Subject Of Proof Research Articles

PROSPECTS OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURAL REGULATION OF A CRIMINALIST PROSECUTOR’S ACTIVITY

This article analyzes issues related to criminal-procedural activities of prosecutor – criminalists, in particular, the views of foreign and national scientists on being the prosecutor-criminalist as the subject of proof and a participant in investigative actions, the experience of procedural activity regulation in the legislation of national and foreign states, as well as the proposals and recommendations for the implementation of this institute to the procedural legislation.

The situation of "double protection" and its impact on evidence in criminal proceedings: appearance analysis and recommendations to lawyers

Relevance. A lawyer, not being a subject of proof in criminal proceedings, nevertheless, is an active participant in the proof process, which he carries out throughout his activities to protect his client from suspicion or formed and put forward an accusatory thesis. At the same time, the current situation of "double protection" significantly hinders the participation of a lawyer in proving innocence or lesser guilt in comparison with the accusatory thesis put forward, and at the same time establishes an obstacle to the implementation of the provisions enshrined in Article 48 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which enshrines the right of everyone to receive qualified legal assistance. The situation of "double protection" is one of the most negative factors in advocacy. In order to avoid the occurrence of a "double protection" situation, the author proposes an algorithm of actions when entering the process as a defender.Objective: to develop an algorithm for entering the process in order to avoid a situation of "double protection".The purpose of the study is to continue the research of advocacy in criminal proceedings, refuting the arguments of the prosecution and proving the innocence or lesser guilt of the defendant.Methodology. The methodological basis of the research was the universal dialectical method of cognition of socio-legal phenomena, general scientific research methods (analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, system-structural and others). In addition, private scientific methods of cognition were used logical-formal and system analysis.The results of the study are both theoretical and applied in nature, and have elements of scientific novelty. The author considers the issues of the lawyer's entry into the criminal process by appointment, proposes an algorithm for the lawyer's actions in order to avoid possible violations and the emergence of a situation of "double protection".Conclusions. The discussion of the identified problems will allow us to develop solutions to eliminate the identified gaps in the implementation of protection in criminal proceedings, protect lawyers from possible violations of internal corporate regulations.

The use of evidence in criminal proceedings as a component of the evidetiary process

The article is devoted to elucidating the essence and content of the use of evidence, as well as to justifying the identification of such a category as a separate component of evidentiary process in criminal proceedings. It was found that despite the absence of the category "use of evidence” among the provisions of Part 2 of Art. 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the term is used by the legislator in a number of articles of the current CPC of Ukraine. The positions of domestic scientists regarding the essence of the use of evidence were analyzed. It was found that the majority of doctrinal definitions of this term boil down to the understanding of the use of evidence as the manipulation of it (evidence, their procedural sources, evidentiary information) for the performance of intermediate and final tasks (that is, the achievement of certain positive results) in criminal proceedings.
 Based on the study of the provisions of the current legislation and doctrinal sources, it was established that evidence is used by justifying, making, and implementing decisions in criminal proceedings. The following forms of evidence use are singled out: procedural decisions, decisions on submitting evidence to the court and substantiating legal positions with them, on submitting motions and complaints during the pre-trial investigation, tactical decisions of the prosecution and other subjects of evidence. The general mechanism of making the listed decisions and the place of use of evidence in the system of components of evidentiary activity are considered.
 The use of evidence is defined as a component of the evidentiary process, a set of logical and instrumental operations consisting in justifying with evidence (evidential information), making and implementing decisions by the subject of proof in order to fulfill their own tasks in criminal proceedings.
 Further research prospects in the analyzed field are related to the scientific and theoretical study of the essence, types and mechanism of decision­making in criminal proceedings as a form of evidence use.

ԱՊԱՑՈՒՅՑՆԵՐԻ ԳՆԱՀԱՏՈՒՄԸ ԵԶՐԱՓԱԿԻՉ ԴԱՏԱԿԱՆ ԱԿՏ ԿԱՅԱՑՆԵԼԻՍ

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.

ОТДЕЛЬНЫЕ АСПЕКТЫ УЧАСТИЯ СПЕЦИАЛИСТА-КРИМИНАЛИСТА В ВЫДВИЖЕНИИ ВЕРСИЙ, ПЛАНИРОВАНИИ РАССЛЕДОВАНИЯ И РАСКРЫТИЯ ПРЕСТУПЛЕНИЙ

One of the main factors of high-quality and timely investigation and disclosure of crimes is the tactically well-organized interaction of various law enforcement agencies. The article examines the relevance of the use of special knowledge at the stage of putting forward versions and further planning of investigation and disclosure of crimes, which has not been discussed recently. The rationale is given for how and how the knowledge, experience, thinking, inner conviction of a forensic specialist or a forensic expert provide the necessary assistance in the thought process of putting forward versions and planning an investigation. Actual problems are identified, solved by using special knowledge for the purposes of putting forward versions, checking them and further planning the investigation and disclosure of crimes. Illustratively, the paper shows concrete examples of combining special knowledge with professional legal knowledge in matters of putting forward versions and planning an investigation. The concept and essence of the expert version are considered and analyzed from the standpoint of effectiveness in establishing the facts included in the subject of proof. Based on the survey of law enforcement officials, the importance of the participation of a forensic specialist in building versions and planning investigative and other actions as forensic support of the investigation is shown. The relevance of the interaction of an investigator and a criminologist in the process of disclosure, investigation and prevention of crimes is noted.

