<<
>>

§ 3.2. WAYS OF COLLECTING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES IN JUDICIAL CRIMINAL MANUFACTURE

According to item 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation the court is the independent subject of proving and is allocated by powers on collecting of proofs. Increase of value of examination during trial in proving of guilt or innocence of the defendant - one of the purposes of reform of criminal justice.

As fairly marks I.B.Mihajlovsky, «proofs on which the verdict of guilty can be based, that is the presumption of innocence is confuted, not only should meet the requirements of the relevancy and an admissibility, but also to pass a proceeding hearth. Such construction of proceeding creates the necessary precondition for the fullest realisation of a principle of the competitiveness combined with general terms of this stage of process: a spontaneity, ustnostju, publicity and an invariance of the composition of the court (item 240-242 UK the Russian Federation)».

Proving in examination during trial occurs in the conditions of full realisation of all principles of criminal trial. At these stages of the criminal trial the competitiveness principle, and all persons interested in issue of a suit is really realised, their representatives and defenders realise the rights on participation in proving. The court role in collecting of proofs is not belittled also. As has fairly noticed M.T.Ashirbekova, «the active role of court in criminal trial follows from its public nature as pravoprimenitelja and the in the lead subject of the judicial manufacture responsible for the decisions made by it. Activity of court - the remedially-official activity which is representing itself as the requirement of a principle of publicity for maintenance of judicial protection of the rights and legitimate interests of all private persons, irrespective of their interest connected with issue of a suit».

Proceeding principles are regulated in section IX ch. 3 UPK the Russian Federation. Chapter 37 UPK the Russian Federation ("Examination during trial") defines actions of court with participation of the parties in the order of research of proofs, to manufacture of judicial and other legal proceedings on justice realisation, establishes, what judicial actions can be carried out during examination during trial: interrogations of the defendant who has sustained, witnesses, the expert, expert testimony in court manufacture, district and premise survey, investigatory experiment, a presentation for an identification and survey.

What sense includes concept "examination during trial", various authors ask a question. Professor M.S.Strogovich considered, «that examination during trial is that period of definitive manufacture during which the court gets acquainted with proofs on business and subjects to their check with the assistance of the parties».

According to professor R.S.Belkin, under examination during trial it is necessary to understand «cumulative activity of agencies in charge of preliminary investigation, a consequence, court, expert establishments on a true establishment on business».

S.A.Nasonov considers, that «the major property of examination during trial is that at the given stage of proceeding proving is carried out in all its aspects (collecting, check, an estimation) and in the fullest

Volume ».

It is possible to establish with full confidence, that the decision accepted by court on criminal case, directly depends on how examination during trial as formation of the total certificate and is the purpose of carrying out of all criminal trial is spent.

In the Decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from April, 29th, 1996 № 1 «About the adjudication» it is underlined, that «in a sentence it is necessary to result the all-round analysis of proofs on which the court has based conclusions, thus should receive an estimation all proofs, both convicting, and justifying the defendant, and the verdict of guilty should be enacted on mathematical evidences when on business all arisen versions are investigated, and available contradictions are found out and estimated». From this follows, that a direct problem of examination during trial - research of all available proofs on criminal case.

Expressing concerning the theory and examination during trial practice, V.M.Bozrov and V.M.Kobjakov noticed, that «value of proceeding for the decision of the sentence which is a considerable stage of given process, it is difficult to overestimate, as according to the law the sentence can be based only on the proofs investigated during examination during trial».

«Examination during trial, - considers T.V.Kozin, - should serve research of proofs both collected at preliminary investigation and inquiry, and received during examination during trial».

In modern Russian criminal trial examination during trial is not reduced only to check and an estimation of those proofs which have been collected by the investigator or the inspector, i.e. already "ready" proofs. Examination during trial represents high-grade process of collecting of proofs, as from the material carriers presented by the parties, and also the carriers which have been found out directly by court by carrying out of investigatory actions, characteristic for examination during trial when the court should show activity for «a true establishment» on considered criminal case.

Unlike preliminary investigation, in examination during trial collecting of proofs is made by all composition of the court, i.e. the judge and all participants of proceeding, and not how on preliminary investigation with elements of secret search process, and is opened and is public, at observance of all democratic procedures of legal proceedings, basically from the physical (material) carriers presented by the parties.

Judicial proving is not limited only to acceptance by court of proofs from the parties. It should be considered as collecting of proofs by court from the presented subjects and documents. The parties represent to court, and the court accordingly accepts not proofs, and only carriers material or physical, and already during examination during trial the court takes the evidentiary information from these carriers. That subjects and documents have got value of material evidences, the court should execute procedure of their familiarising with business materials: to make dredging at the person who have presented a subject, to examine it, to attach as a material evidence to criminal case materials, i.e. to carry out their remedial fastening in the report of session of the court.

In item 86 UPK the Russian Federation the formulation, concerning concepts of judicial action as way of collecting of proofs, no. But then in what ways proofs at stages of judicial manufacture gather?

For today in a science of criminal trial the majority of scientists consider, that ways of collecting of proofs are legal proceedings. In item 32 of item 5 UPK the Russian Federation providing the basic concepts, used in UPK the Russian Federation, it is told, that «legal proceeding - the investigatory, judicial and other action provided by the present Code».

The legislator, having allocated in separate group judicial actions, has divided legal proceedings, however absence of standard interpretation of these concepts, in my opinion, is a lack of the criminal procedure law.

In scientific circles after acceptance in 2001 UPK the Russian Federation was developed discussion how correctly to call the actions made by court in the course of proceeding: investigatory or judicial? Also the question on analogy carrying out between the investigatory actions made at a stage of preliminary investigation, and the actions made by court at a stage of proceeding was considered.

The analysis of norms UPK the Russian Federation regulating this process, allows to draw a conclusion that all actions which are carried out in court, are called as judicial actions, and all actions which are carried out on preliminary investigation, the law defines as investigatory actions or other legal proceedings. It in the law is accurately reserved, though nevertheless they are treated by various scientists differently. So, V.S.Balakshin allocates three groups, dividing them on «investigatory, other legal proceedings and judicial-investigatory». To V.S.Balakshin's last group carries such legal proceedings which carrying out is possible during proceeding. According to R.V.Kostenko, to ways of collecting of proofs «investigatory, judicial and other legal proceedings» concern.

