The Criminal Procedure Code spells out in detail any possible procedure that law enforcement officials may encounter when establishing the truth in a particular incident. A confrontation is one of them. Article 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is reserved for this form of interrogation . Comments on the article provide detailed explanations between whom and under what circumstances a confrontation should be held. In them, you can find the answer to any question of interest in the procedure.
Truth and lie face to face
Reliability of testimony is one of the factors that will help establish a confrontation. The CPC in the general rules for the production of investigative actions determines on the basis of what this or another procedure can be carried out, its order, number and status of participants, explains in which cases certain technical means and many other nuances can be applied. Regardless of the circumstances, law enforcement officials in choosing their possible actions should rely solely on the Code of Criminal Procedure.
A confrontation is held between participants in both criminal and administrative cases if, in fundamentally important moments affecting the opening of the case and determining the degree of guilt of the suspects, the testimonies of the previously interviewed do not agree. Usually, two people are invited for interrogation to ascertain the reliability of the facts. However, in the Code of Criminal Procedure, the possible number of interrogators at a confrontation is not determined by a specific figure. There are known cases of calling and more than two participants in the same case.
The status of respondents can be any. Witnesses, victims, suspects, accused - confrontation is possible between each of them, according to the law. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation on this subject gives clear explanations. But, as a rule, those who have clear contradictions come face to face and it is necessary to clarify which of them is telling the truth and who is giving false information. The latter can also be caused by the circumstances of memory loss - each case is individual.
Inverse risk
The confrontation is different in form from regular interrogation. A more severe psychological atmosphere is created by the presence of a second person, whose interests in business can also be fundamentally important. The sense of responsibility for one’s words, awkwardness for “wrong” testimonies, if representatives of one side of the case meet at a confrontation: defense or accusations. And vice versa - forgotten conflicts can come to the surface, a long-standing quarrel can aggravate in a personal meeting of participants in a process hostile against each other. In this case, there is a risk of provoking one of the interrogated for revengeful actions in relation to the other, and the one who gave the truthful testimony changes them dramatically. In such a turn, it is the confrontation that hinders the truth. Article of the Code of Criminal Procedure under number 164 implies a similar development of events.
The second possible negative consequence of the meeting of two participants in the process is collusion. The parties can hear each other's answers, it is easier for them to navigate in the testimony of the second respondent, and to correct their own words in time and in the necessary form. In this case, there is a risk of false evidence by both participants. They will not contradict each other, but they will not tell the truth. The face-to-face rate of the UPR of the Russian Federation is not always a justified procedure, which should be resorted to after thorough preparation with the maximum possible risks miscalculation.
To be or not to be
Not only the investigator in the case can demand a confrontation. Its implementation is possible on the initiative of one of the participants in the process: the accused, suspect, witness or victim. However, the final decision is made by the investigator. Sometimes the contradictions in the testimony do not affect the establishment of truth or determining the degree of guilt of a particular participant in the process, and a personal meeting to testify will not give anything new. The investigator has the right to refuse it.
In the CPC, the full-time rate in Art. 164 is not specified in a separate paragraph, but is indicated in the list of all possible investigative actions to which the general rules of production apply. Also, it is not a mandatory procedure. If inconsistencies in the testimony of the persons involved in the case can be resolved in other ways: by additional interrogation of themselves, by expanding the circle of witnesses, it is better to exclude their personal meeting with the investigator. Especially when there is a chance of collusion.
When deciding on the need for a two-way interrogation, you should consider in advance all the risks that a confrontation may lead to. The CCP allows lawyers and legal representatives of minor interrogated persons to participate in the procedure - it is important not to neglect the letter of the law so that neither party has reason to say that the process was in violation.
Almost script
The time of the confrontation is determined by the investigator. By that time, he should have enough reliable information on the case, allowing him to visualize the picture of the incident with all the details. In this case, false facts will be confirmed by both direct and indirect circumstances, which should be confirmed by the confrontation conducted in accordance with all the rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The commentary on article 192 gives clear recommendations: what should be the basis for the investigator's decision to conduct a double interrogation.
Preparing for a confrontation is akin to writing a script. The relationship between persons in whose testimonies were found to be inconsistent, the investigator should study thoroughly. In the process of interrogation, this knowledge will help to prevent aggravation of hostility, which can lead to slander if the defendants are in confrontation with each other. On the other hand, if the respondents have friendly relations, timely intervention of the investigator will prevent collusion, which can be facilitated by a confrontation. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation recommends that the degree of their acquaintance be reflected in more detail in the protocol.
Next, the investigator or interrogator must identify a list of questions, the answers to which can clarify the controversial evidence obtained during the first interrogations. And also their sequence. It is important to have these protocols at hand to demonstrate, if necessary, to the respondents what exactly the contradictions consist of.
Characters
The circle of persons whose presence is possible or even necessary during interrogation is also determined depending on the status of confrontation participants. Witnesses and victims quite often do not require their lawyer to be near, as they believe that their own situation in the case is clearly defined and does not threaten any troubles. A similar decision is at the choice of the interrogated. The prescribed procedure for conducting a confrontation in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation from the participation or absence of a lawyer remains unchanged.
What can not be said during the interrogation of persons under the age of 14. Here, at the choice of the person involved, the investigator or the inquirer, the presence of one of the parents or the official guardian, or the legal representative of the child is required. Perhaps the participation of a teacher-psychologist and lawyer. The CPC gives clear instructions on this subject that without the participation of an adult representative protecting the interests of the interviewee, the results of the interrogation may be invalidated. As for adult accused or suspects, they also have the right to decide for themselves how important it is to find a lawyer in a confrontation. At the first demand for the participation of a defense counsel, the interrogation cannot begin or be continued until his presence is ensured.
