The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 07-2021
46
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
July 30, 2021 |
Pages:
46-51
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue07-07
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
‘
ABSTRACT
The article reveals the content of the concept of «exemption from criminal liability», lists the grounds
for the release of a person from criminal liability. Also, proposals and recommendations were
developed for the development of theoretical and practical aspects of improving the institution of
exemption from criminal liability.
KEYWORDS
Crime, public danger, criminal liability, exemption from criminal liability, court, investigator,
prosecutor.
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, several decrees and resolutions
have been adopted related to the further
improvement of the judicial and legal sphere,
strengthening measures to reliably protect the
rights and legitimate interests of individuals
and legal entities, and ensuring justice. The
main purpose of this event is to further reform
the judicial and legal system, ensure the true
independence of the judiciary, as well as
increase the authority of the court and the
effectiveness of justice in society.
As you know, one of the main factors in the
fight against crime is the established criminal
liability for socially dangerous acts committed
and its degree. However, the criminal law
legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan
specifies not only punitive norms, but also
norms for the release of a person from criminal
liability.
Chapter XII of the General Part of the Criminal
Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan lists the
Exemption From Criminal Liability Under The Criminal
Legislation Of The Republic Of Uzbekistan
Kurbonov Davlat Ravshanovich
Candidate Of Law Samarkand State University Named After Alisher Navoi, 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 07-2021
47
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
July 30, 2021 |
Pages:
46-51
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue07-07
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
grounds for releasing a person from criminal
liability. They:
1)
Exemption from criminal liability in
connection with the expiration of the
limitation
period
for
bringing
to
responsibility (article 64);
2)
Exemption from liability due to loss by an
act or a person of public danger (article
65);
3)
Release from responsibility in connection
with the active repentance of the guilty
person for what he did (article 66);
4)
Exemption from criminal liability in
connection with reconciliation (article
661);
5)
Exemption from liability for illness (article
67);
6)
Exemption from liability on the basis of an
amnesty act (article 68);
According to the certainty and types of
exemption from criminal liability:
General (types provided for by the general
part of the Criminal Code and applied to all
crimes that have relevant circumstances
and signs);
Special (types provided for by a Special
part of the Criminal Code and, as a rule,
applicable only to specific crimes).
Today, on the above-mentioned grounds, not
only a court can release a person from criminal
liability, but also an investigator or prosecutor
at the stage of preliminary investigation.
Exemption from criminal liability in connection
with the expiration of the statute of limitations
for bringing to responsibility. The expiration of
the limitation period for bringing to criminal
responsibility is understood as the expiration
of certain terms specified in the criminal law,
from the moment of committing a crime until
the court's verdict is passed or a decision is
made to terminate the criminal case.
The expiration of these terms serves as the
basis for the release of a person from criminal
liability. The duration or brevity of the terms
necessary for exemption from criminal liability
determines the degree of public danger of the
crime.
Article 64 of the Criminal Code provides for
four types of expiration of terms that are the
basis for exemption from criminal liability.
In addition, after the expiration of a special 25 -
year period established by law, a person is
released from criminal liability in any
circumstances,
including
in
cases
of
interruption or suspension of the period for
concealing the person who committed the
crime from the investigation or investigation,
or the commission of a new intentional crime
after the commission of a serious or especially
serious crime.
The term of bringing to criminal responsibility
for crimes of minor public danger is three
years, i.e. after this period, the guilty person
cannot be brought to criminal responsibility if
the expiration of the term is suspended.
A person who has committed a less serious
crime may be brought to criminal responsibility
if 5 years have not passed after its commission.
The main conditions for term termination are:
1)
Initiation of a criminal case on any fact and
bringing a specific person to justice as an
accused;
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 07-2021
48
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
July 30, 2021 |
Pages:
46-51
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue07-07
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
2)
Evasion from the investigation and trial, i.e.
evasion of the accused from the trial and
investigation. Evasion from trial and
investigation is understood as the actions
of a person committed for the purpose of
evading criminal responsibility and related
to the search by the court, the investigative
authorities of the accused in the relevant
territories [].
The norms of international law provide that the
rules for the expiration of the statute of
limitations for bringing to justice, regardless of
the time of the commission of the act, do not
apply to war criminals, persons who have
committed crimes against the peace and
security of mankind, regardless of whether
they were committed in wartime or peacetime
in accordance with the Charter of the
Nuremberg International Military Tribunal, as
well as for apartheid and genocide. All the
above-mentioned international documents do
not recognize the rule of delay in bringing the
perpetrators to justice and imposing penalties
on them [].
Exemption from liability due to loss by an act or
a person of public danger (Article 65 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure). In this article, two
independent, but similar in meaning and
content, exemptions from criminal liability are
indicated as the basis: 1) loss of public danger
of an act due to a change in circumstances; 2)
loss of public danger of a person due to a
change in circumstances.
