Volume 03 Issue 01-2023
46
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
01
Pages:
46-50
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
ABSTRACT
This article highlights some of the problems associated with ensuring compensation for harm caused by a crime at the
pre-investigation stage, in particular, the transfer of physical evidence to the rightful owners.
KEYWORDS
Damage, property damage, arrest, civil defendant, compensation for damages, pre-investigation check.
INTRODUCTION
At the stage of pre-investigation verification,
investigative actions for a personal search and seizure
while ensuring compensation for property damage
caused by a crime are of great importance. These
investigative actions are carried out mainly at the time
of detention of a person and involve the seizure of
substances and objects that belong to the victims of
the crime, as well as certain valuables obtained by
selling or deceiving them. Subsequently, these items
are returned to their owners in the manner prescribed
by law. However, this procedure was introduced
somewhat contrary to the interests of persons
representing their interests in criminal proceedings.
In particular, Article 208 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure contains a provision that “Material
evidence, the issue of which remains until the decision
of the court on the verdict that has entered into legal
force, the determination or decision of the
interrogating officer, investigator, prosecutor to
Research Article
ENSURING COMPENSATION FOR DAMAGES AT THE STAGE OF THE PRE-
INVESTIGATION CHECK
Submission Date:
January 20, 2023,
Accepted Date:
January 25, 2023,
Published Date:
January 30, 2023
Crossref doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/ijlc/Volume03Issue01-09
Mavlonov Temur Anvar Ogli
Doctoral Student Of The Academy Of The MIA Of The Republic Of Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theusajournals.
com/index.php/ijlc
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
Volume 03 Issue 01-2023
47
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
01
Pages:
46-50
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
dismiss the case.” A similar provision is contained in
Article 287 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Only in Article 210 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
there are several conditions under which the property
must be returned to the owner, and they are
formulated as follows: “perishable items, essential
items for daily maintenance; domestic animals, poultry
and other animals to be kept must be returned to their
owners no later than after the necessary investigative
actions have been carried out” [1]. The question of the
return of money, valuables and other things seized
from the suspect in the crime and belonging to the
victim of the crime, their actual owners at the stage of
pre-trial investigation, preliminary investigation and
trial remained unclear. Today, in investigative practice,
these items are returned to their owners on receipt,
being considered by the investigator as “things
necessary in everyday life,” or on other grounds not
provided for by law.
In the course of our research, when studying the
materials of the pre-trial investigation, we noticed that
in most cases, officials of the pre-trial investigative
div at this stage do not transfer the values belonging
to the victim of the crime to the owner, and we can
indicate that this is mainly due to:
1) the refusal of the interrogating officer or
investigator, if there are signs of a crime, to accept the
materials of the pre-trial investigation into their office
work due to the fact that the received material
evidence, material values and other property are not
attached to these materials;
2) evasion of the officials of the pre-trial investigation
div from liability, i.e. from the conviction that the
material evidence, material values and other property
obtained will be needed in the process of proof at a
later stage of the investigation or trial. For example,
citizen A. citizen B. in 2020, a criminal case was initiated
against him under paragraph.” b “h. 3 art. 168 of the
Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the fact
of fraud of the “Samsung A50” telephone set, a
preventive measure was applied in relation to him in
the form of detention for proper behavior, and the
telephone set was recognized as material evidence.
However, due to the fact that A. fled from the
investigation, the case was considered only in 2022,
that is, after his arrest, and was found guilty on the
basis of the verdict of the Bukhara City Criminal Court
dated August 23, 2022, while the telephone,
recognized as material evidence, was returned to the
victim B. on the basis of this verdict [2]. In our opinion,
the property rights of the victim would not have been
limited if all the necessary actions related to this
material evidence had been taken at the stage of the
pre-trial investigation and returned to its rightful
owner.
3) the existence of an opinion that it will be easy for the
participants in the process who own property to
ensure their participation in the process of pre-trial
investigation.
