Page 1 of 8

European Journal of Business &

Social Sciences

Available at https://ejbss.org/

ISSN: 2235-767X

Volume 07 Issue 05

May 2019

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 649

The Mechanism For Ensuring Compliance With The General Conditions Of

Evidenceand Problems Related With It

Rajabov Bakhtiyor Almakhmatovich,

Academy of the Ministry of internal affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan Head

of the Department of criminal and criminal-Executive law, candidate of Legal

Sciences, Associate Professor (Uzbekistan)

Annotation. The article outlines the author's views and analyzes on the

procedural rules that serve as a mechanism to ensure that the conditions of the

proceedings are adhered to in the criminal proceedings. Based on the findings of

the analysis and research, proposals and recommendations have been developed to

improve the mechanism for ensuring compliance with the general conditions of

evidence.

Key words. The general circumstances of the evidence in the criminal

proceedings, the evidence, the inquiry officer, the investigator, the procurator, the

court, the judge.

It is desirable to disclose the meaning and content of the word "mechanism"

before explaining the mechanism for ensuring the compliance with the general

conditions of the proof.

The word "mechanism" is derived from the German word "mechanismus",

French "mécanisme" and "mēchanē" in Greek, which means the word "machine"

[1]. The word mechanism, in a symbolic sense, refers to the meaning of the system,

the device that identifies the order, process of any kind. For example, the

mechanism of the state mechanism, memory mechanisms and mechanism of law

enforcement bodies [2].

Based on the analysis of the linguistic and symbolic meanings of the word

"mechanism", the mechanism for ensuring the compliance with the general

conditions of proof is directly related to the complexity of the set of conditions in

which it operates in a single whole and with each other.

Page 2 of 8

European Journal of Business &

Social Sciences

Available at https://ejbss.org/

ISSN: 2235-767X

Volume 07 Issue 05

May 2019

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 650

An analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan

(hereinafter referred to as the CPC) and the criminal case law enforcement

agencies indicate that the mechanism of ensuring compliance with the general

provisions of the verdict is insufficient, and the legal norms regulating this sphere

are incompatible with each other.

Specifically, as an example,they do not define the rules for finding arguments

and using arguments in the CPC; unequivocal assessment of the significance of

each arguments; that the set of arguments is not sufficiently assessed for

condemnation and conviction; the prohibition of threats to the danger of life or

health of individuals or to acts that have humiliated their honor and dignity have

not been regulated; failure to comply with regulations for the imposition of

psychological pressure on the arguments, making statements, explanations,

conclusions, performing experimental actions, prohibiting the production of and

access to documents or articles; failure to comply with the rules for the use of

digital recording of evidence and the procedure for conducting a "digital criminal

case"; absence of rules for comparative analysis of evidence in arguments; The fact

that the arguments is not relevant and unreliable is not regulated.

In our view, the establishment of these rules in the CPC will serve as a basis

for the effective enforcement of the general conditions for further proof of the

future and the integrity of this system.

Apart from the foregoing, the CPC norms also contain norms that interfere

with the mechanism for ensuring the compliance with the general conditions for

verification.

Particularly, Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code (types of arguments)

regulates the procedural law on the use of the results of operative-search activities

as evidence in the future, as well as the results of the operational search actions,

Page 3 of 8

European Journal of Business &

Social Sciences

Available at https://ejbss.org/

ISSN: 2235-767X

Volume 07 Issue 05

May 2019

Available online:https://ejbss.org/ P a g e | 651

following the requirements established by the law, then it may be recognized as

evidence of a criminal case.

That is, after a search operation in accordance with this procedure, and after

the results of their preliminary investigation, they should be checked in accordance

with the procedural rules governing the verification of evidence and should be

assessed on the basis of the requirements of Article 95 (Evaluating of arguments)

of the Criminal Procedure Code.

However, in our opinion, this procedural rule, which is mentioned in the third

part of Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is incompatible with the first

part of Article 87, and is a ridiculous procedure of the procedural law, which is

defined in the first part of Article 95 of the Criminal Code as "each argument

should be evaluated in terms of relevance, acceptability and reliability".

It is important to note that, despite the fact that the evidence provided for in

the first part of article 87 of the Criminal Code provides for evidence-based

investigative and judicial proceedings, as well as operational search activities, the

legal act as a proof of the results of the operational search activities in accordance

with the procedural rule set forth in Article 81 the privatization of the status and

the examination and evaluation of the status shall be sufficiently adequate to the

general requirement set forth in paragraph 1 of Article 87 and serves as a barrier to

be applied.

Despite the fact that the Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On amendments

and additions to some legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan" dated April

25, 2016, based on the amendment to Part 1 of Article 87 of the Criminal Code,

despite the fact that the results of investigative actions were proven, this

disproportionate law and was excluded from the point of view of the executor, and

in the same article and the third part of Article 81 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

no measures were taken to remove the procedural rule.