Allocation of judicial actions in separate group of ways of collecting of proofs is dictated by value of judicial manufacture in criminal trial. Such position corresponds to item 32 of item 5 UPK the Russian Federation, providing differentiation of legal proceedings on investigatory, judicial and other legal proceedings. However in item 5 UPK the Russian Federations are absent definitions of concepts investigatory, judicial, and also other legal proceedings. S.A.Shejfer notices in the work, that «all informative judicial actions which are carried out during examination during trial, it is necessary to consider investigatory». We Will dare to disagree with the given thesis.

Really, the legislator in ch. 1 item 86 UPK the Russian Federation has defined, that manufacture of investigatory and other legal proceedings as ways of collecting of proofs is carried out by the investigator, the inspector, the public prosecutor and court during the criminal trial. The formulation, concerning concepts of judicial action, of specified article is absent. However item 5 ch. 2 items 74 UPK the Russian Federation define reports of investigatory and judicial actions as proofs on criminal case. Also ch. 2 items 291 UPK the Russian Federation regulating the termination of examination during trial, explains, that after the permission of petitions and performance connected with it necessary judicial actions the chairman declares examination during trial ended. On it the interlacing of judicial and investigatory categories does not come to an end. So, by manufacture of judicial actions practically in all articles there is a reference to the corresponding norms providing the procedure of investigatory actions. For example, ch. 3 items 283 UPK the Russian Federation defining manufacture of expert testimony in court, sends to gl. 27 UPK the Russian Federation («expert testimony in court Manufacture»), and also item 289 UPK sends to item 193 UPK, item 290 UPK sends to item 179 UPK the Russian Federation, practically identifying these actions with each other. However to refuse the term «judicial action», in my opinion, it is not necessary, even if it not absolutely precisely reflects merits of case as at the term use «judicial action» is clear at once that is a question of action within the limits of judicial manufacture. We believe, that judicial actions are similar to corresponding investigatory actions, but not all. The part of judicial actions falls under concept of other legal proceedings. Collecting of proofs during proceeding is carried out not only by manufacture of investigatory actions, but also by other legal proceedings, for example, when the parties during examination during trial represent subjects and documents when the court under own initiative or under the petition by litigants will obtain on demand physical (material) data carriers.

It is possible to present judicial actions as symbiosis of investigatory and other legal proceedings. The legislator, using repeatedly in various variants the term «judicial actions», does not open its concept.

We carry ourselves to supporters of differentiation of ways of collecting of proofs on investigatory, judicial and other legal proceedings and we believe, that there is a basis to differentiate ways of collecting of proofs in pre-judicial and judicial manufactures. In pre-judicial manufacture as ways of collecting of material evidences investigatory actions, and in judicial manufacture, certainly act mainly, the judicial actions having the specificity as their manufacture, in subjects, their remedial registration as according to the changes brought in UPK the Russian Federation from December, 29th, 2010 № 433-FZ, probably to approve, that the judicial actions directed on collecting of material evidences are allocated, is carried out not only the trial court, but also within the limits of session of the court of appeal instance.

The stated allows to draw the following conclusion. Taking into account the specificity of activity of court directed on collecting of proofs, consisting in other remedial order and other conditions by manufacture of judicial actions, and also their fastening, is necessary to differentiate ways of collecting of proofs in the criminal trial. In pre-judicial manufacture by the basic ways of collecting of proofs investigatory actions, and in judicial - judicial actions are.

For definition of a circle of actions which should be called judicial, it is necessary to pay attention what court the legislator has allocated with the special powers fixed in item 29 UPK the Russian Federation. Courts of justice represent an independent branch of the power, the court is the participant of the criminal trial with the exclusive remedial status, special responsibility is placed at court in criminal trial on osushchestvle - niju justice for what powers of court both during proceeding are legislatively fixed, and in pre-judicial manufacture. Realisation of these powers is provided by due processes of law of justice and impartiality of judicial business.

As the court in modern process urged to condition for realisation by the parties of the laws of procedure and execution of remedial duties by them court actions are not exclusively individual, they develop as a result of activity of the persons participating in session of the court. These actions not always are made personally by representatives of the judicial authority, sometimes and other participants of criminal trial, but always under an accurate organizational management of the judge.

Judicial actions are made only within the limits of proceeding, the result of judicial action is fixed by the remedial document: the report of session of the court and (or) a judgement.

From the maintenance of item 29 UPK the Russian Federation providing powers vessels, follows, that the system of judicial actions includes: judicial actions as ways of collecting of proofs, judicial-control actions, organizatsionnoobespechitelnye judicial actions.

Summing up, we consider possible to formulate concept definition «judicial actions» and to add with it item 51.1 of item 5 UPK the Russian Federation. «Judicial actions are spent within the limits of examination during trial under an organizational management of court remedial combined action of court and other participants of the criminal trial, collecting having by the appointment, check and evaluation of evidence, the course and which results are fixed in the report of session of the court».

Ways of collecting of material evidences in judicial manufacture are the judicial actions consisting of investigatory actions, regulated gl. 37 UPK the Russian Federation, and other legal proceedings of the informative character, directed on detection of the new material evidences important for criminal case, carried out by court, the persons participating in business, and their representatives.

R.V.Kostenko carries to judicial actions: «interrogation of the defendant, announcement of indications of the defendant, interrogation of the victim, interrogation of the witness, familiarising with materials of criminal case of written notes and the documents concerning indications of the victim and the witness, announcement of indications of the victim and the witness, interrogation of the expert, expert testimony in court manufacture, survey of material evidences, announcement of reports of investigatory actions, the expert's statement and other documents, familiarising with materials of criminal case of the documents presented to court, district and premise survey, sledstven -

~ 271

nyj experiment, a presentation for an identification, survey », that corresponds to the criminal procedure law. Also this list it is necessary

272

To add with interrogation of the expert as we specified earlier that follows from close interpretation ch. 4 items 271 UPK the Russian Federation.

The specified actions can be carried to the judicial actions used as ways of collecting of proofs as in UPK the Russian Federation they contain in gl. 37 which regulates examination during trial, and they have the purpose of reception of the evidentiary information. However to carry the full specified list of judicial actions to ways of collecting of material evidences in judicial manufacture it is impossible. But in a context of a theme of the present research interest three kinds of judicial actions, namely familiarising of the documents presented to court, district and premise survey, survey as represent ways of collecting of material evidences.

