The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 12-2021
130
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
December 30, 2021 |
Pages:
130-135
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue12-20
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
‘
ABSTRACT
The article examines and analyzes procedural aspects and issues related to the following types of
forensic examination: primary, repeated, additional, commission and complex forensic examination.
The differences in the norms of procedural legislation encourages us to unify legal regulations on the
institution of forensic examination, which by its very nature is not complete.
KEYWORDS
Classification, forensic examination, primary examination, additional examination, re-examination,
commission examination, complex examination.
INTRODUCTION
Within the framework of a judicial process, a
forensic examination is an independent
procedural
action
aimed
at
obtaining
information about facts (evidence), on the
basis of which the court establishes the
presence or absence of circumstances that are
important for the correct consideration and
resolution of the case. Moreover, one of the
types of evidence in criminal proceedings is an
expert's opinion (Article 87 of the Criminal
Procedure
Code
of
the
Republic
of
Uzbekistan).
CLASSIFICATION OF FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS ON THE
FEATURES OF THE PROCEDURAL FORM OF THEIR
PRODUCTION
Ulzana Rakhimova
Lecturer of the Department of Criminal procedure, Law of Tashkent state university of law,
Uzbekistan
Alisher Muhitdinov
Associate Professor of the Department of Judicial Law and Prosecutor's Supervision, Tajik State
University of Law, Business and Politics, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
https://theamericanjou
rnals.com/index.php/ta
jpslc
Copyright:
Original
content from this work
may be used under the
terms of the creative
commons
attributes
4.0 licence.
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 12-2021
131
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
December 30, 2021 |
Pages:
130-135
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue12-20
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
Although the law determines that “no
evidence has a predetermined force for the
court” (Article 187 of the Criminal Procedure
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan), the
expert's opinion may be decisive in the
outcome of the case. Thus, the role of forensic
expertise in the exercise of the right to judicial
protection is very high. Because the fate of a
person ultimately depends on the result of the
examination.
In this article, we will consider the legislatively
enshrined organizational and procedural
classification of forensic examinations on
various grounds.
First of all, it should be noted that the expert's
opinion must be substantiated and exhaustive,
i.e. the expert is obliged to give answers to all
questions posed by the inquiry officer, the
investigator or the court, and if it is impossible
to give an answer to any question, reasonably
indicate this in the conclusion. Based on
whether the expert's opinion meets the listed
requirements, depending on the sequence of
the examination, they are divided into primary
and secondary.
The primary examination is appointed for a
specific court case and is carried out for the
first time. Secondary examinations can be
carried out in case of detection of any
shortcomings
(incompleteness,
unfoundedness, ambiguity of conclusions) of
the initial expert opinion, and are subdivided, in
turn, into additional and repeated ones.
Thus, in forensic practice sometimes there is a
need for additional and repeated expert
examination.
Additional expertise is assigned in case of
insufficient clarity and completeness of the
initial expert opinion, and is often entrusted to
the same expert as the initial one. The basis for
the appointment of an additional expert
examination is the presence of “removable”
deficiencies in the initial report, i.e.
inaccuracies and gaps that do not require re-
examination in full.
Based on the above, we have proposed to
replace the first paragraph of Article 18 of the
Law "On Forensic Expertise", in terms of
additional expertise:
Additional forensic examination is appointed in
case of insufficient clarity or completeness of
the expert's conclusion, as well as when new
questions arise regarding the previously
investigated circumstances of the case.
The basis for additional and repeated
examinations, the production of which is
provided for by Art. 176, Code of Criminal
Procedure of the Republic of Uzbekistan,
serves as a decision of an investigator, an
inquiry officer, or a court ruling on the
appointment of an examination [1].
In turn, when doubts arise about the validity of
the expert's conclusion or there are
contradictions in the conclusions of the expert
or experts on the same issues, a repeated
examination may be ordered. Thus, the
grounds for the appointment of a repeated
examination are significant shortcomings of
the initial conclusion, which raise doubts about
the competence of the expert, in connection
with which, the repeated examination is
always entrusted to another expert or other
experts, and when it is carried out, the study on
the questions posed is completely repeated.