Subject matter of proof and peculiarities of collecting evidence in the investigation of crimes committed against the law enforcement officers

The defence and security sector plays a significant role in ensuring the national security of the state, the vast majority of which are law enforcement agencies. Based on the specifics of the activities of the bodies and units entrusted with the implementation of the law enforcement function, the state guarantees criminal law protection of their life, health, private property, professional authority, and the ability to perform their professional duties without hindrance, etc. Nevertheless, the proportion of recorded crimes involving law enforcement officers remains quite significant, which necessitates the identification of ways to counteract them. An important aspect of conducting an effective and objective pre-trial investigation of this type of crime is to ensure that these crimes are proved, with the main burden of proof being placed on the prosecution. Given that in the theory of national legal science the subject matter of proof and peculiarities of evidence collection in the course of investigation of crimes the victims of which are law enforcement officers have so far remained outside the scope of substantive study by scholars, clarification of certain aspects of this issue has been chosen as the purpose of the study.
 The article defines the general subject matter of proof in crimes where law enforcement officers are the victims, and also outlines certain aspects of evidence collection in criminal proceedings of this category. It has been determined that the measures of collecting evidence include: investigative (search) and covert investigative (search) actions, some measures to ensure criminal proceedings, as well as things, documents, information, expert opinions, etc. requested and received by the subject of proof from representatives of public authorities, local self-government bodies, enterprises, institutions and organisations, officials and individuals. It is emphasised that, due to the lack of comprehensive developments on this issue, it requires further in-depth research.

Consideration and Resolution of Family and Corporate Disputes: Procedural Problems

The common property of the spouses may include shares or shares in the authorized capital of the company, therefore, various procedural problems related to family and corporate law arise in the practice of the courts. Purpose of the work: on the basis of doctrinal and empirical analysis to resolve some procedural problems in the consideration and resolution of family-corporate disputes. Brief conclusions. When considering a dispute on the division of a share in a company, the court should bring up for discussion the issue of the possibility of obtaining compensation for it, which can prevent further corporate disputes. The fact of the presence of a prohibitive clause in the charter of a legal entity should not be included in the subject of proof in a family dispute on the division of a shares. The presence of a court decision on the recognition of ownership of a part of the share and the disagreement of other participants in the corporation serves as the basis for paying the actual value of the shares. The spouse has the right to apply to the arbitration court to challenge the corporate decision if he violates his property right, but in this case an increased standard of proof will apply, since the plaintiff is obliged to provide indisputably evidence of the disagreement at the time of the legal actions, their economic inexpediency. &Keywords: family dispute, corporate dispute, jurisdiction, proof, shares

Evidence in criminal proceedings on criminal offenses related to armed conflict: court practice

Purpose. The purpose of the work is to identify problematic issues of proof in criminal proceedings about criminal offenses related to the armed conflict in the aspect of judicial practice and to formulate recommendations for their solution at the level of law enforcement. Method. The methodology includes a set of methods of scientific knowledge: comparative-legal, formal-legal, systemic-structural, dogmatic (legal). Results: based on the results of the study, the problematic issues of proof and judicial practice in criminal proceedings on criminal offenses related to the armed conflict were formulated recommendations for practical workers. Practical significance: the results of the research can be used to specify the tasks of the investigation and to choose rational means of solving them based on a systematic approach in order to distinguish the facts that are subject to investigation as elements that make up the subject of proof, to identify the main features of these facts, to specify the areas and means of activities for identifying sources and carriers of information about these facts.

