New approaches to deformalization of evidence in the criminal procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan

  • A. N. Akhpanov Professor of the Department of Criminal Law Disciplines of the L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Chief Researcher of the Institute of Legislation and Legal Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Worker of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan, member of the NCC at the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3256-8875
  • A. L. Khan Professor of the Department of Legal Disciplines of the «Bolashak» Academy (Karaganda), Candidate of Legal Sciences, Associate Professor http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9927-9678
Keywords: conceptual approaches, criminal process, parties, evidence and proof, prosecution and defense, deformalization, criminal prosecution bodies.

Abstract

At the present stage of criminal proceedings development in the Republic of Kazakhstan, there has clearly been a tendency towards the maximum convergence of the procedures of the criminal process to the Common law system and, as a result, attempts to deformalize evidence. The law enforcement bodies and some representatives of the scientific world see the solution of these tasks in strengthening the effect of the principle of adversarial parties at the pre-trial stages of the process and increasing the scope of powers of defense, including by granting them the right to conduct independent investigative actions. They outlined their vision in the Conceptual Approaches for Improving the Domestic Criminal Procedure, developed by the Institute of Parliamentarism of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and submitted them for discussion at the expanded meeting of the Legal Council.

The purpose of the article is to substantiate the position of the authors in the context of the modernization of criminal justice in the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The scientific novelty is to conduct a legal analysis of the proposed Conceptual Approaches, consider the consequences of their implementation and reveal the reasons for author’s disagreement with the considered position.

Conclusions. We believe that it is precisely the lack of a systematic approach, including in the proposed by the Institute of Parliamentarism Conceptual approach, that determines the instability of the current legislation, the growth of legal nihilism among the population, as well as the voluntarist and unprofessional interpretation imposed by the developers of the Institute of the Concept of the Legal Policy of the Republic of Kazakhstan until 2030 provisions regarding the continuation of the development of the principle of competitiveness and equality of the parties.

References

1. Akhpanov, A. N., Khan, A. L. (2021). Proyekt zakona RK «O vnesenii izmeneniy i dopolneniy v nekotoryye zakonodatel'nyye akty RK po voprosam vnedreniya trekhzvennoy modeli s razgranicheniyem polnomochiy i zon otvetstvennosti mezhdu pravookhranitel'nymi organami, prokuraturoy i sudom»: vzglyad so storony. Informatsionnyy portal Zakon.kz 29.04.2021. URL: https://online.zakon.kz/Document/?doc_id=33889622 (Last accessed: 15.12.2021) [in Russian].
2. Karneyeva, L. M. (1971). Privlecheniye k ugolovnoy otvetstvennosti. Zakonnost' i obosnovannost'. M. : Yurid. lit., 69 [in Russian].
3. Foynitskiy, I. Ya. (2004). Zashchita v ugolovnom protsesse kak sluzheniye obshchestvennoye / Po izdaniyu 1885 goda. Allpravo.Ru, S. 3 i gl. 3 «Zashchita bez zashchitnika» [in Russian].
4. Strogovich, M. S. (1940). Priroda sovetskogo ugolovnogo protsessa i printsip sostyazatel'nosti. M., 137 [in Russian].
5. Tuyakbay, Zh. A. (2004). Pravovyye osnovy gosudarstvennoy politiki Respubliki Kazakhstan v sfere ugolovnoy yustitsii. Almaty, 202 [in Russian].
6. Koni, A. F. (1966). Sobr. soch. M. : Yurid. lit. T. 1, s. 357 [in Russian].
7. Khan, A. L., Mardanova, A. U. (2006). O probleme povysheniya effektivnosti raskrytiya prestupleniy. Aktual'nyye problemy bor'by s prestupleniyami i inymi pravonarusheniyami, 6, 141–144 [in Russian].
8. Vladimirov, L. Ye. (1911). Advokat yest' voin prava. Posobiye dlya ugolovnoy zashchity. SPb., S. 2 [in Russian].
9. Kolokolov, N. A. (2005). Parallel'noye advokatskoye rassledovaniye. Yurist, № 21 [in Russian].
10. Merkusheva, Zh. (2007). Materialy advokatskogo rassledovaniya. Advokatskoye zaklyucheniye. Femida, 9, 21–25 [in Russian].
11. Akhpanov, A. N., Bindyukova, T. S., Khan, A. L. (2019). Uchastiye advokata-zashchitnika v dosudebnykh stadiyakh ugolovnogo protsessa RK. Vestnik KarGU. Seriya Pravo, 2 (94), 112–121 [in Russian].
12. Yakub, M. L. (1960). Demokraticheskiye osnovy sovetskogo ugolovno-protsessual'nogo prava. M., S. 14 [in Russian].
13.Polyanskiy, N. N. (1956). Voprosy teorii sovetskogo ugolovnogo protsessa. M., S. 14, 68 [in Russian].
14. Doktrinal'naya model' ugolovno-protsessual'nogo prava RF i Kommentarii k ney. (2015). M. : Yurlitinform [in Russian].
15. Volkolup, O. V. (2006). Spravedlivost' v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Uchenyye zapiski, Vypusk 3, 126–127. Orenburg [in Russian].
16. Tomin, V. T., Polyakov, M. P., Popov, A. P. (2000). Ocherki teorii effektivnogo ugolovnogo protsessa. Pyatigorsk, S. 34 [in Russian].
17. Yakimovich, Yu. K. (1991). Struktura sovetskogo ugolovnogo protsessa: sistema stadiy i sistema proizvodstv. Osnovnyye i dopolnitel'nyye proizvodstva. Tomsk, S. 4–5, 46 [in Russian].

Abstract views: 21
PDF Downloads: 16
Published
2022-02-18
How to Cite
Akhpanov , A. N., & Khan , A. L. (2022). New approaches to deformalization of evidence in the criminal procedure of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Scientific Papers of the Legislation Institute of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, (1), 6-11. https://doi.org/10.32886/instzak.2022.01.01