SOLUTION OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN
MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMY
International scientific-online conference
30
SOME CONSIDERATIONS ON THE USE OF PERSONS WITH SPECIAL
KNOWLEDGE IN COLLECTING EVIDENCE
Abduvahobov Sherzodbek Abduvahobovich
Senior Lecturer of the Department of Operational and Investigative
Activities, Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Legal Sciences.
E-mail: sherzodbekabduvahobov01@gmail.com
Orcid: 0009-0008-4580-3540
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15356781
Officials who carry out the verification process must ensure the competence
of a specialist before initiating investigative actions involving them, in
accordance with Article 69 of the Criminal Procedure Code. However, we can see
that the procedure for this procedural action is not specified in the law.
Additionally, although officials of pre-investigation verification bodies
participate in the evidence collection process in criminal procedural relations,
they are not listed as those who carry out verification in Article 86 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, which appears to be a controversial situation in our
view. Therefore, we believe it would be appropriate to add
“officials of pre-
investigation verification bodies”
to the list of persons carrying out verification
specified in the first part of Article 86 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
In practice, officials conducting procedural processes who verify evidence
have limited themselves to examining documents about the specialist’s
education and other documents confirming their professional skills to ensure
the specialist is qualified. However, for clarifying circumstances relevant to the
case, a specialist must possess the necessary special knowledge, and their
qualification may not be confirmed by documents — that is, they may have
special knowledge without having completed any educational institution.
Only thoroughly knowledgeable and highly qualified individuals can be
specialists [1, p.259]. Therefore, one of the main functions of a specialist in
criminal proceedings is to assist in finding, recording, and seizing items and
documents during pre-trial proceedings and court processes. In carrying out
these functions, the specialist’s possession of special knowledge indicates that
practitioners should not rely solely on educational documents when involving
specialists in cases.
According to legal scholar R.S.
Belkin, a specialist is a person with
knowledge on specific issues who is involved in investigative actions by the
investigator and court to assist in collecting, researching, evaluating, and
applying evidence [2, p.215].
SOLUTION OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN
MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMY
International scientific-online conference
31
One can partially agree with R.S.
Belkin’s opinion on this matter. This is
because, in criminal proceedings, specialists can be involved not only by
investigators or courts but also by pre-investigation verification bodies,
inquirers, or prosecutors.
During the research, documents from 200 criminal cases from various
regions of our Republic were analyzed [3]. These included 176 ongoing
preliminary investigations and 24 criminal cases suspended based on Article
364, Part 1, Clause 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The total number of
investigative actions in the criminal cases was 2341 of which 92 (3.9%) were
crime scene examinations, 1544 (65.8%) were interrogations, 171 (7.3%) were
confrontations, 25 (1.0%) were verifications of testimony at the crime scene,
103 (4.3%) were identifications, 112 (4.7%) were searches, 156 (6.6%) were
seizures, 118 (5%) were examinations of items and documents, and 20 (0.85%)
were collections of samples for expert examination. The studied criminal cases
did not include investigative actions such as physical examinations, experiments,
or exhumations
(the percentage indicators are relative to the total of 2341)
.
Specialists participated in investigative actions a total of 132 times,
constituting 5.6% of all investigative actions (2341), where the specialist
directly assisted in identifying, collecting, recording, or formalizing evidence.
When analyzing this indicator by type of investigative action, specialists
participated 24 times (18.1%) in crime scene examinations, once (0.7%) in
verifications of testimony at the crime scene, 12 times (9%) in identifications, 71
times (53.7%) in searches, 5 times (0.3%) in seizures, 10 times (7.5%) in
examinations of items and documents, and 9 times (6.8%) in collections of
samples for expert examination. No participation of specialists was observed in
interrogations, confrontations, physical examinations, experiments, or
exhumations
(percentage indicators for specialists’ participation in investigative
actions are relative to the total of 132)
.
