Анализ основ реабилитации невиновных лиц в уголовном процессе

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Journal home page:

https://inscience.uz/index.php/socinov/index

Analysis of the bases for rehabilitation of innocent persons in the
criminal process

Bakhtiyorjon MURODOV

1

, Murod BOTAEV

2

Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan

ARTICLE INFO

ABSTRACT

Article history:

Received 10 august 2020
Received in revised form 20
august 2020
Accepted 25 august 2020
Available online
August 2020

This article reveals the application of the basics of

rehabilitation in the criminal procedure, the correct
interpretation of their essence by practical staff and, most
importantly, the differences between these bases by revealing
the essence of the basics of rehabilitation based on the analysis
of existing regulations and judicial-investigation activities, as
well as developed proposals and recommendations to improve
the procedural order of acquittal of innocent persons and
restoration of their violated rights are made.

The article also focuses on finding solutions, taking into

account that judicial-investigation staff make various mistakes in
distinguishing and applying the basics of rehabilitation in their
activities, and that the theory of criminal procedural law is still
controversial issue in this regard.

2181-

1415/© 2020 in S

cience LLC.

This is an open access article under the Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY
4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)

Keywords:

Rehabilitation
Innocent person
Termination of criminal case
Indictment
Criminal incident
Crime structure.

Жиноят процессида айбсиз шахсларни реабилитация этиш
асосларининг таҳлили

АННОТАЦИЯ

Калит сўзлар:

Реабилитация

Айбсиз шахс

Жиноят ишини тугатиш

Айблов

Жиноий ҳодисаси

Жиноят таркиби.

Мақолада амалдаги норматив

-

ҳуқуқий ҳужжатлар ва суд

-

тергов фаолиятининг таҳлили асосида реабилитация
асосларининг моҳиятини очиб бериш йўли билан жиноят

-

процессуал

муносабатларда

реабилитация

этиш

асосларининг

қўлланилиши,

амалиёт

ходимлари

томонидан уларнинг моҳиятини тўғри талқин этилиши ва

1

DSc, Associate Professor, Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent,

Uzbekistan
email: Azizhon2009@mail.ru

2

Head of the Department, Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Tashkent,

Uzbekistan
email: ico@akadmvd.uz

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

167

энг муҳими мазкур асосларнинг бир

-

биридан фарқли

томонлари чуқур тадқиқ этилиб, айбсиз шахсларни оқлаш
ва уларнинг бузилган ҳуқуқларини қайта тиклашнинг
процессуал тартибини такомиллаштириш бўйича таклиф ва
тавсияларни

ишлаб чиқилган.

Шунингдек,

суд

-

тергов

органлари

ходимлари

ўз

фаолиятида реабилитация қилиш асосларини бир

-

биридан

фарқлаш

ва

қўллашда

турли

хатоликларга

йўл

қўяётганлиги, қолаверса ушбу масалада жиноят

-

процессуал

ҳуқуқи

назариясида

ҳамон

тортишувлар

давом

этаётганлигини ҳисобга олиб, мақолада асосий эътибор
уларнинг ечимини топишга қаратилган.

Анализ основ реабилитации невиновных лиц в уголовном
процессе

АННОТАЦИЯ

Ключевые слова:

Реабилитация

Невиновный Прекращение
уголовного дела

Обвинительное
заключение

Уголовный инцидент,
Состав преступления.

В

статье

исследуется

применение

оснований

реабилитации в уголовном процессе, правильное её
толкование практикующими специалистами и, самое
главное, различия между этими основаниями, раскрывается
сущность оснований

реабилитации через призму анализа

действующих нормативных актов и судебной деятельности.
Разработаны

предложения

и

рекомендации

по

совершенствованию процессуального порядка оправдания
невиновных лиц и восстановления их нарушенных прав.

Кроме того

,

акцентируется внимание

на поиске решений,

с учетом того, что судебные исполнители допускают
различные виды ошибок при дифференциации и
применении оснований

реабилитации в своей работе, и

соответственно современная теория уголовного процесса
вызывает некоторые противоречия в данной сфере.

