To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Evidence in criminal procedure.
Journal articles on the topic 'Evidence in criminal procedure'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 50 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Evidence in criminal procedure.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Вапнярчук, В. В. "Motive Criminal Procedure Evidence." Problems of Legality, no. 128 (March 31, 2015): 81–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.128.52095.
Full text
2
Prodromou, Zena, and Shona Wilson. "Criminal Evidence and Procedure." Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 1, no. 2 (2012): 66–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.7574/cjicl.01.02.16.
Full text
3
Harnon, Eliahu. "Criminal Procedure and Evidence." Israel Law Review 24, no. 3-4 (1990): 592–621. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700010104.
Full textAbstract:
Once upon a time there was a lawyer who was most familiar with the rules of criminal procedure and of evidence in force in mandatory Palestine in May 1948. One day in June 1948, the lawyer disappeared. Some say he fell into a deep sleep for many years. Only after the passage of forty years he awoke.Turning to and fro, he will immediately recognize the Ottoman building that houses the courts in Jerusalem's Russian Compound. He will also feel at home with the basic hierarchy of the judiciary: two courts of first instance—magistrates' and district—and no intermediate court of appeal between the district level and the Supreme Court.
4
Eatwell, Tatyana, and Christopher Sargeant. "Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure." Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 2, no. 1 (2013): 86–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.7574/cjicl.02.01.82.
Full text
5
Davie, Matthew, and Joshua Zell. "Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure." Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 3, no. 1 (2014): 196–203. http://dx.doi.org/10.7574/cjicl.03.01.183.
Full text
6
Ingle, Jessie. "Overview: Criminal Law, Evidence and Procedure." Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law 3, no. 1 (2014): 265–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.7574/cjicl.03.01.158.
Full text
7
Naor, Miriam. "Procedure and Evidence in Criminal Trials." Israel Law Review 24, no. 3-4 (1990): 622–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0021223700010116.
Full textAbstract:
Professor Harnon set a broad canvas. In the ten minutes allotted me, I shall address but a few of the topics he raised.I would like principally to devote my comments to the subject of unrepresented defendants, as viewed from the perspective of a trialcourt judge.Our rules of procedure and of evidence are fair and reasonable. There are differences of opinion as to the preferred approach to several of the issues mentioned by Prof. Harnon: the scope of the right to remain silent, the admissibility of out-of-court statements and the striking of a proper balance in this regard, etc. Notwithstanding the differences in approach to any particular topic, the system as a whole fulfils the purpose of the substantive criminal law — the establishing of the innocence or guilt of the accused.
8
Begma, Andrii, Galyna Muliar, and Oleksii Khovpun. "Criminal misdemeanors as a novelty of criminal and criminal procedure legislation." Law Review of Kyiv University of Law, no. 2 (August 10, 2020): 365–68. http://dx.doi.org/10.36695/2219-5521.2.2020.69.
Full textAbstract:
The scientific article pays attention to the consideration of the concepts of “criminal offense”, “criminal offense”, “crime” andtheir implementation in criminal and criminal procedure legislation. Amendments to the legislation that came into force in connectionwith the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine on Simplification of Pre-trial Inves -tigation of Certain Categories of Criminal Offenses” are considered. The issue devoted to the new subject of criminal procedure – thecoroner and the head of the inquiry body is investigated.The article considers the types of evidence that are taken into account in the investigation of criminal offenses. Such evidenceshould include: explanations of persons, results of medical examination, expert opinion, testimony of technical devices and technicalmeans that have the functions of photography and filming, video recording, or means of photography and filming, video recording. Thepossibility of using evidence in the investigation of crimes is considered.During the criminal proceedings, a new entity is identified, which is actually engaged in the investigation of criminal offenses,such an entity is the investigator. Inquiry is a new unit that investigates criminal offenses. Inquiries are carried out by inquiry subdivisionsor authorized persons of other subdivisions.A criminal offense is an act (action or omission) provided by the Criminal Code, for which the main penalty is a fine of not morethan three thousand non-taxable minimum incomes or other punishment not related to imprisonment. Procedural sources of evidencein criminal proceedings on criminal offenses, in addition to certain Art. 84 of the CPC, there are also explanations of persons, the resultsof medical examinations, expert opinion, indications of technical devices and technical means that have the functions of photographyand filming, video recording, or means of photography and filming, video recording.The legislator does not rule out that the sources of evidence are testimony, physical evidence, documents, expert opinions, but infact the explanations of persons, the results of medical examinations, expert opinion, indications of technical devices and equipmentthat have the functions of photography and filming, video or photo – and filming, video recordings are also identified as sources of evidence.The purpose of such a division is to distinguish between sources of evidence that can be used to prove crimes and criminal offenses.In addition, there is a misunderstanding – what exactly can we use to form the evidence base in criminal proceedings.
9
Baev, O. J. "Criminal procedure evidence: attribute characteristics and quality." Russian Journal of Legal Studies 2, no. 1 (March 15, 2015): 233–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.17816/rjls18020.
Full textAbstract:
The article deals with consideration of statutory (attribute) signs (properties) of criminal procedure evidence such as the admissibility and relevance, which are based on the study of its essence. The author concludes that the reliability is not a property of proof, but its quality, which is evaluates by entities of proof in a criminal case.
10
Kornakova, S. V. "Evidence and Establishment of Evidence Norms in CIS Countries Criminal Procedures: A Comparative Legal Analysis." Lex Russica, no. 11 (November 15, 2020): 148–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2020.168.11.148-156.
