Investigative actions as methods of collection and formation of evidence
The paper considers concepts of investigative action competing in the theory of criminal procedure – the concept of investigative action as a method of collecting evidence and the concept of investigative action as a method of forming evidence. By studying the mechanism of interaction of the prelimi...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | Russian |
| Published: |
Togliatti State University
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | Jus Strictum |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://vektornaukipravo.ru/jour/article/view/667/617 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The paper considers concepts of investigative action competing in the theory of criminal procedure – the concept of investigative action as a method of collecting evidence and the concept of investigative action as a method of forming evidence. By studying the mechanism of interaction of the preliminary investigation body with traces of a crime, the author substantiates the nonidentity of the concepts of “collection of evidence” and “formation of evidence” in order to determine the place of each of them in the system of criminal proceedings. The study shows that the discussion about the nature of investigative action is generated by a complex, multi-component and ambiguous concept of evidence, which has informational (cognitive) content and an external form that preserves this content, both independent of the actions of the investigator, inquiry officer and created (formed) by him during investigative actions. According to the author, the two scientific concepts of the epistemological nature of investigative action considered in the paper are based on the difference between ready (paratus, according to S.B. Ros¬sin¬sky) evidence and evidence that receives a procedural form in the process of investigative action. Taking into account the nonidentity of the concepts of “collection of evidence” and “formation of evidence” noted in the paper, the author rejects the proposal made in science to replace the first term with the second. Each of them has its own content, and none of them is a universal characteristic of an investigative action, the structure of each of which contains both rules regulating the process of collecting evidence and rules concerning the formation of evidence. Formulating a proposal to classify evidence into collected (received) and formed, based on the degree of influence of the cognitive activity of the investigator, inquiry officer on their content, the author substantiates the conclusion about the impossibility of classifying investigative actions themselves into methods of collecting evidence and methods of their formation. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 3034-2945 3034-4212 |