Author |
Yengibaryan V.G. |
Title of article |
Institute of forensic inquirues according to the new draft of Criminal procedure code of the Republic of Armenia |
Section |
Section 9. Criminalistic provision of law enforcement activities |
Issue, year |
2 (32) 2015 |
Abstract |
In the context of judicial reforms of 2012-2016 in Armenia it’s planned to renew the criminal procedure legislation, so the draft of new Criminal Procedure Code is elaborated. The role of forensic inquiries is reconsidered and increased in this draft. The status and role of experts are changed; not only experts’ conclusion but also their opinion and testimony are recognized as evidence. A comparative analysis of the effective Armenian Criminal Procedure Code and the draft of new Code is conducted. New act does not define forensic inquiry as an investigative action, it’s an independent criminal procedure institute. It’s noted that draft proposals do not allow to reveal the essence of special knowledge, that provides grounds for conducting forensic inquiry irrespective of specific knowledge of other people participating in trial. It’s stated that specialist being a participant of investigative action does not create direct evidence as an expert when providing conclusion. The possibility of assigning forensic inquiries and using special knowledge in any sphere of science, technology, art and craft is shown. There are different procedural requirements imposed for experts (sufficient special knowledge) and specialists (sufficient professional skills and knowledge) who have different procedural status. The term “special legal knowledge” is unacceptable in forensic medicine, forensic accountancy and similar branches since they have complex character and are not only legal. The new approach to forensic inquiries and forms of using special knowledge stipulated in the draft of the Armenian Criminal Procedure Code changes legal status and role of forensic expert. |
Keywords |
forensic inquiry, special knowledge, Criminal Procedure Code, investigative action, expert. |
References |
1. Jeandos Y. Law Dictionary criminnel and criminal: historical dimension. Paris, 2011. 2. Engibaryan V.G., Davtyan L.N., Chakhoyan A.S. Teoriya sudebnoy ekspertizy (genezis, sovremennye problemy i perspektivy usovershenstvovaniya) [The theory of judicial review (Genesis, modern problems and prospects of improvement)]. Yerevan, Antares Publ., 2012. 3. Makhov V.N. Teoriya i praktika ispol’zovaniya znaniy svedushchikh lits pri rassledovanii prestupleniy. Dokt. Diss. [Theory and practice of knowledge knowledgeable persons in the investigation of crimes. Doct. Diss.]. Moscow. 1993. 4. Mel’nikova E.B., Petrukhin I.L. O kompleksnoy ekspertize v sovetskom ugolovnom protsesse [Diligence in the Soviet criminal trial]. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo – Soviet state and law, 1963, no. 10, pp. 113-117. 5. Mel’nikova E.B. Uchastie spetsialista v sledstvennykh deystviyakh [Participation specialist in investigative actions]. Moscow, Yuridicheskaya literatura Publ., 1964. 6. Shumatov Yu.T. Ispol’zovanie spetsial’nykh poznaniy na predvaritel’nom sledstvii. Kand. Diss. [Use of special knowledge at the preliminary investigation. Cand. Diss.]. Moscow, 1996. 7. Sorokotyagin I.N. Kriminalisticheskie problemy ispol’zovaniya spetsial’nykh poznaniy v rassledovanii prestupleniy. Dokt. Diss. [Criminalistic problems of use of special knowledge of the investigation of crimes. Doct. Diss.]. Yekaterinburg, 1992. 8. Sokolovskiy Z.M. O primenenii sledovatelem kriminalisticheskikh znaniy pri issledovanii veshchestvennykh dokazatel’stv [On the application of knowledge of forensic investigator in the study of physical evidence]. Sovetskoe gosudarstvo i pravo – Soviet state and law, 1958, no. 1. 9. Korma V.D. Osobennosti ispol’zovaniya spetsial’nykh znaniy v oblasti sudebnoy ballistiki pri rassledovanii prestupleniy. Avtoref. Kand. Diss. [Features of use of special knowledge in the field of forensic ballistics in the investigation of crimes. Autoabstract Cand. Diss.]. Moscow, 2001. |