ირიბი ჩვენების მნიშვნელობა საგამოძიებო ორგანოებისათვის და მისი მტკიცებულებითი ძალა სასამართლოში

Abstract

The presented article “The importance of Hearsay for investigative bodies and its evidential power in court” discusses Hearsay as a secondary (produced) evidence and the criterion of its admissibility in criminal proceedings. The main danger of using hearsay as evidence is the possibility of substantial distortion and alteration when it is mediated by different velocity ratios. The author focuses on the legal basis of Hearsay. Testimonies are classified and their forms, mechanisms of production and standards are discussed in a comparative-legal context. The article includes an overview and analysis of the Georgian model of Hearsay. There is discussed Georgian experience in the legal context from the dissemination of Hearsay to the present day, the peculiarities and main features of the Georgian model are evaluated. The content, technical, and legal aspects of the work are also discussed. There are discussed problems that exist in terms of legal and legislative techniques and possible ways to solve them. The purpose of this article is to analyze common Hearsay models, review and generalize these legal aspects, develop better and more substantively appropriate methods, and research legal forms of Hearsay in order to identify the main mechanisms that can be received and adapted in Georgian reality. The research is mainly based on comparative-legal methodology, analytical, historical, descriptive, hermeneutic and other scientific methods. Based on the methodological research, the existing scientific literature, legal acts and case law will be studied in the practical field. The case law of the Georgian Common and Constitutional Court, the European Court of Justice, and numerous significant US Supreme Courts should be developed, as this may be the most effective strategy to better regulate and resolve problems in Georgia. The present article includes a historical overview of indirect testimony highlighting the first recognition of the need for indirect testimony in England and its recognition as admissible evidence. The evolution of this component of law, its need and role in the Georgian criminal justice system are also assessed. The decisions of the Constitutional Court of 22 January 2015 and 25 December 2020, which defined the constitutionality of indirect Chen as evidence-based norms of admissibility, play an important role. The practice of the German Federal Constitutional Court, where there are many years of practice on the use of indirect chen and its significance, should also be considered. In this article, the author reviews the approach of the common courts regarding the use of indirect testimony in Georgia, with a focus on the legislation of European countries and the assessment of existing practices. The European Court of Human Rights has a relatively flexible approach to the issue, setting a certain standard in one of the cases mentioned in the article. Despite the different approaches, it is a fact that most states try to make the institution of indirect censorship more flexible and sophisticated so that the core values necessary in the administration of criminal justice are not jeopardized, the interests of the parties are protected and the situation is objectively assessed. In conclusion, the article summarizes the main challenges and problems related to indirect testimony in criminal law. We are talking about the importance of implementing the decision made by the Constitutional Court in practice. Gathering the author's position on the different approaches in different countries, the author develops an opinion on the admissibility of indirect testimony as an exception. The aim of the paper is to analyze the common models of indirect testimony, to review and generalize these legal aspects, to develop better and more substantively adequate methods, to study the legal forms of indirect testimony in order to identify the main mechanisms that can be received and adapted in Georgian reality.