Full textAbstract:
The paper is devoted to a comparative legal analysis of some norms of the criminal procedure laws of the CIS countries concerning evidence and establishment of evidence in criminal procedures. The paper analyzes the legal definitions of the concept of "evidence" in the CIS countries codes. It is noted that the wording used in article 74 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation is less specific than the content of the relevant norms in the legislation of other CIS countries. In particular, the replacement of the phrase "this data is established", which was used in the RSFSR Criminal Procedure Code, with the phrase "evidence is" in part 2 of article 74 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, which led to an illegal identification of the sources of evidence and the evidence itself, is critically evaluated.Some features, advantages and disadvantages of the norms of criminal procedure laws of the CIS countries containing a list of sources of evidence are revealed. The conclusion is made about a clear advantage in this respect of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, part 2 of article 74 of which contains a complete and universal list of sources of evidence. At the same time, the need to include in this list, along with the testimony of the suspect and the accused, such a source of evidence as the testimony of the defendant is argued.The paper analyzes the legislative consolidation of the concept of "evidence" in the criminal procedure codes of the CIS countries, which allowed us to critically evaluate the definition given to this concept by the Russian legislator. According to the author, the absence of the purpose for the establishment of evidence in article 85 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, namely the purpose for establishing the circumstances listed in article 73 of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation, as a lawful, reasoned and just resolution of the case, is a significant shortcoming of the Russian criminal-procedural law that requires special legal address.
11
Leka, Adrian. "Assurance of Evidence." Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 6, s2 (July 1, 2017): 69–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/ajis-2018-0029.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract This paper reflects the detailed theoretical and interpretative treatments of criminal evidence and the process of proving according to criminal procedural legislation, based on the Constitution and E.C.H.R. Theoretical and interpretive depeened treatments, are based on the scientific research closely connected to the judicial practice of the implementation of this legislation, the positions held by judicial practice. Special attention is paid to all criminal evidence, meaning, object, features, procedural rules of receiving, verification and evaluation of them throughout the penal process, the rights and obligations of the parties in this process. The implementation of legal provisions onto evidence, evidence search tools and the process of proving, by procedural subjects in judicial practice has recognized and shown the most important issues in relation to other instutitutet of criminal procedural law. The terminology used in this paper is supported and conditioned by the terminology used by the legislator in dispositions of the Criminal Procedure Code. Provision of proof is a relatively new institute in the criminal proceedings. It first became known in the procedure code of 1995, in order to preserve the value of the data found during the preliminary investigation. Providing of proof would be applied in all those cases where evidence risks to be damaged, disappear, et lost and receiving it can not be deferred until the trial. Regarding to the relevant literature in Albanian language, only few authors have mentioned it sporadically, not emphasizing the real importance of evidence assurance institute. Even in the commentary of criminal proceedings this institute is dealt with very little, in summary, if we refer to its importance. Assurance of proof is provided in the Criminal Procedure Code in Articles 316-322. In these provisions is expressed the whole procedure of securing evidence, from the definition of specific cases in which it might apply (Article 316 Criminal Procedure Code), continuing with the presentation of evidence and the application for evidence assurance and subjects legitimized in its appearance (Articles 317,319 Criminal Procedure Code), as well as the right of the court in disposition of this requirement. An important element to be treated is to determine the scope of the institute of evidence assurance. Often in practice it is said that the demand for evidence assurance, is applied more in criminal offenses smuggling of women for sexual exploitation, trafficking of minors for other exploitation purposes, sexual relations with minors etc. In this paper is also treated the evidence assurance institute as well as that of the research means of evidence, these institutions closely linked to criminal trials and the process of proving. Of the most important institutes of criminal procedural law is that of "criminal evidence and proving process" which is rightly considered as the backbone institute of this right. The importance of criminal evidences and the process of proving is determined by the purpose itself and content of the criminal legislation. These institutes are directly related to the content and task of this science, to what is the process of detecting and proving the truth in criminal trials. While acknowledging the special place it occupies the evidence assurance institute it is not yet determined its importance really. In this brief theoretical material, I tried to treat through a slightly wider framework assurance of evidence focusing on its importance, theoretical and practical problems in determining the scope of these institutes.
12
Mehmeti, Valon. "Argumentation – Evidentiary Procedure in Criminal Proceedings." SEEU Review 13, no. 1 (December 1, 2018): 43–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.2478/seeur-2018-0005.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract The continuous increase in criminal activities in all countries, namely the offences which undermine the interests of contemporary societies, call for the need to fight them in a more successful manner. In this way, the country through its mechanisms detects the criminal offences, the criminal liability and imposes the meritorious sanction to the perpetrators of such criminal offences, in full compliance with the danger caused by them. However, the court and other parties in the proceedings (Prosecution, Lawyer, Victim’s Advocate) in any case before the sanction is imposed, are involved in a complicated evidentiary proceedings related to the grounded suspicion that such offence was a criminal offence, the special mitigating and aggravating circumstances, that the person involved was conscious, that he committed the offence intentionally or negligently, his mental state, etc. All these have to be supported by facts through conclusive pieces of evidence. In parallel with the overall development of science and technology, the evidentiary procedure has evolved and it provides a greater possibility to argue our facts. This paper shall make efforts to highlight some of the most important issues related to the evidentiary procedure, such as: What is the evidence? What evidence should be provided in a certain criminal case? What is the importance of the evidence in a criminal matter? What should be the credibility and the evidentiary value of a piece of evidence? The research done in this paper shall apply the analytical method and the paper shall also include the conclusions that were reached as well as the recommendations.
13
In-Young Lee. "Brain Images as Legal Evidence in criminal procedure." Journal of Criminal Law 22, no. 4 (December 2010): 255–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.21795/kcla.2010.22.4.255.
Full text
14
Lamb, Jeffrey. "Review: Criminal Evidence & Procedure: The Essential Framework." International Journal of Evidence & Proof 4, no. 4 (December 2000): 278–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/136571270000400406.
Full text
15
Ramiyanto, Ramiyanto. "BUKTI ELEKTRONIK SEBAGAI ALAT BUKTI YANG SAH DALAM HUKUM ACARA PIDANA." Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 6, no. 3 (November 30, 2017): 463. http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/jhp.6.3.2017.463-484.