INTRODUCTION
The institution of criminal termination has played an important role in the rapid and

complete detection of crimes in the world, as well as in investigation of the criminal who
committed crime, the compensation of property damage to the victim and the prosecution
and rehabilitation of the innocent. At the same time, the analysis of the activities of judicial-
investigation organ reveals the acquittal of defendants involved in criminal procedure, the
acquittal of those who have gone astray and those who have repented of their crimes, and
the torture of persons in judicial procedure has become an objective necessity for the
termination of the practice of discriminatory, cruelty, inhumanity or degradation
treatment.

Article 11 of the U

niversal Declaration of Human Rights states that: “Everyone

charged with a criminal offense shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved
guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary
for his defense

”[25]. No one shall be held guilty of any penal offense on account of any act

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

168

or omission which did not constitute a penal offense, in accordance with the national or
international law, at the time when it was committed.

It is also guaranteed that not any serious punishment may be imposed than the

punishment that may be used at the time of the crime commiting. Ensuring the non-
prosecution of innocent persons in the criminal-procedural terms serves to improve the
legal mechanisms for compensation of damages to legal and physical persons (individuals)
as a result of crime, the accurate and timely application of the basics of rehabilitation and
the complete provision of abovementioned guarantees.

RESULTS AND ITS DISCUSSION
Article 83

о

f the Criminal Procedural Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan sets out the

grounds for rehabilitation, which serve to restore the violated rights of innocent persons
in the criminal proceedure. It should be noted that, in contrast to other countries, the
criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan separates the basics for
rehabilitation from other grounds for termination of a criminal case and sets out a separate
norm [1].

It should be highlighted that in the last three years special attention is paid to

rehabilitation of person as a result of the extensive sustainable reforms in the sphere of
judicial-law in our country [2]. For instance, the abolition of the institution of additional
investigation by the court [3] served to increase dramatically to reach the verdict of
acquittal and termination of the criminal procedure by implementation of completing
mechanisms of incompletion of the investigation in the process of Court discussion in the
current CPC.

In particular, 7 people were released on parole in 2012-2016, [4], and this amount

was 1989 in 2017-2018, and by 2019, the number of released persons is decreased to 859
[5]. Such an indicator can also be seen with the example of cases terminated under Article
83 of the CPC. However, in 2016, the decision to dismiss a criminal case on the grounds of
acquittal or rehabilitation, or acquittal, was a very rare occurrence in the activities of the
judiciary-investigation organs.

However, the analysis of judiciary and investigation activities shows that there is no

single practice for the correct interpretation of the essence of the basics of rehabilitation
mentioned in the Article 83 of the CPC and their differentiation.

Chapter 37 of the CPC, entitled “Fundamentals and consequences of rehabilitation”

and the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On Judicial practice in the application of the Law on
compensation for property damage as a result of crime” are closely connected to this issue

[6]. However, these normative legal acts do not completely illustrate the essence of the
basics of rehabilitation, the issues of their proper application, and the different aspects of

the grounds for “termination of a criminal case” and “termination of an prosecution” and

their differentiation.

It is noteworthy that the research carried out in our country on this topical issue

also focuses on the restoration of violated rights of innocent persons and the compensation
for damages, thus tey do not reveal the essense of the basics of rehabilitation and their
modifications [7,8,9,10]. This, in turn, makes a series of misunderstandings in the
application of the principles of rehabilitation in the activities of judiciary-investigation
authorities.

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

169

Particularly, the analysis of the judiciary-investigation practice shows that the

circumstances in case of termination of prosecution thoroughly terminate the criminal
case or the application of second paragraph of the Article 83 of the CPC instead of the first
paragraph of this article.

To our viewpoint, the occurrence of such misapplication of the law can only be

attributed to the fact that the grounds for rehabilitation, such as «no criminal offense», «no
criminal act» and «no involvement in the crime», are reflected in the Article 83 of the CPC.

