Behaviour evidences in system of indirect evidence

Now researches of evidentiary importance of data about the personality of the criminal established in thecourse of the analysis of vestiges of the crime are topical. Earlier the specified group of vestiges of the crime had rather a speculativevalue, but with the development of techniques of criminal behaviour analysis in the course of basic investigatory actions, the urgency ofthe considered information has sharply increased. The establishment of truth in the course of preliminary investigation and proceedingof criminal cases is carried out by proving circumstances, the set of which is the object of research in the given case. Proving here isfinding objective connections between the given phenomenon and other facts supporting it. The set of circumstances proved in a caseforms the subject of proving. With reference to our topic it is crucial that in a criminal case the subject of proving is circumstancescharacterizing the personality of the accused (Item 1 Part 1 Article 73 of CPC). Circumstances proved in a criminal case under certainconditions become evidence, direct or indirect. The basis of the given division of evidence is the distinction in the structure of theproving circumstance substantiation process. Direct evidence is the one directly establishing the circumstance, while the indirect oneestablishes the given circumstance through an intermediate fact. The legal literature states direct evidence as directly establishing theguilt of the person in committing a crime. Sometimes the main fact is the thesis of direct evidence. In the context it is obvious that thedata received in the course of the criminal's personality features analysis are not direct evidence, as it does not directly establish the guiltof the person in committing a crime. The system of indirect evidence should authentically establish the corresponding fact, denyingexplanations contradicting it. When building the system of indirect evidence it is important to consider independent sources of factsestablishing them. In the end it is possible to summarize that the competent, almost verified actions of criminal prosecution bodies oncollecting indirect evidence promote realization of problems of a criminal trial regarding disclosing of a crime and finding the personsguilty of its committing.

Keywords

Authors

References