The essence of collecting evidence in criminal proceedings (on the example of the criminal procedure legislation of Russia and Uzbekistan)

With this article, the author continues the cycle of his scientific publications dedicated to the study of the structure of criminal procedural evidence. Based on the arguments presented, the author comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to partially revise his previous position, which implies the consideration of the categories of “collecting evidence” and “forming evidence” as two autonomous ways of carrying out the first stage of proof.

Instead, the author proposes to attach a somewhat conditional meaning to the category of “collection of evidence”, understanding by it any forms of behavior of participants in criminal proceedings aimed at obtaining and subsequent proceduralization of useful information.

SUMMARY

In this article, the author continues the series of scientific publications devoted to the study of the problems of collecting evidence as a cumulative stage of the work of the preliminary investigation bodies and the court with evidentiary materials in a criminal case. Moreover, these issues are considered in the context of a comparative analysis of the criminal procedure legislation of two sovereign states that emerged in the post  Soviet space – Russia and Uzbekistan.  In the first half of the article, the author introduces potential readers to his previous scientific positions on the essence of collecting evidence in criminal proceedings. And in the second part of the article, we consider the reasons that prompted a partial revision and rethinking of their previous positions. Based on these arguments, the author suggests that in the future the category "evidence collection" should be given a somewhat conditional meaning and that it should be understood as any form of behavior of participants in criminal proceedings aimed at obtaining and subsequent processing of useful information. The author believes that collection of evidence may be carried out through the implementation of two autonomous procedural mechanisms: a) formation of evidence, involving the creation (as the birth) of new educational resources through the procedural forms, i.e. through production in accordance with the CPC proceedings, consists in the perception of (study) the inquirer, investigator, court, as well as expert useful information and its transformation, transformation to the appropriate readings, expert opinions and results (protocols) of non-verbal investigative and judicial actions (and for the Uzbek criminal process-also audio, video and film recording materials that are Autonomous means of proof); b) attaching evidence to the materials of a criminal case that involves obtaining by presenting, requesting or withdrawing various items and documents, as well as their subsequent recognition as material evidence, other documents, expert opinions, results of operational search activities and administrative activities on the basis of a special state authority act of the body of inquiry, preliminary investigation or court, which gives them legal force and determines whether they can be used to justify law enforcement decisions.