This can be explained by the fact that it is not sufficiently covered in the theory of criminal-
procedural law, but also in the current normative legal acts. Based on the analysis of the
existing views in the criminal-procedural theory, it is possible to refuse or terminate the
initiation of the criminal process in accordance with the paragraph 1 of the Article 83 of
the CPC (in case of absence of criminal case):

the objective absence of the criminal case that led to the initiation of the criminal

procedure, namely, the absence of the incident at all [11] (for example, the allegedly stolen
item of the victim has been found from his own house, namely, the crime has not been
committed in practice, etc.);

the incident has been occurred but did not occur as a result of the person`s criminal

conduct [12, 13] (for example, a fire caused by a natural disaster burns the organization`s
warehouse and causes extensive property damage. It can also be seen in other types of
natural disasters);

the accident has been occurred but it was caused by the victim himself / herself [14,

15] (for example, suicide, traffic accidents involving the victim`s death due to carelessness
of the victim, etc.)

The above-mentioned circumstances are also reflected in the decision of the Plenum

of the Supreme Court of t

he Republic of Uzbekistan «On the verdict of the courts».

According to it, the verdict of acquittal is reached in the absence of defendant (Article 83
paragraph 1 of the CPC) regardless of whether the act allegedly committed by the suspect
not to be committed by him or by the victim or whose will, to be removed if it occurs as a
result of the force of nature [16].

The decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court also states that the act may be

acquitted in the following cases:

if there are signs of an act that is considered a crime, but is not socially dangerous

due to its insignificance (Article 36 of the CC);

if the act is committed in case of necessary defence or last resort (Articles 37, 38 of

the CC);

if the act is committed by the defendant, but is not regarded as a crime under

criminal law: or the damage is caused at the time of arrest of the person who committed
socially dangerous act (Article 39 of the CC), execution of an order or other duty (Article
40 of the CC), professional or economic activity reasonable risk (Article 41 of the CC);

if the person is voluntarily returned from the crime (Article 26 of the CC), [16].
In addition, not only the local but also foreign scholars note that when an exception

is found in a crime, the criminal case should be terminated on the grounds that there is no
criminal element in the act [17].

Also, paragraph 6 of the 23rd Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court dated

on December 12, 2008 “On the application of compulsory medical measures against

persons with me

ntal illness” mentions that: “….. medical coercion against a person who has

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

170

committed a socially dangerous act in a state of insanity… when measures are imposed,

the criminal case is terminated due to the absence of an element that is part of the criminal
record

–

the subject (Article 83, paragraph 2 of the CPC) [18].

In our opinion, the views of the above scholars and their explanations with the

decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court on the circumstances in which the criminal
case should be terminated in accordance with the paragraph 2 of the Article 83 of the CPC

are inconsistent. This is because there is practically no “criminal case” in a socially

dangerous act committed by a person with mental illness, nor in cases that exclude the
criminality of the act specified in the Article 35 of the Criminal Code.

In order to terminate the criminal case, according to the second paragraph of the

Article 83 of the CPC, it is demanded that the crime is committed, however there is not any
criminal elements in involved person`s act. Therefore, the legislative norm clearly stated

in the second paragraph of the Article 83 that “in case of the absence of criminal elements
in his act”.

In addition, paragraph 18 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On

th

e application of compulsory medical measures against persons with mental illness”

states that “if the law provides that criminal liability arises after the imposition of an

administrative penalty, medical coercive measures shall not be applied unless the person
found has previously been held administratively liable for the same act. Such a case must
be terminated as there is no criminal record [16].

This is in accordance with Article 83 paragraph 1 of the CPC, which excludes the

commission of a socially dangerous act committed by a person with mental illness and the
criminality of the act specified in Article 35 of the Criminal Code. It indicates that the most
appropriate way is to refuse to prosecute or to decide to terminate the case.

