The Federal Chamber of lawyers sent to the State Duma its proposals to the Bill, propisyvajushhemu the order of questioning so-called “special witnesses“.
Talking about defendants who have entered into a pretrial agreement on cooperation (to put it simply, deal with the investigation) and give testimony to their accomplices. The question is: how to make a man could not defame anyone and discuss?
There are subtle legal moment. Perjury is a felony. But the accused, if reason purely legally, not a witness.
Even enclosing a pre-trial agreement on cooperation, such a person remains accused. And the accused subject to other rules. People on the dock can speak a lie, this is considered a form of protection. The prosecution certainly obliged to bring it to light. But to punish the accused need only for the crime that he committed. Lie on the dock is not considered a crime.
But it is unacceptable when the defendant’s perjury charges were built by other people. So much so that, as a rule, a human case, entered into a deal with investigators,stands out. And his associates are being tried in another case.
The law shall determine the status of a person, who, after a deal with investigators testify about other people
The question is: in which status a person gives evidence in court against their accomplices? Experts have long argued that it is necessary to prescribe the order of questioning of such person. The procedure should provide for legal protection against lies.
On this account it was and the decision of the Constitutional Court of Russia. A Bill now being considered in Parliament.
“The Constitutional Court of the RUSSIAN FEDERATION in its ruling indicates that the accused whose case is highlighted in a separate production, has special procedural status, said the” WP “Adviser of the Federal Chamber of lawyers EugeneRubinstein. –On the one hand, it cannot be a witness because the witness characterized the procedural disinterest. But, on the other hand, he may not have the status of a defendant in a criminal case have the same rights with regard to the underlying criminal case. The authors of the Bill found that the person should be a “special witness“. We believe that the notion of “special witness“ is not suitable for this procedure“.
For the witness characterized the disinterest as procedural and personal. In turn, the accused who pre-trial agreement on cooperation, personally and procedurally is interested in the outcome of the main case, and selected results of criminal proceedings.
“It should in no way be described as a special witness, this particular accused, said Yevgeny Rubinstein. Rules that potentially legislator may prescribe, firstly, should serve the interests of Justice, as pointed out by the Constitutional Court. Secondly, to protect the defendant against whom the testimony is given “.
For example, he said, for “special“ should be prohibited to disclose evidence which he gave during the investigation.