Full textAbstract:
The Criminal Procedure Code as a general criminal procedure does not recognize electronic evidence as one of the admissible types of evidence. In practice, electronic evidence is also used as an admissible evidence to prove the criminal offenses in court. From the results of the discussion it can be concluded that electronic evidence in criminal procedure law is a dependent evidence and an independent evidence (substitution of letter proof if it meets the principle of functional equivalent approach and expansion of evidence) as specified in several special laws and instruments issued by the Supreme Court. The electronic evidence is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code as a lex generalis, however, to achieve material truth it can also be used as a valid evidence for the provision of all types of criminal offenses in court. It is based on recognition in the practice of criminal justice, some special laws, and instruments issued by the Supreme Court.Keywords: electronic evidence, admissible evidence, criminal procedure code, proof
16
Grubač, Momčilo. "Understanding of the concept of criminal procedure in the new Law on Criminal Procedure of Serbia." Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine 78, no. 9 (2006): 531–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/gakv0611531g.
Full textAbstract:
In this paper the author has outlined that the solutions introduced in the new Law on Criminal Procedure of Serbia concerning the concept of criminal procedure, its structure and scope are confusing and wrong. In his opinion those mistakes have caused the largest number of other wrong solutions in the new Law, especially in regulation of presentation of evidence. Unlike the former pre-criminal proceedings, which was constantly and justifiably considered to be with no criminal procedural effect, the new Criminal Procedural Law treats even the police "pre-investigation" and prosecution investigation as parts of the criminal proceedings and enables that verbal evidence (statements of the witnesses and accused) presented in those administrative proceedings can be used later for rendering the judgment in the later criminal proceedings. The author has demonstrated that by introducing the prosecution investigation instead of the judicial one investigation is not part of the judicial criminal proceedings anymore and that therefore principals of directness and contradictoriness in the main proceedings should have been more elaborated than before in the new Law, in stead of making them questionable by introducing number of new exemptions. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure the new criminal procedure now consists of the non-judicial investigation and judicial main criminal proceedings. In the field of legislature, this change has raised two major issues before the legislator: (1) to secure protection of human rights in the non-judicial investigation and (2) to secure court judgment that will be based on the evidence, presented according to the rules of contradictoriness and directness, in the judicial part of the criminal proceedings. Based on these requests, the evidence presented in the non-judicial previous proceedings cannot be used, in author's opinion, for rendering the judgment although the new Law allows that, even in a broader sense comparing it to the time when the investigation was a judicial activity.
17
Skakavac, Zdravko, and Tatjana Skakavac. "Special evidence-gathering procedures in Serbia: Criminal procedure regulation and practical application." Civitas 7, no. 2 (2017): 36–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/civitas1701036s.
Full text
18
Mirkov, Željko. "Criminal procedure principles in defendant hearing." Civitas 10, no. 2 (2020): 68–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/civitas2002068m.
Full textAbstract:
Although there is no uniform definition of procedural principles in criminal procedure theory, they can be defined as legal rules or guidelines on which the criminal proceedings are based. As such, the principles of criminal procedure law apply to procedural entities and procedural actions. Evidentiary actions, as a type of procedural action, clarify the criminal case that is the subject of the criminal proceedings. The Criminal Procedure Code stipulates several evidentiary actions, one of which is the preliminary hearing of the defendant. The defendant hearing, in which the defendant gives their testimony, is given a great deal of attention because it represents one of the most important pieces of evidence, and the course of evidence presentation is the most significant and crucial issue of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the paper will present a review of the criminal procedure principles related to this evidentiary action, starting from the principle of legality as the main principle, followed by the principles of orality, publicity, immediacy and adversity (party control of facts and means of proof).
19
Abraham, William, and Hery Firmansyah. "Analisis Pembuktian Alat Bukti Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) Sebagai Alat Bukti Petunjuk." Jurnal Hukum Adigama 1, no. 2 (December 17, 2018): 153. http://dx.doi.org/10.24912/adigama.v1i2.2741.
Full textAbstract:
Process of proofing is one of the most important in the trial. In the process of proofing, someone could be determined as defendant or not by relating the facts that happened with the available evidence in the trial. Process of proofing refers to Criminal Code Procedure Article 183 which about need minimum of 2 (two) valid evidence and to get Judge’s conviction and also refers to Criminal Code Procedure Article 184 which about valid evidence that can use in the trial. Along with the current development that continuously evolving, there is evidences outside of Criminal Code Procedure. Closed Circuit Television is one of many evidences that arranged in Law of Republic Indonesia Number 11 of 2008 concerning Information and Electronic Transaction. Now, Closed Circuit Television often used in trial to give more explanation about unclear facts to make it clear. But, to use Closed Circuit Television as evidence, it needs related to Criminal Code Procedure Article 188. To be able used as valid evidence Closed Circuit Television need to has correlation between facts in the trial and Closed Circuit Television itself
20
Blažić-Pavićević, Minja. "Plea bargain: Term, legal nature and use of the plea bargain as evidence." Crimen 11, no. 3 (2020): 346–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/crimen2003346b.