In order to clarify the issue, we were interested in how practitioners know the

difference between paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Article 83 of the CPC and how accurately and
precisely they can apply these principles in their activity. In the questionnaire, they were
asked the foll

owing question: “According to the Article 173 of the Criminal Code

(intentional destruction or damage to property), a criminal case was initiated on the fact
that the house of a person named S. (conventionally chosen name, subject) was set on fire
and a large amount of damage was caused to him. Citizen T. (conventionally chosen name,
subject) threatened to burn down S.`s house, also involved as a suspect in accordance with
the testimony of witnesses. However, during the investigation, it is investigated that the

fire was caused by the negligence of S.’s wife R. (conventionally chosen name, subject) and

this led to the burning of the house. In this case, the investigator terminated the criminal
case on the basis of the paragraph 1, Article 83 of the CPC, namely, on the grounds that no
criminal act had been committed. However, the prosecutor considered these actions to be
incorrect and stressed that in this case the case should be terminated due to the absence
of Article 83 paragraph 2 of the CPC, i.e. no criminal content. Who is right, in this case - the
investigator or the prosecutor? Thirty-three percent of those surveyed said the
investigator`s decision was correct, while 62 percent said the prosecutor`s decision was
correct. It turns out that law enforcement officers have different approaches to the issue.

In our opinion, in order to realize the difference between the grounds provided for

in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Article 83 of the CPC, we must first understand the essence of
the grounds

“criminal incident” and “absence of criminal content in the act”.

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

171

“Event” is a philosophical category in which the appearance of an object in some way

is a form of external existence. “Incident” is a much broader concept than the criminal

accident. An event can occur as a result of both natural forces (e.g., natural disasters) and

human action at the same time. Hence, “incident” also includes the concept of “criminal
accident”. Action, on the other hand, is one of the ways in which an event occurs and is

directly related to a person`s actions.

It turns out that the crime scene is somewhat broader in its content than the crime

scene. That is, it is impossible for a crime to exist on its own if the crime had not occurred.
As noted above, the legislature in this case was referring not only to the incident, but to the
crime itself. This means that in any case where an incident has taken place but no signs of

a crime have been identified, the criminal case must be terminated on the grounds that “no

criminal incide

nt has taken place”. This is because the ground set forth in the second

paragraph of Article 83 of the CPC provided that there was no “criminal content in the act
of a person” and not in the incident.

This requires a proper assessment of the terms “incident” and “act” in order to

correctly distinguish between the grounds “if no criminal act has taken place” and “if the
act of the person has no criminal content”.

Due to the lack of criminal content, termination of a criminal case is one of the most

common grounds used by investigative organs, and in 2019, cases terminated on this basis
accounted for almost 80% of cases terminated under Article 83 of the CPC [21].

The grounds for the absence of criminal elements in the actions of a person apply in

the action that the incident led to the initiation of criminal proceedings occurred in
practice, but it was considered that the actions of the person involved did not show signs
of a crime [22]. We know from the science of criminal law that in order to find an act as a
crime, it is necessary to have all the elements of the crime - the object, the objective side,
the subject and the subjective side. The absence of any of the elements listed in the act of
the person involved in the criminal case indicates that the act should not constitute a crime
[23].

Although the content is repetitive, we will try to express our opinion more clearly

by the following example: if there is no signs of a crime in the incident, we must terminate

the criminal case on the grounds that “no criminal incident has occurred”. We can see this

in two cases: first, if the incident that led to the criminal case was not committed at all; the
second is that the incident took place, but there are no signs of a crime. This may include
any act that is not recognized as a crime under criminal law. For example: cases that
exclude a crime, voluntary return, commission of a socially dangerous act by a mentally ill
person, etc.

Indeed, in such situation a natural question arises, in which case is it possible to

terminate a criminal case on the grounds that “the act of the person does not constitute a
crime”? In our opinion, the basis of “if the act of a person does not contain a criminal
element” should serve as a basis for the termination of the criminal case (p

art of the

criminal case) only in the context of the criminal case, and not in its content.

It should be noted that in this case, the legislator did not mean the whole incident,

but the actions of the person involved in the case. For example, it was found that the actions
of two of the three persons suspected of committing the crime of theft (criminal incident)
did not constitute a crime. In this case, we will be able to terminate the criminal case not

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

172

in full, but only in the part of the person whose actions (deeds) do not contain the content
of the crime.

