THE COURT IS AN IMPORTANT PARTICIPANT IN THE PROCESS OF EVIDENCE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
M. Gafurov
{"title":"THE COURT IS AN IMPORTANT PARTICIPANT IN THE PROCESS OF EVIDENCE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS","authors":"M. Gafurov","doi":"10.51788/tsul.ccj.2.2-3./fcwi5442","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyzes the status and importance of the court as one of the subjects of proof in a criminal case. Foreign experience, a review of the legislation and the opinion of scientists on this issue are also analyzed. In particular, neither the legislator organs nor the representatives of the scientific community have a common point of view on the issue whether the court is the subject of proof or not, and if yes, what task it should perform in the process of proof. Even the international experience on this issue is different, in particular, among the CIS member countries, only under the legislation of Kazakhstan, the courts are deprived of the status of a subject of proof, while in Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Belarus present the contrary. There are positive and negative aspects of the status of the court as a subject of proof. In particular, depriving the court of the status of the subject of proof and leaving it exclusively in the status of an arbitrator or observer does not allow determining the truth in the case. Especially when the parties take a passive position in the performance of their tasks, there is a high probability of limiting the right of a person to justice. Based on the analysis, substantiated proposals are presented to determine the status of the court in the process of proving and improving legislation.","PeriodicalId":46586,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.51788/tsul.ccj.2.2-3./fcwi5442","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article analyzes the status and importance of the court as one of the subjects of proof in a criminal case. Foreign experience, a review of the legislation and the opinion of scientists on this issue are also analyzed. In particular, neither the legislator organs nor the representatives of the scientific community have a common point of view on the issue whether the court is the subject of proof or not, and if yes, what task it should perform in the process of proof. Even the international experience on this issue is different, in particular, among the CIS member countries, only under the legislation of Kazakhstan, the courts are deprived of the status of a subject of proof, while in Kyrgyzstan, the Russian Federation, Belarus present the contrary. There are positive and negative aspects of the status of the court as a subject of proof. In particular, depriving the court of the status of the subject of proof and leaving it exclusively in the status of an arbitrator or observer does not allow determining the truth in the case. Especially when the parties take a passive position in the performance of their tasks, there is a high probability of limiting the right of a person to justice. Based on the analysis, substantiated proposals are presented to determine the status of the court in the process of proving and improving legislation.
法院是刑事诉讼程序中取证过程的重要参与者
本文分析了法院作为刑事诉讼举证主体之一的地位和重要性。并对国外的经验、立法回顾和科学家对此问题的看法进行了分析。特别是,立法机关和科学界的代表对于法院是否为举证主体,以及如果是举证主体,在举证过程中应履行何种任务,都没有统一的看法。甚至在这个问题上的国际经验也是不同的,特别是在独联体成员国之间,只有根据哈萨克斯坦的立法,法院被剥夺了举证主体的地位,而在吉尔吉斯斯坦、俄罗斯联邦、白俄罗斯则相反。法院作为举证主体的地位有积极和消极的方面。特别是,剥夺法院作为举证主体的地位,使其完全处于仲裁员或观察员的地位,不可能确定案件的真相。特别是当当事人在履行其任务时采取被动立场时,很有可能限制一个人的正义权利。在此基础上,提出了确定法院在举证过程中的地位和完善立法的具体建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice publishes quarterly coverage of the theoretical and scientific aspects of the study of crime and the practical problems of law enforcement, administration of justice and the treatment of offenders, particularly in the Canadian context. Since 1958, this peer-reviewed journal has provided a forum for original contributions and discussions in the fields of criminology and criminal justice. This bilingual, peer-reviewed journal was previously called the Canadian Journal of Criminology, the Canadian Journal of Criminology and Corrections, and the Canadian Journal of Corrections.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信