Sometimes, if a person holding the citizenship of another state is interrogated, no investigative action takes place without the participation of an interpreter. The qualifications of such a specialist must be confirmed by the consulate.
Chance exception
Any interrogation is a little enjoyable procedure. Particularly unpleasant is its form, such as a confrontation. The Criminal Procedure Code determines its conduct in the presence of contradictions in the testimonies of the defendants in one case, and therefore - the truth and deception. The main purpose of interrogation is to clarify the truth. The success of the whole procedure depends on how it will be built, what controversial points and related factors can be considered. In addition, the investigator or interrogator should take into account the quality of the evidence collected by him, which can reliably confirm the testimony of one, and refute the statements of the other respondent. The more complete the information, the easier it is to find out the truth.
Not having enough information about the case, there is a risk of getting the opposite effect from confrontation. Not only to find out the truth, but to further confuse the entire course of the investigation. How detailed or, on the contrary, superficial is the clarification of controversial circumstances, depends on the facts in the case. In the presence of unconditional evidence, under their influence, a person who gives knowingly false testimony may well confess to fraud. Especially in the presence of an opponent whose information is true.
And vice versa, any circumstances that are not fully proved enable the interrogated to conceal the truth even in person. Code of Criminal Procedure, commentary on article 192, where the entire course of the procedure is determined, allows for a confrontation to rely on any documents available in the case. Therefore, in order to exclude the accident of the opposite effect from the procedure, the investigator or interrogator must collect as much evidence as possible before interrogation.
Following the letter of the law
As a rule, a confrontation begins with the signing of papers by the defendants that they are notified of their waiting responsibility for giving false testimonies. The following is a clarification of the degree of familiarity between them. The assessment by the investigation, and subsequently by the court, depends on how much the evidence during the confrontation can be considered truthful. The parties then proceed to give evidence on the merits.
The first to answer the investigator's questions is the one who, in his opinion, is telling the truth. This especially makes sense if the investigation has doubts that the person involved can change his testimony during a confrontation. The CPC does not give specifics to whom to ask questions first - it all depends on the decision of the investigator or interrogator. In addition, the truth-teller can expand his answer in more detail, which can discourage the deceiver and then convict him of a lie.
There is such a thing as good faith misconception. The unreliability of the information may be due to the fact that the interrogated person who was fraudulently sincerely believes in what he is saying, although his words do not correspond to the established facts. I saw or heard something wrong - and as a result I gave false evidence during the preliminary interrogation. In this case, the truth-telling answer will help the erring one to remember the details of the case and refute his earlier testimonies. To establish the truth and directed confrontation. Art. 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation allows the use of all available case materials during interrogation, including audio and video recordings. They also have a beneficial effect on the testimony of confrontation participants.
First word
As already noted, the investigator is the first to give the floor to someone who, in his opinion or according to confirmed data, is telling the truth. However, sometimes the one who gave the false testimony may insist on the right of the first word. He can give reasons for this both on the basis of the Code of Criminal Procedure and on personal relationships with another respondent. The face-to-face procedure of the CPC allows such an opportunity. The law does not contain specifics regarding the primacy of testifying by one or another person involved. Therefore, it is necessary for the investigation to make an appropriate decision to whom to testify first, based on the importance of the information being verified, as well as the possibility of putting pressure on one interrogated person against another.
The fundamental factor for a confrontation is the presence of contradictions in the initial testimonies of victims, suspects or witnesses in the case. The records of these interrogations are important witnesses. Sometimes in confrontation, the defendants refuse to re-testify. In this case, their initial information can be read and recorded in the protocol. The corresponding possibility is implied by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Full time in Art. 164 is spelled out in a number of other possible investigative actions and is the main law when considering a particular case.
Value parts
All questions of the investigator and the answers of the defendants received during the interrogation are recorded in the protocol. The wider and fuller the information, the clearer they are able to describe the picture of the incident. Details should not be neglected - they can subsequently become valuable nuances for the judge. It is important to record all answers in the face-to-face protocol as fully as possible. The CPC gives fairly extensive comments on exactly how it is possible to receive information from respondents. It is not always advisable to limit them to the phrases “yes” or “no”, although there are a number of questions when the defendants are asked to either confirm or refute the information with just one word.
It is especially important to record in detail the testimonies regarding the clarification of personal relationships of interrogation participants. Where, when, and under what circumstances did they meet, how closely did they communicate, whether there were hostile relations or hostility between them. And it is imperative to clarify and reflect in the protocol why the interrogated considers these relationships to be good or, conversely, bad. There are no minor details for the court.
One of the most difficult forms of interrogation with the presence of many details during the conduct is a confrontation. The CPC allows for the possibility of direct communication between the interrogated. That is, participants can themselves ask questions to each other, but only with the consent and permission of the investigation. In this case, the appropriate note should be entered into the protocol: who, to whom and for what purpose asked this or that question. At the end of the confrontation, all its participants, including lawyers, translators and legal representatives of minor respondents, sign the protocol.
Finishing touch
Before you put your signature on the interrogation protocol, you must carefully read it. It is important to personally verify the correctness of its design, the exact fixation of the sequence of questions and the answers received. This applies to each participant and those present. They also verify their own personal data: the spelling of the last name, first name and patronymic, date of birth, address. The report should also contain information about the investigator or interrogator conducting a confrontation. Art. 192 Code of Criminal Procedure details the process of processing and signing a document from beginning to end. Be sure to include a note on warning respondents about giving false evidence.
If during the interrogation technical means, audio and video recordings, material evidence were used, these details are also recorded in the protocol. At the end of the document, a note is made that all the facts in it correspond to the evidence given during the confrontation, as well as that the person involved or the person present were read in person. If the protocol consists of several pages or sheets, each side of the document is signed.