Who will replace civilian witnesses with security forces?

[Частный детектив. Тайный советник. Омск.]

Natalya Kozlova
Russian Newspaper - Federal Issue No. 5627 (251)
11/09/2011 00:51

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev instructed before December 1 to consider improving the criminal procedural law as it relates to the cancellation of the institution of witnesses during certain investigative actions.

It is proposed to replace witnesses with “procedural fixation using technical means”.

According to the Kremlin’s press service, the president’s administration, together with the government and the Prosecutor General’s Office, will have to consider the issues of “replacing the institute of witnesses during separate investigative actions with the procedural fixation of these actions using technical means; clarifying the procedure for pre-investigation verification of materials; introducing a simplified forms of pre-trial proceedings for crimes of small and medium gravity, providing for the criteria for classifying crimes to this form of production. "

Among those responsible for the assignment are the head of the presidential administration Sergei Naryshkin, the prosecutor general Yuri Chaika, the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs Rashid Nurgaliev, the chairman of the Investigative Committee, Alexander Bastrykin.

Who is such a witness, no need to explain. This person is not interested in the outcome of the criminal case. Under the law, anyone can be understood in their right mind and solid memory starting at the age of 18. There can be at least two witnesses.

The rights and obligations of witnesses, and there are many, I must say, are spelled out in article 60 of the Federal Law "On Enforcement Proceedings". Under the law of witnesses, he must certify with his signature many facts.

With his signature, the witness is responsible, in particular, for the content and results of the executive actions at the commission of which he was present.

By the way, the law says that the witness has the right to know for which specific executive actions he is invited. He is obliged to notify and on the basis of which executive document all possible actions are performed.

Few even the witnesses know that he has every right to make comments about the actions committed. There is also a “monetary” aspect in the article of the law on witnesses. True, not very big. But nevertheless, witnesses have the right to compensation for expenses incurred by them in connection with the performance of duties of witnesses. These expenses relate to expenses related to enforcement actions. In this case, the witness must be present during the execution of an executive action from the very beginning to the end.

But with all the advantages, most often people go to the witnesses extremely reluctantly. The excuse is always the same - you sign up, then they drag over the courts. Russian law does not contain any liability for unwillingness to be understood.

For some reason, most Russians believe that neighbors who should quietly stand by the wall and watch the operatives, for example, during searches, are a harsh legacy from the Soviet era. But this is not so. The witnesses appeared in our country under the kings.

Sometimes the inability to find witnesses (and without them many procedural actions are simply illegal) was explained by objective reasons. Well, where do you find witnesses late at night in the wasteland in the industrial zone, where are several kilometers from the nearest housing? Knowing this, the opera in such cases "stocked up" with regular witnesses. These were acquaintances of employees or citizens detained for small things. The last ones for the forgiveness of sins agreed to sign for everything.

The situation reached insanity, when once in the capital the court drew attention to a curious fact: most of the administrative cases were signed by the same citizens from year to year. The record holder was a cleaning woman washing police corridors. The woman was understood in hundreds of cases.

Under corrupt employees, the witnesses turned out to be fictitious at all. They saw exclusively what the opera needed, and not what it really was. But an honest witness for an innocent victim has always been, as they say, worth its weight in gold. The fate of a person often depended on the true testimony of an outsider. And completely refuse the services of witnesses, naturally, no one will. In cases where the presence of a witness as a representative of the public is necessary for the investigation of serious crimes, he will remain. And where, for example, a video camera can replace independent witnesses without prejudice, this must be done.

verbatim

Hasan Mirzoev, President of the Guild of Russian Lawyers:

- The institution of witnesses is necessary in the criminal process as a guarantee of the objectivity and independence of the preliminary investigation. The witnesses are used by law enforcement officers in carrying out the most significant and complex investigative actions that directly affect the constitutional rights of citizens, such as search, identification, exhumation, etc.

Subsequently, during the trial, witnesses are witnesses who give direct evidence in relation to the investigative action taken. Therefore, in my opinion, it is impossible to talk about witnesses as “voluntary police assistants”, since this violates the fundamental principles of the criminal process, such as the comprehensiveness and completeness of the investigation of the crime and adversarial.

In carrying out certain investigative actions, video recording has long been used, however, the institution of witnesses, which in the criminal process is an instrument of public control over the work of law enforcement officials, cannot be replaced.

Link to the article: [DLMURL] https://www.rg.ru/2011/11/08/ponyatye-site.html [/ DLMURL]

 

[Anonymous]

This is the question, WHO WILL REPLACE ???
Serega thank you.

 

[НСК-СБ]

Obviously, on the eve of the elections, the abolition of the institution of witnesses is beneficial to the police both in particular for combating the opposition and, in general, for facilitating fabrications of criminal and administrative cases.
Thank you, Sergey!