Full textAbstract:
Plea bargain is an institute that is used in most different criminal proceedings, and does not represent an issue in matter when a certain criminal event is being related to a single perpetrator of a criminal act. In situations where more perpetrators exist, or more criminal acts, verdict that has accepted the plea bargain can be frequently used as evidence, which cannot be tested. Having in mind that Code of criminal proceedings is regulating three kinds of bargains between public attorney and offender, those being plea bargaining of criminal act, which goal is to rationalize the sole criminal procedure, as well as bargain on account of witnessing of offender or convict, whose goal is to efficiently carry out the procedure in relation to other offenders of criminal acts, question is raised on why is plea bargain used as evidence in criminal procedure. Using the plea bargain as evidence, without option of that evidence being tested, represents a violation of the right to defense, right to fair trial and presumption of innocence. Having in mind the fact that principle of material truth is not one of principles in criminal procedure, as well as the fact that option to sign the plea bargain is not limited with qualification of criminal act, nor prescribed punishment, as well as the matter of facing practical problems of using the plea bargain as a formed fact, that cannot be tested, questions is raised how can we solve the practical problem using theory. It's doubtless that public attorney is benefiting from the option of using plea bargain as established and inexcusable evidence, but the position of defense is in matter here, and its position to test the evidence that cannot be a subject of dispute. Having in mind that public attorney has on disposal other bargains as well, that can be signed with the offender, or convicted person in goal of efficiently implementing the proceedings in relation to other offenders of criminal acts, we realize that using the plea bargain should have for, its purpose, sole rationalization of criminal procedure. Alongside criminal procedures that are finalized, there are many criminal proceedings that are not finalized, where defense is helplessly fighting the use of plea bargain as evidence. Realizing the practical problem, it can be useful to take this issue in aspect from few angles, as well as suggesting the means on how to solve a problem in issue. In regard what was said earlier, in goal of respecting the principles of criminal procedure, changes of Code of criminal procedure were suggested, as well as easier solution regarding the lawful stand of Supreme Court of cassation that would answer this theoretical problem, would fulfill the void in law system, harmonize case law, as well as fully respect and use right to defense.
21
Muratov, K. D. "SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ADVERSARIAL USE OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS." Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Economics and Law 31, no. 4 (August 12, 2021): 674–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.35634/2412-9593-2021-31-4-674-680.
Full textAbstract:
The idea of adversariality in criminal proceedings, carried away by its simplicity and originality in the context of public legal relations, after a certain period of time had passed the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, gradually began to be reasonably questioned. The study of procedural procedures, the recognition of objects and documents as material evidence, as well as the subjects of the collection and presentation of material evidence, allow a closer look at the legal relationship and powers of the parties in criminal proceedings in the field of their implementation both in pre-trial and in court proceedings. Investigative and judicial processes as historically established forms of criminal procedure should be adversarial. The author examines the importance of the adversarial nature of the parties in the formation of material evidence in criminal cases and their assessment by the parties when substantiating the conclusions in the case, shows their theoretical and legal significance, procedural and legal, preventive and prophylactic and informational and evidentiary value.
22
Erliyani, Rahmida, M. Hadin Muhjad, and Muhammad Amin. "EXISTENCE OF SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE IN EVIDENTIARY LAW." Economics & Law 3, no. 1 (May 30, 2021): 64–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.37708/el.swu.v3i1.5.
Full textAbstract:
Environmental cases are often decided by decision of exemption because the evidence is scientific. The Criminal Procedure Code (KUHP) still adheres to conventional evidence. The judge did not receive scientific evidence. Even though, the environmental cases will not be completed without scientific evidence. Normative legal research methods are used, because scientific evidence is contained in laws and regulations including the Criminal Procedure Code. Legal materials collected were analysed to answer the problem. Legal analysis of norm obscurity is carried out by law interpretation while legal vacancies are carried out by legal construction or rechtsvinding. The results showed that environmental cases in the form of pollution and environmental damage were only proven by scientific evidence, which was an extension of evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code, which had an impact on the procedural Burden of Proof, namely the position of evidence. Scientific evidence does not stand alone but follows one of the legitimate evidences, namely expert information or proof of evidence or evidence.
23
Stockdale, Michael, and Adam Jackson. "Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings." Journal of Criminal Law 80, no. 5 (October 2016): 344–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022018316668448.
Full textAbstract:
In its 2011 report Expert Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in England and Wales (Law Com No. 325), the Law Commission recommended that the admissibility of expert evidence in criminal proceedings should be governed by a new statutory regime comprising a new statutory reliability test in combination with codification and refinement of existing common law principles relating to ‘assistance’, ‘expertise’ and ‘impartiality’. The government declined to enact the Law Commission’s draft Bill due to a lack of certainty as to whether the additional costs incurred would be offset by savings. Instead the government invited the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee (CrimPRC) to consider amendments to the Criminal Procedure Rules (CrimPR) to introduce, as far as possible, the spirit of the Law Commission’s recommendations. The consequent amendments to CrimPR Part 33 (now CrimPR Part 19) in combination with the making of the new Practice Direction CrimPD 33A (now CrimPD 19A) by the Lord Chief Justice resulted in what he described in his 2014 Criminal Bar Association Kalisher Lecture as ‘a novel way of implementing an excellent Report’. This paper considers the possible evolution of the common law in light of these amendments, the challenges associated with adopting such a novel approach to reform and the potential opportunities for the improvement of expert evidence in criminal proceedings that the changes were intended to create.
24
김준성. "In the Criminal Procedure, Permitted Limit in Scientific Evidence." kangwon Law Review 40, no. ll (October 2013): 295–320. http://dx.doi.org/10.18215/kwlr.2013.40..295.
Full text
25
TUGAROVA, O. K. "The Logical Nature of Indirect Evidence in Criminal Procedure." Journal of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine 26, no. 1 (2019): 141–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.31359/1993-0909-2019-26-1-141.
Full text
26
Hamroyev, Shukhrat, and Aleksey Parfyonov. "Civil Contract as an Evidence in Avestan Criminal Procedure." SHS Web of Conferences 50 (2018): 01230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185001230.
Full textAbstract:
The paper considers the statutory concept of the civil contract as a form of evidence used by the ancient Tajiks in Avestan court proceedings, particularly with regard to findings, typology and responsibility for violation of the contract in part of Vendidad. The history of contracts as a form of evidence in Avestan court proceedings is the key component of political and legal institutes within the historical development of Tajikistan, which was characterized by worldview, political and cultural values of the society in a certain era of its development. Therefore, the study of this main institute of criminal proceedings always remains relevant. The study provides the retrospective analysis of the contract as a form of evidence in Avestan court proceedings during the period of the Zoroastrian civilization. The study results in basic principles and ways of implementing the contract as a form of evidence in Avestan court proceedings.
27
KOSTENKO, Roman, and Georgii YURIEV. "The Admissibility of Statements Provided by an Accused Person in the Russian Criminal Procedure." Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 9, no. 5 (June 9, 2019): 1684. http://dx.doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v9.5(35).21.