Representation and discovery of documents during examination during trial are directly provided in item 286 UPK the Russian Federation where it is specified, that the documents which presented to session of the court or have been obtained on demand by court, can be on the basis of definition or the court decision are investigated and attached to criminal case materials. However in this article it is spoken nothing about possibility to present subjects. At the same time on sense ch. The Russian Federation during session of the court participants of criminal trial have the right to collect and represent 2 items 86 UK not only documents, but also subjects for their familiarising with criminal case. Besides, according to ch. 1 item 271 UPK the Russian Federation the chairman in a preparatory part of session of the court interrogates the parties and finds out, whether there are for them petitions for a call of new witnesses, experts, experts, about reclamation of material evidences and documents. The analysis of the specified norm gives the basis to approve, that reclamation of subjects also is possible during proceeding. It is carried out by court or by delivery to the persons petitioning for reclamation written or material evidences, inquiries about the right to receive and present to court required object. The specified reclamation should be considered as a way of collecting of material evidences during proceeding.

The stated allows to assume, that though item 286 UPK the Russian Federation has no direct instruction concerning reclamation of subjects and documents as ways of collecting of the proofs, the given actions are possible during session of the court as ways of collecting of material evidences that follows from the analysis specified before norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. For completion of this blank, reduction of analyzed norm of the criminal law of procedures in conformity with the developed practice we suggest item 286 UPK the Russian Federation to add: after a word "documents" to specify «and subjects», further under the text.

Representation of proofs is carried out by participants of proceeding, and the court makes the decision on familiarising of material data carriers to materials of criminal case as a material evidence. Reclamation as a way of collecting of material evidences is carried out by court under the petition by litigants or under own initiative. Representation and reclamation of data carriers during examination during trial - the phenomena frequent enough, and representation and reclamation of material carriers - on -

tentsialnyh material evidences during proceeding meets much less often, that proves to be true the analysis of the studied criminal cases.

In the given context I had been studied the following question: «What objects joined criminal case during proceeding by representation and reclamation?». As a result of generalisation of 300 criminal cases (100 %) it is established, that during judicial manufacture on criminal cases by representation and reclamation objects as proofs in 281 (100 %) a case, in particular joined: subjects - 27 (9,6 %), written evidences - 234 (83,3 %) (from them as material evidences it is attached to materials of business 12), other materials - 20 (7,1 %). Thus material evidences have been presented and obtained on demand only in 39 cases that constitutes 13,9 % from the general number of the proofs entered upon the record during proceeding by representation and истребования273.

As a result of research the insignificant number of cases of representation and reclamation during proceeding of subjects - potential material evidences has been revealed. The court, however, uses the specified ways of collecting of material evidences to what the example resulted further testifies.

N worked as the nurse in surgical branch of hospital, received for patients narkotikosoderzhashchie medicines, however instead of them by the patient did pricks of ordinary anaesthetising medicines. The saved ampoules with drugs sold. In criminal case materials there was a record of search in which course of the house at N have been found out narkotikosoderzhashchie medicines. During proceeding the court has obtained on demand from case record hospital in which N did by the hand fictitious records about the pricks made it and hundred -

Twisted the signature. The given case records have been attached to materials of criminal case as material evidences.

According to item 284 UPK the Russian Federation regulating survey of material evidences during examination during trial, the person to which material evidences are shown, have the right to pay attention of court to the circumstances important for criminal case. We believe, that will be fair to accord in such situation a right and to the party which represents material evidences to pay attention the vessels to the circumstances important for criminal case. This important addition which is fixed in the report of session of the court, focuses attention of court to the concrete features of a represented subject stated by both parties of criminal trial, corresponds to criminal trial principles.

Proceeding from told, it is represented pertinent to suggest to add item 284 UPK the Russian Federation new ch. 1.1 following maintenances: «the party which represents material evidences, has the right to pay attention of court to the circumstances important for criminal case».

The second judicial action which interests us within the limits of dissertational research, is a survey of district and a premise, provided by item 287 UPK the Russian Federation. We will notice, that, having provided possibility of manufacture of the specified judicial action, the legislator did not concretise, what district and what premise can be examined, has not designated sense of its carrying out. Thereupon in practice there are lawful questions: carrying out of survey of district and a premise is for what purpose possible, whether scene survey can be made, whether has the right court to inspect dwelling? The given conclusion is made on the basis of the research carried out by me. In particular, 235 practical workers have been questioned. On a question «you Can, analyzing norms of the criminal procedure law to formulate the answer to a question, carrying out of survey of district and a premise in a course is for what purpose possible

Proceeding? »Only 36 persons (15,3 %) have answered positively, the negative answer of a distance of 170 respondents (72,4 %), 29 persons (12,3 %) were at a loss to answer. Also the following question has been asked to 235 practical workers: whether« Can, in your opinion, be examined scenes during examination during trial? ». The negative answer of a distance of 159 respondents (67,7 %), positive - 41 (17,4 %), were at a loss to answer 35 practical workers (14,9 %). Whether On a question« the court, in your opinion Has the right, to examine dwelling? »62 respondents (26,4 %) have positively answered only, is negative - 138 (58,7 %), were at a loss to answer 35 respondents (14,9 %).

So, in the law district survey is provided. To understand, what object can be examined court in this case, it is necessary to address to semantics of the term "district". The term "district" has following definitions: 1) any certain place, space, a site of a terrestrial surface; mountainous, steppe district; open district; 2) edge, district; country place; a countryside. Proceeding from the specified interpretation, it is possible to draw a conclusion that is a question of an open part of a terrestrial surface. Therefore it is represented what examine court can both a scene, and other district when, for example, survey has not been spent during preliminary investigation or in the record of search results spent before survey and also when participants of process give various interpretation to circumstances and the facts are not completely reflected.

In the law it is spoken about premise survey, but the dwelling can appear the crime scene. We believe, the court has the right to inspect dwelling. It does not contradict the law, "dwelling" is covered by concept "premise". The decision on carrying out of survey of dwelling can accept court during proceeding, having listened to opinion of participants of process.

By the spent analysis of judicial and investigatory practice, unfortunately, it is not established any criminal case where the court would extract a potential material evidence at premise or dwelling survey. So, whether 300 criminal cases on a question «have been studied Are available in materials of criminal cases of data on manufacture by court of surveys of a premise or dwelling?». Me it is not revealed any certificate on manufacture by court specified judicial действия279. However it does not mean, that the given judicial action cannot be considered as a way of collecting of material evidences during examination during trial.

