The problem of determining the procedural form of the accused's testimony

The purpose of this scientific research is to study the problem of determining the procedural form of the testimony of the accused in Russian criminal proceedings, considering the existing doctrinal points of view in the theory and provisions of the domestic criminal procedure legislation.

Within the framework of specified goal, the following tasks were solved: an analysis of scientific views on the issue of determining the procedural form of the testimony of the accused in the criminal process was carried out; the characteristics of the procedural form of the testimony of the accused from the point of view of the legality of the source of their receipt are considered; it was established that the procedural form of the testimony of the accused depends, firstly, on compliance with the requirements of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation when the person is recognized as the accused, who is the subject (carrier) of this type of evidence, and, secondly, on the method of securing (fixing, preserving) established by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation testimony received from the accused in the criminal process; the ways of solving the existing problems in determining the procedural form of the testimony of the accused in criminal proceedings are proposed.

In the presented scientific research uses the traditional general (dialectical, formal-logical) and private (legal-dogmatic, interpretation of legal norms, comparative legal, descriptive, interpretive) methods of scientific knowledge, which contributed to the acquisition of new knowledge about the procedural form of the testimony of the accused in criminal proceedings , solving some problems arising in the course of law enforcement in connection with the observance of the requirement of legality of the procedural form of the testimony of the accused in criminal cases.

As a result of the study: the need for a proper universal understanding of the procedural form of the testimony of the accused is stated; the importance of compliance with the requirement of the legality of the procedural form of the testimony of the accused is noted; substantiates the importance of the procedural form from the point of view of the admissibility of the testimony of the accused; analyzes the doctrinal approaches on the correlation of the procedural form with the methods of securing (fixing, preserving) the testimony of the accused provided for in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; the problem of the evidentiary value of the protocols of the interrogation of the accused and the minutes of the court session, in which the information provided by the accused can be recorded, is critically examined.

The following main conclusions are drawn:

1) the procedural form of evidence in criminal proceedings acts as a normative way of securing (fixing, preserving) the content of evidence, its varieties are provided for by the current criminal procedure legislation in part 2 of Art. 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The definition of evidence from the point of view of their legal procedural forms must be associated with sources of information, on the basis of which the bodies of criminal proceedings, in the manner determined by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, establish the presence or absence of circumstances to be proved in criminal proceedings, as well as other circumstances that are important for criminal case. Therefore, the procedural form of the testimony of the accused from the point of view of the legal source of their receipt should be characterized, firstly, by the legality of recognizing the person as the accused, who is the subject (carrier) of this type of evidence, and, secondly, by determining the method of securing (fixing, preserving) evidence obtained from the accused in the criminal process;

2) non-compliance, violation of the requirements for the procedure for drawing up and issuing a decision to prosecute as an accused (Article 171 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), will mean the illegality of recognizing such a person as an accused, and, accordingly, entails the exclusion of testimony received from this subject as inadmissible evidence. A similar situation arises in cases where the illegality of either the indictment issued (Art. 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation), or the issued indictment (Art. 226.7 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation) is established;

3) the procedural form of the testimony of the accused from the point of view of the source of their receipt depends on the observance of the legality of the methods of securing (fixing, preserving) this type of evidence. In this case, it is necessary to solve the problem of the evidentiary value of the protocols of the interrogation of the accused and the minutes of the court session, in which the information provided by the accused can be recorded;

4) since Art. 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation states that protocols of investigative actions and protocols of court sessions are admitted as evidence if they meet the requirements established by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, insofar as from the content of the said article it can be concluded that the protocols of interrogations should also be classified as evidence in criminal cases. business. This means that in accordance with the current criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation, independent evidence is, on the one hand, the testimony obtained during interrogations, and, on the other hand, the interrogation protocols themselves, which may contain testimony. The testimony of the accused is indicated in the minutes of his interrogations or the minutes of the court session, which in turn are written acts fixing the course and results of this investigative (judicial) action. Therefore, the transcripts of the interrogations of the accused, just like the transcripts of the court sessions, containing the testimony of the accused, are the subject of an assessment of admissibility in terms of compliance with the legal procedural form.

1. Ananenko I.V. Admissibility of protocols of investigative actions: thesis ... Candidate of Law. SPb., 2005.

2. Balakshin V.S. Evidence in the Russian criminal process: concept, essence, classification. Yekaterinburg, 2002.

3. Bednyakov D.I. Non-procedural information and crime investigation. M., 1991.

4. Budnikov V. The subject of proof cannot be a witness in a criminal case // Russian justice. 2002. № 8. Pp. 30-31.

5. Vlasova N. The list of evidence is a summary of the information contained in a particular source // Russian justice. 2003. № 9. Pp. 55-56.

