Значення, класифікація та правила використання непрямих доказів у кримінальному процесі

Abstract

З’ясовано питання щодо значення, класифікації та правил використання непрямих доказів, що є однією з гарантій прав і законних інтересів учасників кримінального процесу; досліджено основні проблемні моменти щодо класифікації непрямих доказів та їх значення, що обумовлено завданням з’ясування їх змісту під час доказування у кримінальному процесі та достовірного знання про винуватість особи у вчиненні кримінального правопорушення. Зосереджено увагу на тому, що класифікаційні групи не ізольовані одна від одної та не мають на меті обґрунтувати перевагу одних доказів над іншими. There are various criteria of evidence classification in the science of criminal procedure. Partially they are conceived by scientists, partially they are approved solely by certain representatives, however, notwithstanding the shortcomings while choosing criterion of classification, the whole groundwork in this direction was made in order to discover the meaning and provide for analysis of each of them. Establishing the facts of criminal offence with the help of circumstantial proof is a complicated and long-term process. In many cases the only mean to establish case circumstances appears to become indirect evidences. Taking into account the abovementioned, the necessity to establish a system of trustworthy well-reasoned summaries lies in the frame of direct as well as indirect evidences. The classification of criminal procedural evidence into direct and indirect evidence depends on its ground. Although, concerning the question of grounds for classification in the theory of criminal procedure does not exist a common idea. Some scientists presume the basis for classification is the relation between the evidence and fact at issue, others assume it between the evidence and major fact. It seems that the guilt of a person could be constituted with different means depending on the meaning of evidence. The direct evidence ties particular person to the criminal offence. Indirect evidence ties the person not to the fact that criminal offence was committed but to some other circumstantial fact, on the basis of which one can make a conclusion it was committed by the accused. In case when classification is made on the ground of major fact, we have to admit, that substantial part of evidence will be indirect or otherwise will not be classified because fall beyond the scope of classification into direct and indirect. It is doubtful that such an approach to evidence classification could be thought as wellreasoned. Finally, we draw to the conclusion that the basis for classification into direct and indirect evidence could not count neither fact at issue nor major fact. Summing it up, we consider that the basis for classification is a relation between evidence and every concrete circumstance to be proved. The ground for classification into direct and indirect evidence serves the presence or absence of tie between the meaning of evidence and circumstances to be proved.