Confirming to the told we will simulate a situation. During proceeding on criminal case about rape under the petition of the victim court the decision to examine a premise - apartment of the victim where the crime has been committed was accepted. During survey by one of participants of proceeding behind a bedside table in one of apartment rooms the button with the fabric rests has been found out. By the spent expert testimony in court it is established, that a button with the fabric rests once constituted a single whole with a jacket of the defendant withdrawn from it during a search on preliminary investigation. Taking into account the new subject entered in the course of proceeding (a button with the rests of threads) as a material evidence the court could make the correct decision on criminal case.

We believe, that the basic sense of carrying out of survey of district and a premise consists in checking up on a place, for example, indications of the defendant who has sustained, the witness to compare their indications with conditions on a scene, to receive the visual representation about a scene, and, at last, to check up conclusions of bodies of preliminary investigation. Scene survey directly is not directed on detection and withdrawal of potential material evidences as by the legal investigation moment in court there passes a lot of time. Nevertheless we consider, that at carrying out of this action new subjects with signs of material evidences can be found out. Here it is necessary to notice, that the court cannot aggravate with gathering of new proofs position of the defendant.

Practice shows, that courts during session of the court quite often examine district, in particular, on the affairs connected with infringement of rules of traffic and operation of vehicles, leaving on a scene, for example, really to present a road situation at the moment of road accident fulfilment to check up arguments of bodies of preliminary investigation, to compare indications of participants of proceeding with conditions on the crime scene. Also courts practise departures for the purpose of crime scene survey on criminal cases about thefts. Proceeding from materials studied by me during dissertational research of 300 criminal cases, at question research «At what trial of crimes courts left on the crime scene?» It is established, that courts left on the crime scene. In total such actions it is made 31 (100 %), thus left on road accident in 17 cases (54,8 %), on thefts, robberies and robberies - in 12 cases (38,7 %), on other crimes - in 2 cases (6,5 %) 280.

However detection of new material evidences by manufacture of the given judicial action - the phenomenon the extremely rare. We have fixed only one similar case during our research which we will result as an example.

The court considered criminal case about theft of a ladies' bag with money which stood on a table in a study of the chief of shop of a bakery. The defendant, being in the street, has stolen a bag through a window leaf by means of a stick which has picked up a bag, has pulled out it through a window leaf, has got money from a bag, and a bag has thrown out in bushes near to a building. The court to be convinced of possibility of fulfilment of similar theft (a way of fulfilment of theft), has left on the crime scene. The district adjoining to a building from which theft has been made has been examined. During survey the court was convinced of possibility of fulfilment of theft of a bag, thus near to the crime scene in

Grass thickets the empty ladies' bag which was identified by the victim has been found out. We will underline, that such in judiciary practice happens not often.

The analysis of the studied criminal cases has allowed to reveal one more judicial action which is not provided UPK the Russian Federation, but is actually spent during proceeding. It is check of indications of the defendant who has sustained witnesses.

For example, courts with participation of the expert, the expert check arguments of the defendant about impossibility of drawing to the victim of the physical injuries established by examination. For this purpose it is direct in courtroom the defendant with participation of the victim and the expert shows, how it, in its opinion, struck blow, then the expert's statement, the expert by results of the taken place check of indications of the defendant about possibility or impossibility of causing to the victim of the established physical injuries is listened. In a described situation check of indications without departure into place is carried out.

However at check of indications on a place during proceeding simultaneously the court can examine district and a premise, in spite of the fact that the main objective of survey of district and a premise, as earlier already was marked, consists in checking up on a place, for example, indications of the defendant who has sustained, the witness to compare their indications with conditions on a scene, to receive the visual representation about a scene, eventually, to check up conclusions of bodies of preliminary investigation. But all these actions in this case, in our opinion, should be covered only by one judicial action - check of indications on a place. Certainly, given judicial action is not directed on reception of new material evidences. But it is represented, that addition UPK the Russian Federation this judicial action is necessary, as it will promote effective proceeding and acceptance of a correct judgement on criminal case.

For blank elimination in the legislation, in my opinion, it is necessary to add gl. 37 UPK the Russian Federation the new separate item 288.1 regulating manufacture of check of indications of the defendant, sustained, the witnesses, the following maintenance.

«Article 288.1. Check of indications

Under the petition by litigants or under own initiative the court has the right to inspect indications of the defendant who has sustained, witnesses with participation of the parties, and in need of witnesses, the expert, the expert according to requirements of article 194 of the present Code. Check of indications is made on the basis of definition or the court decision in courtroom or in other place ».

As we have come to conclusion that by manufacture of judicial survey of district and a premise detection of new proofs, including potential material evidences is possible, that the found out subjects have got value of material evidences, the court should execute procedure of their familiarising with criminal case materials. For this purpose it is necessary for court to make dredging of this subject, to examine, take out the decision about entering upon the record as a material evidence. The requirement for carrying out of dredging during session of the court is caused also by the maintenance ch. 2 items 86 UPK the Russian Federation from which follows, that presented by participants of process documents and subjects then will get the status of material evidences when the court will execute corresponding procedure where dredging enters also. However UPK the Russian Federation in judicial manufacture of dredging does not provide.

In connection with stated for elimination of the specified blank it is represented proved to add the offer UPK the Russian Federation with the new article providing carrying out by court of dredging of subjects and documents.

Proceeding reforming of the criminal procedure legislation provides optimisation of a standard regulation of process of collecting of proofs, expansions of the list of ways of collecting of proofs. Thereupon it is easy to assume possibility in the long term introductions in judicial criminal manufacture of a search as way of collecting of material evidences. Absence of possibility of manufacture by search court, on mine to me -

niju, does not promote finding-out of all circumstances necessary for the decision of a lawful and proved sentence. If the search promotes maintenance of all-round, full and objective research of circumstances of business in session of the court it should be provided the legislation.

The stated allows to express opinion that in the basic ways of collecting of material evidences in judicial manufacture are: 1) representation by their parties, other persons participating in business and their representatives; 2) reclamation by their court from persons and the organisations at which they are; 3) delivery to the persons petitioning for reclamation of material evidences, inquiries about the right to receive and present them to court.

It is impossible to agree with opinion of some authors that ways of collecting of proofs in pretrial stages and proceeding stages are identical. In that case it should to recognise, that manufacture of investigatory actions on collecting of material evidences probably at all stages of judicial manufacture. Besides, on sense of item 274 and 291 UPK the Russian Federation all the same it is necessary to recognise as the basic maintenance of examination during trial not collecting of proofs, and their research. The list of ways with which help the court collects material evidences, considerably already, than in pre-judicial manufacture.