When analyzing cases where specialists’ assistance in identifying, collecting,
recording, or formalizing evidence resulted in significant and valid evidence
being added to the case [4], such instances occurred 84 times, constituting 3.5%
of all investigative actions (2341). Specifically, by investigative action, this
included 24 instances (28.5%) in crime scene examinations, 1 instance (1.1%) in
verification of testimony at the crime scene, 12 instances (14.2%) in
identifications, 23 instances (27.3%) in searches, 5 instances (5.9%) in seizures,
10 instances (11.9%) in examinations of items and documents, and 9 instances
(10.7%) in collections of samples for expert examination. No participation of
SOLUTION OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN
MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMY
International scientific-online conference
32
specialists was observed in interrogations, confrontations, physical
examinations, experiments, or exhumations in the studied criminal cases
(percentage indicators for specialists’ participation in investigative actions are
relative to the total of 84)
.
In performing this function, the specialist’s actions consist of finding and
securing evidence, as specified in Part 1 of Article 69 of the Criminal Procedure
Code.
Not all documents seized with a specialist’s participation later become
evidence in the case. This is because some items obtained during pre-trial or
trial proceedings with a specialist’s participation may not be recognized as
evidence later. Legal scholar D.A.
Kharchenko has also emphasized this point [5,
p.35].
In particular, it is advisable to invite a specialist when seizing securities
[6, p.107]. In this case, it is necessary to pay attention to whether the securities
being seized actually belong to this category.
Specifically, in the 200 criminal cases studied during the research, various
investigative actions were conducted 2341 times, with specialists assisting in
identifying, collecting, recording, or formalizing evidence in 132 instances
(5.6%). However, in only 84 (63.6%) of the investigative actions involving
specialists were significant and valid evidence collected and added to the case.
An integral part of a specialist’s activity is the use of technical means in
collecting, recording, and examining evidence during investigative actions. The
Criminal Procedure Code does not provide a complete list of types of technical
means that can be used in investigative actions. This is appropriate because
existing technical means are constantly being improved and new types are being
created in accordance with modern requirements, making it impractical to
establish such a list in the law.
This means that a specialist may use any technical means and methods in
accordance with the requirements established by law to identify, record, and
seize traces of crime and physical evidence during investigative actions.
At the same time, the Criminal Procedure Code does not specify the types of
data carriers that record the results of using technical means. Parts one and
three of Article 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code indicate auxiliary methods for
recording evidence, stating that in addition to drawing up a protocol to record
evidence, sound recording, video recording, cinematography, photography,
making casts, obtaining copies, preparing plans, schemes, and other methods of
representing information can be used. The investigator, court can involve
SOLUTION OF SOCIAL PROBLEMS IN
MANAGEMENT AND ECONOMY
International scientific-online conference
33
specialists to assist in applying these methods of securing evidence.
Photographs, phonograms, video recordings, cinematography, casts, copies,
plans, schemes, and others reflecting the course and results of the investigative
or judicial action are attached to the protocol. Although it is indicated that other
methods of representing information can be used in recording evidence in
accordance with the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, they are not
specified, including photographic negatives and photographs, films, slides,
interrogation phonograms, videocassettes, computer data carriers, and others
obtained during the investigative action. The list of information media is also
incomplete. These may include digital equipment and digital information
sources used in computer technologies.
References:
1. Чориев О. Юридик кадрларнинг жиноятчи руҳиятини англашида ҳуқуқ
ва адабиёт уйғунлиги: Юридик фанлар ахборотномаси, илмий-амалий
ҳуқуқий журнал. Юридик фанлар ахборотномаси, илмий-амалий ҳуқуқий
журнал. Махсус сон III қисм. – Т., ТДЮУ. – 2020 (4-сон). – Б.259.
2. Белкин Р.С. Криминалистическая энциклопедия. — 2-е изд. доп.—М.,
2000. — С. 215.
3. Criminal cases under investigation.
4. Criminal cases under investigation.
5. Харченко Д.А. Судебная экспертиза в российском уголовном
судопроизводстве: дис. канд. юрид. наук. — Иркутск, 2006. — С. 35.
6. Самандаров К.Б. Жиноят процессида қимматли қоғозларни хатлаш
жараёнини такомиллаштириш //Central Asian Research Journal for
Interdisciplinary Studies (CARJIS). – 2022. – T. 2. – Yoʻq. 8. – 107-bet.
DOI:10.24412/2181-2454-2022-8-100-109