Full textAbstract:
This article substantiates that compliance with the requirement of admissible evidence acquires special significance for a criminal proceedings, which is proved by the analysis of various sources, including the current edition of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, the article aims to determine the nature of admissible statements of the accused in the Russian criminal procedure as one of the most important types of legal evidence.
The authors of the article have obtained crucial results for the study of criminal proceedings, defined the basic requirements that should be met by admissible statements of an accused person, analyzed rules for admitting statements of the accused, performed their general characterization and formulated the main provisions defining the essence of statements provided by the accused in criminal proceedings. The main conclusion reached in this article is that the admissibility of statements provided by the accused should comply with the following basic rules: (1) the rule of appropriate subjects authorized by virtue of the existing Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation to carry out procedural actions for collecting (obtaining, recording) evidence; (2) the rule of proper information sources on the facts provided for by the current Criminal Procedure Code; (3) the rule of proper proceedings stipulated by the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation for collecting (receiving, recording) evidence; (4) the rule of the proper procedure provided for by the current Criminal Procedure Code for collecting (receiving, recording) evidence from the viewpoint of its proper obtaining is considered as the need to comply with requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code.
28
Sunarmi, Mahmud Mulyadi, I. Made Dwi Krisnanda, Madiasa Ablisar,. "ANALISIS YURIDIS BUKTI DIGITAL (DIGITAL EVIDENCE) DALAM PEMBUKTIAN PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA UJARAN KEBENCIAN PADA PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI MEDAN NO. 3168/PID.SUS/2018/PN.MDN." Res Nullius Law Journal 3, no. 2 (July 29, 2021): 98–117. http://dx.doi.org/10.34010/rnlj.v3i2.3862.
Full textAbstract:
Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code), has set the evidence that can be done in front of the trial. Article 183 of the Criminal Procedure Code implies that a minimum of 2 (two) valid evidence are required. Article 184 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates valid evidence, namely: witness statements; expert statements; letter; instructions; and the statement of the defendant. However, since the trial of Jesica Kumala Wongso which was broadcast on television almost every day, it turns out there is one more proof that is not contained in the Criminal Procedure Code, namely: digital evidence. The object of this study is the Medan District Court Decision No. 3168/Pid.Sus/2018/PN.Mdn., Dated May 23, 2019, concerning the use of digital evidence An. Defendant HDL Alias ​​Himma for alleged "criminal acts of hate speech". Law No. 11 of 2008 as amended by Law No. 19 of 2016 concerning Amendments to the Information and Electronic Transaction Law which governs electronic evidence. The problems in this study, namely: the position of proof of digital evidence before the trial is associated with criminal conviction; use of digital evidence in criminal acts of hate speech on social media; and juridical analysis of digital evidence in proving criminal acts of hate speech in Medan District Court Decision No. 3168/Pid.Sus/ 2018/PN.Mdn.
29
Stojković, Vesna. "Illegal evidence in the criminal procedure: Statement of the accused and technical records of facts." Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine 78, no. 9 (2006): 579–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/gakv0611579s.
Full textAbstract:
The most important action of the criminal court is presentation of evidence and it may be undertaken during the whole criminal procedure. This was the main reason why this court action was placed in the part of the new Criminal Procedural Law of Montenegro related to general issues, instead of placing it in the part with investigation like in earlier solutions. The reasons for those changes as well as for repeal of some previous solutions/articles of the Criminal Procedural Law, in accordance with which some illegally presented evidences could have been used in the criminal procedure even for rendering the final court decision, were based on the fact that it was necessary to implement some solutions from modern criminal procedural law of the European countries as well as to implement relevant solutions from European Declaration on Human Rights, in order to improve human rights and to reach European human right standards. Therefore, all illegal evidence cannot be used anymore in rendering court decisions, have to be excluded from the case file and to be used never again under any circumstances. This paper pays special attention to the statement of the accused and technical records (audio-video) of criminal facts, which are the two most important sources of illegal evidence.
30
Jørgensen, Nina H. B. "Domestic Incorporation of International Criminal Procedure." Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting 109 (2015): 273–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.5305/procannmeetasil.109.2015.0273.
Full textAbstract:
Rules of procedure define the relationship between the needs of effective enforcement of international criminal law—grounded in the interest of combating impunity—and the individual rights of those affected by the process. It has been said that criminal procedure is the “most vulnerable part of a liberal legal system.” It is vulnerable in part because it is adaptable. It can be adapted to promote fairness in the interactions between an individual and the state, or it can be manipulated to facilitate abuses by those in power. A fair system charts a course for the discovery of the truth but recognizes that this destination cannot be reached at all costs. For example, confessions obtained under torture are inadmissible under international rules of procedure and evidence.
31
BEKISHEV, Askhat K., Zhansaya UMIRZAKOVA, Alua SALAMATOVNAIBRAEVA, Elizaveta KUTIBAEVA, and Nurlan SALAMATOVICHIBRAYEV. "Specifics of Receiving Evidence in the Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan." Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 10, no. 3 (June 30, 2019): 717. http://dx.doi.org/10.14505//jarle.v10.3(41).04.
Full textAbstract:
The research discusses the specifics of receiving evidence in the criminal procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The authors of the article analyze the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan related to receiving evidence during the pre-trial investigation of a criminal case. Having conducted a scientific analysis, they have determined the main features of receiving evidence in the criminal procedure. The study has revealed the main types of evidence and provided their characteristics. The authors have considered the procedural order of investigative actions that are based on receiving evidence (interrogation, face-to-face confrontation, presentation for identification, evidence verification and clarification at the scene, investigative experiment). According to the study results, the authors have concluded that the effectiveness of receiving evidence during the pre-trial investigation of a criminal case consists of many objective and subjective factors but the main ones are strict adherence to the corresponding law and professional skills of the official investigating the crime in question.
