THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
78
THE PROCEDURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF SPECIALIST PARTICIPATION
IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
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.15356764
In criminal proceedings, establishing proof encompasses collecting,
verifying and evaluating evidence. Various opinions and considerations continue
to be expressed regarding the content and essence of the proof process [1, p.25].
In particular, legal scholar G.Z. Tulaganova expressed that proof is
understood as the activity of subjects, based on criminal procedural law, to
collect, document, verify, and evaluate any information relevant to a specific
criminal case in a procedural manner, as well as to confirm the existence of this
information on behalf of the state [2, p.141]. We can agree with the opinion
expressed by G.Z. Tulaganova. This is because the process of exposing and
proving a crime must be based on criminal procedural law.
According to legal scholar O.M. Madaliev, proof is an activity carried out in a
procedural manner prescribed by law, performed by investigative bodies,
investigators, prosecutors, and courts with the participation of other subjects of
proof, to collect, verify and evaluate evidence to establish the truth in a criminal
case and solve all tasks of criminal proceedings [3, p.13]. In agreement with
O.M. Madaliev’s opinion, it is appropriate to acknowledge that the process of
proof is not limited only to the circle of persons carrying it out, but is also
carried out by other participants directly involved in these processes.
B.A. Azizkhodzhaev expressed that proof consists of advancing investigative
hypotheses and their dynamic development, collecting evidence for each
hypothesis, studying (verifying) the collected evidence, evaluating it, and making
substantiated procedural decisions on the case [4, p.16]. The opinions expressed
by B.A. Azizkhodzhaev are somewhat debatable. This is because evidence related
to an investigative hypothesis may not be recognized as evidence in the future
and may not be significant in the proof process. That is, the proof process must
correspond to the truth, be verified, and evaluated in the manner prescribed by
law.
D.M. Mirazov notes that in the process of proof, it is necessary to ensure a
thorough, comprehensive, complete, and objective examination of all
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
79
circumstances to be proven in the case, to ensure respect for the honor and
dignity of the persons participating in the case, and to organize the protection of
the rights and freedoms of citizens participating in the criminal process [5, p.73].
We can agree with this opinion. This is because the proof process requires
persons carrying it out or involved in it to pay attention to circumstances that
need to be proven carefully, through comprehensive, complete, and objective
examination, while performing their assigned duties.
According to B.T. Bezlepkin, proof should not be limited only to mental
activity because it is more about law enforcement, aimed at establishing
circumstances significant for the case, and ends with the justification of the final
decision on the criminal case [6, pp.75-95].
According to L.A. Tatarov, proof should be understood as purposeful
activity to logically substantiate the guilt (or innocence) of the accused
(defendant) in committing a crime using evidence collected in the manner
prescribed by criminal procedural law [7, p.9].
In agreement with the opinions expressed by B.T. Bezlepkin and
L.A. Tatarov, the actions of a person who has committed a socially dangerous act
must be proven in cases stipulated by law. Of course, the process of proof is
carried out through the application of law, and deviating from the law may be
considered going beyond the limits of proof.
B.A. Rajabov has included the identification and use of evidence, along with
the collection, verification, and evaluation of evidence, as stages of proof [8,
p.23].
We can agree with Professor B.A. Rajabov’s opinions. This is because in the
process of proof, evidence is first identified and can then be used. It is impossible
to achieve the goal of proof without using the evidence obtained in the proof
process.
In our opinion, proof is a system of activities of subjects who carry out,
participate in, or are involved in proof, for the purpose of identifying, collecting,
verifying, evaluating, and using evidence in fulfilling the tasks specified in
criminal procedural law.
Proof is carried out through evidence [9, p.10], where the identification of
evidence occurs in the form of preliminary examination, and in conducting it, the
need to use special knowledge often arises. The participation of a specialist in
proof serves as an example of using special knowledge and is mainly manifested
in identifying, collecting, and verifying evidence. Identifying and collecting
evidence is mainly carried out in pre-trial proceedings.
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
80
Analysis of investigative practice shows that in certain situations (when
reviewing document circulation, technological processes, etc.), it is necessary to
involve a specialist in the preliminary examination. Information obtained with
the help of a specialist often contains necessary information indicating the
presence or absence of criminal elements, which allows for making correct
procedural decisions based on the results of the preliminary examination.
In the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings, in accordance with the
requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code, a specialist may be involved to
assist the investigator or inquiry officer in finding, recording, and seizing objects
and documents, examining the scene of the incident, and examining the corpse
using technical means.
