7. Наира Зограбян - ՛՛Современные подходы к определению конкуренции уголовно-правовых норм՛՛,
9. Гайк Григорян - ՛՛Проблемы правового регулирования некоторых правовых институтов после ратификации и вступления в силу статута международоного уголовного суда в Республике Армения՛՛,
10. Siranush Grigoryan - ՛՛The Future of EU Sanctions. Effectiveness, Challenges and Considerations՛՛.
SUREN BAGHINYAN
PhD student of the Criminal Procedure and Criminalistics
Department of Yerevan State University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.1-3-129
Annotation.
This scientific article is devoted to the forensic science aspects of the investigation of high treason, particularly - model investigating situations typical to such kind of cases. At first the content of the investigating situation concept is touched by the author, different specialists’ approaches to that concept are introduced and analyzed, thenrelying on that- the author detects situations typical to the investigation of high treason-emphasizing the characteristics of their formation. By analyzing different specialists’ approaches in professional literature, the author shows the role of high technologies in the process of formation of investigating situations of such type of cases. The author emphasizes the work of bodies executing operative-search activity - in the scope of this matter- by justifying the importance of organizing operative monitoring in the process of investigation and detection of such type of cases. At the end of this article, the author’s conclusions are presented based on the results of the research.
INGA AVAGYAN
‘‘Private Legal Center’’ Law Firm, Founding Director, Advocate,
Claimant at Gladzor University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.1-3-116
Annotation.
Proving is one of the fundamental institutions of the science of criminal procedure and criminal procedural legislation. The process of proving as a complex type of cognitive and creative activity of law enforcement agencies consists of collecting, securing, checking and evaluating evidence in order to establish the circumstances to be established in a criminal case. The institution of evidence and the law of evidence in general received further development and improvement in the new Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia (adopted on June 30, 2021, came into force on July 1, 2022). In the article, the author examines current issues of assessing evidence in the final judicial act. Evaluation of evidence, as an element of the process of proof, is a mental, logical activity, as a result of which the court makes a conclusion about the admissibility, relevance, reliability of each of the pieces of evidence, and the sufficiency of the combination of evidence to reveal the circumstances entering into the subject of proof. In the final judicial acts, the courts are obliged to refer separately to the evidence available in the criminal proceedings and examined during the main proceedings, giving them separate evaluations, and based on the systematic analysis of the examined evidence and the perspective of their integrity, to consider the accusation presented to the accused justified, or to recognize the latter as not guilty. . Courts in their final judicial acts are obliged to fix and evaluate the evidence on which the court’s conclusions are based in terms of admissibility, relevancy and credibility, as well as specify the arguments for considering this or that evidence unreliable. Otherwise, the evaluation of the evidence, as a result of which the formation of the relevant internal conviction of the courts will be subjective in nature, will lead to arbitrariness and the violation of the right of a person to a fair trial, limiting the possibilities of the superior courts to check the legality and justification of the judicial act.
HOVHANNES BAYANDURYAN
Member of the Chamber of Advocates of the RA,
PhD Student at the Chair of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure
Law of the RAU Institute of Law and Politics
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.1-3-104
Annotation.
The article discusses theoretical and practical problems of implementing one of the most important principles of criminal procedural law - the principle of the prohibition of self-incrimination through the implementation of the right to silence. The relevance of the topic is due to the reform of the criminal procedural legislation of various countries, including the Republic of Armenia, which provides for a special procedure for criminal proceedings against legal entities due to the reorganization of criminal procedural legal relations. The author clarifies some legal issues about the right to silence of a legal entity as an accused, and conducts a comparative legal analysis of various legislations and judicial practice of foreign countries.
ADELINA SARGSYAN
Lecturer of the Department of Criminal Law and
Criminal Procedure Law of the
Institute of Law and Politics of the Russian-Armenian University
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.1-3-93
Annotation.
Currently, among the numerous classifications of types of iatrogenism and iatrogenic crimes, diagnostic iatrogenism deserves special attention, the increased public danger and social harmfulness of which is beyond doubt. Considering the various types of iatrogenies, special attention should be paid to iatrogenies of diagnostic procedures, which are very common and entail other iatrogenies. An incorrectly established diagnosis leads to iatrogenism, and further prescribed treatment based on an incorrect diagnosis causes iatropathy in the patient. Thus, the danger of this type of iatrogenies lies in their double effect – as a result of diagnostic iatrogenies, other therapeutic ones are generated. Therapeutic iatrogenia is an incorrect treatment determined by a doctor based on an incorrectly diagnosed diagnosis. Iatrogenies of diagnostic procedures consist in incorrect diagnosis, incomplete diagnosis and untimely diagnosis. In the light of the above, the criminal law analysis of improper medical care, expressed in diagnostic errors (shortcomings), is of great importance. This article analyzes diagnostic iatrogenies based on the materials of the judicial practice of the Republic of Armenia; in the context of the prevalence of iatrogenies of diagnostic procedures, legislative changes aimed at improving the criminal legal fight against iatrogenic crimes are proposed.
ROZA ABRAHAMYAN
Lecturer at the Chair of Criminal Law of YSU, PhD student
DOI: https://doi.org/10.59546/18290744-2024.1-3-84
Annotation.
The article is devoted to the problem of understanding such a principle of penal law as differentiation and individualization of the execution of punishments. The work analyzes the theories on this issue available in the theory of penal law. By studying the means of differentiation and individualization of punishment, we can conclude that it is possible to increase their effectiveness when executing a sentence of imprisonment. Differentiation and individualization of the execution of punishment consists in changing the volume of punitive influence on the convicted person. Having examined the means of differentiation and individualization, we argues that their effectiveness in executing a sentence of imprisonment is not at a high enough level. The article also presents proposals for amending the current criminal legislation.