32
Sementsov, V. A., and V. A. Tsatsuro. "TRANSFORMATION OF SCIENTIFIC IDEAS ABOUT THE SUBJECT OF EVIDENCE IN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS." Bulletin of Udmurt University. Series Economics and Law 30, no. 6 (December 28, 2020): 881–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.35634/2412-9593-2020-30-6-881-885.
Full textAbstract:
The subject of proof is a scientific category that has historically been represented. Modern science of criminal procedure, accumulated knowledge about the sphere of evidence, including its subject, and the ongoing modernization of criminal procedure law allow us to look at the subject of evidence from a new perspective when assessing its content and main features. According to the authors, the subject of proof, taking into account the purpose of criminal proceedings, stipulated in art. 6 code of criminal procedure, allows to significantly adjust its definition, pointing out the components of his circumstances, as the impact on constitutional rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of participants of criminal proceedings and other involved in the field of entities.
33
Ambos, Kai. "International criminal procedure: "adversarial", "inquisitorial" or mixed?" International Criminal Law Review 3, no. 1 (2003): 1–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156753603767877084.
Full textAbstract:
AbstractThe article analyses whether international criminal procedure is "adversarial", "inquisitorial" or mixed. It examines the law of the ICTY and the ICC, including the relevant case law. This law has developed from an adversarial to a truly mixed procedure by way of various amendments of the ICTY's Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) and the drafting of the Rome Statute merging civil and common law elements in one international procedure. It is no longer important whether a rule is either "adversarial" or "inquisitorial" but whether it assists the Tribunals in accomplishing their tasks and whether it complies with fundamental fair trial standards. As to an efficient trial management an UN Expert Group called for a more active role of the judges, in particular with regard to the direction of the trial and the collection of evidence. In this context, it is submitted that a civil law like judge-led procedure may better avoid delays produced by the free interplay of the parties. Ultimately, however, the smooth functioning of a judicial system depends on its actors, procedural rules provide only a general framework in this regard. A truly mixed procedure requires Prosecutors, Defence Counsel and Judges who have knowledge of both common and civil law and are able to look beyond their own legal systems.
34
Jimeno-Bulnes, Mar. "The use of intelligence information in criminal procedure." New Journal of European Criminal Law 8, no. 2 (June 2017): 171–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2032284417711574.
Full textAbstract:
Intelligence information that law-enforcement authorities may present as evidence in criminal proceedings is a questionable procedure. Intelligence reports are usually preventive and proactive measures for internal security and their discussion is important, in so far as they may be used as evidence and may have been acquired before the trial and even the prosecution phase. From the standpoint of defence rights, the use of such information undoubtedly calls for a review of criminal procedural principles; the accused and counsel cannot challenge such intelligence reports as the sources are secret and their introduction in a criminal proceeding circumvents the observance of the ordinary rules of criminal procedure. Despite the absolute absence of specific guidelines on national ordinary judicial procedure for the assessment of such intelligence information in Spain, a practical working arrangement has nevertheless evolved in the field. In this paper, the example of the Spanish panorama is described and some thoughts are advanced on a potential European approach. The concept of intelligence, whether such a concept is clearly identified in legal terms at a European and national level, as well as the practical ramifications of intelligence information used in criminal procedure with its consequences for the accused are all examined in the paper. The legal basis for the submission of such evidence both in Spanish legislation and in the judicial practice of the Spanish Supreme Court are also presented. The challenge is to ensure that the nature of such sensitive information and its assessment as evidence is at all times compatible with the observance of fundamental rights and, most especially, the procedural guarantees of the defendant.
35
Ramiyanto, NFN. "BUKTI ELEKTRONIK SEBAGAI ALAT BUKTI YANG SAH DALAM HUKUM ACARA PIDANA / ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE AS AN ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL LAW." Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan 6, no. 3 (November 29, 2017): 463. http://dx.doi.org/10.25216/jhp.6.3.2017.463-486.
Full textAbstract:
KUHAP sebagai hukum acara pidana yang bersifat umum tidak mengakui bukti elektronik sebagai salah satu jenis alat bukti yang sah. Di dalam praktik, bukti elektronik juga digunakan sebagai alat bukti yang sah untuk membuktikan tindak pidana yang terjadi di pengadilan. Dari hasil pembahasan dapat disimpulkan, bahwa bukti elektronik dalam hukum acara pidana berstatus sebagai alat bukti yang berdiri sendiri dan alat bukti yang tidak berdiri sendiri (pengganti bukti surat apabila memenuhi prinsip/dasar dalam functional equivalent approach dan perluasan bukti petunjuk) sebagaimana dicantumkan dalam beberapa undang-undang khusus dan instrumen hukum yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung. Walaupun bukti elektronik tidak diatur dalam KUHAP sebagai lex generalis, namun untuk tercapainya kebenaran materiil dapat juga digunakan sebagai alat bukti yang sah untuk pembuktian seluruh jenis tindak pidana di pengadilan. Hal itu didasarkan pada pengakuan dalam praktik peradilan pidana, beberapa undang-undang khusus, dan instrumen yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung.The Criminal Procedure Code as a general criminal procedure does not recognize electronic evidence as one of the admissible types of evidence. In practice, electronic evidence is also used as an admissible evidence to prove the criminal offenses in court. From the results of the discussion it can be concluded that electronic evidence in criminal procedure law is a dependent evidence and an independent evidence (substitution of letter proof if it meets the principle of functional equivalent approach and expansion of evidence) as specified in several special laws and instruments issued by the Supreme Court. The electronic evidence is not regulated in the Criminal Procedure Code as a lex generalis, however, to achieve material truth it can also be used as a valid evidence for the provision of all types of criminal offenses in court. It is based on recognition in the practice of criminal justice, some special laws, and instruments issued by the Supreme Court.
36
Bara, Brunilda, Jonad Bara, and Silvana Bara. "Physical integrity and latest legislative changes in Albania." JAHR 10, no. 1 (June 28, 2019): 33–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.21860/j.10.1.2.