During the examination of the scene of the incident, the specialist provides
technical and advisory assistance to the investigator, which helps to conduct the
pre-investigation check more quickly and efficiently, to formulate a more
accurate description of traces and marks for recording in the protocol, and to
identify the probable mechanism of trace formation in connection with the
criminal event. During the examination of the scene of an accident, the specialist
provides technical assistance in solving special issues. Legal scholar
Sh.Kh. Inomjonov notes that operational information available in material
compounds is obtained directly by the operational officer or with the help of a
specialist [10, p.89]. The specialist provides advice and explanations, as well as
identifies the names and functions of certain objects, provides technical
assistance in collecting and seizing traces, objects, and other items, which is
recorded in the protocol. According to A.Kh. Imomnazarov, in some cases, the
failure to involve specialists in examining the scene of an incident in practice is
recognized as a permissible error [11, pp.20-21].
We can agree with the opinions expressed by Sh.Kh. Inomjonov and
A.Kh. Imomnazarov. In our opinion, in cases where a specialist should
participate, failure to ensure their participation may lead to unreliable, poor-
quality evidence being collected in the future.
In this regard, the results of a survey conducted among field specialists
during the research also confirm the stated opinions.
During the survey, to the question “what role does the participation of a
specialist in criminal proceedings play in making decisions on the case?”
90,07 percent of respondents answered “it affects making a well-founded and
lawful decision”, 5,96 percent answered “it has no role”, 6,32 percent answered
“the participation of a specialist is necessary for formality in the case”, and
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
81
93,32 percent answered “it serves to collect significant, reliable, and acceptable
evidence for the case, as well as to ensure impartial proceedings” [12]. As can be
seen from the survey results, the participation of a specialist in criminal
proceedings is very important.
References:
1. Правовой статус и правовая регламентация участия специалиста в
уголовном процессе: теоретические, процессуальные и организационные
аспекты: монография / Е.А. Семенов, В.Ф. Васюков, А.Г. Волеводз; под
редакцией А.Г. Волеводза. — Москва: МГИМО-Университет, 2020. — С. 25.
2. Jinoyat-protsessual huquqi. Umumiy qism: Darslik/ Mualliflar jamoasi. – T.:
TDYU, 2017. – B. 141.
3. Мамадалиев О.М. Биринчи инстанция судларида жиноят ишлари
юритишда прокурор иштироки: юридик фанлар номзоди илмий
даражасини олиш учун тайёрланган диссертация автореферати. – Т., 2004.
– Б.13
4. Азизходжаев Б.А. Оценка доказательств в уголовном процессе. Т.: ТГЮИ,
1995. – Б. 16.
5. Миразов Д.М. Дастлабки тергов идоралари фаолияти устидан контроль
ва назоратни такомиллаштиришнинг назарий, ташкилий ва процессуал
жиҳатлари:Юрид.фан. докт.(DSc) илмий дар.олиш учун ёзилган
диссертация – Т., 2016. – Б. 73.
6. Безлепкин Б.Т. Доказательства в советском уголовном процессе //
Советский уголовный процесс: Учебник / Под ред. В.П.Божьева – М.:
Юрид.лит., 1990. Б. 75-95.
7. Татаров Л.А. Методические и мотодологические проблемқ доказывания
обстоятельств преступления: Автореферат диссертация на соискание
ученой степени кандидата юридических наук. – Ростов – на – Дону., 2006. –
С.9.
8. Ражабов Б.А. Ишни судга қадар юритишда исбот қилишнинг умумий
шартларига риоя этилишини таъминлаш: Юрид.фан. докт.(DSc) илмий
дар.олиш учун ёзилган диссертация – Т., 2019. – Б. 23.
9. Иномжонов Ш.Х. Жиноят процессида далилларни тақдим қилиш ва
улардан фойдаланиш муаммолари: Монография. – Тошкент.:TDYI, 2006. –
Б.10.
10. Иномжонов Ш.Х. Жиноят процессида далилларни тақдим қилиш ва
улардан фойдаланиш муаммолари: Монография. – Тошкент.:TDYI, 2006. –
Б.89.
THEORETICAL ASPECTS IN THE FORMATION OF
PEDAGOGICAL SCIENCES
International scientific-online conference
82
11.
Имомназаров
А.Х.
Кўздан
кечириш
тергов
ҳаракатини
такомиллаштиришнинг процессуал ва криминалистик жиҳатлари:
Юридик фанлар бўйича фалсафа доктори (PhD) илмий даражасини олиш
учун ёзилган диссертатсия автореферати. – Т., 2023. – Б.20-21.
12. Survey results.
