problems of disclosing of a crime and charge preparation. But, being presented to court, it can be cleared (in the presence of will of the opponent) from the ideological stratifications brought proponentom given proof, that is the subject which has received it and represents to court in favour of the position (charge or protection) or destructions of a position of the opponent.

So-called «remedial registration» information - investigatory action executing a process-verbal (same "survey") at all so is harmless from the point of view of preservation of authenticity of the information - almost always it leads to changes of the maintenance of the information. The essence of similar updating [395 [396] even at objective installation of the inspector on a true establishment consists in an investigatory estimation - embedding of this information in the accusatory version - directed (perhaps - "prejudiced") interpretation. This by itself leads to such updating of the information which character sometimes it is required to explain to (expose) from the opponent that "procedural" (investigatory) knowledge did not become means unilateral (deformed) influences on consciousness of the judge (jurymen).

On use example in proving of results bilinga, detailed elaborations of telephone conversations is a version of the evidentiary information presented in electronic form. In practice "cap" named still. In the fragments resulted more low from the report of session of the court struggle for "cleanliness" of the information and its clearing of investigatory stratifications is brightly reflected. The incorrectness of the reference with the information during preliminary investigation, and also lacks of tactics of representation of the given proof, shown in absence of the expert from charge at representation and research of this proof which could give necessary explanations, has led to loss of one of key proofs.

G osudarstvennyj accuser Safina J.R. declares:

- Dear jurymen! Today on business the charge party will begin representation of proofs with detailed elaboration of telephone conversations. Yesterday we spoke you about the program billing which fixs telephone signals in certain area. On a card which hangs in courtroom, towers which catch these signals are represented. Public prosecutor Safina J.R. discloses: T. 37 l.d. 1 - inquiry in Joint-Stock Company «Sonik Duo» № 18/377485-06 from 14.05.2008 Public prosecutor Safina J.R. shows to jurymen an arrangement of following base stations of cellular communication on a card: a tower № 10397 to the address: the Leningrad avenue, d. 8, p. 32; a tower № 10487 to the address: Miussky square, d. 9, p. 1; a tower № 13346 to the address: street of the Tver outpost, d. 3; a tower № 12326 to the address: Garden-triumphal, d. 10. Public prosecutor Safina J.R. discloses: T. 37 l.d. 2 - the answer to inquiry in Joint-Stock Company «Sonik Duo» № 1546 from 21.05.2008 Public prosecutor Safina J.R., showing a card, addresses to jurymen: - Dear jurymen! On a yellow background of a card red arrows who illustrate movement of cars and to which you should not pay attention are represented. That is represented by a semicircular dashed line of dark colour, represents radius of action of base stations. Crossing of three base stations constitutes "islet" elipsoobraznoj forms where signals have been fixed. For convenience photos on a scene of crime and a place of fixing of signals have been pasted.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares: - your honour! I object on performance of the public prosecutor. Jurymen are misled, as anything has not been measured. So-called radiuses of action of towers are brought simply under the assumption of the inspector. I pay attention to the answer to inquiry which has been announced by the public prosecutor according to whom the action radius constitutes from 0,5 km to 1,5 km.

Public prosecutor Safina J.R. declares: - As I already spoke, there is a billing - the program which fixs calls in certain territory. In our case calls which arrived from streets interested

Wood and Alexander Neva where the crime has been committed. Three towers which are represented on a card, fix the given calls. Each base station has some aerials. Each aerial catches a signal in a certain direction. Each aerial has certain technical characteristics. Depending on technical characteristics of aerials, depending on at what number there is an aerial, depending on a direction of action of the aerial that comes to light, the signal whence arrives. About that, whence it becomes known about these figures, I will show on detailed elaboration.

The chairman informs, that material evidence research - a compact disc with the files written down on it containing the information on entering and proceeding connections convicted, will be made with use of means: TV "Samsung" and the laptop «Sony Vaio». Under the order of the chairman expert Eliseev A.J. displays the TV detailed elaboration of entering and proceeding connections.

G osudarstvennyj accuser Safina J.R. addresses to jurymen zasedateljam: - Dear jurymen! Before you detailed elaboration, that is telephone connections of the subscriber 8-926-165-11-19 is deduced. I will remind, that given number is registered on M-va by D.Sinim colour on the TV screen time is allocated: 14:28:51 - the first connection, last connection - 16:08:21. 14:28:51 - connection to the address: the Miussky area, the house 9, p. 1. I ask to pay attention to connection on October, 7th, 2006, time 14:54:55 which was with number 8-926-595-99-47, duration of a call - 6. I remind, that telephone number 8-926-595-99-47 used M-v And.