From the maintenance of item 86 UPK the Russian Federation follows, that collecting of material evidences probably during all criminal trial. The maintenance of item 86 UPK can quite mislead the Russian Federation, in my opinion, that collecting of material evidences probably and in a stage of preparation for proceeding.

About possibility of collecting of proofs in a stage of preparation for session of the court scientists state various, at times opposite opinions. So, for example, V.D.Arsenyev considered «as collecting of proofs satisfaction of petitions for their reclamation and a call in session of the court of additional witnesses and experts». At the same time S.A.Shejfer defines such treatment of collecting of proofs excessively wide as in the specified cases «activity on reception and fastening of the fact sheet» is not carried out.

In action UPK RSFSR V.Z.Lukashevich's approving opinion was lawful, that «at the given stage of criminal trial collecting of proofs at all has no place».

The analysis of norms of the criminal procedure law regulating the general order of preparation for session of the court (gl. 33 UPK the Russian Federation), testifies that the basic maintenance of the specified stage of criminal trial consists in revealing of presence of remedial conditions for consideration of criminal case by the trial court, definition of an order of carrying out of proceeding, maintenance of creation of necessary conditions of its carrying out.

Considering a question on possibility of collecting of proofs in a stage of preparation for session of the court, it is important to notice, that it consists of two parts: obligatory which is carried out on all criminal cases, and facultative, consisting in the preliminary hearing, the spent ambassador of the general part of preparation for session of the court when there are doubts concerning possibility of consideration of criminal case by the trial court.

It is necessary to notice, that powers of the judge within the limits of the general order of preparation for session of the court are limited and according to item 227, 228 UPK the Russian Federations are reduced only to check of following circumstances: observance by bodies of preliminary investigation and the public prosecutor of criminal procedure procedures of preliminary investigation and inquiry, a criminal case direction in court; maintenance during pre-judicial manufacture of the rights and legitimate interests of participants of criminal trial; absence of the circumstances interfering consideration of criminal case, and also attracting stay or the termination

Criminal case. That is in a stage of preparation for session of the court in the general order the judge checks quality of preliminary investigation by studying of materials. The basic maintenance of proving in this stage is a logic check and evaluation of evidence. UPK the Russian Federation the permission of the questions, concerning completeness of evidentiary base, validity of the accusations brought to the citizen is not provided, the question on qualification of acts of the convicted is not considered.

Such statement follows from explanations of the Decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from December, 22nd, 2009 № 28 «About application by vessels of norms of the criminal procedure legislation regulating preparation of criminal case to proceeding» where it is noticed, that by preparation of business for proceeding it is necessary to the judge, having studied business materials to find out, whether are observed by agencies in charge of preliminary investigation and preliminary investigation of the requirement of the criminal procedure law, regulating pre-judicial manufacture, whether there are no the circumstances interfering or excluding its consideration by court, whether is available petitions coming under to the permission and complaints of the parties, the bases for carrying out of preliminary hearing, whether there is a necessity of acceptance on the given questions of statutory remedial decisions and performance of legal proceedings with a view of maintenance of the unobstructed, correct permission of criminal case with the trial court.

The law does not give possibility to collect material evidences by preparation of criminal case for session of the court in the general order, at the same time, the given possibility is given within the limits of preliminary hearing by parts 7-8 items 234 UPK the Russian Federation where it is told, that at receipt of the petition from protection about reclamation of corroborating evidences, or subjects comes under to satisfaction if the given proofs and subjects have values for criminal case, and also under the petition by litigants, as witnesses any persons to whom something is known about circumstances of manufacture of investigatory actions, or withdrawals and familiarizings with criminal case of documents, except for the persons possessing witness immunity can be interrogated. For example, understood which participated in investigatory action manufacture, but have not been interrogated as witnesses on preliminary investigation, however at a sight of litigants it is necessary to present them as witnesses.

According to item 228 UPK the Russian Federation the judge during preparation for session of the court considers the declared petitions of participants of the criminal trial, the Russian Federations which have arrived according to item 229 UPK. These actions during preliminary hearing which, according to some authors, is analogue of proceeding with observance of all principles of justice, only with other subject of trial are carried out.

Once again it is possible to be convinced of it, analyzing positions of item 229 UPK the Russian Federation regulating carrying out of preliminary hearing, being a part of preparation for session of the court on which sense in preliminary hearing the question on an exception of proofs comes under to consideration, in cases when the party underlines on admitted at reception and research of this proof the law-breakings attracting its inadmissibility. Within the limits of preliminary hearing consideration of petitions for an exception of incompetent evidences is possible.

Thus, the carried out analysis allows me to express opinion that within the limits of preliminary hearing it is necessary to investigate necessarily circumstances of infringement of ways of collecting of material evidences in pre-judicial manufacture for the purpose of decision-making on returning of criminal case to the public prosecutor for elimination of the revealed lacks or a recognition of the proofs received with law-breakings, inadmissible.

The given position corresponds to explanations of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which in the Decision from October, 31st, 1995 (in red. From March, 03rd, 2015) № 8 «About some questions of application by vessels of the Constitution of the Russian Federation at justice realisation» has specified, that it is necessary to pay attention of vessels to necessity of performance of the constitutional position that at justice realisation use of the proofs received with infringement of the Federal act (ch is not supposed. 2 items 50 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), and also performance of requirements of item 75 UPK the Russian Federation in which force the proofs received with infringement of the criminal procedure legislation, have no validity and cannot be taken as a principle charges. The court should motivate the decision on an exception of such proof received with law-breaking, from body of evidence on business, having specified in what law-breaking was expressed.

Thus, at a stage of preparation of criminal case to proceeding the court can collect proofs, satisfying petitions by litigants about representation of subjects and documents, on reclamation of subjects and documents for their familiarising with criminal case. All actions of court in this part find reflexion in the report of session of the court.

