ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
7
ADVANCED EXPERIENCE OF FOREIGN COUNTRIES IN ENSURING THE
ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE AND ISSUES OF ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN
NATIONAL LEGISLATION
Tadjiev Anvar Aminovich
Independent Researcher of Academy of the Ministry of Internal
Аffairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14509483
Abstract.
This article analyzes the advanced experience of foreign experts in ensuring
the admissibility of evidence and the issues of its implementation in national legislation. The
norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the admissibility of
evidence are studied from a comparative legal point of view. Based on the results of the
analysis and research, the author's substantiated proposals and recommendations are
elaborated.
Keywords:
crime, evidence, admissibility, evidence collection, examining evidence,
evaluating evidence, proving.
Compliance with the conditions for ensuring the admissibility of evidence in criminal
proceedings is a complex process, and when studying the issue of improving this process, it is
important to carefully study the positive experience of foreign countries in this regard and
conduct a comparative legal analysis. analysis.
The “Concept for Improving the Criminal and Criminal Procedure Legislation of the
Republic of Uzbekistan” has already been adopted, approved by the Resolution of the
President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. 3723 of May 14, 2018 “On measures to
fundamentally improve the system of criminal and criminal procedural legislation”, Criminal
Procedure Legislation as one of the completely new priorities of the state criminal law policy
in paragraph 1.4 of Section II Defines the task of
“further improving the system of criminal
procedure principles taking into account modern approaches, advanced international
standards and foreign practice”
.
However, in Section II of this Concept, entitled
“expected results from its
implementation, the introduction of advanced Foreign Experience into criminal and
criminal procedure legislation taking into account national peculiarities and
conditions”,
1
it is necessary to consider the prospects for introducing positive experience
into national legislation.
Thinking about introducing advanced foreign experience into criminal and criminal
procedure legislation requires, first of all, a thorough analysis of this positive experience
based on a number of criteria.
It is worth noting that the unique experience of foreign countries in ensuring the
admissibility of evidence has been improving over many years as a result of socio-political
and other factors existing in them, and in this regard, one can see a variety of legal
1
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг 2018 йил 14 майдаги “Жиноят ва жиноят-процессуал қонунчилиги
тизимини тубдан такомиллаштириш чора-тадбирлари тўғрисида”ги ПҚ-3723-сон қарори // http://lex.uz.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
8
requirements and conditions for the admissibility of evidence, that is, simplified or,
conversely, more complex forms.
In our opinion, it would be appropriate to systematize these conditions based on the
provisions of the criminal procedure legislation of our country, and such a selection will
further improve the quality and effectiveness of the analysis.
Moreover, part three of Article 95 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan provides that evidence will be considered admissible only if it is collected in the
prescribed manner and meets the conditions stipulated in Articles 88, 90, 92-94 of this Code.
An analysis of the rules defined in the above-mentioned Articles 88, 90, 92-95
allows us to classify the conditions determining the admissibility of evidence as
follows:
1) collection of evidence in the manner prescribed by law;
2) the obligation to protect the rights and legitimate interests of citizens, enterprises,
institutions and organizations in the process of proving (Article 88 of the Criminal Procedure
Code);
3) the obligation to record evidence in the protocol of the investigative action or court
hearing (Article 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code);
4) mandatory verification of evidence (Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
Now we will analyze these classifications in a comparative legal aspect with the
conditions established in the criminal procedure legislation of foreign countries, and we will
try to show the positive achievements and shortcomings of these countries.
1
.
Collection of evidence in accordance with the law.
According to the first part of Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan “
Examination of evidence and judicial actions:
interrogation of a suspect,
accused, defendant, witness, victim, expert; femalization; show for recognition; checking the
show at the scene of the incident; takeaway food; search; review; testimony; exhumation of a
corpse; conduct an experiment; taking samples for expert examination; appointment of
inspection and verification; acceptance of provided materials and documents; it is collected by
listening to conversations carried out through telephones and other telecommunication
devices, receiving information transmitted through them, as well as
conducting operational-
search activities”
2
.
Therefore, according to the legislation of our country, in order for evidence to be
admissible, it must be collected only through investigative and judicial actions, as well as
through operational-search activities. Failure to comply with this condition may be
considered a violation of the law, and the evidence collected may be considered inadmissible
based on the results of its assessment.