Public prosecutor Safina J.R. answers questions of the chairman:

Whether there is in materials of criminal case a listing of detailed elaboration of telephone connections?

- It also is business materials. The given information contains on a disk.

The given disk has been sent from "Megaphone"?

- Yes, the required information "Megaphone" has sent on a disk which we and represent to jurymen.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A zajavljaet: - your honour! I object. Actually the given disk has not come from "Megaphone". This disk from materials which operative employees used. And I can prove it. I have copied a disk which is in materials of business from the leave of court, on the personal computer. On the given disk, except the information which really should contain in "Megaphone", there is an information on subscribers of the concrete person in MGTS, about its movings. That is the operative information. I hope, that requisites of the disk which is in materials of business, with instructions of concrete sheet the dear public prosecutor will present to us.

G osudarstvennyj accuser Safina J.R. declares:

- The dear lawyer! First, you mention remedial questions. Secondly, whence the consequence can take detailed elaboration, how not from "Megaphone"? The covering letter Yesterday has become engrossed in reading.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

- Your honour! I once again repeat, that it not that disk which has come from "Megaphone".

The chairman suggests jurymen to leave from a court hall in the deliberation room and explains, that in their absence the questions which are doing not come under to research with their participation will be solved.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A answers a question of the chairman:

Whether you approve, what the given detailed elaboration is forged?

- No. To us have told, that this detailed elaboration has arrived from "Megaphone". I show you a computer file in format Excel which I have copied from a disk which is in business materials. This disk to me will not allow to lie, it can be included in the computer now. Here there are differences.

G osudarstvennyj accuser Safina J.R. declares:

- Your honour! The charge party represents proofs. The given detailed elaborations do not cause doubts as they are received by lawful way. Now the protection party tries to call into question our proofs that contradicts law requirements. I regard actions of the party of protection as desire to prevent us to present proofs. If they consider the given proof inadmissible let result the concrete bases.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

- Your honour! I would not dare at all to forbid to represent to the charge party of the proof. Simply I want, that jurymen were not misled. The charge party says, that detailed elaboration which has arrived from "Megaphone" is now investigated. I say, that a disk which contains in criminal case materials, is constituted by a consequence in format Excel.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A gives explanatories concerning detailed elaboration of telephone connections, using the personal laptop: - your honour! Vkladka "Subscribers" it is reflected in the TV screen. The file which contains a compact disk, except vkladki "Subscribers" has the following vkladki: "Frequency"; «visiting Places» which has no relation to "Megaphone"; «Movings (all dates)», that is a note of the inspector; «Addresses subscribers (MGTS)» where the information on other subscribers which to "Megaphone" have no relation contains; "Contacts" are contacts from a notebook of mobile phone D. M-va; «the House (Ab.-with whom.)» that is to whom talked from a home telephone number. This disk has not come from "Megaphone".

Public prosecutor Safina J.R. addresses to the defender - to the lawyer Musaev M. A:

- How you think, whence the given information would become known to a consequence?

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A explains:

- I think, that the consequence has enquired detailed elaboration from a mobile phone, in this case D. M-va. And further with use of this detailed elaboration has constituted a computer file in format Excel to which it is possible to make changes and they will be kept.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A answers a question of the chairman:

Whether correctly I understand, what the disk from "Megaphone" has arrived with the expanded information?

- No. Apparently, on a disk detailed elaboration has arrived only. And further it has been added by a consequence, probably, changed. The fact that now the public prosecutor says to jurymen that this disk has arrived from "Megaphone". It is a lie.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A answers questions of the chairman:

Whether correctly I understand, you believe, what the information containing on a disk, has been grouped?

- Your honour! I do not believe. I am assured that changes are made to the given file.

Whether can name you discrepancies on dates or time?

- I cannot know, to whom and when called M-v D two years ago. Hardly earlier I have shown a copy from a compact disc which is in materials of business which I have removed from the leave of court. Here there are changes.