Full textAbstract:
In 2016 Albania went through a major justice reform which provided legislative changes to the already existing institutions, established new ones and sought to improve the procedural guarantees of the accused in criminal trials. While the Albanian Code of Criminal Procedure prior to the changes did not provide for biological evidence or a medical intervention in the course of a criminal investigation, the new legislative changes introduced the concepts of biological evidence and the compulsory physical examination as part of tools in search of the evidence. Even though the draft amendments to the previous Albanian Code of Criminal procedure recognized the problems encountered in practice during the collection of biological evidence vis à vis individual’s rights to personal integrity and dignity, the application of newly introduced and enacted provisions remains still unclear and raises concerns, not only regarding the possible arbitrary use of such tools by law enforcement authorities, but also on the possible conflicts that can arise from the application of such procedures by medical examiners and physicians and the fundamental rights of the person under examination or undergoing the medical procedure/intervention.
37
Kapustina, Liliya. "Assessment of the admissibility and reliability of the evidence in criminal legal procedure." Vestnik of the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia 2020, no. 1 (April 8, 2020): 113–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.35750/2071-8284-2020-1-113-118.
Full textAbstract:
The framework of procedural decision is the assessment of the evidence. The problem of assessment of admissibility and reliability of the evidence in the criminal legal procedure is important because the assessment defines the credibility of the evidence. The goal of the article is to analyze relationship admissibility and reliability, to provide the author’s position about subjects of the assessment of the admissibility and reliability, to model situations involved in assessment by the criminal legal proceedings. The author stresses the importance of the assessment of the item qualities of criminal evidence. This conclusion is based on the analysis of statistics and scientific approaches. The need for relationship admissibility and reliability of the evidence in the criminal legal proceedings is stressed. The study advances the understanding of the subjects of the assessment, authorized making a decision. The author has modeled situations involved in the assessment of the criminal legal procedure and suggested a solution to the problem.
38
Ghambaryan, Artur, and Liana Ghazaryan. "The Institute of Deposition of Testimonies: Criminal Procedure Codes of Post-Soviet States." Russian Law Journal 8, no. 1 (March 27, 2020): 84–110. http://dx.doi.org/10.17589/2309-8678-2020-8-1-84-110.
Full textAbstract:
This article argues about the importance of gathering written evidence (testimony) which, as a prototype of judicial deposition, may be regarded as an effective instrument for criminal procedure. The article incorporates the works of the British, German, and Russian theorists of the 19th century, and the legislative regulations of this period. Despite the fact that the concept of “judicial deposition” has only recently entered into practice in the new criminal procedure codes of post-Soviet states, its roots can be traced back to the 19th century English law. This paper focuses on the legislative regulations of the post-Soviet countries, in particular, the procedures set out in the new criminal procedure codes, including the novelties and peculiarities of the Draft Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia. The authors have referred, in more detail, to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia, which has substantial peculiarities. In this respect, the article presents the opinions of the experts on judicial deposition testimonies. Discussing the differences in the legislative regulations of several countries, this article, through a comparative analysis, points how different countries approach deposition of testimonies. Additionally, the article examines the fundamental differences between deposition testimonies and hearsay evidence.
39
Malysheva, O. A. "Features of criminal procedure evidence carried out by the investigator, in the context of digitalization of criminal proceedings." Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)), no. 10 (December 22, 2020): 82–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/2311-5998.2020.74.10.082-088.
Full textAbstract:
The article focuses on the change in the rules of criminal procedure evidence, due to the increasingly active introduction of digital technologies in the criminal procedure sphere. Taking into account the foreign experience of initiating and investigating criminal cases in digital format, the article clarifies promising areas of digitalization of Russian criminal proceedings. Means that prevent the investigator from violating the procedural form of evidence when using digital technologies in criminal proceedings are determined.
40
Teofilović, Savo. "Admission of guilt as evidence in the French criminal procedure." Glasnik Advokatske komore Vojvodine 78, no. 9 (2006): 452–57. http://dx.doi.org/10.5937/gakv0608452t.
Full text
41
독고지은. "Searches and Seizures of Digital Evidence andthe New Criminal Procedure." Korean Lawyers Association Journal 62, no. 5 (May 2013): 207–97. http://dx.doi.org/10.17007/klaj.2013.62.5.005.
Full text
42
Трефилов, Александр, and Aleksandr Trefilov. "SWISS MILITARY CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: EVIDENCE, INVESTIGATIONS, COERCIVE MEASURES, PRELIMINARY PROCEDURE." Journal of Foreign Legislation and Comparative Law 4, no. 2 (April 20, 2018): 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.12737/art.2018.2.17.
Full text
43
Mather, Percy. "Legal Ease—A Guide to Criminal Law, Evidence, and Procedure." Crime Prevention and Community Safety 7, no. 2 (April 2005): 63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.cpcs.8140219.
Full text
44
Skrypnyk, A. V., and I. A. Titko. "CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF USE OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE." Juridical scientific and electronic journal, no. 5 (2021): 283–87. http://dx.doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2021-5/66.
Full text
45
Aunurrofiq, M. "Kekuatan Yuridis Persumpsion Dalam Proses Pembuktian Perkara." Al-Jinayah: Jurnal Hukum Pidana Islam 3, no. 1 (March 22, 2018): 192–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.15642/aj.2017.3.1.192-225.
Full textAbstract:
Abstract: This article discusses judicial strength of judge’s presumption in the examination process according to Islamic law of criminal procedure and Indonesian code of criminal procedure. Since there are numerous motive of crime nowadays, judges must always follow procedure and have sufficient legal knowledge in the examination process to ensure just verdicts. In the process, judicial presumption play crucial role but it must be based on evidence according to Indonesian code of criminal procedure. Similarly, in Islamic criminal procedure, presumption is important to be basis of verdict as long as supported by other evidence. The difference is that presumption in Indonesian code of criminal procedure can only be considered as indirect evidence, whereas is Islamic criminal procedure, it can perform as direct evidence. Thus, the use of presumption in examination of criminal cases depends on the judges’ wisdom.
