English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Given that the situations of preliminary investigation and court proceedings have the same epistemological nature, it is possible to apply the classification grounds developed in the theory of investigative situations to systematise and streamline the trial. It is possible to distinguish judicial situations related to: preservation of evidence obtained during the preliminary investi-gation in court; filling gaps in the preliminary investigation materials; evaluation of evidence in court and, finally, making a decision on the merits of the case. These judicial situations need to be resolved and have a significant impact on the tactics of the judicial investigation. This is because each case raises questions such as whether to begin the examination of evidence with the interrogation of defendants, victims or witnesses and, if there are several defendants, in what order to interrogate them, in what order to inter-rogate witnesses, in what part of the judicial investigation it is better to conduct expert exami-nations, inspection of physical evidence, the scene of the incident and other investigative actions. Criminal procedural legislation does not regulate such issues, which allows us to refer them to the tactics of the judicial investigation. The judicial-investigative situation under consideration, related to the change of testimony in court, can be partially resolved by choosing the order and combination of different forms of judicial interrogation, summoning for questioning to court persons who, according to the defendant, used methods of illegal influence, using such idea of information interaction as the principle of maevtika, related to the enrichment of information. Its essence is that in addition to the information obtained in the course of the investigation and operational-search activities and fixed in the relevant documents, the court should be presented with related information. This may include, for example, a video recording of the information environment at the time of the interview or during the interrogation, especially when the potential perpetrator was confessing. Pursuant to article 240, paragraph 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in addition to hearing the testimony of the defendant, the victim, witnesses and expert findings, examining material evidence, and disclosing protocols and other documents, the court carries out other judicial investigative activities to examine the evidence. This enables the court to identify in the course of the trial the reasons for a change in the evidence and to verify its consistency with reality. At the same time, it is often the investigator or operative who can provide an indication of the sources of information that can help verify statements about the coercion of interrogators to confess, when they are questioned during the judicial investigation.

PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE OBTAINED DURING THE PRE-TRIAL INVES-TIGATION AS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IN THE TRIAL OF ORGANIZED CRIME CASES