Whether at studying of 300 criminal cases the question «was found out Are available in materials of business of representation of subjects and documents in a stage of preparation for session of the court?». Cases of representation of subjects and documents with signs of material evidences in a stage of preparation of business to proceeding it has been noted at all. Whether also the question «was investigated Are available in materials of business of the petition for reclamation of subjects and documents in a stage of preparation for session of the court?» . It has been established in criminal cases of 29 petitions for reclamation of objects (9,7 %). Thus, single instances of the discovery of documents took place, all reclamations have been made under the petition of participants of process. At the initiative of the judge of cases of reclamation of proofs it is not established. The personal operational experience of the competitor also confirms with the assistant to the judge unwillingness of judges to use 7-8 items 234 UPK given by parts the Russian Federation possibilities on expansion of informative potential of a stage of preparation for session of the court.

The stated allows to draw a conclusion that the regions covered by our empirical research, in a stage of preparation for session of the court there is not claimed a collecting of proofs, in particular, subjects and documents which can be material evidences.

According to gl. 35 UPK the Russian Federation, regulating proceeding general terms, during a stage of proceeding the court should investigate all proofs necessary and sufficient for acceptance of the correct decision on criminal case (except for the cases provided by section H of the present Code). Proving in a proceeding stage occurs in the conditions of the fullest realisation of principles of the criminal trial. Article 286 UPK the Russian Federation gives to court the right to investigate and attach to materials of criminal case the documents which presented to session of the court by the parties or have been obtained on demand by court. At this stage all persons interested in issue of a suit, their representatives who in adversary procedure realise the rights on participation in proving by representation of subjects and documents, statements of petitions before court about reclamation of subjects and the documents important for criminal case take part. Thus the court also collects, investigates and estimates proofs.

In comparison with UPK RSFSR 1960, gl. 37 UPK the Russian Federation has essentially expanded the list of judicial actions on collecting of proofs in a proceeding stage. So, in examination during trial the defendant under condition of its consent to give evidence (item 275) can be interrogated; (item 277), interrogation of the witness (item 278), the expert (item 282) are made interrogation of the victim. The court under the initiative or under the petition by litigants can appoint examination (item 283), to examine material evidences (item 284), to attach to criminal case materials the documents presented by the parties, to obtain on demand them under own initiative (item 286), to examine district, a premise (item 287) to spend investigatory experiment (item 288), to show the person or a subject for an identification (item 289), to spend survey (item 290). Considering stated, it is necessary to recognise, that the court problem in search of new sources of the information is less actual, than a problem of the inspector. P.S.Elkind, referring to discrepancy of character and volume of actions on collecting of proofs in stages of preliminary investigation and proceeding, fairly noticed, that «it is impossible to speak about unity of remedial means of an establishment of true the inspector and court».

Nevertheless in a trial court arsenal there are various ways of collecting of proofs, including material. In the trial court the basic is carried out and a proceeding body - the examination during trial which problems are research of the proofs presented by the parties directly in session of the court about the circumstances which are coming under to proving; the decision of questions on the relevancy, an admissibility, sufficiency of proofs on criminal case being on consideration. Stated allows me to draw a conclusion that in judicial criminal manufacture collecting of material evidences is carried out, first of all, in the trial court during proceeding, basically subjects and documents in which the data important for given criminal case contain, fixed both in written, and in other kind gather.

At the same time criminal case can be considered not in the general order, and in a special order of the proceeding regulated by section H UPK the Russian Federation at which session of the court and the sentence decision are carried out without proceeding carrying out. According to item 316 UPK the Russian Federation the judge does not carry out the general order research and the evaluation of evidence, collected on criminal case. On sense of specified article examination during trial as that is not spent, in this connection in such court collecting of proofs is not carried out, as there is no examination during trial. We believe, that completely with these arguments to agree it is impossible, as by criminal case consideration in a special order of proceeding there is an examination during trial, though and at «the truncated kind».

Such statement follows not only from position of item 316 UPK the Russian Federation, but also from explanations of the Decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from December, 5th, 2006 № 60 «About application by vessels of a special order of proceeding of criminal cases» where in item 10 it is specified, that on the business considered in a special order, during session of the court the circumstances characterising the person of the defendant, the circumstances softening and aggravating punishment (from this follows, that nevertheless at this stage there are examination during trial elements as there is a representation of the various documents connected with the person of the defendant, or with the circumstances softening and aggravating punishment) can be investigated.

From this follows, that the defendant and its defender and at such order of consideration of criminal case can represent the proofs characterising the person of the defendant, and the circumstance, allowing to soften or aggravate punishment (characteristics, inquiries on a state of health, structure of a family, the certificate of birth of juvenile and minor children etc.). However collecting of material evidences by criminal case consideration in a special order of proceeding is impossible, as court agrees item 316 UPK the Russian Federation does not carry out research and evaluation of evidence on the substance of the committed crime.

Since January, 1st, 2013 the Federal act № 433-FZ about introduction of an appeal order of revision of sentences and other decisions of trial courts on all criminal cases has taken effect in full. The given changes in UPK the Russian Federation are directed on perfection of remedial rules of check of legality, validity, motivation and justice of the judgements which have not entered validity on criminal cases for the purpose of the further increase guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation of level of judicial protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens and the organisations involved in the criminal trial.

The system analysis of norms UPK the Russian Federation regulating manufacture in court of appeal instance, has allowed to draw a conclusion that manufacture in court of appeal instance is carried out in an order established gl. 35-39 UPK the Russian Federation, i.e. the same as for the trial court, with withdrawals, statutory.

From here it is logical to draw the following conclusion: collecting of proofs including material, it is carried out in court of appeal instance in such volume, as well as in the trial court as assumes possibility of revision of judicial certificates (both total, and intermediate) the trial court, has a set of means for sentence revision by rules of disposal of legal proceeding in the trial court.

In a context of research of ways of collecting of material evidences at all stages of the criminal trial, studying of this question within the limits of various stages of judicial criminal manufacture we were interested by a question on possibility of collecting of proofs at a stage of execution of sentence. We believe, it is possible to jump to a conclusion that the stage of execution of sentence is free from collecting of proofs. However the analysis of norms UPK the Russian Federation regulating execution of sentence, allows to approve an inaccuracy of the specified assumptions as UPK the Russian Federation provides item 397 including a significant amount of questions, coming under to consideration by court at execution of sentence. Condemned has the right to a reference to the court with petitions for change of a kind correctional facility appointed a sentence vessels, for replacement of not left part of punishment with softer kind of punishment, for cancellation of probation and previous conviction removal, for is conditional-preschedule clearing of punishment. In connection with consideration of the specified questions by court with participation of the persons which interests are mentioned by criminal trial, the defender, the authorised state bodies and officials collecting of proofs is carried out. So, for example, condemned and its defender has the right to address in court about is conditional-preschedule clearing of punishment. For consideration of the specified petition the court can obtain on demand the private affair condemned, and condemned can present to court the inquiry on a state of health. Such statements follow from explanations of the Decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from December, 20th, 2011 № 21 «About practice of application by legislation vessels about

292

Execution of sentence ».

