The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 06-2021
100
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
June 30, 2021 |
Pages:
100-103
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue06-14
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
‘
ABSTRACT
The article analyzes the essence and features of the application of the institution of prejudice in
criminal proceedings in some countries, examines the opinions of scientists on the procedure for the
implementation of prejudice, makes some judgments on the use of prejudice in the provision of legal
assistance in international cooperation.
KEYWORDS
Legal proceedings, prejudice, implementation of prejudice, proof.
INTRODUCTION
The theory of head-procedural law contains
some institutions that are the subject of
constant debate among scientists and
practitioners. One of such institutions is
prejudice in criminal proceedings, which until
now has been little studied and therefore the
solution of the problems of its application in
practice is relevant today.
The Latin origin of the term "prejudice" ( "
praeijudicium " ) means two elements: 1) "
praecedo " - to go forward, to precede; 2) "
praeiudico " - to judge ahead, preliminary, and
" judicium " is equivalent to a legal decision
having the legal force of law. As a result of the
synthesis of these words, it turns out: "a pre-
decision of the issue, a decision made in
advance, a circumstance that allows one to
judge the consequences" [ 1, p. 9] . In criminal
procedural
science,
"
prejudice
"
is
understood as the duty of the court, the
prosecutor,
the
investigator
and
the
interrogator to accept, without verification
and evidence, the facts established by a
Features Of The Institution Of Prejudice In Criminal
Proceedings
Suyunova Dilbar Joldasbaevna
Tashkent State University Of Law, Criminal Procedure Law Department Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Uralov Sarbon Sardorovich
Tashkent State University Of Law, Criminal Procedure Law Department Tashkent, Uzbekistan
Journal
Website:
http://theamericanjour
nals.com/index.php/taj
pslc
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 06-2021
101
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
June 30, 2021 |
Pages:
100-103
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue06-14
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
previously entered into legal force decision or
a court verdict [2, p. 48] .
Discussion of the features of the institution of
prejudice is of interest in terms of issues
related to its legislative consolidation and law
enforcement in the CIS countries. So, in the
Model Criminal Procedure Code of the CIS
member states, the mention of prejudice is
enshrined
in
Article
147
among
the
circumstances established without evidence,
namely, by a decision that is binding on the
court as a prejudicial one [3, p. 26] . Some
countries of the Commonwealth, whose
criminal procedural legislation is based on the
Model Code, have determined their own rules
for the application of prejudice.
Thus, Article 141 of the Criminal Procedure
Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan establishes
that without the use of materials from the
criminal
prosecution
proceedings,
the
circumstances established by a decision that
are legally binding for the court are
recognized as proven . A sentence of a
criminal prosecution court that has entered
into legal force is binding on an inquiry officer,
investigator, prosecutor or court both in
terms of the circumstances established in the
criminal prosecution proceedings and in terms
of their legal assessment; a court ruling in a
civil case that has entered into legal force is
mandatory in criminal proceedings only in
terms of whether an incident or action took
place, and does not preliminarily resolve the
issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused
(article 142 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
of Azerbaijan) [4, p. 22 ] .
According to article 127 of the Criminal
Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan
, to set foot in the court judgment, as well as
other decision of the court in a criminal case,
allowing it to essentially be binding for all
state bodies, individuals and legal entities in
respect of both the established circumstances
and their legal assessment in relation to the
person about whom they are made. This
provision does not interfere with the
verification, cancellation and amendment of
the judgment and other court decisions in
cassation
due
to
newly
discovered
circumstances. A court decision that has
entered into legal force in a civil case is
binding on the div conducting the criminal
process, during the pre-trial investigation or in
a criminal case only on the issue of whether
the event or action itself took place, and
should not prejudge conclusions about the
guilt or innocence of the defendant [ 5, c . 46]
.
Prejudice in the Criminal Procedure Code of
the Russian Federation are determined to
bstoyatelstva established by a legally effective
judgment l for other entered into legal force
court decision in civil, arbitration or
administrative
proceedings,
which
are
recognized
by
the
court,
prosecutor,
investigator, without further verification.
Moreover, such a verdict or decision cannot
prejudge the guilt of persons who have not
previously participated in the criminal case
under consideration (Article 90) [6, p . 2] .
An analysis of the legislation of the CIS
countries showed that in many countries the
recommendations of the Model CPC were
used in terms of recognition as a prejudice of
a court verdict and other court decisions that
entered into legal force. It should be noted
that, despite the different interpretations of
circumstances Prizna Vai 's preyuditsionnymi,
CIS
countries
unanimously
perceive
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 06-2021
102
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
June 30, 2021 |
Pages:
100-103
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue06-14
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
information about prejudice and how the
evidence and the case.
Many scholars have expressed different
opinions
on
the
application
and
implementation of prejudice in criminal
proceedings, each of which certainly deserves
attention and discussion at the legislative
level. One cannot but agree with the opinion
that “prejudice in criminal proceedings must
be refutable, that is, e If the court when the
case comes to the conclusion that the facts
established
by
them
contradict
facts
established by a legally effective court
decision rendered in the criminal, civil,
arbitration or administrative proceedings, he
has no right to put them into the foundation
of the sentence until until this court decision is
canceled by a higher court, since in the
presence of a court decision that has entered
into legal force, a verdict that contradicts it
cannot be passed ” [7, p. 87] .