In our opinion, it is very likely that most procedural scholars and staff with many

years of rich practical experience will not agree with our interpretation on the basis that

“there is no criminal element in an individual`s actions”. This is because the examples we

have given to explain the essence of the grounds provided for in the Article 83, paragraph
2 of the CPC are considered by them to be based on the grounds that the termination of a
criminal case

is “not related to the crime committed”.

Taking into account these factors, let`s have a closer sight at the content of the

principle “a person is not involved in a crime”.

To date, the work completed on this basis in Uzbekistan accounts for an average of

2% of the total work completed on the basis of rehabilitation [21]. Given the very low
performance of the framework under research, we conducted a questionnaire survey
among scientists and practitioners in order to identify the factors that hinder the
application of this framework [19]. According to the analysis of the survey results, the

practitioner expressed a negative attitude towards the staff on the grounds that “the
person is not involved in the crime”. According to them, this situation is almost no

n-

existent in judicial practice, and if it is established that a person involved in a criminal case

is not involved in the crime, the case can be terminated on the grounds that “the person`s
actions do not constitute a crime”. This is because paragraph 2 o

f the Article 83 of the CPC

also covers the cases specified in paragraph 3 of this article.

Paragraph 9 of the decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Court “On the verdict”

states that if the fact and consequences of a socially dangerous act are established, but the
evidence presented and examined at the trial denies that it was committed by the
defendant or does not find its confirmation, in this case it is determined that he should
acquit because he is not involved. [16]

The requirements of Article 464 of the CPC also apply to the fact that the evidence

gathered in the case is not considered evidence due to insufficiency or illegal acquisition,
or that the crime was committed by another person. It serves as a basis for termination of
a criminal case or acquittal on the grounds of absence [1].

In our opinion, in order to apply the principle of paragraph 3 of the Article 83 of the

CPC, that is, “if it is irrelevant to the crime committed” the person must not have any

involvement in the crime. If a person is involved in a crime, but no sufficient evidence has
been gathered to prove that there is a criminal element in his act, it is appropriate to

terminate the case against him on the basis of the Article 83, paragraph 2, namely, “his act

does not constitute a cr

ime”. We will try to elaborate on our point using the following

example. For example, in most cases, a victim who has received bodily injuries as a result
of an altercation states in his or her application that a group of individuals joined together
to inflict bodily injuries on him or her. But during the investigation, a group of individuals
notes that they are brothers and that he saw his brother fighting with a stranger and only
tried to separate them. The evidence gathered during the criminal proceedings reveals that
in this case, in fact, his brother tried to end the quarrel only by separating the parties. In
this case, it is correct to terminate the criminal case against the defendant`s brother on the

grounds that “his actions do not constitute a crime”. In turn, if during the quarrel, evidence

(alibi) confirming that the brother was elsewhere is found, the criminal case should be

terminated on the grounds that “he was not involved in the crime committed”.

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

173

It should be noted that today there are some drawbacks in the interpretation of the

essence of the principles set out in the Article 83 of the CPC, not only by practitioners, but
also by the organs that coordinate their activities. An example of this is the Joint Instruction
of the Supreme Court No. KTB-68-13, adopted on March 5, 2013, to ensure the

implementation of the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated December 29, 2012 “On
amendments and additions to some legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan”.

Paragraph 1 of the third part of this instruction stipulates that interrogation, preliminary
investigation organs and court proceedings on non-criminal acts shall be terminated in
accordance with the Article 83 of the CPC due to the change in the value of the amounts in
Section 8 of the Criminal Code. This demand cannot be said to be justified.

Indeed, the grounds under the Article 83 of the CPC are currently the grounds for

rehabilitation, and it would be logically incorrect to declare the perpetrator innocent and
apply acquittal measures against him as the act is no longer criminal due to changes in the
relevant amounts prescribed by law. In this case, the act committed as a result of the
change in the situation loses its socially dangerous character. This is requires to terminate
the criminal case on the basis of the fifth part, paragraph 1, Article 84 of the CPC, denotes

“at the time of the investigation or trial, the act has lost its socially dangerous nature or the
person is no longer socially dangerous due to changes in circumstances”.