4) inability to impose on them the obligation to keep
these things in their original form for a certain period
of time when transferring the received material
evidence, material values and other property to their
owners. True, in investigative and judicial practice at
the time of the transfer of material evidence to their
owners, it is arranged to obtain from them a receipt for
the preservation of these things in their condition until
the court verdict enters into legal force. However,
there is no liability for failure to comply with the
obligations specified in this extract. That is, the
Criminal Code and the Code of Administrative
Responsibility of the Republic of Uzbekistan do not
Volume 03 Issue 01-2023
48
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
01
Pages:
46-50
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
establish liability for failure to fulfill the duties assigned
to him to store valuables recognized as material
evidence. Criminal liability for non-compliance with the
procedure for storing property is established only if a
procedural action has been taken in respect of
property recognized as material evidence to seize it
(Article 233 of the Criminal Code). However, seizure of
property cannot be carried out at the stage of pre-
investigation investigation.
4. Another reason is that during the conduct of
investigative actions related to the process of proving
the received material evidence, material values and
other property, a certain period is not set. In most
investigative actions carried out at the stages of pre-
trial investigation and preliminary investigation, it is
not specified in what time frame it should be carried
out. It is not procedurally regulated to secure the
received material evidence, material values and other
property as evidence through an investigative action to
examine things and documents during the pre-trial
investigation. An inspection may be carried out as part
of investigative actions permitted to be carried out in
the course of a pre-trial investigation. But this is not
always possible (due to the large number of things and
documents in quantitative terms or due to the fact that
at the time of these investigative actions, separate
technical means are required for their examination),
and in such cases they can be considered as a separate
investigative action. (Article 140 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure). But these actions cannot be carried out at
the stage of pre-trial investigation. It goes without
saying that these material values can be returned to
their owners only after a pre-trial investigation is
carried out against them at the stage of inquiry or
investigation.
In Art. 82 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, it is established that after the
necessary investigative actions have been carried out,
valuables, and funds after photographing and filming
or video filming, are subject to return to their rightful
owners, if the identification marks of banknotes are
subsequently not demanded in the process of proof,
and the decision on them must be made by the
investigator, investigator or judge [3]. Article 97 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Belarus
establishes that physical evidence may be returned to
their owners before the legal settlement of the case, if
they do not harm the record keeping [4].
Another investigative action related to physical
evidence, material values and other property obtained
at the stage of the pre-investigation check is the
investigative action of the examination. Officials
conducting pre-trial investigations are not always in a
hurry to assign expert examination actions related to
them, and this situation often arises in cases where
there are enough grounds for initiating a criminal case
even without an expert opinion obtained as a result of
this action. That is, this is due to the opinion that an
investigative action can be carried out even by an
interrogating officer or the investigator himself after a
criminal case has been initiated.
Also, the legislation does not regulate the questions of
how long after receiving things, objects and other
valuables, investigative actions should be carried out in
connection with them, in particular, when it is
necessary to appoint an examination. This situation
becomes one of the most frequently observed
problems not only at the preliminary investigation
stage, but also during the preliminary investigation
process. In particular, in case of crimes related to road
traffic, a person who has become a victim of a crime
has the opportunity to receive a vehicle belonging to
him after an investigative action for an expert
examination, and in most cases this action is not
Volume 03 Issue 01-2023
49
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
01
Pages:
46-50
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
carried out immediately (before the investigation, no
reason is given to believe that an official of the div of
inquiry does not have the opportunity to appoint an
examination due to the heavy workload or the
“accelerated” implementation of these actions, as he
pursues material gain).
In particular, on July 11, 2022, at approximately 2:30 pm,
citizen A. In the Lazetti car belonging to his friend B.,
he was driving along highway No. the center of the
district, without the relevant documents, and when he
reached the 2nd kilometer of this road, he violated the
current traffic rules. An autotechnical examination of
the person who committed the accident and the trial in
this case was carried out on August 1, 2022, and over
the past 20 days, citizen B . . He did not have the
opportunity to get his car [5].