In the literature, opinions are expressed
regarding the procedural order that was
applied when passing a prejudicial sentence.
So, quite reasonable s m seems proposition
that "is unacceptable to recognize the
circumstances with prejudice without further
verification by the verdict handed down
without the participation of the defendant, in
a simplified form of the trial without the
establishment
of
a
court
of
actual
circumstances, with the consent of the
accused with the charges against him at
concluding a pre-trial cooperation agreement
” [8, p . 93 ] .
The implementation of the institution of
prejudice in the criminal process, the existing
problems in its application indicate the need
to improve the legislative regulation of this
institution.
In a society constantly is changing social, there
are new legal e acts, kotory is, by virtue of
their legal nature may also have a prejudicial
effect. It is appropriate to note the need s
discussions on the recognition of and
circumstances preyuditsionnymi established
sentences of foreign states in cases where
manifest Prejudicial relationship between
verdicts of courts of various states. For
example,
in
cases
of
investigation
(consideration) of a criminal case against one
of the accomplices in a crime who is a citizen
of the state in whose territory he is detained
at the request of a foreign state. The verdict in
the main case has already decreed by a court
of a foreign state in whose territory the crime
was committed, and entered into force, and
dedicated criminal investigation resumed the
State of which a fitment I investigation and
returned smiling to their homeland. Because
according to the norms of procedural law the
issuance of such a person to a foreign state is
not carried out, a dedicated criminal case p
assm atrivaetsya in the state where its
national has arrived. Thus, interstate legal
relations arise, where for the same crime can
be pronounced a sentence of courts of
different states, but with the application of
the prejudice established by the judgment of a
court of another state.
Based
on
the
rules
of
international
cooperation in criminal matters regarding the
validity of evidence obtained in a foreign
country, etc. olagaem necessary to define the
procedural th procedure of recognition of the
circumstances established by the verdict of
the court of a foreign state, a prejudice the
court, prosecutor, investigator of the State in
The USA Journals Volume 03 Issue 06-2021
103
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
(ISSN
–
2693-0803)
Published:
June 30, 2021 |
Pages:
100-103
Doi:
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume03Issue06-14
I
MPACT
F
ACTOR
2021:
5.
952
which the manufacture there is a reopened
case. It seems that this will contribute to the
development of interstate relations in the
provision of legal assistance in criminal cases,
including through the implementation of the
institution of prejudice.
REFERENCES
1.
Худяков
Е.А.
Эффективность
применения норм с административной
преюдицией: Учеб. пособие. М., 1981. С.
9.
2.
Заржицкая Л.С. Институт преюдиции в
уголовном процессе России: генезис,
эволюция. История государства и права,
N 18. 2012;
3.
Энциклопедический
юридический
словарь / Под ред. В.Е. Крутских. М.,
1998. С. 258;
4.
аналогичное
определение
дано
в
"Большом
юридическом
энциклопедическом словаре" (М., 2005.
С. 493)
5.
Модельный
уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс для государств - участников СНГ,
Рекомендательный международный акт
от 17 февраля 1996 года (cntd.ru)
6.
Уголовно-процессуальный
кодекс
Азербайджанской Республики от 14
июля 2000 г. № 907-1Г [Электронный
ресурс]
//
URL:
http://base.spinform.ru/show_doc.fwx?rg
n=11597.
7.
Уголовно-процессуального
кодекса
Республики Казахстан от 13 декабря
1997 г. № 206-1 [Электронный ресурс] //
URL:
http://base.spinform.ru/show_doc.fwx?rg
n=1272.
8.
https://www.zakonrf.info/upk/90/
9.
Щерба С.П., Чащина И.В. Преюдиция в
уголовном
процессе
России
и
зарубежных
стран:монография.-
М.:Юрлитинформ, 2013.-184 с.
10.
Лопатин
С.А.
Реализация
или
преодоление преюдиции в уголовном
судопроизводстве
Российской
Федерации: дис. … канд. юрид. наук:
12.00.09
/
Лопатин
Сергей
Александрович. – М., 2017. – 242 с.
11.
Suyunova, D., & Acharya, B. (2021).
Prospects
For
The
Institution
Of
Preliminary Hearing In Uzbekistan. The
American Journal of Political Science Law
and Criminology, 3(02), 139-143.
12.
Суюнова,
Д.
Ж.
(2020).
Вопросы
совершенствования
института
адвокатуры –сегодняшние реалии и
необходимые изменения. Современное
российское право, (6), 10-13.
13.
Suyunova, D., & Shamsutdinov, B. (2021).
Digitalization of Criminal Proceedings in
the Context of the Coronavirus Pandemic
(Covid-19) in Uzbekistan. Medico Legal
Update, 21(2), 455-459.