Public prosecutor Pashkovsky V.V. declares:

- Now we show a material evidence - a disk with detailed elaboration of telephone conversations which was in business materials. The information, displayed the TV, is not full. But in the bottom of the screen are available "strelochki" which moving allows to see all information, all vkladki.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

- If the given disk corresponds to about what I speak, means, this unique available in materials has put a disk is not the information from "Megaphone", and is a file which is constituted also as well as a card, the inspector.

The chairman informs participants of session of the court, that a material evidence - the compact disc with the files written down on it containing the information on entering and proceeding connections convicted, before research in session of the court was in a case both has been packed into an envelope and sealed by the seals «For packages» Investigatory committee at Office of Public Prosecutor of the Russian Federation.

The chairman shows to participants of session of the court on a review a case from a compact disc and an envelope into which the material evidence has been packed.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A answers a question of the chairman:

Whether from the given compact disc you had been removed a copy?

- Yes.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

- If other disk in business materials is not available, means, this unique disk is grouped by a consequence. It not that information which has arrived from "Megaphone". Just to jurymen it has been told, that this information has arrived from "Megaphone" and moreover, that this disk has arrived from "Megaphone". I have objected on it to that this disk from "Megaphone" could not arrive as I copied it and I know, that there there is purely militian information...

- Your honour! All of us understand, the difference between these two disks is how much great. One business if the disk comes from "Megaphone", we put it in the computer and we look on the screen. An another matter if from "Megaphone" a certain information with which help and by means of other information the inspector constitutes a file in format Microsoft Excel comes. If the charge party says to jurymen, that this disk has arrived from "Megaphone" they perceive it as the information from not interested source. If the charge party tells as is, namely, that we look through a disk with the file maintenance, which inspector has constituted with use of the billing received from "Megaphone", this another matter.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A answers questions of the chairman:

Whether correctly I have understood, what a file which the charge party represents on a review to jurymen, is constituted by the inspector on the basis of the information received official by from "Megaphone"?

- Yes, correctly.

Whether the information which has arrived from "Megaphone" is, truthful?

- Whether in that the information truthful is, we will understand after it we will study. Now us the information source interests.

G osudarstvennyj accuser Safina J.R. declares:

- Your honour! We investigate only those proofs, which are admissible, that is, if to speak a simple language, truthful, received on the basis of the law. And so, the given information is received from "Megaphone", anybody did not invent it, anybody did not enter it ».

On a question of the chairman public prosecutor Safina J.R. declares:

How detailed elaboration is constituted?

- At first the general program on all numbers, that is all numbers which are fixed by certain station is enquired. Further all these numbers are investigated, the attention to any certain numbers is paid. Then separate detailed elaboration on these numbers is enquired. Today we have shown separate detailed elaboration on concrete number. We, of course, can show billing, but it is the huge program and court will not allow it to investigate to us as in it phones of other people contain.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A addresses to public prosecutor Safinoj J.R.:

- Prompt, please, who brings the concrete information in document cells?

G osudarstvennyj accuser Safina J.R. explains:

- According to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation the charge party is not obliged to answer questions of the party of protection.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

- Your honour! In acknowledgement of that a source of the given file not "Megaphone", I have specified in other components of this file. "Megaphone" will never write about moving of other persons or about contacts D. M-va by MGTS phone as the given information "Megaphone" has no.

Your honour! I suggest to study the record of search of the given disk and the decision about its familiarising with materials of business in quality of a material evidence....

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

- Your honour! I declare the petition for a recognition of the present proof to the inadmissible. If the court allows, I will make it within the limits of pleadings. I approve, that the maintenance of the present proof mismatches its description, that is in the report of its survey and in the decision about familiarising with criminal case materials the statement mismatching the validity is admitted. That is the inspector nalgal so, the law is broken.

