Invalid evidence of the injured party. Detective.

[Частный детектив Краснослободцев Дмитрий Николаеви]

Thank you, for the overall development is informative.

 

[Патрушев Михаил Владимирович]

Interesting. Thanks !!!

 

[Краев Евгений Леонидович]

Thank you very much))) A very interesting article))) However, you can afford to disagree with the justification of some points of view on some issues of collecting evidence in civil, criminal, administrative cases. First of all, in our opinion, when resolving the issue of admissibility or not the admissibility of evidence obtained by a private detective, from the point of view of procedural law, in our opinion, it should be borne in mind that the important fact is that a private detective, in accordance with the current rules of procedural law, is not an official participant in the process, in contrast to the preliminary investigation bodies ( as an example), which are endowed with certain powers and, accordingly, bear a certain responsibility for the procedure for collecting evidence in the framework of the process. A private detective in any process (criminal, civil, administrative) is just a witness. THOSE. it is his testimony, as a witness questioned in the established manner by the court or by another body vested with the right to consider cases (for example, in the framework of administrative proceedings) and will be evidence in the particular case under consideration. If a private detective is questioned in court (or in another body) in compliance with all procedural rules, then it is his testimony that is the source of evidence in a particular case. In our opinion, the article under discussion focuses a little incorrectly on the possibility of obtaining evidence carried out by a private detective and evaluating the evidence given by a court or other body when deciding on a case. The fact is that when a decision is made, as practice shows, the court, assessing the amount of evidence (in principle), may not refer to the admissibility or admissibility of a specific evidence, but usually when making a decision the court refers to the presence of its own internal conviction , or not the reliability of the evidence in question. Such an opportunity is given to the court, for example, Article 67 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation. Hence the relevant conclusions ... This is of course my personal opinion, not imposed on anyone ....

I support this point of view.