This does not allow the use of evidence collected in future proceedings, and it is also
possible to create liability for the subjects of proof in future proceedings.
In this regard, in the criminal procedure legislation of a number of foreign countries,
slightly different aspects of the mandatory conditions related to the admissibility of evidence
and its collection are noticeable.
2
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Жиноят-процессуал кодекси // http://lex.uz.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
9
In particular, in the Republic of
Armenia
(Article 125
3
of the Criminal Procedure Code),
Belarus
(Article 103
4
of the Criminal Procedure Code),
Turkmenistan
(Article 133
5
of the
Criminal Procedure Code)
evidence is defined as collected only through investigative and
judicial actions, and the legislation of the Russian Federation In this state, rapid search
measures are provided as a means of collecting evidence that has not been caught.
That is, according to the legislation of these countries, information collected as a
result of operational-search activities is not only admissible evidence, but also cannot
have the status of evidence.
The analysis shows that in these countries the list of means of collecting evidence
is shorter than that specified in our national legislation, and the issues of ensuring their
admissibility when collecting evidence have also become a more complex process.
It is worth noting that the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of
Estonia
(Articles 64, 110-112 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
6
and
Azerbaijan
(Article143 of the
Criminal Procedure Code)
7
have similar or closer to our national legislation procedures for
collecting evidence.
That is, it can be noted that in the legislation of these countries, as well as
investigative
and judicial actions, operational-search activities (measures) are defined as a means of
proof.
However, we considered it necessary to note that the provisions set out in the Criminal
Procedure Law of the Republic of
Ukraine
(Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
8
deserve attention.
Because in the criminal procedure legislation of this country, in addition to the
fact that evidence can be collected by the subject conducting the criminal case, as well
as by conducting investigative and judicial actions, the victim and the representative of
the legal entity are also granted the right to collect evidence in a criminal case.
According to this analysis, it can be said that in the criminal procedure legislation
of the Republic of Ukraine, the possibilities of the prosecution and defense in the
process of proof are almost equal. Because the defense can also collect evidence that
refutes, questions or confirms the evidence it collected in parallel with the prosecution.
The evidence collected by the defense is also examined, assessed, and the evidence
found to be admissible is used in the process of proving along with the evidence
collected by the prosecution.
It should be noted here that, in our opinion, there are some gaps in the process of
collecting evidence in the countries whose criminal procedure legislation we analyzed above.
Because, in our opinion, it is inappropriate to limit the means of proof that make up the
process of collecting evidence to a specific list of certain actions, i.e. investigation, judicial
actions, operational-search activities.
3
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Армения // http://base.spinform.ru.
4
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Беларусь // http://base.spinform.ru.
5
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Туркменистана // http://base.spinform.ru.
6
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Эстонии // https://www.legislationline.org /documents/section/criminal-codes.
7
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Азербайджанской Республики // http://base.spinform.ru.
8
Уголовный процессуальный кодекс Украины // http://base.spinform.ru.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
10
In this regard, we support the established procedure for collecting evidence in the
criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of
Moldova
(Article 100 of the Criminal
Procedure Code)
9
,
Kazakhstan
(Article 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
10
,
Kyrgyzstan
(Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code)
11
.
Because
the criminal procedure legislation of
these countries
does not specify a
precise list of evidence that constitutes the process of collecting evidence, but is regulated by
the rule that evidence can be
“collected by carrying out procedural actions provided for
by this Code”.
In our opinion, this norm is devoid of loopholes and loopholes and serves to prevent
problems in the further assessment of the admissibility of evidence collected in a criminal
case.
Because the concept of “procedural action” can include all actions defined in the criminal
procedure law, and is a very broad concept in relation to the investigation, judicial actions and
operational-search measures.
As S.B. Khodzhakulov rightly noted:
Procedural action
is ensured by the norms of the
criminal procedure law, pre-trial investigation – by the investigator, investigator, prosecutor,
court (judge), and defense – by the investigator, investigator, prosecutor, court (judge) and
defense. lawyer, as well as preliminary ones, which are carried out during the investigation
and trial, have evidentiary value or supporting recommendations corresponding to the
procedural nature, and are also reflected in additional documents. this action.