G osudarstvennyj accuser Safina J.R. declares:

- Your honour! In reply to the petition of the party of protection I wish to tell, that in item 75 UPK the Russian Federations are furnished the bases for a recognition of the proof by the inadmissible. The lawyer Musaev M. A makes the unfounded statement that something mismatches something. However no proofs to its words are furnished. Moreover, the bases on which he asks to recognise the proof inadmissible referring to corresponding norm of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation are not resulted. Besides, the Russian Federation says item 75 UPK that the proof can be recognised by inadmissible if it is received with infringement of the criminal procedure law. Hence, it is necessary to specify, which norm of the criminal procedure law has been broken.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

.. . As to the basis for a proof recognition inadmissible there are requirements to legality of any action of the inspector. If the inspector lies, it arrives illegally. I approve, that ascertaining of that fact, that ostensibly the information has arrived from "Megaphone", instead of is grouped by a consequence, mismatches the validity. Having specified this false statement in the remedial document, the inspector has broken the law, means at collecting of proofs, namely at reception of this concrete proof, the law of procedures, namely item 7 UPK the Russian Federation which speaks about legality at criminal proceeding is broken. The general principle of the right and common sense which says is broken, that any document should contain the truth. I approve, that the statement that this disk and this file are received from "Megaphone" is false.

The defender-lawyer Tchernikov V. N declares:

- "Megaphone" cannot possess that information which contains on a disk. Yes, the information has arrived from "Megaphone", but the disk has been grouped G and - ribjanom.

The chairman addresses to the protection party:

- Whether it is possible, that the disk has arrived from "Megaphone", the inspector has examined it, has chosen what concerns the present criminal case then has grouped all necessary?

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

- Your honour! I do not challenge truthfulness of telephone numbers. I say, that it is not necessary to say to jurymen, that the given disk has arrived from "Megaphone". It is necessary to tell how the court has told, that from "Megaphone" the information from which the inspector has at own discretion chosen that is necessary that is not necessary has arrived and has grouped a new file.

G osudarstvennyj accuser Safina J.R. declares:

- Your honour! I consider, that anything to jurymen to explain it is not necessary, as the information has arrived from "Megaphone". Any infringements by us it is not admitted. The proof is admissible. To explain something to jurymen - it is wrong, as it will mismatch the validity. Then jurymen will be misled, as the protection party tries to make.

.. . The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

- Your honour! If we hide nothing from jurymen we presume to tell to ourselves it, that it not the official answer from "Megaphone", and a file grouped by the inspector.

The defender-lawyer Musaev M. A declares:

- Your honour! I do not challenge reliability of the information, I challenge the information on a proof origin. I cannot tell about it to jurymen even in hearings of arguments ».

Mistrust of jurymen to reliability of the proof that became one of the reasons of removal of the verdict of "not guilty" became result such progovarivanija and warnings of representation as the proof of an electronic data carrier and demonstration of its maintenance by means of computer technics.

We can establish together with founders of "the new theory of criminal procedure proofs» the following: the facts are formed in court. If there is an issue in fact, the parties use not only data carriers, but also offer alternative variants of an explanation of its sense to convince court of existence of the facts to own advantage.

Obviously, it is necessary to recognise correctness of those who considers, that most as an effective remedy of increase of persuasiveness of the information presented in electronic form, participation of the expert is. We believe, that the expert necessarily should be involved in representation and research in examination during trial of the information presented in electronic form, no less than its carriers.

Though in the law there are concrete enough instructions concerning participation of the expert in criminal trial, in practice disputable situations take place. We will result a characteristic example from criminal case № 2-14/08 under the report of session of the court.

«... The public prosecutor:

- Your honour! Today the charge party will represent written evidences, namely videorecordings from chambers of external supervision.

The public prosecutor answers a question of the chairman:

The person sitting near to you, will participate in session of the court as the expert?

- No. The expert is a person who gives explanatories on any certain questions. In this case the person it will be simple to help us in circulation with technics.

The chairman explains to the public prosecutor:

- The expert is the person possessing special knowledge, got to take part in business in legal proceedings in an order established UPK the Russian Federation, for assistance in detection, fastening and withdrawal of subjects and documents, application of means in research of materials of criminal case.

The chairman establishes the person of the expert:

- I, Priests Anton Borisovich, a higher education.

Defendant S.V.A. Declares:

- Your honour! The given person is the inspector in this connection he cannot participate in business in quality of the expert. He is an interested person.

G osudarstvennyj an accuser: [397]

- Your honour! The given person is present here for rendering assistance at videorecording viewing.

The matter is that we consider, that the given person is not the expert as it renders the technical help to public prosecutors. I sit near to it and I do not know how to include the program, and it will help us with it.

The defender-lawyer declares:

- Your honour! In process there are such simple people who simply press the videocamera button. This person is called as the expert. In this hall from the persons who are carrying out concrete legal proceedings who, for example, include videorecording, rewind it back and forth, the person cannot be simple, it should be the participant of process. The inhabitant from street cannot represent the proof.

