Блог

Yu. Foris; V. Koloniuk

Summary

The model of the modern approach to the classification of forensic examinations can be designated as two sets with a section of the intersection. From the point of view of the system approach, the classification of forensic examinations should look like a collection of sets where «A» includes «B», and «B» includes «B» as a subtask of the task. Thus, the solution of the problem «B» indirectly affects the solution of the problem «A» through the solution of the problem «B». However, the solution of the tasks of different classes of forensic examinations are not connected with each other, unless this is a complex examination, which is the area of their intersection. The same statement is true for kinds, species, subspecies of forensic examinations on the basis of the current classification (type of special knowledge). It is quite sufficient to divide them into species and subspecies (as underexplored species), with their areas of intersection with each other in the form of complex forensic examinations. It is quite sufficient to divide them into species and subspecies (as underexplored species), with their areas of intersection with each other in the form of complex forensic examinations. «Forensic expert knowledge of the circumstances of the past event, drawn into the orbit of justice, is based on the reflection of this event in various material tracks, which bear the new legally meaningful information. Therefore, material traces of reflection (very different in its origin) are the central link between the past event that is being established, and caused the emergence of a trace, and based on expert knowledge based on special knowledge» – wrote M. Sehai.

«This circumstance predetermined both the grounds and directions of developing the conceptual foundations of the expert methodology: the creation of the most universal cognitive model for the formation of trace-reflections, and, after its design, on the same type of blocks of such tracks, combined into interdisciplinary expert doctrines. As the key universal cognitive model that reveals with the greatest visibility the “general picture» of the trace formation, the paradigm of the links of the interaction of trace-forming systems is chosen, and all the variety of trace-reflections in accordance with the nature of the objects being displayed and the trace-reflections themselves, bearing the information on the facts, are united into three interdisciplinary doctrines: expert substratology, expert documentation and expert psychology». In conclusion, it should be mentioned the merits of M. Sehai in the forensic expert community precisely in that it rarely finds its implementation: in scientific synthesis.

O. Humenskyi; T. Budko

Summary

The correct classification of forensic examinations (referring them to a certain class, genus, type, etc.) is extremely important for the correct assessment of the validity of the expert opinion.

Until recently, the classification of forensic examinations was carried out mainly on the basis of those Sciences, the methods of which were used to study the objects of expertise.

For the classification of examinations should be guided by a complex criterion, including ideas about the subject and purpose of this type of examination, its object, methods and nature of the underlying knowledge and taking into account the Genesis of its development.

To determine the place of expertise of special technical means (STM) in the classification of forensic examinations, we analyzed the components of this criterion of expertise delimitation.

The subject of STM expertise is the facts relevant to the criminal case related to the development, manufacture and use of STM, established on the basis of special knowledge in the field of STM research.

The main objects of the examination of the STM are technical means.

The research technique of STM is a technique for group identification. STM expertise is based on the knowledge of electrical engineering, electronics, radio engineering, computer technology, programming, technology of electronic devices, and develops using the achievements of these Sciences, which, although included in the concept of “technology”, but historically have no relation to forensic technology. That is, in the structure of the special knowledge that a specialist should have, there is no specific forensic knowledge at all, or at best they are represented only by knowledge in the field of the theory of forensic identification.

That is, STM expertise is not criminalistic by definition and should take place in the class of engineering and technical expertise. Another thing is that in order to prevent the disclosure of information relating to the conduct of operational and technical action, and the disclosure of way of working of operational and technical units of law enforcement agencies, which is undoubtedly a weighty argument, as well as to ensure the exclusive right of the security Service of Ukraine (SSU) to regulate the turnover of STM, STM examination should be excluded at the legislative level from the list of examinations allowed for other expert organizations except for expert units of the SSU.

In connection with the above, we believe that it is appropriate to use such a term as forensic examination of special technical means for secret information obtaining (STM), which is included in the class of engineering and technical expertise.

H. Pampukha

Summary

The article considers a new way of solving disputes by an independent expert, as a way of pre-trial, peaceful, quick and less confrontational solutions. It is an expertise that helps to achieve accuracy, professional judgment in resolving disputes and save money paid to the lawyer for the support of the case and arbitration fees when appealing to the court.

T. Kravchuk

Summary

The article deals with the definitions and content of the concepts «expert» and «expert on law» in civil, economic and administrative proceedings as well as the problem issues concerning the correlation of these concepts are studied; the particularities of providing a specialist in the field of law as a participant in the judicial process in the civil, economic and administrative proceedings of the «expert on law» status.

