Некоторые проблемы обеспечения допустимости доказательств в уголовном судопроизводстве и пути их решения

Аннотация

Калит сўзлар: Мазкур мақолада жиноят процессида далиллар Жиноят, мақбуллигини таъминлаш масалалари таҳлил қилинган. далил, Ўзбекистон Республикасининг Жиноят-процессуал мақбуллик, кодексининг далиллар мақбуллигига доир нормалари далилларни тўплаш, далилларни текшириш, тадқиқ қилинган. Таҳлил ва тадқиқотлар натижаларига далилларни баҳолаш, кўра муаллифнинг асослантирилган таклиф ва тавсиялари исбот қилиш. ишлаб чиқилган. 1 Independent Researcher, Academy of the Ministry of Internal Аffairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan. Жамият ва инновациялар – Общество и инновации – Society and innovations Special Issue – 01 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415 Некоторые проблемы обеспечения допустимости доказательств в уголовном судопроизводстве и пути их решения АННОТАЦИЯ Ключевые слова: В данной статье анализируются вопросы обеспечения преступление, допустимости доказательств в уголовном процессе. доказательство, Исследованы нормы Уголовно-процессуального кодекса допустимость, Республики Узбекистан, касающиеся допустимости собирание доказательств, проверка доказательств, доказательств. На основе результатов анализа и оценка доказательств, исследований разработаны обоснованные предложения и доказывание. рекомендации автора. In our country, the regulatory legal documents adopted during the judicial reform aimed at strengthening the protection of individual rights during the investigation, pre- investigation, and trial are aimed at strengthening the guarantees of the rights and legitimate interests of persons participating in the criminal process, in particular the suspect and the accused. In recent years, to improve the efficiency of activities to identify, collect, verify, evaluate, and ensure the admissibility of evidence, several laws and regulatory legal documents have been adopted in Uzbekistan, and an analysis of criminal cases is being conducted. The Criminal Procedure Code and the work of law enforcement agencies show that the activities to ensure the admissibility of evidence are not carried out sufficiently, and there are legal gaps and mutually incompatible norms in the legal norms. This makes it necessary to first study the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. After all, the admissibility of evidence collected in the established manner by Part Three of Article 95 of the CPC is subject to the conditions specified in Article 5 of the CPC. That is, according to him, “evidence is considered admissible only if it is collected in the established manner and meets the conditions stipulated by Articles 88, 90, 92-94 of this CPC.” Summarizing these rules, we can say that evidence is admissible: first of all, the procedure for collecting it established by law has been observed; secondly, the evidence must meet the conditions provided for in Articles 88, 90, 92-94 of the CPC. If the evidence is collected in accordance with the law, but does not meet the conditions provided for in Articles 88, 90, 92-94 of the CPC, it cannot be considered admissible evidence and used in a criminal case. Similarly, if it meets the conditions provided for in Articles 88, 90, 92-94 of the CPC, but the evidence is not collected in the manner established by law, it cannot be assessed as admissible evidence. Moreover, in order to avoid different interpretations of the requirements of the criminal procedure law at the pre-trial investigation, investigative and judicial stages of the criminal process before the start of the investigation, the subjects carrying out the proof must be aware of their high responsibility. As stated in the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan dated August 24, 2018 No. 24 “On some issues of the application of the norms of the criminal procedure law on the admissibility of evidence”, “Any deviation from the 365 Жамият ва инновациялар – Общество и инновации – Society and innovations Special Issue – 01 (2025) / ISSN 2181-1415 exact implementation and observance of the norms of the law by the investigator, prosecutor and the court, regardless of the reason for which this occurred, evidence obtained in this way is considered inadmissible (invalid) brings”. Inadmissible evidence has no legal force, cannot be used to prove cases provided for in Articles 82-84 of the CPC, and cannot be used as grounds for prosecution. Cases of using inadmissible evidence as a basis for charges in criminal proceedings are not uncommon in the activities of investigative bodies and courts, and these cases can be seen in the example of acquittals handed down by the courts of our country in recent years. In particular, the fact that in 2023, 1,244 people were acquitted and rehabilitated by the courts shows that this opinion is justified. It is worth noting that the analysis of acquittals allows for a more in-depth study of the current state of ensuring the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, existing problems, and violations of the law in the process of collecting, verifying, and evaluating evidence. In a