The chairman addresses to participants of session of the court:

- As Priests A.B. Cannot participate in process as the expert, in session of the court the expert of court, which during a break of Priests A.B will be invited. Will train in necessary actions.

G osudarstvennyj the accuser declares:

- Your honour! I wish to notice, that we too press buttons and we represent proofs, but we are not experts....

The chairman informs, that in participation in session of the court as the expert is involved E.A.JU. The chairman establishes the person of expert E.A.JU.

On a question of the chairman on admission possibility to participation in session of the court as expert E.A.JU. Participants of session of the court, everyone, answer, that do not object. The court on a place has enacted to admit to participation in session of the court E.A.JU. As the expert. The chairman explains to expert E.A.JU. Its rights and a duty in the proceeding, provided items 58 UPK the Russian Federation. On a question of the chairman expert E.A.JU. Answers, that the rights and duties in proceeding to it are explained and clear. The chairman warns expert E.A.JU. About the criminal liability for disclosure of data of preliminary investigation and session of the court under item 310 UK the Russian Federation about what the subscription »is selected.

We join opinion that any of the parties or court have the right

To involve the expert present at courtroom, the expert,

For representation and research of proofs in a type of information, the prerate 399

lennoj in electronic form.

Earlier already it was noticed, that we hold the opinion about expediency of equalising of statuses of the expert and the expert, at least, in that, as to their participation in examination during trial which is stated by some av - tory [398 [399]. We divide their offers on unification of legal instructions concerning participation in examination during trial of "expert", including in actions on representation and information research in electronic form [400 [401].

It logically follows from a principle of competitiveness and equality of the rights of the parties, including the rights to access reception to scientific support of the position. These leads to position about necessity of unification of a legal status of "competent experts», entering criminal trial as at the initiative of the party (including the defender-lawyer), and under the sou - decision

402

Yes

The expert's statement (expert) and its indications presented and investigated in court, and also object of research in which quality the material evidence or others «actual materials» can act, can form one - the complex court of evidence [402]. Besides, this information source can include the fact sheet informed by employees of operative devices, inspectors, protection - of nikov-lawyers concerning circumstances of reception, storage, transfer, updating of the information presented in electronic form, become by an object of research. Defect in one of components of such complex proof (argument forming the basis to court): unsuccessful answers of the expert to questions of the opponent, the incompetence which has come to light it or bias, putannye the indications given on interrogations of persons, involved in pre-judicial use of the electronic information and so forth Negatively affects force of all proof. Including, and the shade of doubts can be cast on the initial information presented in electronic form which was investigated by the expert (expert).

Therefore at use in examination during trial of the information presented in electronic form, interrogations of the expert, the expert (ch. 2 items 282 UPK the Russian Federation), but also - statement to this participant of process of questions judges and jurymen (in an order established by a part of 4 articles 335 UPK the Russian Federation), have the important evidentiary value.

As to carrying out it is computer-technical expert appraisals in examination during trial it is necessary to tell, that, in our opinion, no essential procedural and tactical features in comparison with a stage of preliminary investigation here are present. In this plan we share opinion of variety of the authors who were specially engaged in the specified problematics [403].

G lavnyj a principle of reception of the proof, such as the conclusion and indications of the expert (no less than the expert) in examination during trial consists in equal access of the parties to reception of such proof and its research under the control and participation of court [404]. Infringement of the right of the participant of examination during trial on the statement of petitions, statement of questions to the persons involved in reception and research of the information, presented in electronic form, are inadmissible. Therefore in session of the court it is necessary for chairman to spend consistently positions already fixed in our criminal procedure about the relevancy of proofs, equalities of the parties and competitiveness at representation and research of courts of evidence.

We as a whole agree with those to the requirement to the standard of "the electronic proof» which should be observed during judicial proving which have been offered N.A.Ziguroj, namely: 1) acknowledgement of observance of constitutional laws of the person at reception of the electronic information; 2) presence of an electronic data carrier (a source - in the form of a material evidence, «other document»; 3) appropriate registration of remedial documents with which help the information presented in electronic form, is entered upon the record: the record of search, the conclusion of the expert, the expert's statement, the decision about a recognition of this information as the proof and familiarising of "an electronic data carrier» to criminal case; 4) observance of integrity of the computer information, that is its preservation in a full and invariable kind; rule performance about a chain of lawful possession [405]. Certainly, it is possible to speak about completions of the existing mechanism of legal regulation of judicial proving - offers it is in this respect discussed more, than there is enough. However, in our opinion, the optimum legal model of representation and research in session of the court of proofs is offered in Doktrinalnoj to model [406] which is in turn based on the newest foreign criminal procedure legislation and the European standards of "fair proceeding» [407 [408].

