International Journal of Law And Criminology
39
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
VOLUME
Vol.05 Issue03 2025
PAGE NO.
39-41
10.37547/ijlc/Volume05Issue03-10
Peculiarities of evidence in criminal investigation and
judicial proceedings in the republic of Uzbekistan based
on foreign experience
Yakubov Bekzod Erkinbayevich
Chairman of the Bogot District Court for Criminal Cases of Khorezm Region, Uzbekistan
Received:
26 January 2025;
Accepted:
24 February 2025;
Published:
26 March 2025
Abstract:
This article examines the types of operational investigative activities, the implementation of operational
investigative activities and the main tasks of operational investigative activities and measures to ensure the
legality of the results of activities, the legality of evidence collected during operational investigative activities, and
provides scientific, theoretical and practical recommendations on the basics using this evidence as the main
means in the investigation of crimes, as well as in proving guilt at a court hearing. At the same time, the opinions
and reasoning of theoretical scientists and experienced employees were analyzed.
Keywords:
Operational investigative activity, type of event, operational experiment, prosecutorial supervision.
Introduction:
Operational-search activity
has been
cooperating with the fair judicial-investigative system
for over two centuries. Its tasks have always included
detecting crimes, uncovering them, and identifying and
locating suspects who are to be handed over to judicial-
investigative authorities
—
and it continues to perform
these functions today. Attitudes and approaches
toward operational-search activity may vary. However,
its necessity cannot be denied on any grounds. For this
reason, such activity has always continued to evolve
and is still developing today, existing in all countries as
one of the main tools in the fight against crime, never
losing its relevance across all periods.
Conducting operational-search measures refers to the
process of implementing a set of operational and other
measures aimed at preventing or solving crimes
committed or being committed by persons reasonably
suspected of a crime, as well as identifying and
capturing fugitives from justice
—
particularly in cases
where achieving these goals by other means is
impossible or extremely difficult.
Given the tasks of combating crime, there must be
sufficient reasons and grounds for making a decision to
conduct operational-search measures.
Using information obtained in criminal cases as
evidence contradicts the essence of judicial-
investigative procedures, their procedural form, and
the principle of applying only legally prescribed
procedural means of proof. According to German
criminal procedure law, it is concluded that it is
inadmissible to use operational data obtained during
criminal proceedings as evidence, or to convert such
information into court evidence by questioning the
officials conducting the operational-search activities or
individuals involved in the case. [1]
According to the experiences of many foreign
countries, non-traditional methods that are beyond the
scope of court-investigative authorities are also used to
detect, uncover, and prove crimes. These include
interrogation under psychological pressure, use of
polygraphs (lie detectors), extrasensory perception,
and biorhythmology. However, such methods cannot
serve as a scientifically or ethically grounded basis for
proving a criminal case during the judicial-investigative
stage.
Only reliable and traceable information within the
scope of a criminal case can be relevant to the subject
of proof. The relevance of evidence means that it
pertains to the criminal case, complies with the
requirements for evaluating evidence, and is significant
for the lawful resolution of the case. [2]
When analyzing foreign practices, we find that Swiss
legislation outlines ten key characteristics for using
International Journal of Law And Criminology
40
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
evidence gathered from operational-search activities
as primary means of proof, namely:
•
Rules on proof are part of the subject of
criminal law;
•
Only authorized state bodies are recognized as
subjects of proof;
•
The burden of proof is placed solely on the
prosecuting party;
•
There is no limit to the quantity of evidence;
•
All evidence is evaluated freely without any
exceptions;
•
If admissible evidence is obtained in an
inadmissible manner, it is also considered inadmissible;
•
The theory of asymmetry is not recognized,
meaning equal standards apply to both prosecution
and defense evidence;
•
The verification of evidence is not viewed as an
independent element of the proof process;
•
Admissibility requirements apply to all
evidence;
•
Proof consists of two distinct elements: the
collection and evaluation of evidence. [3]
These cases show that in the nature and essence of
evidence, important factors such as the reliability,
admissibility or inadmissibility of the evidence, the
unlimited scope of relevant evidence, and the
requirements imposed on such evidence play a
significant role.
At the same time, many foreign countries have
introduced the assessment of evidence obtained or
collected during the process of crime detection,
exposure, and proving as a fundamental principle in
their legislation. For example, in the criminal procedure
legislation of Germany, the principle of evaluating and
proving evidence based on the judge’s internal
conviction is recognized, which is reflected in the
following:
•
In evaluating evidence and proving the criminal
nature of an act, the judge's personal conviction
regarding the guilt of the accused plays a decisive role
and is considered sufficient for delivering a verdict;
•
If the judge has reasonable doubt about
whether the accused committed a crime deserving
punishment, the verdict must be acquittal (in dubio pro
reo);
•
There are formal limits to the judge’s internal
conviction when evaluating evidence
—
meaning the
judge’s arguments must be clear, logically sequenced,
and free from contradictions. The judge must act on
generally accepted and scientifically proven rules
formed from experience;
•
When evaluating evidence, the court is obliged
to thoroughly and comprehensively examine all
available evidence;
•
Evidence prohibited for use by the court must
not be considered in delivering a verdict or used as
proof.
