Only adult citizens who are not interested in the case and who are not dependent on the criminal prosecution authorities can be understood.
Only adult citizens who are not interested in the case and who are independent of the criminal prosecution authorities and who are able to fully and correctly perceive actions taking place in their presence can be understood (part 2 of Article 86 of the CPC). Meanwhile, these requirements of the law are often ignored by the authorities of the preliminary investigation, which subsequently leads to the exclusion by the court of procedural documents drawn up with the participation of witnesses from the evidence. For example, in a criminal case against G. under Part 2 of Article 259 of the Criminal Code, Court No. 2 of G. Aktobe declared inadmissible and excluded from the evidence the protocol of operational search actions conducted with the participation of the understood K. on the episode of March 11, 2011. The court motivated the decision by the fact that K. was involved in the criminal proceedings. It acquired a systematic character, since he participated as a witness during the OPM in the case of R. under part 2 of art.259 of the Criminal Code. In this regard, the court issued a private decision to the prosecutor of Aktobe. Similarly, during the consideration of the case against E. According to Parts 1-1 of art.259, Part 1 of art.259 of the Criminal Code, the court found that during his arrest and a search of his place of residence by the criminal prosecution authorities, persons were involved as witnesses: one of whom was under investigation at the time of participation, and the second was registered at a dispensary in a drug rehabilitation center. In this regard, the court found the search report illegal and inadmissible as evidence. The prosecutor involved in the case refused part of the charges under Parts 1-1 of Article 259 of the Criminal Code, and under part 1 of Article 259 of the Criminal Code asked to stop criminal prosecution in connection with decriminalization.
Only adult citizens who are not interested in the case and who are not dependent on the criminal prosecution authorities can be understood.
By the verdict of the Ural City Court of April 22, 2011, E. was acquitted under Part 1 of Article 259 of the Criminal Code for the absence of corpus delicti in his actions, and under part 1-1 of Article 259 of the Criminal Code, the proceedings were terminated by a court order due to the refusal of the state prosecutor to charge. In some cases, the place of residence of the witnesses is incorrectly indicated in the case, and therefore it is impossible to ensure their appearance in court. By the verdict of the specialized interdistrict criminal court of Atyrau region dated June 21, 2011, T. was convicted under 259 of the Criminal Code to 10 years of imprisonment with confiscation of property. During the consideration of the case, the court repeatedly issued orders to the Atyrau city Department of Internal Affairs on the compulsory bringing of witnesses who participated in the OPM during the voluntary release of narcotic drugs by a witness. However, these decisions remained unfulfilled, due to their failure to live at the addresses indicated in the case.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