12
In our opinion, in order to ensure the proper functioning of the conditions for collecting
evidence in accordance with the law and to eliminate misunderstandings and gaps in
regulatory documents, the criminal law of the Republic of
Moldova
(Article 100 of the
Criminal Procedure Code),
Kazakhstan
(Article 122 of the Criminal Procedure Code),
Kyrgyzstan
(Article 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code) is applied in our national legislation.
We consider it appropriate to apply this positive experience related to the collection of
evidence in procedural legislation.
For this purpose, we consider it appropriate to set out part one of Article 87 of the
Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan in the following new version:
“Article 87. Collect evidence.
Evidence is collected through investigative and judicial actions, conducting operational-
search activities, as well as conducting other procedural actions provided for by this Code.”
In our opinion, the description of part one of Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code
of the Republic of Uzbekistan in this version corresponds to the decision of the Republic of
Uzbekistan dated April 4, 2018 “Amendments and additions to certain legislative acts,
documents of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the adoption of measures to
strengthen guarantees of the rights and freedoms of citizens in judicial and investigative
9
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Молдова // http://base.spinform.ru.
10
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Казахстан // http://base.spinform.ru.
11
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Кыргызской Республики // http://base.spinform.ru.
12
Хўжақулов
С.Б.
Процессуал ҳаракатлар: тушунчаси, таснифланиши ва тизимлаштирилиши: Ўқув қўлланма / – T.:
Ўзбекистон Республикаси ИИВ Академияси, 2013. – Б. 17.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
11
activities”, we believe that this also serves the full functioning of the right granted to the
defender to collect Evidence under the Law on “Implementation”
13
.
Here it should be said that, as E.Kh. Norbotaev and S.B. Khodjakulov rightly note: “at the
same time, from the point of view of the legislator, on the one hand, the right of the defender
is expanded, the right of prosecution and defense is equalized, and on the other hand,
although the powers granted to the defender are a number of laws - although determined by
documents, but the mechanism for their implementation, i.e. the actions of the defender are
processed, the fact that it is preserved is ignored, requires awareness that the norms related
to the right to defense acquire a declarative tone”
14
.
However, to be more precise, “not a single norm of the Criminal Procedure Code grants
the defense attorney the authority to conduct investigative and judicial actions, as well as to
conduct operational-search activities. Although the issue of collecting evidence in a criminal
case by the defense attorney is reflected in the code, an obstacle to this is the procedural rule
established in Part One of Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the procedure for
collecting evidence
15
.
These opinions once again confirm the appropriateness of presenting Part One of Article
87 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan in the new version proposed
above.
2. The obligation to protect the rights and legitimate interests of citizens,
enterprises, institutions and organizations in the process of proving (Article 88 of the
Criminal Procedure Code).
According to our national legislation, the objectives of the criminal procedure law are
the rapid and complete disclosure of crimes, ensuring fair punishment for each person who
committed a crime, exposing the perpetrators and ensuring the correct execution of the law
that no innocent person will be held accountable and convicted,
that the procedure
defined in the criminal procedure legislation should contribute to strengthening the rule of
law, preventing crimes and protecting the interests of the individual, the state and society.
Along with the full implementation of these tasks, the legislator has imposed on persons
authorized to do so in the process of proof the duty to protect the rights and legitimate
interests of
citizens, enterprises, institutions and organizations
.
Article 88 of the CPC provides for such mandatory rules, and any deviation from these
rules will result in the collection of evidence being considered inadmissible.
In the process of proof in the criminal procedure legislation of foreign countries, when
studying the rules governing the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens,
enterprises, institutions and organizations, in addition to the fact that they see that different
13
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг 2018 йил 4 апрелдаги “Суд-тергов фаолиятида фуқароларнинг ҳуқуқ ва
эркинликлари кафолатларини кучайтириш бўйича чора-тадбирлар қабул қилинганлиги муносабати билан
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг айрим қонун ҳужжатларига ўзгартиш ва қўшимчалар киритиш тўғрисида”ги
қонуни // https://lex.uz/docs/3609511.