In the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian
Federation as well, the subject responsible for proving
the case evaluates evidence obtained as a result of
operational-search activities based on internal
conviction, law, and conscience. [4]
In foreign countries such as the United States, the
United Kingdom, Poland, and Germany, even lawyers,
in cases where a crime has been uncovered or solved
through operational-search activities, may conduct
independent investigations to collect evidence aimed
at protecting the rights and interests of the accused. In
Germany, in fact, lawyers have the right to
independently investigate case circumstances and
conduct parallel investigations alongside officials
responsible for the criminal proceedings. [5]
In addition, under the legislation of the United States
and Slovenia, in order to carry out a search as part of
operational-search or investigative actions, a request
known as an "affidavit" must be submitted to the court.
The judge, before granting permission for the search,
must consider not only the grounds and suspicions
requiring the search, but also the following:
•
The experience and work background of the
operational officer or investigator conducting the
action, especially regarding their expertise in solving
crimes;
•
The justification and reasonableness of the
grounds or suspicions for conducting the search;
•
Before giving consent for the action, the judge
must receive the sworn oath from the operational
officer or investigator stating they have been warned
about liability for perjury;
•
The judge does not need to issue a separate
court document to approve the search; it is sufficient
to confirm the request for permission with their
signature;
•
In the procedural processes related to the
conduct of the search as an operational or investigative
action, the judge who authorized the sanction may also
directly participate in the process;
•
In urgent cases, the authorities conducting
operational-search or investigative actions may call the
judge, explain the situation in detail, and receive the
sanction by phone. The decision must then be
International Journal of Law And Criminology
41
https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ijlc
International Journal of Law And Criminology (ISSN: 2771-2214)
formalized in writing and submitted to the court within
twenty-four hours for approval. [6]
In our view, the provision in Article 67 of Ukraine’s
Criminal Procedure Code stating that
“The subject of
proof is the totality of circumstances that must be
proven in each criminal case,” as well as the wording in
Part 1 of Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code of
the Republic of Uzbekistan, which states “Whether a
socially dangerous act was committed or not, and
whether the person who committed the act is guilty or
not,” demonstrate that these formulations are not fully
capable of reflecting all the circumstances that need to
be proven in each criminal case.
Therefore, it is advisable to amend Part 1 of Article 81
of the current Criminal Procedure Code to read as
follows:
"Any information that forms the basis for the inquirer,
investigator, prosecutor, and court to determine, in
accordance with the procedure established by this
Code, the presence or absence of circumstances
included in the subject of proof in a criminal case, as
well as other circumstances important for the correct
resolution of the case, shall be considered evidence."
In addition, in order to establish an effective
mechanism for detecting crimes committed using
electronic (digital) devices during criminal proceedings
and to enhance the efficiency of the subject evaluating
the evidence, it is important to develop guidelines for
the collection, procedural documentation, and use of
digital (electronic) evidence, as well as for the
acquisition and expert examination of such evidence
with the involvement of specialists.
This is particularly important when we look at the
experience of developed countries such as Japan, South
Korea, and Singapore. In these countries, the
procedural processes related to conducting online
searches, operational-search activities, or investigative
actions have been implemented for several years and
have demonstrated positive results in court and
investigative practices. Therefore, such evidence
collection methods have proven to be effective and
significant.
As seen above, based on the legislation and
operational-search practices of foreign countries, there
are specific practical foundations in court and
investigative activities for evaluating items and
documents obtained, discovered, or collected during
operational measures as evidence in solving and
uncovering crimes. These also serve to prove the
criminal nature of an act or the existence of
circumstances
that
exclude
criminal
liability.
Accordingly, improving operational activity aimed at
uncovering various types of crimes
—
whether covert or
open
—
based on international experience is essential.
One of the most important factors in proving a crime
during the court-investigative phase is ensuring the
completeness of the div of evidence. This is achieved
through methods such as identifying and verifying
initial information about the signs of the crime during
operational-search activities, collecting comparative
samples, and confirming and documenting information
about individuals involved in criminal activity. These
methods ultimately ensure full confidence in the
verdict of guilt against the defendant.
REFERENCES
Б.А.Филимонов Основы теории доказательств в
германском
процессе.
–
Москва.“Спарк”.21.05.2001й. 107
-
б.
Абдумажидов Ғ.А. Иқрорликнинг моҳияти ва
оқибати.Ўқув қўлланма. –
Тошкент “ТДЮИ”.
09.07.2006й. 12
-13-
б.
А.А.Трефилов Десять особенностей института
доказывания
в уголовном процессе Швейцария: сравнительно
-
правовой анализ.
Журнал
зарубежного
законодетельства
и
сравительного правоведения. 12.04.2017й. 111
-112-
б.
З.З.Зинатуллин
Уголовно
-
процессуальное
доказиваные. Учебное пособие.–
Ижевск. “Юрид”
04.09.2001й. 147
-148-
б.
Саломов Б.А. Адвокатская деятельност, её гарантии
и
социальная защита адвокатов в Республике
Узбекистан. –
Тошкент. “ТДЮИ”. 29.08.2005й. 319
-
320-
б.
Wohlers W.
Kommentar zur
Schweizerischen
Strafprozessordnung.
Zurich. “StPO”. 23.11.2010й.78
-79-
б.
Ш.Х.Иномжонов Далиллар назарияси муаммолари.
Ўқув қўлланма. –Тошкент. “ТДЮИ” 06.09.2006й. 77
-
78-
б.