From this it follows that the appointment of
repeated examinations occurs:
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 12-2021
132
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
December 30, 2021 |
Pages:
130-135
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue12-20
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
•
In case of unfounded expert opinion;
•
In case of doubt about the correctness of
the expert's conclusion;
•
In case of contradictory conclusions of
different experts;
•
When the rules for the examination were
violated;
•
Provision of materials recognized as
unreliable to the expert during the initial
examination.
According to Article 19 of the Law of the
Republic
of
Uzbekistan
"On
forensic
examination", forensic examination can be
carried out by several forensic experts of the
same (commission forensic examination) or
different forensic specialties (complex forensic
examination) [2].
We have proposed the following version of the
article
on
the
commission
forensic
examination, since we consider it necessary to
legislatively fix the number of experts
performed by the commission examination:
Commission forensic examination is carried out
by two or more experts. Commission
examination is carried out using special
knowledge related to one genus (type,
subspecies) of examination or to different
kinds (types, subspecies) of examination.
The organization and production of the
commission forensic examination shall be
assigned to the head of the forensic expert
institution.
The expert commission will agree on the goals,
sequence and scope of the upcoming studies,
based on the need to resolve the issues posed
to it.
As part of a commission of experts entrusted
with the production of a forensic examination,
each expert independently and independently
conducts research, evaluates the results
obtained by him personally and other experts,
and formulates conclusions on the questions
posed within the limits of his special
knowledge.
It is not allowed to conduct research in whole
or in part by persons who are not included in
the commission of forensic experts.
When conducting a commission forensic
examination, each of the forensic experts
conducts research in full, and they jointly
analyze the results obtained. Having come to a
common opinion, forensic experts draw up and
sign a joint opinion or an act on the
impossibility of giving an opinion.
In the event of a disagreement between
forensic experts, each of them gives a separate
opinion on all or some of the issues that caused
the disagreement [3].
Depending on the specific knowledge used:
Homogeneous
(in
one
branch
of
knowledge);
Comprehensive (special knowledge from
different
industries
and
experts
simultaneously or partially simultaneously
carry out a single examination), a single
expert opinion is drawn up, in which the
expert signs the part that he conducted
personally.
For example, in the case of a road traffic
accident,
a
comprehensive
transport-
traceological and road-transport forensic
examination was appointed, for the resolution
of which the issue of the mechanism of the
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 12-2021
133
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
December 30, 2021 |
Pages:
130-135
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue12-20
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
road traffic accident was submitted. In the
course of the study, it became necessary to
analyze fuels and lubricants, traces of which
were removed from the roadway at the scene
of the incident. The conclusions of this study,
carried out by an expert specializing in the
examination of petroleum products, served as
the basis for judging the location of vehicles
after the accident and, together with other
factual data, were the starting point for the
reasoning of the experts who performed the
comprehensive examination. The conclusion
about the mechanism of the road traffic
accident was made and signed by the
trasologist and the auto technician, and the
third expert put his signature only under the
conclusion concerning the composition of fuels
and lubricants [4].
As the analysis of investigative and expert
practice shows, for a large number of criminal
cases, a comprehensive examination is often
assigned unjustifiably in cases where it is more
logical and more correct to appoint several
separate examinations.
According
to
the
law
"On
forensic
examination", as well as article 178 of the
Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan,
a
comprehensive
forensic
examination is appointed in cases where the
establishment of circumstances relevant to the
case is possible only by conducting several
studies using different branches of knowledge.
When conducting a comprehensive forensic
examination, each of the forensic experts
conducts research within the limits of their
competence. The conclusion of the complex
forensic examination indicates what research
and to what extent each of the forensic
experts conducted, what facts he personally
established and what conclusions he came to.
Each of the forensic experts signs the part of
the report containing these studies and is
responsible for them.
The general conclusion or conclusions are
drawn by forensic experts who are competent
in assessing the results obtained and
formulating this conclusion or conclusions. If
the basis for the final conclusion of the
commission of forensic experts or part of it is
the facts established by one of the forensic
experts (individual forensic experts), then this
should be indicated in the conclusion.
