Scientific Journal of KubSAU

This scientific article is devoted to the issues concerning the use of the materials of operative-search activity in the investigation

Criminal case proceedings involve certain procedural activities and making specific decisions based on the results of these activities. According to the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, procedural decision is defined as the decision made by a court, a public prosecutor, an investigator in the terms provided in the Code. However, there are some contradictions within the norms of the Code, which influence fair decision-making. These problems and some other issues are considered by the author in the article

In this scientific article, the authors examine the problematic questions of the essence and nature, as well as the types of errors in investigations made at the pre-trial criminal proceedings. They analyze the most significant scientific works devoted to the criminalist situations written by such authors as A.N. Kolesnichenko, V.K. Gavlo, E.G. Yablokova, I.E. Volchetskaya, R.S. Belkina, I.F. Gerasimov, V.A. Obraztsov and others. On the basis of different scientific views and forensic practices the authors determine the classification of errors in investigations, conduct typing errors in investigations, and give the typing of investigatory situations

In accordance with clause 53 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, an advocate is entitled to take part in any investigative actions where his client is involved. But this right is not always used; actually, none of the advocates would confess that avoiding such events is a way to save time, and when being asked he (she) points out another reason – investigators don’t announce the forthcoming events beforehand

There are quite few scientific researches covering the problems of organizing and tactics of investigation in court procedure, which meet the requirements of the Procedural Criminal Law of the Russian Federation in the legal literature. The studies of the ways of sur-mounting counteraction in court hardly exist. There-fore, the authors consider the matters of counteraction in the course of investigation in court paying attention to the existing theory and practice of counteraction in the criminal court procedure. They have developed some scientific recommendations upon the measures for surmounting counteraction to investigation in court in various circumstances

The article covers the problems of procedural status and functions of a forensic investigator taking into account the provisions of p. 40 (1) art.5 of the Criminal Code, comparing with the previous position of the criminal procurators. The author suggests the wording of a new article 38(1) of the Criminal Code as a “forensic investigator” and defines his procedural status. Thus, a forensic investigator at the pre-trial proceedings should have the following powers: according to the investigator’s decision (the head of the investigation team or the head of the investigative body starting the production of a case) he could be entitled to authorize the investigative and other procedures, as well as the participation in the investigation along with the investigator, in order to ensure the proper application of scientific and technical tools and procedural recordings during the investigation, addressing experts for help and cooperation with forensic institutions, and the use of the advanced features of forensic examinations; introduction of new science and technology excellence in the detection and investigation of crime; development of scientific-methodological and practical recommendations for the detection and investigation of crimes