Author

Belkin A.R.

Title of article

Procedural problems of confrontation

Section

Section 7. Criminal рrocedural review

Issue, year

3 (33) 2015

Abstract

The issues of the procedural regulation of confrontation as a complex investigative action are considered. Different opinions on the right of criminal proceedings’ participants to demand conducting of confrontation from investigator are provided: from the admitting of this right to considering the decision of conducting confrontation as a prerogative of investigator. The existing and expired criminal procedural legislation regulating the confrontation is analyzed. The refusal of some old normative provisions is regarded as debatable. The problem of interpreting the concept of importance of contradictions is raised. The nonidentity of differences and contradictions of evidence is argued. The problem of comparing (in order to find contradictions) the evidence of one participant and other participant’s refusal (evasion) of giving evidence is considered. The proceedings’ participants who can be involved in confrontation (except those having witness immunity) are the following: persons who used their lawful right to refuse to give evidence and experts (with the possibility of conducting confrontation between them). The problem of minors’ participation in confrontation is considered. The proposal to prohibit conducting of confrontation (for ethical reasons) contradicts the legislative permission to conduct it (Article 191 of the RF Criminal Procedure Code). It’s proposed to make reference to the rules of conducting confrontation (stipulated by the Articles 187, 189 of the RF Criminal Procedure Code) in the Article 192, which allows to avoid unnecessary repetitions and show the unified approach to conducting of confrontation and questioning. New wording of the Article 192 of the RF Criminal Procedure Code is proposed.

Keywords

investigative action, confrontation, criminal proceedings’ participants, giving evidence.

References

1. Sheyfer S.A. Dosudebnoe proizvodstvo v Rossii: etapy razvitiya sledstvennoy, sudebnoy i prokurorskoy vlasti [Pre-trial proceedings in Russia: stages of the investigation, judicial and prosecutorial authorities]. Moscow, 2013.

2. Baev M.O., Baev O.Ya. Zloupotreblenie pravom v dosudebnom proizvodstve po ugolovnym delam [Abuse of the right in the pre-trial proceedings in criminal matters]. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2014.

3. Smirnov A.V., Kalinovskiy K.B. Kommentariy k UPK RF [Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure]. Moscow, Prospekt Publ., 2009.

4. Gredyagin I.V. Problemy protsessual’noy samostoyatel’nosti i realizatsii vlastno-rasporyaditel’nykh polnomochiy doznavatelya pri podgotovke i proizvodstve ochnoy stavki [Problems of procedural autonomy and the implementation of power-regulatory powers of the investigator in the preparation and production of confrontation]. Zakon i pravo – Law and Legislation, 2011, no. 4, pp. 65-67.

5. Borulenkov Yu.P. K voprosu ob ustanovlenii istiny v ugolovnom protsesse [On the question of establishing the truth in a criminal trial]. Biblioteka kriminalista – Library of criminalist, 2013, no. 3 (8).

6. Martynchik E.G. Ochnaya stavka na dosudebnom proizvodstve: protsessual’nye i kriminalisticheskie aspekty [Confrontation at the pre-trial proceedings: procedural and forensic aspects]. Advokatskaya praktika – Lawyer practice, 2004, no. 6, pp. 15-21.

7. Pechnikov G.A. Problemy istiny na predvaritel’nom sledstvii [Problems of truth in the preliminary investigation]. Volgograd, 2001.

8. Sledstvennye deystviya. Kriminalisticheskie rekomendatsii [Investigative actions. Forensic recommendations]. Moscow, 2001.

9. Kommentariy k UPK RF [Commentary on the Code of Criminal Procedure]. St. Petersburg, 2003.

10. Shumilin S.F. Teoreticheskie osnovy i prikladnye problemy mekhanizma realizatsii polnomochiy sledovatelya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Dokt. Diss. [Theoretical bases and applied problems of the mechanism of implementation of the powers of the investigator in the criminal trial. Doct. Diss.]. Voronezh, 2010.