Unacceptable procedural condition in field of expert examination as evidentiary action shaped by CPC and court practice

Nikola Vukovic
{"title":"Unacceptable procedural condition in field of expert examination as evidentiary action shaped by CPC and court practice","authors":"Nikola Vukovic","doi":"10.5937/CRIMEN1901037V","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The structure of paper deviates from the usual. The questions brought up in paper are elaborated in form of \"one by one certain article analysis\" relating expert examination matter in Criminal Procedure Code (of the Republic of Serbia). In particular, the author points out that the provisions of the CPC regulating the expert examination have become completely unnecessary because of two reasons. The first one is that the provisions themselves are mutually dramatically uncoordinated almost to the extent that one excludes the other. The first reason has the important incentive in ignorance of the meaning of the terms that the CPC uses. In other words, a lawmaker considers synonyms the terms that are certainly not and thus unconsciously points to a far deeper problem. The second reason is that the provisions that have proved to be valid in the nomotechnical sense are profiled as meaningless because they can be violated without any procedural sanction. This refers primarily to the \"false\" existence of a set of defense rights for which there are no means of enforcing the organ of authority to respect them or at least sanctioning the organ for such disrespect. In this paper, a review is made of certain solutions from the Criminal Procedure Codes of the Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of Austria, as well as the leading positions in German and Austrian criminal procedural law literature.","PeriodicalId":33895,"journal":{"name":"Crimen Beograd","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Crimen Beograd","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5937/CRIMEN1901037V","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The structure of paper deviates from the usual. The questions brought up in paper are elaborated in form of "one by one certain article analysis" relating expert examination matter in Criminal Procedure Code (of the Republic of Serbia). In particular, the author points out that the provisions of the CPC regulating the expert examination have become completely unnecessary because of two reasons. The first one is that the provisions themselves are mutually dramatically uncoordinated almost to the extent that one excludes the other. The first reason has the important incentive in ignorance of the meaning of the terms that the CPC uses. In other words, a lawmaker considers synonyms the terms that are certainly not and thus unconsciously points to a far deeper problem. The second reason is that the provisions that have proved to be valid in the nomotechnical sense are profiled as meaningless because they can be violated without any procedural sanction. This refers primarily to the "false" existence of a set of defense rights for which there are no means of enforcing the organ of authority to respect them or at least sanctioning the organ for such disrespect. In this paper, a review is made of certain solutions from the Criminal Procedure Codes of the Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of Austria, as well as the leading positions in German and Austrian criminal procedural law literature.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
中国共产党和法院实践形成的专家鉴定作为证据诉讼领域不可接受的程序条件
这张纸的结构和平常的不一样。文件中提出的问题以与(塞尔维亚共和国)《刑事诉讼法》的专家审查事项有关的“逐条分析”的形式加以阐述。笔者特别指出,由于两个原因,中国共产党关于专家鉴定的规定已经变得完全没有必要。第一个问题是,这些条款本身相互之间极不协调,几乎到了一个条款排斥另一个条款的程度。第一个原因是对中国共产党使用的术语的含义不了解。换句话说,立法者认为同义词是肯定不是的术语,因此无意识地指出了一个更深层次的问题。第二个原因是,已证明在非技术意义上有效的规定被认为毫无意义,因为违反这些规定无需任何程序制裁。这主要是指一套辩护权的“虚假”存在,对于这些辩护权,没有办法强制权力机关尊重它们,或者至少对这种不尊重予以制裁。本文回顾了德意志联邦共和国和奥地利共和国刑事诉讼法中的一些解决办法,以及德国和奥地利刑事诉讼法文献中的主导地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Green criminology and crime control Violence against men in a partner relationship: A pilot study Financial investigations in Bosnia and Herzegovina Combating trafficking of cultural heritage Proposal of a national strategy for combating corruption by forming an anti-corruption team
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1