Международная студенческая конференция
«Современные подходы к доказательствам
в уголовном судопроизводстве»
24
APPLICATION OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE WHEN PROVING
IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
Shakhaliev Shokhrukhbek
3rd year student of the Faculty of International Law and Comparative Law,
Tashkent State Law University Tashkent, Republic of Uzbekistan
Annotation.
This article describes the author of «expertise» and «specialized
knowledge» in the criminal process.
The author writes that not all knowledge in the
process of proof can be used as special as the only proven and scientifically sound.
Key words:
special knowledge, expert, specialist, law, criminal procedure.
The concept of 'special knowledge' is used in Articles 67 and 70 of the Criminal
Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan when characterizing an expert and
specialist. Despite its usage, the legislator has not clearly defined what is meant by
'special knowledge.'
The general definition of specialized knowledge, as knowledge in the field
of science, technology, art, or craft, is borrowed from pre-revolutionary Russian
criminal procedure. The Code of Criminal Laws of 1832, in Art. 943, secured a
provision according to which 'if accurate recognition of the circumstances
encountered in the case requires special knowledge or experience in any science,
art, or craft, then it is necessary to request evidence of that and the opinion of
knowledgeable people, taking into account the rules set out in the chapter on
incident investigation and inspection.
Subsequently, a similar formulation appeared in Soviet criminal proceedings.
In the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR of 1922, and then in the Code of
Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR of 1923, the terms 'expert' and 'expertise' were
established for the first time. The basis for ordering the examination was the need
for 'special knowledge in science, art, or craft' (Article 63).
Scientific views and research on engaging knowledgeable persons in
criminal proceedings, both in theory and in the very concept of 'special
knowledge,' began to take shape at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the
20th centuries. In particular, the works of L.E. Vladimirova, V.D. Spasovich, and
I.Ya. Foinitsky are noteworthy. However, despite the fact that the term 'special
knowledge' itself had already begun to appear in the works of scientists of that
time, researchers were mainly concerned with the legal nature of the institution
of knowledgeable persons and the essence of examination as a source of evidence.
But indirect attempts to determine the nature and content of the knowledge of
knowledgeable persons (experts) were already being made at that time.
Moreover, already at that time, the question was raised about the limits of
using special knowledge in criminal proceedings and the differentiation between
special knowledge and common knowledge. For instance, I.Ya. Foinitsky,
Международная студенческая конференция
«Современные подходы к доказательствам
в уголовном судопроизводстве»
25
addressing the issue of factual grounds for ordering an examination, noted that
'the examination is appropriate and necessary only if the relevant knowledge is
technical and beyond the experience that the court lacks. If this information and
experience are common and the court possesses them, then it is unnecessary.'
L.E. Vladimirov, analyzing views on examination and defining the legal
nature of the expert opinion, expressed a viewpoint about the division of
knowledgeable persons into two categories: 'scientific and non-scientific experts.'
From this, we can conclude that he recognized the existence of different levels of
specialized knowledge among knowledgeable persons, depending on the purpose
of their involvement in criminal proceedings. As practice has shown, the
monopolization of forensic examinations leads to a decrease in the pace of the
development of forensic work, reducing the number of conclusions, and
diminishing the depth and quality of the examination.
In the Soviet period, with the development of the theory of forensic
examination, the category 'special knowledge' underwent more detailed analysis.
This concept never received legislative support, although indirect attempts
to determine the content side of special knowledge in Russian criminal procedure
were undertaken. In particular, the Code of Criminal Procedure of the RSFSR,
when determining the grounds for appointing an examination, cited the need for
'special knowledge in science, technology, art, or craft,' thereby giving an indirect
definition of the concept 'special knowledge' through defining the types of
knowledge that can be special in the criminal procedural sense.
However, it should be noted that the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
RSFSR sometimes used the term 'special knowledge'
–
'special knowledge of an
expert' (Article 82), 'special knowledge and skills of a specialist' (Article 133.1),
while in other instances 'special knowledge' was referred to as 'special knowledge
in science, technology, art, or craft' (Article 78).
In addition to the above, the following should also be noted. Since the term
'cognition' defines any process of understanding the essence of objects and
phenomena, in our opinion, such activity is also realized in the course of applying
in practice the knowledge already received by the subject of cognition. As a result
of the process of using and processing this knowledge by the subject of knowledge
in their practical activity (that is, the process of cognition, again), new knowledge
is formed, already modified in accordance with the performed activities.
This knowledge is used by experts and specialists when they are involved
in the criminal process. Therefore, it is, in our opinion, deeply mistaken to assert
that the term 'knowledge' covers only theoretical information contained in
external sources without reference to the specific subject of cognition.
Thus, on this issue, we should agree with those authors who consider it
more preferable to use the term 'knowledge', at least in the context in which it is
currently used. 'Special knowledge' is that which is used in a procedural form
established by law during the proof in criminal cases, reliable information from
Международная студенческая конференция
«Современные подходы к доказательствам
в уголовном судопроизводстве»
26
any field of knowledge, acquired as a result of special theoretical training or
practical activities, and possessed by a person attracted by the court and parties
to assist them in achieving the goals of the criminal legal proceedings.
References:
1.
Monuments of Russian law.
–
Vol. 8.
–
M., 1961.
2.
Makhov V.N. Using the knowledge of knowledgeable persons in an
investigation Crimes.
–
M.: Publishing house RUDN, 2000.
3.
Foinitsky I.Ya. Criminal Justice Course. In 2 volumes
–
St. Petersburg:
Publishing house «Alpha», 1996. –
T. 2.
4.
Vladimirov L.E. The doctrine of criminal evidence.
–
Tula: Autograph, 2000.
5.
Koliev V.V. Problems of forensic activity in modern
6.
Conditions // Society and law.
–
2009.
–
No. 5.
7.
Использование специальных познаний в сфере информационных
технологий при выявлении и расследовании преступлений в сфере
информационных технологий. Монография. Коллектив авторов –
Т.:
Издательство ТГЮУ, 2019. –
216 с.
8.
Маматкулова Х.У. Специальные знания и формы их использования
при расследовании преступлений в сфере информационных технологий. //
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Олий судининг Ахборотномаси. №3/2019 (144). –
с. 48
-51.
9.
Маматкулова Х.У. Роль эксперта и специалиста в расследовании
преступлений в сфере информационных технологий // Журнал правовых
исследований www.tadqiqot.uz
–
№ 01, 2019. С.13
-18
10.
Собиров, Шохрухбек. "Обстоятельства подлежащие установлению
при расследовании мошенничества, совершаемого с использованием
средств компьютерной техники."
Правовые вопросы противодействия
мошенничеству и киберпреступлений
1.1 (2021): 109-113.
