2019CrimenOpen access

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

Nikola Vuković

Open full text 0 citations

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.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Ignorance, Action (physics), Law, Meaning (existential), Set (abstract data type), Criminal procedure, German, The Republic

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Unacceptable procedural condition in field of expert examination as evidentiary action shaped by CPC and court practice — Research Paper | ScholarLens