Also on July 20, 2022, at
about 12 o’clock, citizen S., on
the basis of a power of attorney D., drove a personal
car of the CHEVROLET SPARK brand, moving along
Achchisoy street, Zangiata district, Bozsu district,
Achchisoy street, towards the center of Zangiata
district, Bozsu district moving in the direction opposite
to the car it is driving. The driver of the GBASPG MATIZ
BEST car driven by E. collided with the vehicle and
inflicted moderate bodily injuries. At the same time, a
forensic-autotechnical-transport-trace
examination
was carried out on August 10, 2022, and the victim was
able to take his car out of the penalty area only a few
days after the completion of the examination. caused
damage to himself and his relative's car, he had to pay
550,000 soums for temporary storage of the car in the
penalty area. At the same time, citizen D., the person
responsible for conducting the case, was not involved
in the case as a civil plaintiff, and no measures were
taken to secure the civil claim. As a result, it was not
possible to compensate for material damage in the
amount of more than 15 million in total at the judicial
stage [6].
As can be seen from the above examples, until the
investigative actions are carried out, the owner of the
property is not only deprived of the opportunity to
freely dispose of his property, but is also forced to pay
for its storage in the penalty area against his will.
E.N. Kleshchina [7; P. 107] emphasized that the
untimely resolution of the issue of returning to the
victim the property discovered at the investigation
stage before the investigation further exacerbated the
difficulties that lay on his shoulders. We believe that
this limits the ability of persons who have suffered
property damage as a result of a crime to enjoy their
rights associated with the possession of property for a
certain period of time, and also forces them to
excessive expenses.
In our opinion, in this case, Article 210 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure does not interfere with the work,
and before the start of the investigation, an official of
the investigative div, investigator, inquiry officer or
court must return to the legal owner of any thing,
object and other valuables recognized as material
evidence even before the final decision is made in the
case, the way out may be the introduction of the rule
of self-reflection. At the same time, cases that do not
interfere with the work of the case consist in the fact
that these items are not required later in the process of
proof and it is determined to whom they belong. In
some foreign countries, in particular the Greek Criminal
Procedure Code (Article 269), it is established that if
the owner of physical evidence and other seized
property has filed an application for the return of this
property and this does not prevent the operation, he
must satisfy this application [8] .
Volume 03 Issue 01-2023
50
International Journal Of Law And Criminology
(ISSN
–
2771-2214)
VOLUME
03
I
SSUE
01
Pages:
46-50
SJIF
I
MPACT
FACTOR
(2021:
5.
705
)
(2022:
5.
705
)
OCLC
–
1121105677
Publisher:
Oscar Publishing Services
Servi
Given the above, we propose to supplement Article 210
of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan with parts three and four:
“Evidence must also be returned to the rightful owners
at their request after the necessary investigative
actions in connection with them, if they are not
required in the process of subsequent proof, and also
if they are not used to satisfy a civil claim or if there is
no need to establish a legal owner.
Unreasonable delay by persons responsible for the
proceedings of the case is not allowed to carry out the
necessary investigative actions related to material
evidence”.
REFERENCES
1.
Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan.
2.
URL: https://lex.uz/docs/111460#253638 (date of
access: 09/14/2022)
3.
Sentence of the Bukhara City Court for Criminal
Cases dated August 23, 2022 in criminal case No. 1-
2001-2205/253
URL:
https://public.sud.uz/report/CRIMINAL
4.
Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian
Federation of December 18, 2001 (As of October 7,
2022)
//
URL:
http://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_L
AW_34481 (Accessed: October 19, 2022)
5.
Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of
Belarus of July 16, 1999 (As of July 20, 2022) // URL:
https://kodeksy.by/ugolovno-processualnyy-
kodeks (Date of application: October 19, 2022)
6.
Olotsk district OIB TB 1-2010-2201/97 materials of
the criminal case.
7.
Sentence of the Zangiata district court for criminal
cases of the Tashkent region dated September 27,
2022 in criminal case No. 1-1101-2201/380
8.
Kleshchina
E.N.
On
some
problems
of
compensation for harm caused by a crime to the
victim // Crime and society: Collection of scientific
papers. - M .: VNII of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
of Russia, 2009. - S. 106-107.
9.
Code of Criminal Procedure of Greece, in Greek //
URL:
https://www.lawspot.gr/nomikes-
plirofories/nomothesia/nomos-4620-2019 (Date of
access: 05/01/2023).