An act that is socially dangerous at the time of
its commission in the first case subsequently
loses this feature. In the second case, the
person who committed a socially dangerous
act no longer poses any public danger to
society. In both cases, the nature of the public
danger of the act is lost as a result of a change
in the conditions.
It is provided that a person who has committed
a crime may be released from liability if it is
established that the committed act or the
person who committed the crime has lost the
nature of its public danger due to a change in
circumstances during the investigation or
consideration of the case in court.
The fact that a person who has committed a
crime has lost the nature of a public danger,
due not only to the objective conditions of his
life, but also to his behavior after committing a
crime, as well as his exemplary behavior can
also be expressed in his positive attitude to
service and social duties.
Release from responsibility in connection with
the active repentance of the guilty person for
what he did (Article 66 of the Criminal Code). It
should be noted that the release of the guilty
person from responsibility on this basis is a new
manifestation of the humane principle. By
active repentance for what he has done, it
should be understood that a person who has
committed a minor crime for the first time,
who does not pose a public danger, after
committing a crime, voluntarily eliminated the
harm caused by the crime, declared his
innocence, sincerely repented and helped to
solve the crime.
The basis for exemption from criminal liability
in connection with active repentance is: 1) that
the person has committed a crime for the first
time; 2) that the public danger of the
committed crime is great or less serious; 3)
compensation for the damage caused; 4)
confession; 5) sincere repentance of the guilty
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 07-2021
49
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
July 30, 2021 |
Pages:
46-51
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue07-07
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
person; 6) active assistance in solving the
crime.
The presence of these signs indicates that the
guilty person really repents and admits his
guilt, which is enough to release him from
criminal responsibility. The absence of any of
the above signs may not allow the criminal
liability to be canceled, and in this case the
punishment is only a mitigating circumstance.
The release of a person from criminal liability
due to sincere repentance may be applied if
this is provided for in the articles of the Special
Part of the Criminal Code.
It is no exaggeration to say that the
introduction of the institute of reconciliation is
one of the most important areas of the policy
of liberalizing criminal legislation. In general,
this institution, reflecting the principle of
humanism, that is, the mutual consent of the
person who committed the crime and the
victim, was widely used in the history of our
statehood, that is, when the perpetrator paid
compensation to the victim, the injured party
had the right to forgive him and ask the judge
to release the guilty from punishment.
The conditions for the termination of criminal
cases against persons who have committed a
minor crime and a less serious crime for the
first time should be understood, firstly,
reconciliation of the parties, and secondly, the
commission by the debtor (a person exempt
from criminal liability)of certain actions
(transfer of property, performance of work,
payment of money, etc.) in order to eliminate
the damage caused by the crime in favor of the
victim.
The release of the guilty person from criminal
liability in connection with the reconciliation of
the parties is a right, not an obligation of the
court. Accordingly, the court, taking into
account the specific act of the suspect or
accused and the characteristics of the
individual, can terminate the criminal case,
apply the institute of reconciliation only if there
is no encroachment on the interests of citizens
protected by criminal law (not only the victim)
and society, the state as a whole .
Upon termination of a criminal case, it is
necessary to make sure that the victim
voluntarily refuses the claim, that is, that there
is no physical or psychological pressure on him
from the person who committed the crime for
this.
Exemption from liability for illness (Article 67
Criminal Code) is one of the forms of
exemption of a person who has committed a
crime from criminal liability. According to the
law, an act is considered a crime if, at the time
of committing a socially dangerous act, a
mentally retarded person suffers from a
mental disorder to such an extent that he
cannot control his actions and realize the
consequences, and the relevant norms of the
Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal
Procedure are applied to such a person.
This article provides for the release of a person
who has committed a crime from responsibility
if, before the sentencing, he could not direct
his actions and realize their significance, and
also suffered from a mental illness. The criminal
law recognizes the existence in this case of the
only reason for exemption from criminal
liability, namely, the mental illness of the
person who committed the crime. On this
basis, the release of a person from
responsibility was caused by the inability of a
mentally ill person to realize the significance of
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 07-2021
50
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
July 30, 2021 |
Pages:
46-51
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue07-07
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
his actions and their consequences and the
deprivation of the ability to manage them.
The patient's inability to control his actions
manifests itself: 1) that he is a source of danger
to himself and others; 2) that he is in a helpless
state, that is, unable to meet his basic life
needs; 3) that the lack of psychiatric care for a
person
can
lead
to
an
aggravation,
deterioration of his condition. The above
condition applies equally to cases where it is
impossible to realize the significance of
bringing to responsibility.
Another independent type of exemption of a
person from criminal liability is an exemption
from liability on the basis of an amnesty act. In
accordance with paragraph 10 of Article 80 of
the Constitution of the Republic of Uzbekistan,
the Senate of the Oliy Majlis, on the proposal of
the President of the Republic, accepts
documents on amnesty. Amnesty is the
implementation of the principle of humanism
in relation to persons who have committed
crimes, as well as those serving sentences.