A natural question arises in each of us that what is the significance of such in-depth

coverage of the differences between the basics of rehabilitation and their correct
application in judicial practice? Article 283 of the current CPC and the decisions of the
Pl

enum of the Supreme Court state that “in the case of acquittal on the grounds that no

criminal act has been committed or the person has not been involved in the crime, the court
shall refuse to satisfy the civil suit. When an acquittal is rendered on the grounds that the
act committed by the defendant did not constitute a crime, the court shall, in whole or in
part, satisfy or refuse to satisfy the claim, taking into account the degree and extent of the

evidence” [16]. This suggests that the legal consequen

ces arising from the application of

the fundamentals of rehabilitation to the restoration of the violated rights of innocent
persons are varied.

Conclusions
It is expedient to formulate the results of this research, which is devoted to a

comprehensive study and in-depth analysis of the theoretical and practical aspects of the
application of the basics of rehabilitation in criminal procedure:

1.

An in-depth analysis of the current CPC norms with the definitions of the concept

of “rehabilitation” in the theory of criminal procedure allowed the development of the
following new definition: «Rehabilitation is a procedural activity aimed at recovering at

the expense of the state all types of damages caused by the application, as a result of
prosecution and other illegal actions, involving them in illegal investigative actions,
procedural coercive measures, an acquittal should be reached or refusal to initiate criminal
procedure against them under the Article 83 of the CPC, as well as the full restoration of
the person`s previous position to suspects, accused, defendants and prisoners in
accordance with the law.

2.

It is substantiated that the institution of termination of a criminal case should be

divided into rehabilitative and non-rehabilitative grounds in order to ensure the correct
application of the rules of criminal procedural law and the impunity of innocent persons.

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

174

3.

It is scientifically and theoretically justified to terminate a criminal case on the

grounds that “a criminal case has been institute

d and no criminal case has been initiated

in the case under investigation or trial” in the case of exceptional circumstances on the

basis of the Article 83, paragraph 1.

4.

In contrast to other cases which exclude the criminality of the act, the illegal and

guilty features of the crime shall be retained in the lesser act. This shows that it is not

logically correct to acquit a person who has committed a “minor act” and to restore his

violated rights. On the basis of these factors, we believe that it is necessary to study in
depth and continue scientific research in this regard, not to exclude the criminality of the

act as a “minor act”, but as a basis for exemption from liability.

5.

In accordance with the Article 26 of the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan

and the first part of the Article 23 of the CPC, a person is presumed innocent until proven
guilty by a court verdict that is come into effect. This shows that the main requirement of
the principle of the presumption of innocence is that every person should not only be
released from liability or punishment by a court ruling or judgment, but that no innocent
person should be unjustifiably prosecuted. All of this suggests that the termination of
criminal proceedings and the exemption from liability of institutions are commensurate
with the principle of the presumption of innocence.

6.

The essence of the grounds for rehabilitation set forth in the Article 83 of the CPC

and the differences in their application are explained in detail: “no criminal c

ase has been

instituted in the case in which the case was initiated and the investigation or trial”, “his act
has no criminal content” and “he is not involved in the crime”;

7.

If a person involved in a criminal case is found to be involved in a crime, but his

actions do not contain all the elements of a crime, this case should be terminated on the
basis of the Article 83, paragraph 2 of the CPC.

In order to apply the principle of “irrelevant to the crime committed” provided for

in paragraph 3 of the Article 83, it is required that the person has no connection with the
crime, that is, the person`s actions do neither have subjective nor objective features of the
crime. This suggests that a decision should be made to dismiss the criminal case in its
entirety, b

ut only in part, on the grounds that “it is not related to the crime committed” and

that measures should be taken to expose the perpetrator.

In addition, the regular publication of training manuals on the analysis of the

criminal cases and the organization of special training seminars for judicial authorities
serve to fully ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual and
address the problematic situations related to the application of the principles set out in the
Article 83 of the CPC.