Prejudice on discretion in law enforcement of financial legal provisions

The imperfection of the procedure for implementing prejudgment in court proceedings may lead to instability of practice, and this demonstrates the relevance of the research topic with regard to formulating clear criteria for the mechanism of discretionary prejudgment in the application of financial rules of law. With this in mind, the purpose of the article is to identify the peculiarities of bias of discretionary powers in the law enforcement of financial rules of law. The methodological tools are based on the general philosophical (dialectical, hermeneutical), general scientific formal (empirical in the form of observation, description and comparison; axiomatic; hypothetical-deductive; formalization; unity of historical and logical) and special scientific methods (formal-logical; comparative legal; systemic and structural), as well as the methodology of reversal and monitoring of a preliminary court decision, which allows to study theoretical and practical issues of discretionary powers in the law enforcement of financial and legal provisions in the unity of their substantive component and external form of reflection. The author proposes a classification of prejudice by: the level of law enforcement; legal force of prejudice; significance of the established factual circumstances which are the subject of proof; nature of the accusation; and subject. The author examines the psychological dimension of the use of prejudicial categories as a metacognitive activity of establishing and taking into account the meaning of prejudice, taking into account the accuracy of empirical generalizations, and formulating judgments to identify the future consequences of making decisions with prejudicial categories contained in the original decision. The author outlines the mechanism for implementing the legal policy on the use of financial prejudicial categories, which should be based primarily on the instrumental and procedural characteristics of this model of legal influence. It is established that in the organizational and legal aspect, the conditions for the national market segment to enter the cross-border space are formed by streamlining the procedures for interaction of legal entities through the appropriate forms of legal influence. The practical significance of the results obtained is that they can be used to determine the procedure for applying prejudgment at the supranational and national levels, in particular, in the context of applying the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union

«CRIMINAL CAREER» AS THE MAIN FEATURE IN THE CRIMINOLOGICAL, CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINALISTIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME «TAKING THE HIGHEST POSITION IN THE CRIMINAL HIERARCHY»

The perpetrator of the crime under Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is characterized by willingness to follow criminal ideology, to lead the criminal hierarchy using an arsenal of illegal methods, to organize and expand the scope and territory of criminal activity through subordinate structures, actively counteract the law enforcement function of the state. The criminal career of the leader of the criminal hierarchy is the basis for qualifying a crime, determining the circumstances included in the subject of proof, for planning and organizing an investigation. Purpose: to analyze the criminal law, criminological and criminalistic characteristics of the perpetrator of the crime – «Taking the highest position in the criminal hierarchy». Methods: empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic; specific scientific methods: legal-dogmatic and interpretation of legal norms. Results: the study makes it possible to identify problems in the qualification of the crime, to highlight the criminal law, criminological and criminalistic signs of the perpetrator of the crime under Article 210.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, to formulate recommendations on the organization and planning of the investigation of this crime.

ВПЛИВ ПРАВОВИХ ПРЕЗУМПЦІЙ НА ОБСТАВИНИ, ЯКІ ВХОДЯТЬ ДО ПРЕДМЕТА ДОКАЗУВАННЯ... У КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОВАДЖЕННІ

The article is devoted to the study of some problematic issues related to the influence of legal presumptions on circumstances that are part of the subject of evidence in criminal proceedings. The author analyzed the legislative, theoretical and practical basis related to the issue of the influence of legal presumptions on the subject of proof, and in particular on the circumstances that are part of it. The purpose of this article is to consider and study the issue of the influence of legal presumptions on the subject of evidence in criminal proceedings, as well as to substantiate the importance of legal presumptions for the criminal process in general and for the subject of evidence in particular. In his research, the author focuses on the lack of a single approach to understanding the legal nature of presumption in the criminal process, however, based on the analysis, he generalizes that modern legal science singles out and uses the term “legal presumption”, which is a legal aspect of the general concept of assumption. Draws attention to the need to establish the essence and limits of the influence of presumptions on criminal procedural evidence, otherwise it will contribute to the emergence of problems in the practice of law enforcement. During the research, the author used general scientific research methods (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, analogy, abstraction, generalization), the dialectical method of learning the phenomena of objective reality) and special legal methods – formal-logical, comparative-legal, structural-organizational. The author established that legal presumptions are of great importance for criminal proceedings, namely, they influence the formation of the criminal process as a whole, its individual institutions, as well as individual stages of the process; affect the process of proof, since legal presumptions can have an impact on the subject and limits of proof, participate in the distribution of the burden of proof. Also, on the basis of the conducted thorough analysis, the author’s definition of legal presumption is proposed – as a means that is binding due to its direct or indirect enshrining in legislation and on the basis of probable assumptions – contributes to the establishment without evidence of some legal facts, events, phenomena, social relations, which may lead to certain legal consequences and affect legal relations. In addition, conclusions were made about the need to supplement the current Code of Criminal Procedure with the presumption of mental health (sanity) and the presumption of knowledge of criminal legislation

