SUD TERGOV AMALIYOTIDA PROTSESSUAL KELISHUVLARNI DIFFERENSIATSIYA QILISH VA TAKOMILLASHTIRISH MUAMMOLARI
Kalit so‘zlar:
protsessual kelishuv, aybiga iqrorlik, dalillarni taqdim etish, differensiatsiya, shikoyat berish, sud muhokamasi predmeti.Annotatsiya
Ushbu maqola sud tergov amaliyotida protsessual kelishuvlarni differensiatsiya qilish muammolarini tahlil qilishga qaratilgan. Aybiga iqrorlik to‘g‘risidagi kelishuv jinoyat protsessining istalgan bosqichida va qonunda nazarda tutilgan boshqa holatlarda prokuror hamda gumonlanuvchi, ayblanuvchi yoki sudlanuvchi o‘rtasida tuziladigan kelishuvdir. Muallifning fikriga ko‘ra, protsessual kelishuvning mohiyatini ayblanuvchining aybiga nisbatan munosabatiga bog‘liqligi, ya’ni differensial yondashuv tashkil etadi. Aybiga iqrorlik haqida kelishuvdan qat’i nazar, sudyaning ishdagi mavjud dalillarni tekshirish va ularga baho berish majburiyati jismoniy yoki ruhiy majburlash natijasida kelishuv tuzishga majbur qilingan aybsiz shaxslarning hukm qilinmasligini ta’minlashga qaratilgan muhim kafolatdir. Shuningdek, maqolada protsessual kelishuv tuzilgan ishlar bo‘yicha aniqlanishi lozim bo‘lgan holatlarni aniq belgilash zaruriyati ochib berilgan va asoslantirilgan. Bundan tashqari, maqolada protsessual kelishuv shakllarini differensiatsiya qilishning mezonlari ham tahlil qilingan. Muallif protsessual kelishuvning aybiga iqrorlik haqida protsessual kelishuv, yarashuv haqida protsessual kelishuv, tergov bilan hamkorlik haqida kelishuv kabi shakllarini o‘zaro qiyosiy o‘rgangan. Xorijiy mamlakatlar va turli huquqiy tizimlarda sud tergov amaliyotida protsessual kelishuvlarni differensiatsiya qilish muammolari ko‘rib chiqilgan.
Iqtiboslar
1. Toʻlaganova G. Z. Jinoyat-protsessual qonunchilikni yanada takomillashtirish imkoniyatlari [Possibilities for further improvement of criminal procedural legislation]. Tashkent, TSUL, 2014, 125 p.
2. Smirnov A.V., Kalinovskiy K.B. Ugolovnyy protsess [Criminal process]. St. Petersburg, 2009, p. 220.
3. Jinoyat-protsessual huquqi [Criminal procedural law]. General part. The team of authors. Tashkent, TSUL, 2017, 25 p.
4. Reformirovaniye ugolovnogo protsessa Respubliki Kazakhstan [Reforming the criminal process of the Republic of Kazakhstan]. Proceedings of the Legal Policy Research Center, Almaty, 2014, p. 7.
5. Gorskiy V.V., Gorskiy M.V. Dosudebnoye soglasheniye o sotrudnichestve s pozitsiy obespecheniya prav uchastnikov ugolovnogo sudoproizvodstva (otdel’nyye problemy) [Pre-trial agreement on cooperation of positions to ensure the rights of participants in criminal proceedings (separate problems)]. Pre-trial agreement on cooperation (legal and forensic problems). Proceedings of scientific and practical conference. Voronezh, 2010, no. 6, p. 113.
6. Kostenko N.S. Dosudebnoye soglasheniye o sotrudnichestve v ugolovnom protsesse: pravovyye i organizatsionnyye voprosy zaklyucheniya i realizatsii [Pre-trial agreement on cooperation in criminal proceedings: legal and organizational issues of conclusion and implementation]. PhD thesis. Volgograd, 2013, pp. 110–111.
7. Golovinskiy M.M. Dosudebnoye soglasheniye o sotrudnichestve: normativno-pravovoye regulirovaniye i praktika primeneniya [Pre-trial agreement on cooperation: legal regulation and practice of application]. PhD thesis. Vladimir, 2011, p. 83.
8. Red’kin N.V. Osoby poryadok sudebnogo razbiratel’stva v sisteme ugolovnogo protsessa RF [Special order of trial in the system of criminal procedure of the Russian Federation]. PhD thesis. Krasnodar, 2007, p. 17
9. Bulygin A.V. Osnovaniya rassmotreniya ugolovnogo dela i osobennosti dokazyvaniya pri sudebnom razbiratel’stve v poryadke glavy 40 UPK RF [Grounds for the consideration of a criminal case and features of proof in court proceedings in the order of chapter 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation]. PhD thesis. Yekaterinburg, 2013, p. 143.
10. Yakimovich Yu.K. Ponyatiye, naznacheniye, differentsiatsiya ugolovnogo protsessa [The concept, purpose, differentiation of the criminal process]. Principles of criminal justice. Tomsk, 2015, p. 91.
11. Grankin K.B., Komarov V.B. Uproshchennaya protsedura sudebnogo razbiratel’stva nuzhdayetsya v sovershenstvovanii [The simplified procedure of the trial needs to be improved. Improving the activities of law enforcement agencies to combat crime in modern conditions]. Proceedingss of the international scientific-practical conference, Tyumen, 2010, iss. 7, part 2, p. 36.
12. Matkarimov Q.Q. Jinoyat ishlari yurituvini insonparvarlashtirish [Humanization of criminal proceedings]. Tashkent, Military-Technical Institute of the National Guard of the Republic of Uzbekistan, 2020, p. 26.
13. Rahmonova S.M. Dastlabki sud muhokamasi ishni sudda koʻrish uchun tayinlash shakli sifatida [Preliminary hearing as a form of appointment for hearing the case in court]. Tashkent, MIA Academy, 2018, p. 55.
14. Zinnatov R.F. Realizatsiya sudebnoy vlasti na stadii podgotovki dela k sudebnomu zasedaniyu v sovremennom rossiyskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Implementation of the judiciary at the stage of preparing a case for a court hearing in modern Russian criminal justice]. Izhevsk, 2006, p. 15.
15. Tisen O.N. Teoreticheskiye i prakticheskiye problemy instituta dosudebnogo soglasheniya i sotrudnichestva v rossiyskom ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve [Theoretical and practical problems of the institute of pre-trial agreement and cooperation in Russian criminal proceedings]. Orenburg, 2017, p. 220.