References:
1.

Article 83 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

https://lex.uz/docs

2.

Presidential

Decrees

№

-4850

dated

on

October

21,

2016

(https://lex.uz/docs/3050491);

№

-5268

dated

on

November

30,

2017

(https://lex.uz/docs/3432426);

and

№

-6041

dated

on

August

10,

2020

(https://lex.uz/docs/4939467) of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

175

3.

Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated on September 6, 2017 №

-442 Collection

of Law documents of the Republic

of Uzbekistan, 2017, №

-36, Article 943.

4.

See: Nazarov V. Defamation of an innocent person is an unforgivable sin -

http://xs.uz/uzkr/post/ajbsiz-odamni-badnom-etish-kechirib-bolmas-gunoh.

5.

Proclamation of the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev

to the Oliy Majlis. 24.01.2020. https://preresent.uz/uz/lists/view/3324.

6.

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan

dated on December 27, 2016 №

-

26 “On judicial practice in the application of the legislation

on co

mpensation for property damage caused by crime” https://lex.uz/docs/3115385

7.

Kamalxodjaev D. Rehabilitation in a criminal process: Research thesis:. - T., 1996.

- P. 21;

8.

Criminal procedure (General part): Textbook for students of law institutes and

faculties / Under the general editorship of Z. F. Inogomjanova.

–

T., 2008. - P. 596;

9.

Ibrokhimov B. Rehabilitation. file: /// C: / Users / USER / Desktop /

rehabilitation_% 20 (1) .pdf;

10.

Criminal procedural law: Textbook // Doctor of science in Law, Professor Edited

by M. A. Rajabova. Completed and revised third edition. - T .: Academy of the Ministry of
Internal Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2019. - 820 p.

11.

Filchenko A.P. The absence of the criminal case, exception of criminal

responsibility.https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=20153550;https://stopham.com/prestup
lenija/9662chem-otlichaetsja-sobytie-otsostavaprestuplenija.html;

12.

Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti;

13.

Retrieved August 10, 2020, from legaldictionary.net›corpus

-delicti/

14.

Retrieved

August

10,

2020,

from

https://stillnessinthestorm.com/2013/11/understanding-our-legal-system-corpus/;

15.

https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36321221.

16.

Verdict of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated

on May 23,

2014 №

-

7 “On Court Verdict”. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from

https://lex.uz/docs/3115385https://lex.uz/docs/2413562.

17.

Retrieved

August

10,

2020,

from

https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=36321221;https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=29886155.

18.

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan

dated on December 12, 2008 №

-

23 “On judicial practice on the application of compulsory

medical measures against persons with mental illness”. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from

https://lex.uz/docs/1601125.

19.

The results of a survey of more than 1,000 preliminary interrogators and

investigators on the telegram channel “CC and CPC: theory and practice”.

https://t.me/joinchat/BYpMqk8UwT6lA9wgo1PGoA.

20.

National Encyclopedia of Uzbekistan. T.VI. Editorial Board: A. Abduvohitov, A.

Azizxo`jaev, M. Aminov, T. Daminov et al. - T., 2003. - P.102; https: //xn--b1abycfgbbz.xn

21.

Statistics of the Investigation Department of the MIA of the Republic of

Uzbekistan in 2019.

22.

See: Bulletin of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan. 2004.

–

№

-2.

–

P.44.

Жамият

ва

инновациялар

–

Общество

и

инновации

–

Society and innovations

Issue -1,

№

01 (2020) / ISSN 2181-1415

176

23.

Comments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

–

Т

., 1997.

–

Pp.

28

–

30; Criminal Process: General part. Textbook with two parts. Part 2 / Editor U. A.

Tuxtasheva

–

Т

. 2007.

–

P.469.

24.

“The results of a survey of m

ore than 1,000 preliminary interrogators and

investigators on the telegram channel “CC and CPC: theory and practice”.

https://t.me/joinchat/ BYpMqk8UwT6lA9wgo1PGoA.

25.

Retrieved August 15, 2020, from http://constitution.uz/uz/pages/humanrights