14
Норбўтаев Э.Х., Хўжақулов С.Б.
Ҳимоячи томонидан қонунда назарда тутилган процессуал ҳаракатларни
амалга ошириш механизми тўғрисида // Ўзбекистон Республикаси Ички ишлар вазирлиги Академиясининг
ахборотномаси. – Т., 2010. – №2. –Б. 41.
15
Ражабов
Б.А.
Ишни судга қадар юритишда исбот қилишнинг умумий шартларига риоя этилишини
таъминлаш: Юридик фанлар бўйича докторлик (DSc) диссертацияси. – Т., 2019. – Б. 98.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
12
rules have been established in this regard, the issue of admissibility of evidence is regulated
not in different articles of the law, but in one specific article.
In our opinion, this procedure will facilitate the issue of admissibility of evidence for law
enforcement officers and reduce difficulties during the trial.
In particular, the first subparagraph of Article 88 of Part One of the Criminal Procedure
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan prohibits
“committing actions that are dangerous to the life
and health of persons or degrading their honor and dignity”, the second subparagraph “coercion,
intimidation, fraudulent and other illegal means to show, explain, obtain conclusions, perform
experimental actions, prepare documents or objects and conditions of the prohibition "to achieve
a position”
:
Article 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Armenia
“Materials
recognized as inadmissible as evidence”
16
;
Article 105 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Belarus
“Evaluation of
evidence”
17
;
Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code of
Ukraine
“Inadmissible evidence
obtained as a result of gross violations of human rights and freedoms”
18
;
Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Moldova
“Information
inadmissible as evidence”
19
;
Article 75 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the
Russian
Federation
“Inadmissible
evidence”
20
;
Article 88(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Tajikistan
“Inadmissible Evidence”
21
;
Article 64 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Estonia
“General
Conditions for Collection of Evidence”
22
;
Article 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Azerbaijan
“Admissibility
of Evidence”
23
;
It can be noted that it is defined in Article 319
24
of the Criminal Procedure Law of
Japan
,
Section IV, entitled
“Evidence”.
In our opinion, a positive experience can be considered the fact that the conditions for
the admissibility of evidence in the criminal procedure legislation of the named countries are
defined in a single rule or separate rules on admissibility.
16
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Армения // http://www.parliament.am.
17
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Беларусь // https://etalonline.by/document/?regnum= hk9900295.
18
Уголовный
процессуальный
кодекс
Украины
//
https://continent-online.com/Document/?doc_id=
31197178#pos=1113;-61.
19
Уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс
Республики
Молдова
//
https://continent-online.com/Document
/?doc_id=30397729#pos=117.
20
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации // https://rulaws.ru/upk-rf/.
21
Уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс
Республики
Таджикистан
//
https://continent-online.com
/Document/?doc_id=30594304.
22
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Эстонии // https://www.juristaitab.ee/ru/ugolovno-processualnyy-kodeks.
23
Уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс
Азербайджанской
Республики
//
https://continent-
online.com/Document/?doc_id=30420280#pos=6;-144.
24
Уголовно-процессуальный закон Японии // https://wipolex.wipo.int/ru/text/187786.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
13
Since the correct ordering and systematization of legal norms creates the basis for
eliminating misunderstandings or some difficulties in its application, as well as simplifying a
number of complexities (procedures and conditions) associated with ensuring the acceptance
of evidence for consideration. subjects of proof.
Therefore, in our opinion, it is advisable to coordinate the procedure and conditions of
Articles 95-1 and 88 of our national legislation, given that they are placed in the same chapter.
3. The obligation to record evidence in the protocol of the investigative action or
court hearing (Article 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
According to the requirements of the first part of Article 90 of the Criminal Procedure
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, “Information and things may be used as evidence only
after they have been recorded in the protocol of the investigative action or the protocol of the
court hearing.”
25
.
Although the legislator did not specify the use of evidence as an element of proof in
Article 85 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he defined two conditions that affect the
admissibility of evidence in proceedings on this issue.
That is, in order for the subjects of proof to be able to use information and things as
evidence, they are required to make appropriate entries during the investigative process or in
the protocol kept in the court session.
