Notion and Meaning of Evidence Verification in Criminal Procedure
Abstract
This article deals with the main topical issues of the notion and meaning of evidence verification in criminal procedure. Notwithstanding many scientific studies of various years, there are still many outstanding issues and conflicting opinions concerning the purposes, methods, subjects and procedural order of evidence verification. In law, the regulation of some procedural aspects related to verification is obviously insufficient. After all, this situation negatively influences the quality of preliminary investigation and a judicial decision passed. Meanwhile, the development of a unified scientific approach and clear legal regulation could facilitate the solution of important practical aspects, namely, the proof of fault and the quality of punishment imposed. In view of the foregoing, the authors of this article aim at analyzing all available information about evidence verification as an element of preliminary investigation to develop theoretical provisions that provide answers to outstanding issues as well as to improve regulations of Russian criminal procedure. This analysis comprises opinions of criminal procedure researchers, including foreign ones, and regulations of Russian criminal procedure law. The evidence verification and its purposes are considered by the authors in the context of the proper understanding of the very process of evidence in criminal cases. The authors represent the structural elements of the evidence process in close interrelation. Basing on the analysis of certain provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the authors conclude that the evidence verification is aimed at clarifying their reliability, relevance and admissibility. The attitude of this article’s authors may become a matter of scholarly discussion in future, and theoretical provisions developed by the authors may be used in learning aids and practical manuals for those who carry out preliminary investigation, and proposals for improving rules of procedure may be considered for supplementing procedural law.
References
[2] Aleksandrov, A.S., et al. 2003. Ugolovnyi protsess Rossii [Russian Criminal Procedure]. Moscow: Yurayt-Izdat.
[3] Balakshin, V.S. 2013. Dopustimost dokazatelstv: ponyatie, pravovaya priroda, znachenie, algoritm otsenki: nauchno-prakticheskoe posobie [Admissibility of Evidence: Notion, Legal Nature, Meaning, Assessment Algorithm (Academic Practical Learning Aids)]. Ekaterinburg: UMTs UPI Publishing House OOO.
[4] Borulenkov, Yu. 2003. Dopustimost dokazatelstv [Evidence Admissibility]. Zakonnost, 9, 30.
[5] Bozhyev, V.P. 2002. Ugolovnyi protsess: uchebnik [Criminal Procedure: Textbook] (3rd ed., revised and corrected]. Moscow: Spark.
[6] Dolya, E.A. 1994. Proverka dokazatelstv v rossiiskom ugolovnom protsesse (stadiya predvaritelnogo rassledovaniya) [Evidence Verification in Russian Criminal Procedure (Stage of Preliminary Investigation)]. Pravovedenie, 1, 27.
[7] Dolya, E.A. 1994. Sootnoshenie gnoseologicheskoi i pravovoi storon dokazyvaniya v rossiyskom ugolovnom protsesse [Correlation of Gnoseological and Legal Aspects of Proving in Russian Criminal Procedure]. Gosudarstvo i pravo, 10, 120.
[8] Fennelly, L.J., Perry, M.A. 2018. Investigations: 150 Things You Should Know (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann: 33-87.
[9] Grigoryev, V.N., Pobedkin, A.V. 2003. O metodologii sovershenstvovaniya dokazatelstvennogo prava [Methodology of Improving the Law of Evidence]. Gosudarstvo i pravo, 10, 60.
[10] Gromov, N.A., Zaytseva, S.A., Gushchin, A.N. 2006. Dokazatelstva, ikh vidy i dokazyvanie v ugolovnom protsesse [Evidences, Their Types and Proving in Criminal Procedure]. Moscow: Prior-izdat.
[11] Houck, M.M., Crispino, F., McAdam, T. 2018. The Science of Crime Scenes (2nd ed.). London: Elsevier Inc: 137-148.
[12] Kokorev, L.D., Kuznetsov, N.P. 1995. Ugolovnyi protsess: dokazatelstva i dokazyvanie [Criminal Procedure: Evidence and Proving]. Voronezh: Voronezh University Publishing.
[13] Kornakova, S.V. 2012. Logika ugolovno-protsessualnogo dokazyvaniya [Logic of Criminal Procedure Proving]: 138-140. Saarbrucken, Germany: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing.
[14] Kostenko, R.V. 2011. Dokazatelstva v ugolovnom protsesse: kontseptualnye podkhody i perspektivy pravovogo regulirovaniya [Evidence in Criminal Procedure: Concept Approaches and Prospects of Legal Regulation]. Saarbrucken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing GmbH and Co.: 36.
[15] Kostenko, R.V. 2012. Otsenka ugolovno-protsessualnykh dokazatelstv [Assessment of Evidence in Criminal Procedure]. (2nd ed.). Moscow: Yurlitinform.
[16] Larinkov, A.A. 2013. Voprosy proverki dokazatelstv na stadii sudebnogo razbiratelstva: teoreticheskie i prakticheskie aspekty [Issues of Evidence Verification at the Judicial Proceedings Stage: Matters of Theory and Practice]. Kriminalist, 1(12), 32.