Keywords: Presumption, Islamic law of criminal procedure, Indonesian code of criminal procedure.
Abstrak Artikel ini membahas tentang kekuatan yuridis persumpsion hakim dalam proses pembuktian perkara menurut Hukum Acara Pidana Islam dan KUHAP. Kekuatan yuridis persumpsion, menurut KUHAP, baru bisa mempunyai kekuatan hukum untuk menjatuhkan putusan jika dikaitkan dengan alat bukti yang lain. Kekuatan yuridis persumpsion menurut Hukum Acara Pidana Islam, sudah mempunyai kekuatan hukum untuk menjatuhkan putusan meskipun tanpa didukung oleh alat bukti lain. Persumpsion dalam KUHAP dan Hukum Acara Pidana Islam keduanya mempunyai kesamaan, yakni sama-sama dapat digunakan sebagai alat bukti dan mempunyai kekuatan hukum dalam proses pembuktian, sedangkan yang membedakan adalah KUHAP berlaku pada pembuktian tidak langsung sedangkan dalam Hukum Acara Pidana Islam berlaku pada pembuktian langsung. Sedangkan kelebihan serta kekurangannya tergantung kepada hakim, apakah ia mampu menggunakan persumpsion dengan arif dan bijaksana atau tidak dalam menangani, mengadili dan menjatuhkan putusan.
Kata Kunci: Persumpsion, pembuktian perkara, Hukum acara pidana Islam, KUHAP.
46
de Gurmendi, Silvia A. Fernández, and Håkan Friman. "The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court." Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 3 (December 2000): 289–336. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1389135900000672.
Full textAbstract:
On 30 June 2000, the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court approved by consensus the Draft Rules of Procedure and Evidence (hereinafter ‘the Rules’). Their adoption followed months of extensive negotiations during which delegations struggled to supplement the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (hereinafter, ICC or the Court) while fulfilling the — sometimes somewhat contradictory — objectives of safeguarding the integrity of the Statute and ‘enhancing the effectiveness and acceptance of the Court’.
47
Liutynskii, Anton Mechislavovich. "ABOUT THE PROCEDURE FOR RECOGNITION OF THE EVIDENCE AS INADMISSIBLE IN RUSSIAN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE." Sovremennye issledovaniya sotsialnykh problem, no. 7 (September 16, 2015): 225. http://dx.doi.org/10.12731/2218-7405-2015-7-16.
Full text
48
Ponomarenko, Alla. "PROCEDURE FOR RECOGNITION OF EVIDENCE INADMISSIBLE UNDER CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL LEGISLATION OF POST-SOVIET COUNTRIES." NAUKA I PRAVOOKHORONA, no. 2 (2020): 246–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.36486/np.2020.2(48).25.
Full text
49
Yefimovykh, Ilya N. "Subject and limits of examination evidence in the proceedings of the criminal case in the court of first instance." Russian Journal of Legal Studies 6, no. 3 (April 1, 2020): 186–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.17816/rjls19098.
Full textAbstract:
The article analyzes the norms of the criminal procedure law, the opinions of scientists, judicial practice materials related to the examination of evidence in criminal proceedings in the court of first instance, on the basis of which the author proposed definitions of the notions subject of examination evidence and limits of examination evidence they were compared with the concepts of subject of proof and limits of proof. The study used such research methods as logical, system-structural, statistical. As a result of a study of specific court decisions in criminal cases, differences in the understanding of evidence and the examination of evidence were revealed. A distinction has been made between the subject and the object of the study of evidence at the court hearing. The question of determining the subject matter and the limits of the examination of evidence was analyzed, including with regard to the consideration of the criminal case in a special order of judicial decision of the court, with the consent of the accused with the accusation. The rationale for the view that the examination of evidence takes place during the examination of a criminal case under a special court procedure is given, the circumstances that can be established during the court session, namely, the circumstances that may lead to exemption from punishment, as well as the postponement are analyzed. serving the sentence. These circumstances, if any, are mandatory to be established in court proceedings through the examination of evidence. According to the results of the analysis, proposed measures to improve the norms of the criminal procedure law governing the consideration of the criminal case in a special order of the trial. The question of the scope of the examination of evidence was considered in conjunction with the norms of the criminal procedure law, which established the grounds for the return of the criminal case to the prosecutor.
50
Voronin, M. I. "Electronic Evidence in the Criminal Procedure Code: To Be or not to Be?" Lex Russica, no. 7 (July 31, 2019): 74–84. http://dx.doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2019.152.7.074-084.
Full textAbstract:
Digital reality has firmly entered the life of society and the state. It has also become a solid medium and a means of committing crimes, the digital (electronic) traces of which law enforcement and judicial authorities use to restore the picture of the event. Various digital devices (mobile phones, tablets, smartphones, flash drives, hard drives, etc.), carrying important information for the preliminary investigation and the court, fall into the orbit of the criminal process. It is often impossible to withdraw, investigate, consolidate this information without the participation of a specialist. The current criminal procedure legislation is not fully adapted to such sources of information. Therefore, digital novels of reality become the object of study of many sciences of the criminal law cycle, including the science of criminal procedure law. Is it necessary to include the concept of «electronic evidence» in the criminal procedure legislation? If necessary, are there grounds for concluding that this type of evidence is independent, or can electronic evidence be classified as one of the traditional types of evidence? What are the theoretical and practical prerequisites for this? What are the features of electronic evidence? In science, there are different points of view on these issues. Most scientists and experts believe it is possible to classify electronic evidence as either physical evidence or other documents. In the paper, it is offered to consider these evidence as an independent type of evidence, treating them as electronic carriers of information, and electronic information in the form of electronic documents. Based on the proposed theoretical proposals, it is necessary to begin the development of appropriate legal norms for their inclusion in the criminal procedure law.