According to the requirements of Part one of Article 90 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
this protocol must be drawn up by the investigator or the investigator at the stage of inquiry
and preliminary investigation of a criminal case, and in court – by the presiding judge or the
secretary of the court session. court session (assistant judge)
26
.
It is worth noting that the requirements that information and things can be used as
evidence only after they are recorded in the investigation protocol or the protocol of the court
session are present in the foreign countries that we studied in the framework of the study
(Armenia, Belarus). (Germany, Georgia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan,
Kazakhstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Japan, etc.) were not observed in
the criminal procedure legislation. This allows us to conclude that these requirements,
defined in our national legislation, can be assessed as a positive experience in this matter.
4. Mandatory examination of evidence (Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure
Code).
According to the requirements of Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, “the decision taken on the case must be based only on carefully,
completely, comprehensively and objectively verified evidence.” The investigation consists of
collecting additional evidence that can confirm or refute the evidence being examined.
27
However, an analysis of the rules related to the examination of evidence in the criminal
procedure legislation of foreign countries shows that there are a number of best practices in
this regard.
25
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Жиноят-процессуал кодекси // http://lex.uz.
26
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг 2018 йил 29 январдаги “Ўзбекистон Республикасининг айрим қонун
ҳужжатларига ўзгартиш ва қўшимчалар киритиш, шунингдек айрим қонун ҳужжатларини ўз кучини
йўқотган деб топиш тўғрисида”ги ЎРҚ-463-сон қонуни // http://lex.uz.
27
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Жиноят-процессуал кодекси // http://lex.uz.
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
14
Including
Russia
(Article 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code),
Belarus
(Article 104 of
the Criminal Procedure Code),
Armenia
(Article 126 of the Criminal Procedure Code),
Turkmenistan
(Article 135 of the Criminal Procedure Code),
Kazakhstan
(Article 124 of the
Criminal Procedure Code) and
Kyrgyzstan
(Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code),
Moldova
(Article 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code), verification of evidence is not only
related to the act of collecting new evidence, but also the act of verification is the analysis of
evidence. This also included the actions of compiling, comparing with other evidence,
checking the source from which the evidence was collected.
This analysis justifies the need to improve these norms in our national legislation.
Therefore, in our opinion, in order to apply the positive experience of the norms related
to the examination of evidence in the national legislation, it is advisable to set out Article 94 of
the Criminal Procedure Code in the following wording in the criminal procedure legislation of
Russia, Belarus, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Moldova:
“Article 94. Check the evidence
The decision on the case should be based only on evidence that has been carefully,
completely, comprehensively, and objectively examined. The investigation consists of collecting
new evidence, analyzing it, comparing it with other evidence in the criminal case, and checking
the source of evidence that can confirm, question, or refute the evidence being examined.”
We believe that the description of Article 94 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan in this wording will serve to eliminate the gaps related to the
examination of evidence in the future.
References:
1.
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Жиноят-процессуал кодекси // http://lex.uz.
(Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan // http://lex.uz.)
2.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Президентининг 2018 йил 14 майдаги “Жиноят ва
жиноят-процессуал қонунчилиги тизимини тубдан такомиллаштириш чора-
тадбирлари тўғрисида”ги ПҚ-3723-сон қарори // http://lex.uz.
(Resolution of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan No. 3723 of May 14, 2018 “On
measures to fundamentally improve the system of criminal and criminal procedural
legislation” қарори // http://lex.uz.)
3.
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Армения // http://base.spinform.ru.
(Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia // http://base.spinform.ru.)
4.
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Беларусь // http://base.spinform.ru.
(Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus // http://base.spinform.ru.)
5.
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Туркменистана // http://base.spinform.ru.
(Criminal Procedure Code of Turkmenistan // http://base.spinform.ru.)
6.
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Эстонии // https://www.legislationline.org
/documents/section/criminal-codes.
(Criminal
Procedure
Code
of
Estonia
//
https://www.legislationline.org
/documents/section/criminal-codes.)
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
15
7.
Уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс
Азербайджанской
Республики
//
https://continent-online.com/Document/?doc_id=30420280#pos=6;-144.
(Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan // https://content-
online.com/Document/?doc_id=30420280#pos=6;-144.)
8.
Уголовный процессуальный кодекс Украины // http://base.spinform.ru.
(Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine // http://base.spinform.ru.)
9.
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Молдова // http://base.spinform.ru.
(Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova // http://base.spinform.ru.)
10.
Уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс
Республики
Казахстан
//
http://base.spinform.ru.
(Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan // http://base.spinform.ru.)
11.
Уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс
Кыргызской
Республики
//
http://base.spinform.ru (База данных законодательство стран СНГ).
(Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic // http://base.spinform.ru (Database of CIS
country legislation).)
12.
Хўжақулов С.Б. Процессуал ҳаракатлар: тушунчаси, таснифланиши ва
тизимлаштирилиши: Ўқув қўлланма / – T.: Ўзбекистон Республикаси ИИВ Академияси,
2013. – Б. 17.
(Khodjakulov S.B. Procedural activities: understanding, classification and systematization:
Teaching methods / - T.: Academy of the MIA, Republic of Uzbekistan, 2013. - P. 17.)
13.
Ўзбекистон Республикасининг 2018 йил 4 апрелдаги “Суд-тергов фаолиятида
фуқароларнинг ҳуқуқ ва эркинликлари кафолатларини кучайтириш бўйича чора-
тадбирлар қабул қилинганлиги муносабати билан Ўзбекистон Республикасининг
айрим қонун ҳужжатларига ўзгартиш ва қўшимчалар киритиш тўғрисида”ги қонуни //
https://lex.uz/docs/3609511.
(Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan of April 4, 2018 “On Amendments and Additions to Certain
Legislative Documents of the Republic of Uzbekistan in Connection with the Adoption of
Measures to Strengthen Guarantees of the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens in Judicial and
Investigative Activities” // https://lex.uz/docs/3609511.)
14.
Норбўтаев Э.Х., Хўжақулов С.Б. Ҳимоячи томонидан қонунда назарда тутилган
процессуал ҳаракатларни амалга ошириш механизми тўғрисида // Ўзбекистон
Республикаси Ички ишлар вазирлиги Академиясининг ахборотномаси. – Т., 2010. – №2.
–Б. 41.
(Norbotaev E.Kh., Khodjakulov S.B. On the mechanism for the implementation by the defense
attorney of procedural actions provided for by law // Bulletin of the Academy of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan. - T., 2010. - No. 2. -P. 41.)
15.
Ражабов Б.А. Ишни судга қадар юритишда исбот қилишнинг умумий шартларига
риоя этилишини таъминлаш: Юридик фанлар бўйича докторлик (DSc) диссертацияси.
– Т., 2019. – Б. 98.
(Radjabov B.A. Ensuring compliance with the general conditions of proof in judicial
proceedings: Dissertation of Doctor of Law (DSc). - T., 2019. - P. 98.)
16.
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Российской Федерации //
. (Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation // https://rulaws.ru/upk-rf/.)
ILM-FAN VA INNOVATSIYA
ILMIY-AMALIY KONFERENSIYASI
in-academy.uz/index.php/si
16
17.
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс Республики Таджикистан // https://continent-
online.com /Document/?doc_id=30594304. (Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Tajikistan // https://continent-online.com/Document/?doc_id=30594304.)
18.
Уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс
Азербайджанской
Республики
//
https://continent-online.com/Document/?doc_id=30420280#pos=6;-144
(Criminal
Procedure
Code
of
the
Republic
of
Azerbaijan
//
https://continent-
online.com/Document/?doc_id=30420280#pos=6;-144.)
19.
Уголовно-процессуальный
закон
Японии
//
https://wipolex.wipo.int/ru/text/187786
. (Criminal Procedure Law of Japan //
https://wipolex.wipo.int/ru/text/187786.)
20.
Ўзбекистон
Республикасининг
2018
йил
29
январдаги
“Ўзбекистон
Республикасининг айрим қонун ҳужжатларига ўзгартиш ва қўшимчалар киритиш,
шунингдек айрим қонун ҳужжатларини ўз кучини йўқотган деб топиш тўғрисида”ги
ЎРҚ-463-сон қонуни //
. (. Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated January 29,
2018 No. O'RQ-463 “On Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Documents of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, as well as on Recognizing Certain Legal Documents as Invalid” //
http://lex .uz.)