[17] Lazareva, V.A. 2009. Dokazyvanie v ugolovnom protsesse: uchebno-prakticheskoe posobie [Proving in Criminal Procedure (Learning Aids)]. Moscow: Vysshee obrazovanie.
[18] Levchenko, O.V. 2000. Dokazyvanie v ugolovnom protsesse Rossii: monografiya [Proving in Russian Criminal Procedure (Monograph)]. Astrakhan: AGTU Publishing.
[19] Maslov, A.G. 1989. Proverka dokazatelstv – sredstvo obespecheniya zakonnosti v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Evidence Verification: Tool for Ensuring Legality in Criminal Proceedings]. In Voprosy ugolovnogo protsessa: mezhvuzovskii sbornik nauchnykh statei [Issues of Criminal Procedure: Interuniversity Collection of Scientific Articles] (Issue 4). Saratov: Publishing house of Saratov University: 40.
[20] Orlov, Yu.K. 2009. Problemy teorii dokazatelstv v ugolovnom protsesse [Issues of Theory of Evidence in Criminal Procedure]. Moscow: Yurist.
[21] Pechkurov, I.V. 2015. Ugolovno-protsessualnoe znachenie proverki dokazatelstv v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Meaning of Evidence Verification for Criminal Procedure]. Obshchestvennaya bezopasnost, zakonnost i pravoporyadok v III tysyacheletii, 1, 201.
[22] Petrukhin, I.L. 2001. Kommentarii k Ugolovno-protsessualnomu kodeksu RSFSR [Comment to the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure] (3rd ed., revised and corrected). Moscow: Prospekt.
[23] Rossinskiy, S.B. 2008. Ugolovnyi protsess Rossii [Russian Criminal Procedure]. Moscow: Eksmo.
[24] Sheyfer, S.A. 2001. Sledstvennye deystviya. Systema i protsessualnaya forma [Investigative Actions. System and Procedural Form]. Moscow: Yurlitinform.
[25] Sheyfer, S.A. 2009. Dokazatelstva i dokazyvanie po ugolovnym delam: problemy teorii i pravovogo regulirovaniya: monografiya [Evidences and Proving in Criminal Cases: Issues of Theory and Legal Regulation (Monograph)]. Moscow: Norma.
[26] Smorgunova, M.E. 2004. Teoreticheskie osnovy i praktika proverki dosudebnykh dokazatelstv v ugolovnom protsesse: dis. kand. yurid. nauk [Theoretical Fundamentals and Practice of Pretrial Evidence Verification in Criminal Procedure (PhD Thesis Abstract)]. Nizhegorodskaya Academy, Nizhny Novgorod: 28.
[27] Solovyev, A.B. 2003. Dokazyvanie po Ugolovno-protsessualnomu kodeksu Rossiyskoi Federatsii (dosudebnye stadii) [Proving under the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (Pretrial Stages)]. Moscow: Yurlitinform.
[28] Tetenkin, B.A. 1983. Proverka dokazatelstv v structure ugolovno-protsessualnogo dokazyvaniya: avtoref. dis. kand. yurid. nauk [Evidence Verification in the Structure of Proving in Criminal Procedure (PhD Thesis Autoabstract)]. Moscow: 7.
[29] Ushakov, D.N. 2008. Bolshoi tolkovyi slovar sovremennogo russkogo yazyka [Unabridged Defining Dictionary of the Modern Russian Language]. Moscow: Alta-print.
[30] Zhogin, N.V. 1973. Teoriya dokazatelstv v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse [Theory of Evidences in the Soviet Criminal Procedure] (2nd ed., revised and corrected). Moscow: Yuridicheskaya literatura.
The Copyright Transfer Form to ASERS Publishing (The Publisher)
This form refers to the manuscript, which an author(s) was accepted for publication and was signed by all the authors.
The undersigned Author(s) of the above-mentioned Paper here transfer any and all copyright-rights in and to The Paper to The Publisher. The Author(s) warrants that The Paper is based on their original work and that the undersigned has the power and authority to make and execute this assignment. It is the author's responsibility to obtain written permission to quote material that has been previously published in any form. The Publisher recognizes the retained rights noted below and grants to the above authors and employers for whom the work performed royalty-free permission to reuse their materials below. Authors may reuse all or portions of the above Paper in other works, excepting the publication of the paper in the same form. Authors may reproduce or authorize others to reproduce the above Paper for the Author's personal use or for internal company use, provided that the source and The Publisher copyright notice are mentioned, that the copies are not used in any way that implies The Publisher endorsement of a product or service of an employer, and that the copies are not offered for sale as such. Authors are permitted to grant third party requests for reprinting, republishing or other types of reuse. The Authors may make limited distribution of all or portions of the above Paper prior to publication if they inform The Publisher of the nature and extent of such limited distribution prior there to. Authors retain all proprietary rights in any process, procedure, or article of manufacture described in The Paper. This agreement becomes null and void if and only if the above paper is not accepted and published by The Publisher, or is with drawn by the author(s) before acceptance by the Publisher.