In the event of a disagreement between
forensic experts, each of them gives a separate
opinion on all or some of the issues that caused
the disagreement. If the production of a
comprehensive
forensic
examination
is
entrusted to a state forensic expert institution,
then the organization of this examination is
entrusted to its head [5].
The most controversial issues concerning the
procedural and legal regulation of the
procedure for the production of forensic
examinations are questions about the nature
of a comprehensive examination and the
permission of the sole conduct of such
examinations. These issues also require
determining the means and ways of their
solution.
Today, the question of the possible
performance of a comprehensive examination
by one expert alone remains controversial, if
he has special knowledge in various kinds and
classes of forensic examinations. So far, the
legislator gives a negative answer to this
question,
since
by
complex
forensic
examination he understands an examination
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 12-2021
134
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
December 30, 2021 |
Pages:
130-135
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue12-20
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
carried out by a commission of experts of
different specialties.
The question of whether it is possible to
consider a complex forensic examination
carried out by one expert was actively
discussed in the literature back in the 70s and
80s. XX century G.P. Arinushkin, raising the
issue of the need for procedural regulation of a
comprehensive examination, pointed out as
one of the signs that it is always performed by
at least two experts, i.e. is a commission.
Opposing him, N.A. Selivanov pointed out that
the division of the examination into types
should be carried out on an epistemological
basis, and not according to the number of
persons participating in the research; research
of two or more types of expertise in a
comprehensive manner, even if it is carried out
by one person with knowledge in several
related fields. This point of view was and is
shared by many other criminologists [6].
It must be said that at this time an expert with
a higher education has the knowledge and
skills to conduct several types of examinations
in the field. Based on this, we believe that a
comprehensive forensic examination should
not always be a commission, but can be
performed by one expert who has special
knowledge in the necessary types of forensic
examination, which should be reflected in
procedural legislation.
Is due diligence an independent type of
forensic examination? This issue arose due to
the fact that a comprehensive examination is
defined as a kind of commission examination.
The same point of view is shared by some legal
scholars, for example, Professor Yu. K. Orlov
writes that "... a comprehensive examination is
always carried out on a commission and
therefore, in essence, is a kind of commission
..." [7].
The unification of legal regulation of the
institution of forensic examinations, which is
unified by its nature, has not yet been
completed. This is expressed, in particular, in
the fact that the norms on additional,
repeated, commission and complex forensic
examinations are placed both in the Law "On
forensic examination" and in procedural
legislation - the Civil Procedure Code of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, the Criminal Procedure
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan, The Code
of Administrative Responsibility of the
Republic of Uzbekistan. This, in turn, leads to
collisions in the legal regulation of forensic
activities. It should be noted that in the text of
the Code of Administrative Responsibility of
the Republic of Uzbekistan, there is no
separate consolidation of these types of
forensic examinations at all.
All the above questions and problems of a
comprehensive examination indicate that in
modern
conditions,
those
procedural
documents and regulatory legal acts that
regulate the essence, content and functional
purpose of a comprehensive examination need
legislative improvement and uniformity.
REFERENCES
1.
Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic
of Uzbekistan. https://lex.uz/docs/111463
2.
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On
forensic
examination".
https://lex.uz/docs/1633100
3.
Forensic
examination
in
civil
law
processes. Scientific and practical manual,
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 12-2021
135
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
December 30, 2021 |
Pages:
130-135
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue12-20
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
ed. E.R. Rossinskaya Publishing house
"Prospect", 2018.
4.
Arinushkin
G.P.
Comprehensive
examination
requires
regulation
//
Socialist legality. 1977. N 10. Rossinskaya
E.R. Forensic examination in civil,
arbitration, administrative and criminal
proceedings. - M .: Norma, 2013 .-- S. 190.
5.
Orlov Yu. K. Modern problems of proving
and using special knowledge in criminal
proceedings:
scientific
textbook.
allowance. M., 2016.S. 208.
6.
Rakhimova U. RELEVANT ISSUES OF DNA
EXAMINATION IN THE REPUBLIC OF
UZBEKISTAN //BRIDGE TO SCIENCE:
RESEARCH WORKS. – 2019. – С. 19.
