Russia (bbabo.net), - First Vice-President of the Federal Chamber of Lawyers of Russia Mikhail Tolcheev has criticized the draft amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which allow "cancel" the testimony given by the defendants during the investigation. The initiative submitted to the State Duma assumes that if the defendant renounced his earlier testimony in court, then the protocols of the old interrogations will be recognized as inadmissible evidence. Simply put: they will be cancelled.
Initially, the project pursues a good goal: to protect the accused from pressure at the investigation stage. The legal profession admits that there is a problem. Lawyers and human rights activists often talk about it. However, Mikhail Tolcheev called the solution proposed by the project unsuitable. Yes, he agrees, the courts do not always react to the statements of the defendants about the use of torture against them at the investigation stage. But the fact that there are such cases cannot become a reason for devaluing all the testimonies given by all the accused at the investigation stage. After all, the reverse situation is also possible: a person did not admit his guilt, but in court he suddenly stood up and "repented." Why did it happen? Perhaps he really understood. But it could be something else: they put pressure on him. The project, emphasizes the representative of the FPA, creates the danger of unacceptable pressure on the defendants. "Employees of the investigative and operational bodies have access to persons brought to criminal responsibility and during the consideration of the case by the court. Thus, there is a risk that it is at this stage that it is enough to put pressure on and get a waiver of previously given testimony, when the suspect or the accused did not admit himself guilty," the first vice-president of the FPA believes.
Therefore, the courts each time must check all the circumstances, compare the evidence at the investigation stage and the data in court. It is impossible to give priority to any words only on the basis of the fact that they were said in a certain place: in the courtroom or the investigator's office. And there, and there a person can either lie or tell the truth. So the court must figure out what to believe and what not.
Mikhail Tolcheev noted that inadmissible evidence obtained in violation of the law. "Such a violation must be established, not just declared. If we are talking about the use of torture, then this is a crime of a public law nature, the establishment of which requires investigation and prosecution of those responsible," he said. At the same time, the representative of the bar emphasized that the law today clearly states: one cannot use a person's confession as the only evidence of guilt.
bbabo.Net