6. Gavrilov B.Ya. Actual problems of law enforcement practice in the conditions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation // Criminal Procedure Law: concept, content, sources: mater. scientific-practical conf. M., 2006.

7. Globenko O.A. Testimony of the accused in the modern Russian criminal process: abstract ... Candidate of Law. Nizhny Novgorod, 2007.

8. Grigorieva N.V. Exclusion of inadmissible evidence from the proceedings // Russian Justice. 1995. № 11. Pp. 5-7.

9. Zverev A.G. Admissibility of the testimony of a suspect in the Russian criminal process: thesis ... Candidate of Law. Rostov-on-Don, 2006.

10. Zelensky D.V. Problems of the admissibility of evidence in the Russian criminal process: thesis ... Candidate of Law. Krasnodar, 1995.

11. Kokorev L.D., Kuznetsov N.P. Criminal Procedure: Evidence and Evidence. Voronezh, 1995.

12. Korneeva A.N. Testimony of the victim in the Russian criminal process: thesis ... Candidate of Law. Krasnodar, 2011.

13. Kostenko R.V. Evidence in the criminal process: conceptual approaches and perspectives of legal regulation: thesis ... Doctor of Law. SPb., 2006.

14. Larin A.M., Melnikova E.B., Savitsky V.M. The criminal process of Russia. Lectures-sketches / Ed. by V.M. Savitsky. M., 1997.

15. Levchenko O.V. The system of means of cognitive activity in proving in criminal cases and its improvement: thesis ... Doctor of Law. Astrakhan, 2004.

16. Mamedov O.Ya. Assessment of the permissibility of evidence in pre-trial criminal proceedings: thesis ... Candidate of Law. Volgograd, 2007.

17. Orlov Yu.K. Foundations of the theory of evidence in criminal proceedings: scientific and practical guide. M., 2000.

18. Sabirov Kh.A. Protocols of investigative and judicial actions as a type of evidence in the Russian criminal process: abstract ... Candidate of Law. Krasnodar, 2000.

19. Savenko O.V. Protocols of investigative actions and court sessions as evidence in a criminal case: abstract ... Candidate of Law. M., 2014.

20. Criminal procedure law of the Russian Federation: textbook / Ed. by P.A. Lupinskaya. M., 2004.

21. Sheifer S.A. Evidence and proving in criminal cases: problems of theory and legal regulation. Togliatti, 1997.

22. Sheifer S.A. Problems of permissibility of evidence require further development // State and Law. 2001. № 10. Pp. 47-54.

23. Shulichenko A.A. Testimony of the accused: legal, psychological and moral aspects: abstract ... Candidate of Law. M., 2008.

24. Yuriev G.Yu. Admissibility of the testimony of the accused from the point of view of the proper source of their receipt // State Service and Personnel. 2018. № 4. Pp. 177-180.

25. Abdramanova N.K., Alaukhanov Y.O., Alimbekova M.A., Maulenov D.B., Ayanbayev Y.S. The relevance and importance of criminological research on the problems of the legal fight against latent crime in Kazakhstan // Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. 2019. № 10 (1). Pp. 7-12.

26. Akimova N.V. To the question of building an ideological basis of the legal policy for the criminal sphere of russian society // Russian journal of criminology. 2019. № 13 (5). Pp. 782-790.

27. Kirillova N.P., Smirnova I.G. Key scripts of contemporary criminal procedure policy // Russian journal of criminology. 2018. № 12 (1). Pp. 116-127.

28. Kostenko R.V., Rudin A.V. Notion and meaning of evidence verification in criminal procedure // Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. 2018. № 9 (3). Pp. 1011-1017.

29. Kostenko R.V., Yuriev G.Yu. The admissibility of statements provided by an accused person in the russian criminal procedure // Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics. 2018. № 9 (5). Pp. 1684-1688.

30. Kostenko R.V., Komissarova Y.V., Perekrestov V.N. The current state of electronic digital enforcement in the criminal process in Russia and some of the EAEU member countries // Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. 2020. № 110. Pp. 414-420.

31. Voskobitova L.A., Rossinskiy S.B. Issues cognition in modern criminal proceedings // Criminology Journal of Baikal National University of Economics and Law. 2015. № 9 (1). Pp. 13-143.

32. Voskobitova L.A., Przhilenskiy V.I. Evolution of the notion of fact: Issues of legal cognition and law enforcement practices // Russian journal of criminology. 2016. № 10 (4). Pp. 779-789.