We consider, that there should be a uniform legal regime of representation and research by the parties of the proofs to which it is possible to carry other documents, material evidences in their electronic version. In this plan, of course, the greatest criticism meets while distinction remaining at us between representation to court of the materials which are available in business (enclosed to it) and the offer to court of materials in business not entered (at its taking to court) so that they already later have got the status of proofs and have been presented in examination during trial.

We agree with opinion that is mentioned two versions of documents. The first of them, under the decision of investigatory agency or court have been attached to the business materials, the second - are again presented by the parties in session of the court, their check was not spent also the decree about their announcement still it is necessary to accept. The first version of the documents which are available in criminal case, the participant of examination during trial has the right to demand to announce at any moment of examination during trial, whether - including at evidence of this or that tsa [409]. The second version of the documents which are not containing in materials criminal case which has been directed by the public prosecutor to court, has been received by the party in the subsequent and their destiny dares court already during litigation, including, and during examination during trial.

Let's stop in connection with told on a problematics of representation and research in court of the materials containing the information, presented in electronic form which has been received independently by the party of protection or other participants of process who have independent interest in business. Now these procedures are regulated by articles 285-286 UPK the Russian Federation. According to article 286 UPK the Russian Federation the documents presented by the parties,

Can be investigated and attached to business materials. It means, that (demonstrations of video - audio records) precede announcement of such documents the actions provided by item 286 UPK the Russian Federation: the statement of the corresponding petition the participant of examination during trial about familiarising with materials of criminal case of documents (including, electronic «other documents»), considerations of this petition and its permission taking into account opinion of other participants of process.

Are rather extended, as practice shows, cases of contest of such petition and finding-out of its validity, and also research of legality of an origin of "proof" in the form of the electronic information received by protection.

Let's give an example, the illustrating thesis that the court of evidence of guilt of the defendant can become and the information taken from a social network. By a sentence of Lenin regional court of of Krasnoyarsk from October, 19th, 2012 CH it is condemned for the committing a crime, provided ch. 2 items 159 UK the Russian Federation. By a court sentence it has been established, that CH, using the personal computer with connection to the Internet has created in one of social networks the page under an assumed name, having placed photos of clothes of certain firm for the purpose of its sale. One of visitors of the given page has made on it the order of clothes and has translated the sum of 5 700 rbl. into the account of user's phone number CH which through a site of the operator of cellular communication has translated them subsequently on the bank card. Money from specified card CH has removed, and clothes to the victim has not sent. Then has brought the victim in "the black list" in a social network because of what the victim could not get to CH. On page and to send it messages [410].

In a science discussion about is led, whether follows to the admissibility of evidence, independently collected by the participants having interest in business, and their representatives, to make less strict demands, than to the accusatory proofs received competent state body -

mi. Meanwhile, the approach Nizhniy Novgorod protsessualistov consists in unifying a legal regime of representation and research in examination during trial of "actual materials», received by any of the parties during pre-judicial manufacture provided that interdictions have not been broken, statutory. It is so-called in the image the material approach to definition of an admissibility of the information presented in electronic form, for use in judicial proving [411 [412].

Let's note, what exactly such approach shows Georgian ugolovnoprotsessualnyj the law: in article 248 of a handheld computer of Georgia («Demonstration of proofs during proceeding») is said that during proceeding, authentic proofs are admissible. It is similar the decision and the Ukrainian legislator: in article 359 of a handheld computer of Ukraine («Research zvuko - and videorecordings») is said that reproduction and videorecording demonstrations are made in courtroom under the petition by litigants. The statement for a fake zvuko - and videorecordings considers court in an order provided for consideration of statements for forging of documents. For the purpose of finding-out of the data containing in zvuko - and videorecordings, court the expert can be involved.

Thus, the foreign law confirms possibility of unification of a legal regime of representation of any documents in examination during trial. Such approach, in case of its acceptance in our right, would expand possibilities of use as the court of evidence of the information presented in electronic form.