Amnesty-releases a person from criminal
liability or punishment without repealing the
criminal law providing for responsibility for
certain crimes, without questioning the validity
and legality of the court verdict, replaces the
punishment imposed on the guilty with a more
lenient one or reduces the established terms,
and also cancels the criminal record as a result
of serving the sentence .
The amnesty act specifies the category of
persons or all persons who are released from
criminal liability or the imposed punishment,
the terms of the sentence imposed by the
court sentence are reduced. The legal force of
the amnesty act applies either to a certain
circle of persons (for example, women, minors
or persons over 60 years old), or to crimes of a
certain type (for example, due to negligence,
economic, etc.) is a normative document
issued in relation to persons who have
committed a crime. Despite the fact that none
of the documents on the declaration of
amnesty provides for the concept of «release
from responsibility», it is in any case carried out
by refusing to initiate a criminal case,
terminating
it
during
the
preliminary
investigation or terminating a criminal case
without resolving the issue of guilt.
Certain rules stipulated in the amnesty
resolutions do not apply to persons who acted
as part of organized groups, committed
particularly serious crimes, committed crimes
related to the illegal trafficking of narcotic
drugs on a particularly large scale, and persons
recognized as repeat offenders of a particularly
dangerous group.
In conclusion, we can say that in our country,
also in connection with the liberalization of
criminal legislation, significant changes were
made to the classification of crimes, the rules
for sentencing and serving sentences, the
range of application of alternative types of
punishment not related to deprivation of
liberty was expanded, and “a positive factor in
strengthening the rule of law was the
introduction of one of the forms of justice – the
institute of reconciliation” .
Currently, a new procedure and strict deadlines
for the investigation of criminal cases, the
detention of a person as a preventive measure,
and the consideration of cases in court have
been established. Especially in connection with
the liberalization of criminal legislation, serious
and especially serious types of crimes have
sharply decreased. In 2020, there were 182
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 07-2021
51
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
July 30, 2021 |
Pages:
46-51
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue07-07
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
crimes per 100 thousand people in Uzbekistan.
In 2017, this figure was 229. Let's compare the
crime rate per 100 thousand people with the
CIS countries.
In the Russian Federation, this figure is 1,393, in
Belarus-1,800, in Armenia – 1,813, in Kazakhstan
– 748, in Kyrgyzstan – 737, and in Tajikistan –
284.
According to the results of 2020, according to
the order and security indicator of the World
Organization for the Assessment of Human
Rights, Uzbekistan ranked 11th among 128
states with 0.90 points. These facts are a clear
proof that the liberalization of criminal law and
the punitive system makes the principle of
humanism and justice a priority in the
appointment and application of punishment
for crimes committed.
REFERENCES
1.
Convention of November 30, 1973 «On the
prevention of the crime of apartheid and
the establishment of punishment for it».
2.
Convention of December 9, 1948 «On the
prevention of the Crime of Genocide and
the Establishment of Punishment for it».
The Convention was ratified by Resolution
№ 8351 of the Oliy Majlis of the Republic of
Uzbekistan dated August 20, 1999.
3.
Convention of November 26, 1968 «On the
non-application of the statute of
limitations to war crimes and crimes
against humanity»; UN General Assembly
Resolution № 2391.
4.
Karimov I. A. Our main goal is the
democratization and renewal of society,
modernization and reform of the country.
- Tashkent: Uzbekistan, 2005. - P. 45.
5.
Krasikov A. N. The essence and meaning of
the victim's consent and reconciliation
with the victim in Russian criminal law. -
Saratov, 1998. - P. 26.
6.
Melnikov A. A. Public and dispositive
justice / The court and the application of
the law. - Moscow: 1982. № 6. - Pp. 38-43;
Golovko L. Principles of the inevitability of
responsibility and publicity // State and
law. - 1999. № 6 – - P. 38.
7.
The
Charter
of
the
Nuremberg
international military tribunal of 1945,
August 8; the UN General Assembly of
1946, № 3 (x) of February 13, 1947. October
31, № 170 (XX), 1964 December 11, № 95 (x)
«On the extradition and punishment of
war criminals»; UN General Assembly
Resolution 1966 December 12, № 2184
(XXX), 1966 Resolution № 2202 (XXX) of
December 16.
8.
Rustambayev M. H. Comments on the
Criminal Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan. General part. T.: NAUKA,
2006-p. 832.
9.
Rustambayev M. H. Comments on the
Criminal Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan. General part. T.: NAUKA, 2006
-Рp. 862-863.
10.
Rustambayev M. H. Comments on the
Criminal Code of the Republic of
Uzbekistan. General part. T.: NAUKA, 2006
-Рp. 876-877.
11.
Sukhareva
N.
Some
problems
of
regulation reconciliation with the victim / /
Zh. Criminal law. № 1, 2005. - Рp. 130-131.
12.
The folk word. - July 6, 2006.