However stated also allows to conclude, that at a stage of execution of sentence collecting of material evidences is not carried out, as as execution of sentence the sentence in essence cannot be reviewed, i.e. on legality, validity and justice, and decision-making on the questions specified in item 397 UPK the Russian Federation is carried out on the basis of studying of the documents presented to court.

According to item 401.1 UPK the Russian Federation the court of court of cassation checks under the appeal for review, representation legality of a sentence, definition and the court decision, entered validity. Proceeding from the legal nature of cassation manufacture and its appointment, a cassation subject is check under appeals for review, representation of legality of the judicial certificate which has entered validity. Unlike manufacture in court of appeal instance where the sentence which has not entered validity, definition, the court decision are checked about legality, validity, justice, i.e. both under "matters of law", and under "matters of fact" (by manufacture rules in the trial court), the court of cassation checks only the judicial certificates which have entered validity and only about their legality. Thus does not concern actual facts of a crime, guilt or innocence of the person, validity or a charge absence of proof. The court of cassation urged not to substitute courts of the first and appeal instances, not to overestimate the actual facts of business established by these degrees of jurisdiction, and to represent itself as an additional guarantee pravosudnosti a judgement, justice of justice by check of exclusively legal questions - about correctness of application by vessels of the first and appeal instances of norms of the material law and observance of norms of the criminal procedure law. However the court of cassation nevertheless is allocated by the right of the permission of criminal case in essence, for example, in cases of change of a judgement or its cancellation with phase-out on criminal case.

These statements follow from the Decision of Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation from January, 28th, 2014 № 2 «About application of norms of chapter 47.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, regulating manufacture in court of court of cassation» which in item 9 has explained, that owing to item 401.1 UPK the Russian Federation by consideration of the appeal for review and representation the court (judge) of court of cassation checks only legality of judgements, i.e. correctness of application of norms criminal and the criminal procedure (matters of law). Taking into account the given restriction appeal for review and representation arguments in which correctness of an establishment is challenged by court of actual facts only has put (matters of fact), to check do not come under.

At the same time, if in the cassation complaint and representation contains instructions on the infringements of the criminal procedure admitted by court at research or evaluation of evidence (for example, a substantiation of a sentence incompetent evidences) which have affected correctness of an establishment court of actual facts of business and have led to a miscarriage of justice such conclusions should not be left by the judge without check. Complaints, representations on injustice of a sentence, on which the punishment mismatching magnitude of offence, persons condemned, or on which court unfair punishment owing to its excessive softness or excessive severity has been appointed (ch is appointed. 2 items 389.18 UPK), come under to check by court of court of cassation, in a case if such decree was a consequence of wrong application of norms of General part UK (for example, item 60 positions). If cassation complaint and representation along with others contain arguments which owing to the law do not concern a subject of check of court of court of cassation in this part the court (judge) leaves them without check, on what specifies in a judgement.

The stated allows to draw the following conclusion: collecting of proofs at the specified stage is possible, but in the form of representation by the parties of inquiries, characteristics, etc. documents, but collecting of material evidences at this stage cannot be made.

Norms gl. 48.1 UPK the Russian Federation the remedial order of revision of the judgements which have entered validity on criminal cases in Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation which acts as unique judicial-supervising instance and the higher degree of jurisdiction on criminal cases is regulated. Manufacture in supervisory authority court basically is carried out by the same rules, as manufacture in court of court of cassation as both data of manufacture have uniform a subject, the purposes and problems, and also the general bases of revision. Last position allows to admit, that collecting of proofs at the specified stage of the criminal trial is possible, but it does not concern collecting of material evidences.

In the supervisory authority, we believe, participants of criminal trial inquiries, characteristics, certificates of birth of children and other documents can be presented. Material evidences cannot interest the supervisory authority as its problem is check of exclusively legality of a sentence, definitions, court decisions, i.e. correctness of application of norms criminal and the criminal procedure (matters of law) is checked.

As to a stage of renewal of criminal proceeding in view of the new or again opened circumstances it is necessary to notice, that it represents an independent stage of the criminal trial, having the appointment revision by court above of the sentences which have entered validity, definitions, court decisions in connection with the circumstances, not known to court at their removal. This stage difficult as includes two stages: 1) pre-judicial manufacture on check of again opened circumstances or investigation of new facts; 2) actually manufacture in court, competent to carry out revision of the judicial certificate on the basis of the conclusion of the public prosecutor or the Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

According to item 415 UPK the Russian Federations occasions to excitation of manufacture in view of the new or again opened circumstances can be messages of citizens, officials, and also the data received during preliminary investigation and judicial consideration of other criminal cases. The listed occasions to excitation of manufacture in view of the new or again opened circumstances should be issued remedially according to requirements of item 141 UPK the Russian Federation - the written message should be signed the applicant, oral - is entered in the minutes which subscribes the applicant and the person who has accepted the given message, the report should contain data about the applicant, and also about the documents proving the identity of the applicant. If the oral message about nepravosudnosti the judgement which has entered validity is made by manufacture of investigatory action or during judical inquiry it is entered accordingly in the minutes investigatory action or in the report of session of the court.

Under such circumstances, I believe, it is possible to recognise, that at this stage of a considered stage of the criminal trial collecting of proofs, including material is possible. The similar conclusion follows from ch. 4 items 415 UPK the Russian Federation where it is specified, that at investigation of new facts can be made investigatory and other legal proceedings in an order established UPK the Russian Federation, and therefore, in my opinion, by manufacture of such legal proceedings which are ways of collecting of material evidences, new material evidences can be collected.

At the second stage after the spent pre-judicial check court, competent to carry out revision of the judicial certificate, taking into account results of check in the conditions of adversary procedure considers the complaint of the interested person and does conclusions concerning, whether again opened circumstance (new fact) has been established and whether business new trial is necessary. At this stage collecting of proofs, but not material is obviously possible to me.

Thus, on the basis of stated it is possible to draw following conclusions.

Collecting of material evidences is carried out during examination during trial in vessels of the first and appeal instances by manufacture of judicial actions.