V. Khosha; O. Uhrovetskyi

Summary

In this article for the purpose of essence and feature definition and legal and administrative accreditation of Ukrainian forensic institutions and theoretical proof and proposals creation regarding its improvement, necessary methods and forms are defined. Administrative and legal forms of accreditation of forensic institutions (FI) of Ukraine are defined as an external expression of the content of activities of the national body of Ukraine for accreditation within limits of legal authoritative powers, which are enshrined according to rules of administrative law. Their implementation always entails the occurrence of legally significant consequences. It is substantiated that such forms are: 1) allocation of a specific body for implementation of conformity assessment activities in certain fields as evidenced by issuance of a Document of Compliance based on decision taken after a critical review about fulfillment of certain requirements was proved; 2) expansion of the scope of accreditation; 3) refusal of accreditation by applicant; 4) refusal to expand the scope of accreditation.

Under methods of accreditation forensic institutions of Ukraine is understood totality of legal means and methods (techniques) of the influence of the subject on the object of accreditation applied by national body of Ukraine for accreditation within its competence. Among these methods, administrative and legal ones have been singled out, namely: mandatory prescriptions; permissive; report on performing of certain actions; registration of certain objects and actions; suspension, restriction and prohibition of certain actions by conformity assessment bodies; permission; control and supervision.

Improvement of administrative and legal forms and accreditation methods forensic institutions of Ukrainian is part of a larger problem that means improving administrative and legal support for accreditation of Ukrainian forensic institutions as specific objects since their activities do not come within regulation of a single standard but require an integrated approach. Development and adoption of special regulatory and legal acts including not only clear forms and methods definition accreditation of Ukrainian forensic institutions but other regulations regarding regulation of relevant procedures is one of the directions for solving this issue.

N. Nestor

Summary

The article analyzes the norms of the current legislation, which determine the guarantees of independence of the forensic expert and the correctness of his conclusion. It has been established that some guarantees do not have sufficient practical content. It is noted that Article 386 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not provide for criminal liability for all possible cases of unlawful interference in the work of the expert.

There is also a problem of unreasonable interference in the activities of the forensic expert from the investigation during the pre-trial investigation, which negatively affects the independence of such a person.

Attention is focused on the importance of creating the necessary conditions for the activities of the forensic expert, his material and social security.

Proposals were made to amend the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in order to eliminate the identified gaps and deficiencies in legislative regulation.

V. Korzh

Summary

The article analyzes the pseudoscientific definitions of the criminal and procedural legislation «criminal offense and criminal infraction», which contradict the constitutional, criminal law and legislation, the theoretical provisions of criminalistics on the object, the subject and the method of crime, the criminalistic characteristics of crimes, methods of investigation of certain types of crimes; create interdisciplinary legal conflicts and it is suggested ways to solve them. Disputed questions about the restriction of the field of science of criminalistics, the expansion of its subject, the concept of criminalistics prosecutor, the concept of criminalistics lawyer and concluded that it is not advisable to artificially create criminalostics for lawyers, criminalistics for the state prosecutor, as well as developed the science of forensic recommendations, prions, methods used in practice by an investigator, a prosecutor in a pre-trial investigation, a state prosecutor, a defender, a judge during criminal proceedings, a criminal proceedings and substantiated conclusion that no objective conditions for the expansion of the subject of forensic science.The concept of increasing the number of sections of criminalistics, improvement of its system and justified the traditional four-element system of modern science of criminalistics, which is adequate to its subject, defines the main directions of the development of criminalistics, consistent with the principles of systemicity, tested by practice and recognized by criminalistics schools, it is proposed to improve the system of criminalistics in the presence of objective prerequisites, systematically structural justification.

А. Ishcenko; V. Koloniuk; V. Yusupov

Summary

Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise conducted research aimed at improving the legal regulation of forensic expertise, solving general theoretical, organizational, psychological and preventive issues of forensic expert activity, studying the properties and features of research objects, developing new methods of research and expert techniques. During 105 years of its activity, the expert institution carried out research work that formed the basis for various types of examinations and methods of their conduct, they became a significant contribution to the development of theoretical problems of forensic expertise, its conceptual apparatus, logic and psychology of expert research, etc.

This, along with representatives of other scientific and expert schools, laid the foundations for the allocation of a separate branch of legal knowledge – forensic expert studies. Thus, the forensic specialists of Kyiv Scientific Research Institute of Forensic Expertise made a significant contribution to the development of the scientific foundations of forensic expert studies, the introduction of new methods of investigation of evidence, the formation of a young generation of forensic experts into expert practice.