ON THE ISSUE OF INTRODUCING THE CONCEPT OF SPECIALISTCONCLUSION TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LEGISLATION


Keywords: criminal infraction, criminal offense, criminal offense, crime, specialistconclusion, expert conclusion, forensic science, improvement of Ukrainian legislation.

Abstract

The issue of introducing the concept of «specialist conclusion» into the criminal procedure of Ukraine is investigated. The argument about inappropriateness of introducing this concept into the criminal process is given on the basis of the specialized literature analysis and the relevant norms of the legislation, since the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukrainedoes not contain either its interpretation, its content, nor its rules of procedure, but only indicates that specialist conclusion should meet the requirements to expert conclusion. It calls into question the need to introduce into the criminal process a source of evidence such as the «specialist conclusion», since it is essentially no different from the expert conclusion, since the same requirements are imposed on him by the legislature only with regard to establishing facts and circumstances of a criminal offense and not a crime.

By nature, performed research with the use of specificexpertisefor establishing the facts and circumstances of a criminal offense will be no different from a study conducted with the use specific expertise to establish the facts and circumstances of a crime, since the technique will be used the same and the document will be drawn up in the same way. However, in view of the need for a simplified procedure for pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses, the legislator introduces another name for the document which is drawn up as a result of such research. The question is: why not get an expert right away? Indeed, clear requirements and procedures for its implementation are established for expert conclusion in contrast to the specialist conclusion. Taking into account the need to simplify the procedures for pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses, the appropriate time limits can be established in the procedural law and by-laws.

The relevant conclusions are made and specific proposals are given on introducing amendments to the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine.

References

Bel`skij, A. I. (2006). Zaklyuchenie i pokazaniya speczialista kak dokazatel`stva v ugolovnom proczesse Rossii : dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. Moskva. 10 [in Russian].
Bozhkova, N. R. (2008). Zaklyuchenie speczialista. Aktual`ny`e problemy` ros. prava. № 4. 311-312 [in Russian].
D`yakonova, O. G. (2008). Zaklyucheniya i pokazaniya e`ksperta i speczialista. Biznes v zakone. E`konomiko-yurid. zhurn. № 1 [in Russian].
Instruktsiia pro pryznachennia ta provedennia sudovykh ekspertyz ta ekspertnykh doslidzhen, zatv. nakazom M-va yustytsii Ukrainy 08.10.1998 № 53/5 (zi zminamy ta dopov., u red. nakazu M-va yustytsii Ukrainy vid 30.12.2004). URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0061-05 [in Ukrainian].
Ivanov, V. V. (2007). Ispol`zovanie zashhitnikom zaklyucheniya speczialista v dokazy`vanii. Vestn. Samarskoj gumanitar. akademii. Ser.: Pravo. № 1. 127-128 [in Russian].
Kireieva, N. O., Skorych, O. O. (2016). Spivvidnoshennia vysnovkiv, shcho nadaiutsia ekspertom, spetsialistom, orhanamy derzhavnoi vlady ta mistsevoho samovriaduvannia u tsyvilnomu protsesi Ukrainy. Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia: Pravo. Vyp. 37 (2). 10-15 [in Ukrainian].
Kogosov, A. P. (2011). Poluchenie zaklyuchenij i pokazanij speczialista kak odna iz form ispol`zovaniya speczial`ny`kh znanij v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Vestn. Yuzhno-Ural`skogo gos. un-ta. Ser.: Pravo. № 6 [in Russian].
Lazareva, L. V. (2007). Nekotory`e voprosy` zaklyucheniya i pokazanij speczialista. Vestn. Vladimirskogo yurid. in-ta. № 1 [in Russian].
Nesterenko, A. Otlichiya zaklyucheniya e`ksperta ot zaklyucheniya speczialista. URL: http://ormvd.ru/pubs/102/differences-of-expert-opinion-from-the-opinion-of-a-specialist [in Russian].
Ovsyannikov, I. (2015). Diskussiyam o zaklyuchenii speczialista 10 let. Zakonnost`. № 2 [in Russian].
Petrukhina, A. N. (2009). Zaklyuchenie i pokazaniya e`ksperta i speczialista kak dokazatel`stva v sovremennom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve Rossii : dis. ... kand. yurid. nauk. Moskva, [in Russian].
Pro vnesennia zmin do deiakykh zakonodavchykh aktiv Ukrainy shchodo sproshchennia dosudovoho rozsliduvannia okremykh katehorii kryminalnykh pravoporushen: Zakon Ukrainy vid 22.11.2018 №2617-VIII. URL: https : //zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2617-19 [in Ukrainian].
Pro vnesennia zmin do nakazu Ministerstva yustytsii vid 08.10.98 № 53/5 : nakaz Ministerstva yustytsii Ukrainy vid 01.06.2009 № 965/5 URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/z0061-05 [in Ukrainian].
Selina, E. V. (2015). Zaklyuchenie i pokazaniya speczialista v ugolovnom proczesse. Zhurn. ros. prava. № 12 [in Russian].
Shtefan, A. (2018). Vysnovok eksperta u tsyvilnomu sudochynstvi. URL: http://www.inprojournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/2_2018/4.pdf [in Ukrainian].
Ste`l`makh, V. Yu. (2019). Zaklyuchenie speczialista v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: pravovaya priroda i perspektivy` ispol`zovaniya v dokazy`vanii. URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/zaklyuchenie-spetsialista-v-ugolovnom-sudoproizvodstve-pravovaya-priroda-i-perspektivy-ispolzovaniya-v-dokazyvanii [in Russian].
Ugolovno-proczessual`ny`j kodeks Rossijskoj Federaczii ot 18.12.2001 №174-FZ, v red. ot 06.07.2016. URL: http://upkodeksrf.ru/ [in Russian].
Zajczeva, E. A., Chipura, D. P. (2007). Ispol`zovanie speczial`ny`kh e`konomicheskikh znanij v dosudebnom proizvodstve po ugolovny`m delam : monografi`ya. Volgograd [in Russian].
Zakhokhov, Z. B. (2011). Formy` ispol`zovaniya speczial`ny`kh poznanij pri formirovanii zaklyucheniya i pokazanij speczialista v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Biznes v zakone. E`konomiko-yurid. zhurn. № 2. 117-118 [in Russian].

Abstract views: 31
PDF Downloads: 114
Published
2019-12-04
How to Cite
Simakova-Yefremian, E. (2019). ON THE ISSUE OF INTRODUCING THE CONCEPT OF SPECIALISTCONCLUSION TO CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LEGISLATION. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science and Criminalistics, 20(2), 110-120. https://doi.org/10.32353/khrife.2.2019.08
Section
GENERAL REGULATIONS OF FORENSIC EXAMINATION