Let's draw conclusions.

Use in judicial proving portable (non-volatile) «electronic data carriers» is reduced mainly to representation (presentation) and research of the digital information containing on them. If the evidentiary information in electronic form is in telecommunication and other technical communication channels, in system the Internet it can be examined as the interactive electronic document which substantial parts are accessible to participants of proceeding in a dialogue mode. In any case the information presented in electronic form, should be directly apprehended court, other participants of session of the court from the primary source, as is fixed in the report of session of the court.

Actions (investigatory) connected with compulsory withdrawal of the electronic information and its carriers in judicial stages are excluded. At the same time, the court can under the initiative or under the petition of the party to request the required information presented in electronic form at its any owner under general rules, the established Russian legislation.

Special value has carrying out during a legal investigation of the judicial is computer-technical expert appraisal, as an element of technology of use of the given proof in court when its reliability is challenged.

Force of the court of evidence as the complex evidence, depends on the elements formed proponentom specially for rendering of influence on internal belief of the judge. It can be strengthened or opposite - is weakened by actions proponenta and the opponent of the given proof. The information presented in electronic form, gives some special (technical) possibilities for this purpose.

During judical inquiry can be created by means of the program new - the secondary evidence which represents model of investigated event. Thus criterion of an estimation of such proof (presentation of several initial proofs) is the establishment of it is created by what program, that can entail appointment of judicial tehniko-computer examination.

G lavnyj a principle of reception of the proof, such as the conclusion and indications of the expert (no less than the expert) in examination during trial consists in equal access of the parties to reception of such proof and its research under the control and court participation.

<< | >>
A source: KUVYCHKOV Sergey Ivanovich. USE In PROVING ON CRIMINAL CASES of the INFORMATION PRESENTED In electronic form. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Nizhni Novgorod - 2016. 2016

More on topic § 3. Representation, research and an estimation as proofs of the information presented in electronic form, by consideration by criminal case court in essence:

  1. § 1. Use of the information presented in electronic form, for revealing and disclosing of crimes in a stage of excitation of criminal case
  2. Chapter 2. Problems of use of the information presented in electronic form, as proofs at various stages of criminal trial
  3. § 2. Concept and essence of criminal procedure proving taking into account features of representation of the information on the facts in electronic form
  4. value of the electronic information and electronic data carriers in system of proofs on criminal case
  5. Chapter 1. Methodological problems of the theory ugolovnoprotsessualnyh proofs in a context of properties of the information presented in electronic form
  6. § 2. Use of the information presented in electronic form, during criminal procedure proving at a stage of preliminary investigation [300 [301]
  7. the form of representation of electronic proofs
  8. KUVYCHKOV Sergey Ivanovich. USE In PROVING ON CRIMINAL CASES of the INFORMATION PRESENTED In electronic form. The DISSERTATION on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Nizhni Novgorod - 2016, 2016
  9. application of the electronic information and electronic data carriers in a stage of excitation of criminal case
  10. check and an estimation of other documents used as proofs on criminal case
  11. the form and language of representation of proofs
  12. 1.1. Essence, the maintenance and the form of punishment under criminal law in the form of arrest
  13. historical aspects of formation and development of legal regulation of application of the electronic information and electronic data carriers in the domestic criminal trial
  14. § 3. Consideration and the permission the inspector of the petitions declared upon termination of acquaintance with materials of criminal case
  15. Ignatov Dimitry Sergeevich. CRIMINALISTIC BASES of ACTIVITY of the LAWYER-DEFENDER ON GATHERING of PROOFS And REPRESENTATION to THEIR COURT. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Izhevsk - 2004, 2004
  16. THE CHAPTER THE SECOND. THE MECHANISM OF APPLICATION OF THE ELECTRONIC INFORMATION AND ELECTRONIC DATA CARRIERS IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL
  17. § 3.1. FEATURES OF WAYS OF COLLECTING OF THE MATERIAL PROOFS IN THE STAGE OF EXCITATION OF CRIMINAL CASE
  18. § 3. General-theoretical bases of use in criminally Remedial proving of the information on the facts in electronic form
  19. other documents as sources of proofs: concept, kinds and their value of proving on criminal case
  20. § 1. Specification (modernisation) of the information approach to To understanding of criminal procedure proofs