Purposes of direct and indirect proof in criminal cases | Ugolovnaya yustitsiya – Russian Journal of Criminal Law. 2013. № 2 (2).

Purposes of direct and indirect proof in criminal cases

The paper describes circumstances subject to be proven, the content of which is fixed by Art. 73 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation as the purpose of the criminal procedure proof. The author analyses the given article and finds drawbacks in its structure and in description of circumstances subject to be proven. The author offers amendments and addenda to the articles that fix the purposes of the direct and indirect proof. It is suggested to give a regulatory definition of the purpose of proof. Its result, an outcome of efforts of subjects of proof to accomplish a common purpose, is a success if each participant has a similar concept of the purpose of proof. The regulatory fixation of the purpose is possible, though the result of its achieving will be different, determined by the type of the offence whose circumstances are to be proven. Facts to be proven are the event of offence and the lack of it, guilt and innocence. Proving such circumstances is the grounds for termination of criminal cases, prosecution, for entering an acquittal due to the lack of evidence or offence. As these circumstances are important for making essential decisions on a case, they must be fixed in Art. 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which describes the purposes of the law enforcer, not in Art. 74, which describes proofs. Circumstances that contributed to the offence are also subject to clarification. Addressing from these positions to the text of Art. 73 of the of Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not allow to immediately identify the connection. The reason to it is the lack of circumstances that correlate with the elements of offence, or circumstances that are regular only for some offences or irrelevant for criminal legal treatment. There are circumstances that can be used both in and after establishment of facts, which are equivalent to an offence, and there are circumstances that should be taken into account when deciding on non-punishment, the so-called circumstances of exemption from criminal liability, and circumstances that may lead to exemption from punishment. They are described in detail in the Criminal Code.

Download file
Counter downloads: 325

Keywords

цель, обстоятельства, подлежащие доказыванию, цели основного и дополнительных процессов доказывания, purpose, circumstances subject to be proven, purposes of direct and indirect proof

Authors

NameOrganizationE-mail
Barabash Anatoly S.Siberian Federal University (Krasnoyarsk)a.barabash@mail.ru
Всего: 1

References

Барабаш А.С. Истина и достоверность в уголовно-процессуальном познании // Вестник Красноярского госуниверситета. Сер.: Гуманитарные науки. 2004. № 6. С. 226-229.
Фролов С.А. Свойство относимости уголовно-процессуальных доказательств: проблемы теории и практики: дис.. канд. юрид. наук. Н. Новгород: НА МВД РФ, 2008. 256 с.
Банин В.А. Предмет доказывания в советском уголовном процессе (гносеологическая и правовая природа). Саратов: Изд-во Сарат. ун-та, 1981. 157 с.
Горский Г.Ф., Кокорев Л.Д., Элькинд П.С. Проблемы доказательств в советском уголовном процессе. Воронеж: Изд-во Воронеж. ун-та, 1978. 304 с.
Лузгин И.М. Расследование как процесс познания: учеб. пособие. М.: Высшая школа МВД, 1969. 95 с.
Барабаш А.С. Публичное начало российского уголовного процесса. СПб.: Юридический центр Пресс, 2009. 420 с.
 Purposes of direct and indirect proof in criminal cases | Ugolovnaya yustitsiya – Russian Journal of Criminal Law. 2013. № 2 (2).

Purposes of direct and indirect proof in criminal cases | Ugolovnaya yustitsiya – Russian Journal of Criminal Law. 2013. № 2 (2).

Download full-text version
Counter downloads: 2958
Download file