Author

Pastukhov P.S.

Title of article

On the issue of giving equal rights to the parties in collecting evidence for a criminal case

Section

Section 7. Criminal рrocedural review

Issue, year

3 (33) 2015

Abstract

Different viewpoints of scientists-processualists on the status of evidence obtained by both the prosecution and defence are considered. Great attention is paid to the concept of free evidence and prospects of its development. It is argued that defence attorney’s activity aimed at collecting evidence cannot be considered as nonprocedural or alter procedural. It is proposed to refuse any attempts to discriminate it basing on its proving importance and to determine its role in obtaining electronic evidence (actions aimed at obtaining evidence imply not only investigative actions). The role of attorney as a subject of proving in the criminal proceedings is argued. It is stated that Russia drops behind some former union states in the reform of criminal procedure law. The Georgian procedural legislation, providing for equality of parties’ rights in collecting evidence for a criminal case, is analyzed. It is noted that the Georgian legislators have created quite attractive legal model due to expanding the rights of the accused in this respect. It is especially evident in relation to problems of using the electronic evidence in proving. The right of the defence to collect evidence or to obtained evidence independently (if it does not imply violation of special statutory prohibitions) is supported. The regime of open access to the electronic information allows any subjects of proving to obtain and use it in their own interest. When determining the validity of such evidence, the judge should choose the most convincing way of obtaining evidence.

Keywords

criminal procedure, collecting evidence, defence, prosecution, defence attorney.

References

1. Levchenko O.V. Sistema sredstv poznavatel’noy deyatel’nosti v dokazyvanii po ugolovnym delam i ee sovershenstvovanie. Avtoref. Dokt. Diss. [The system means of cognitive activity in proving on criminal cases and its improvement. Autoabstract Doct. Diss.]. Krasnodar, 2004.

2. Kamyshin V.A. Inye dokumenty kak «svobodnoe» dokazatel’stvo v ugolovnom protsesse. Kand. Diss. [Other documents as “free” proof in a criminal trial.   Cand. Diss.]. Izhevsk, 1998.

3. Kukhta A.A. Dokazyvanie istiny v ugolovnom protsesse. Dokt. Diss. [Proving the truth in a criminal trial. Doct. Diss.]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2010.

4. Lazareva V.A. Dokazyvanie v ugolovnom protsesse [Proof in a criminal triall]. Moscow, Yurayt: Vysshee obrazovanie Publ., 2010.

5. Karyakin E.A. Dopustimost’ dokazatel’stv, sobrannykh zashchitnikom, i osushchestvlenie funktsii zashchity v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Admissibility of evidence collected by the defense and implementation of security features in the criminal trial]. Rossiyskaya yustitsiya – The Russian justice, 2003, no. 6.

6. Vlasova N.A. Vozbuzhdenie ugolovnogo dela: teoreticheskie i pravovye problemy [A criminal case. Theoretical and legal problems]. Zhurnal rossiyskogo prava – Journal of Russian law, 2000, no. 11.

7. Zuev S.V. Sposoby sobiraniya informatsii v ugolovnom protsesse [Methods of collecting information in the criminal process]. Problemy raskrytiya prestupleniy v svete sovremennogo ugolovnogo protsessual’nogo zakonodatel’stva [Problems solving crimes in the light of modern criminal procedural law]. Yekaterinburg, 2003.

8. Golovanova O.V. Advokatskoe poznanie po ugolovnomu delu. Kand. Diss. [Attorneys knowledge of the criminal case. Cand. Diss.]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2008.

9. Markelov A.G. Inye dokumenty kak dokazatel’stva v Rossiyskom ugolovnom protsesse. Kand. Diss. [Other documents as proofs in the Russian criminal trial. Cand.   Diss.]. Nizhny Novgorod, 2004.

10. Aleksandrov A.S., Kuvychkov S.I. O nadezhnosti “elektronnykh dokazatel’stv” v ugolovnom protsesse [Reliability of “electronic evidence” in a criminal trial]. Biblioteka kriminalista – Library criminologist, 2013, no. 5.