Judicial actions are spent within the limits of examination during trial under an organizational management of court remedial combined action of court and other participants of the criminal trial, collecting having by the appointment, check and evaluation of evidence, the course and which results are fixed in a uniform source of proofs - the report of session of the court. Allocation from all legal proceedings of judicial actions as ways of collecting of material evidences in judicial stages of the criminal trial with definition of the report of session of the court as uniform source of proofs will designate features of the specified ways of collecting of proofs and will promote reception of the material evidences which are meeting the requirements of the law, and consequently, to perfection of the criminal procedure legislation.

Collecting of material evidences probably within the limits of preliminary hearing in a stage of preparation for session of the court and at the first stage of a stage of renewal of criminal proceeding in view of the new or again opened circumstances at investigation of new facts by manufacture of investigatory and other legal proceedings in an order established by the present Code.

Ways of collecting of material evidences in judicial manufacture are the judicial actions consisting of investigatory actions, regulated gl. 37 UPK the Russian Federation, and other legal proceedings of the informative character, directed on collecting of the material evidences important for criminal case, carried out by court, the persons participating in business, and their representatives.

The basic ways of collecting of material evidences in judicial manufacture concern: 1) representation by their parties, other persons participating in business and their representatives; 2) reclamation by their court from persons and the organisations at which they are; 3) delivery to the persons petitioning for reclamation of material evidences, inquiries about the right to receive and present them to court.

For current legislation perfection in a part regulating collecting of material evidences in examination during trial, it is offered to add UPK the Russian Federation with article providing carrying out by court of dredging of subjects and documents, in the following edition.

«Article 289.1. Dredging of subjects and documents

Under the petition by litigants or under own initiative the court has the right to make dredging of certain subjects and the documents important for criminal case, with participation of the parties, and if necessary with participation of witnesses, the expert and the expert according to requirements of article 183 of the present Code. Dredging is spent on the basis of definition or the court decision ».

With a view of optimisation of the criminal trial within the limits of preliminary hearing it is necessary to investigate necessarily circumstances of infringement of ways of collecting of material evidences in pre-judicial manufacture for the purpose of decision-making on returning of criminal case to the public prosecutor for elimination of the revealed lacks or a recognition of the proofs received with infringements, inadmissible.

Though such judicial action as check of indications of the defendant who has sustained, witnesses, also it is not directed on reception of new material evidences, but promotes effective proceeding and acceptance of a correct judgement on criminal case. In the given context it is offered to add gl. 37 UPK the Russian Federation the separate article regulating manufacture of check of indications of the defendant, sustained, the witnesses, the following maintenance.

«Article 281.1. Check of indications

Under the petition by litigants or under own initiative the court has the right to make check of indications of the defendant who has sustained, witnesses which is made by court with participation of the parties, and in need of witnesses, the expert, the expert according to requirements of article 194 of the present Code. Check of indications is made on the basis of definition or the court decision ».

Article 286 UPK the Russian Federation does not provide the right of the parties to represent, and the court right to obtain on demand the subjects having signs of material evidences. The given actions as ways of collecting of material evidences are possible during session of the court that follows from the analysis resulted before norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, and also proves to be true practice. For legislative fastening of the given position it is necessary to make the addition allowing the parties in session of the court to represent subjects, and to court to obtain on demand subjects for their familiarising with criminal case as material evidences.

It is offered to item 286 UPK to add the Russian Federation: after a word "documents" to specify «and subjects», further under the text.

According to item 284 UPK the Russian Federation regulating survey of material evidences during examination during trial, the person to which material evidences are shown, have the right to pay attention of court to the circumstances important for criminal case. In such situation it is necessary to accord a right and to the party which represents material evidences to pay attention the vessels to the circumstances important for criminal case. We believe, this important addition which is fixed in the report of session of the court, focuses attention of court to concrete features of a represented subject, equalises the parties in criminal trial, corresponds to criminal trial principles.

For this purpose it is offered to add the Russian Federation in item 284 UPK to include ch. 1.1 following maintenances: «the party which represents material evidences, has the right to pay attention of court to the circumstances important for criminal case».

<< | >>
A source: MAMEDOV RAMIL JAGUBOVICH. WAYS OF COLLECTING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES IN THE RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCESS. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the candidate Jurisprudence. Krasnodar - 2016. 2016

More on topic § 3.2. WAYS OF COLLECTING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES IN JUDICIAL CRIMINAL MANUFACTURE:

  1. Chapter 1 CONCEPT AND WAYS OF COLLECTING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES OF CRIMINAL TRIAL RUSSIA
  2. Chapter 2 INVESTIGATORY AND OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AS WAYS OF COLLECTING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES IN THE CRIMINAL TRIAL
  3. Chapter 3 WAYS OF COLLECTING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES IN SEPARATE HUNDRED DIJAH CRIMINAL TRIAL
  4. § 2.1. INVESTIGATORY ACTIONS AS APPROPRIATE WAYS COLLECTING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES
  5. § 2.2. OTHER LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AS WAYS OF COLLECTING MATERIAL EVIDENCES
  6. MAMEDOV RAMIL JAGUBOVICH. WAYS OF COLLECTING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES IN THE RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCESS. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the candidate Jurisprudence. Krasnodar - 2016, 2016
  7. admissible ways of reception of material evidences On criminal cases
  8. § 1.2. THE GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC OF WAYS OF COLLECTING OF THE MATERIAL PROOFS IN CRIMINAL TRIAL
  9. § 1.1. CONCEPT OF COLLECTING OF MATERIAL EVIDENCES
  10. § 3.1. FEATURES OF WAYS OF COLLECTING OF THE MATERIAL PROOFS IN THE STAGE OF EXCITATION OF CRIMINAL CASE
  11. 3.1. Admissible subjects of reception of material evidences In criminal trial
  12. features of an estimation of material evidences on criminal cases
  13. 2.1. Essence, concept and value of material evidences in criminal trial
  14. an admissible order of reception of material evidences On criminal cases
  15. the admissible remedial form of material evidences in Criminal trial
  16. Chapter 3. Rules of an admissibility of material evidences In criminal trial
  17. Chapter 2. Material evidences in criminal trial: essence, concept, value and features of an estimation
  18. Kravchenko Maxim Evgenevich. the ADMISSIBILITY of MATERIAL EVIDENCES In CRIMINAL TRIAL. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of the master of laws. Krasnodar - 2017, 2017