The subject of proof in various categories of criminal cases

The subject of proof in various categories of criminal cases

Subjects of proof in criminal proceedings on the offences in the economic sphere

An analysis of scientific approaches and provisions of criminal procedural legislation regarding the determination of the essence, features and structure of evidence in criminal proceedings, including crimes in the economic sphere, has been carried out. It has been determined that evidence in criminal proceedings on crimes in the economic sphere is a structured epistemological and praxeological activity of authorized subjects, which is implemented on the grounds and in the manner prescribed by criminal procedural legislation, and consists in collecting, verifying and evaluating evidence about the circumstances of commiting the named criminal offenses and other circumstances relevant to criminal proceedings. It has been argued that one of the most important elements in the structure of proof is the subjects. The specifics of proof in criminal proceedings on crimes in the field of economy have been clarified. It has been substantiated that the specificity of crimes in the field of economy affects not only the content of the subject of proof, sources of evidence and methods of proof, but also the subjects authorized to carry it out. It has been noted that the subjects of proof in criminal proceedings on crimes in the field of economy should be systematized according to certain criteria, taking into account both criminal procedural and forensic features of this category of criminal offenses and activities for their detection, pre-trial investigation and trial. It has been proposed to single out the following as criteria for the systematization of evidence subjects in the specified criminal proceedings: stages of criminal proceedings; responsibility for pre-trial investigation of crimes in the economic sphere; immediacy of proof. Systematization of subjects of evidence in criminal proceedings on crimes in the field of economy has been carried out.

Problems of concluding an expert opinion based on the results of a forensic veterinary examination of a live animal and ways to solve them

Forensic veterinary examination is a new type of forensic examination that is actively developing in the forensic examination institutions of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine. Since its theory and methodology are yet forming, there is a need to develop its terminology, methods, and means of conducting and formalizing research results. The purpose of this study was to single out the problematic issues of drafting an expert’s opinion based on the results of a forensic veterinary examination of a live animal and to outline ways to solve them. The study employed various scientific methods, namely dialectical, methods of logic (formal legal, system-structural analysis, modelling, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction), general cognitive methods (description, observation), special methods, the functions of which are performed by methods of lifetime clinical forensic veterinary diagnostics of animals. The present paper focuses on the fact that the specific feature of the introductory part of the conclusion of a forensic expert is that it indicates the object of examination – a live animal. A list of issues to be resolved by the authorized body or person who appointed the forensic veterinary examination was developed in this study. The structure of the investigative part of the forensic expert’s opinion was covered and substantiated for the first time, which is based on a forensic veterinary examination of the subject animal based on the principle of analysing the state of individual body systems, including blood circulation, breathing, urination, sexual, nervous, and sensory. The description in the expert opinion of the results of the analysis of individual veterinary documents concerning the subject of proof was substantiated. It was shown that based on the results of the clinical forensic-veterinary examination of a live animal under expert examination, the forensic expert outlines the forensic-veterinary diagnosis, and in the section of the examination part of the opinion, which synthesizes the results, summarizes the obtained data. It is stated that the final part of the forensic expert opinion contains comprehensive, scientifically sound, consistently laid out, clear, specific, expressive, understandable answers to the questions raised, the list of which is indicated in the introductory part of the opinion. The present paper outlined the structure of appendices to the opinion of a forensic expert, which is most often photo illustrations of injuries found in an animal under examination. The solutions developed in this paper concerning the drafting of an expert’s opinion based on the results of a forensic veterinary examination of a live animal are guaranteed to be reflected in the conduct and drafting of the results of forensic veterinary research.

THE ISSUE OF RECOGNITION AS A SOURCE OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF ELECTRONIC (DIGITAL) DOCUMENTS

Based on the analysis of the nature of electronic (digital) documents, the article defines the theoretical and practical aspects of recognizing digital documents as a source of evidence in criminal proceedings. It is noted that the carriers of electronic documents can be documents or documents-tangible evidence in terms of procedural significance. I state that the issue of the unity of the content of an electronic document and its form (carrier) is important from the standpoint of the admissibility of an electronic document as evidence. The primary material carrier and the factual data that are of interest to the process of proof must form an inseparable unity, provided that such a carrier, by its procedural nature, is a material evidence document. And such a unity of content and form is not necessary, provided that the carrier of computer data is a document by its procedural nature. Separate recommendations are formulated aimed at ensuring the admissibility of an electronic (digital) document as evidence, in particular: 1) the admissibility of a document as a source of evidence will depend on the accuracy of compliance with the requirements for formalizing the results of an investigative (detective) action, in particular, regarding the description of the content of computer data, their packaging, typographical errors, signing of packaging material, etc.; 2) law enforcement officers must perform all their actions in compliance with the rules apply specifically to the circulation of electronic (digital) documents; 3) for a subject that performs actions to obtain (copy) computer data, it is mandatory to use an electronic signature. This will significantly simplify the decision about proof of the reliability and authorship of the electronic (digital) document. Attention is also focused on the problem of recognition as a source of evidence of electronic documents containing a copy of unstable computer data from cyberspace. Even though the law declares equal conditions for the use of the original electronic (digital) document and its copy in the process of proving, the subject of proof should be as responsible as possible for their proper certification and apply measures aimed at ensuring that the original source is preserved unchanged. Key words: proof, admissibility, electronic (digital) document, electronic media, computer data, factual data.

Features оf Proving in Civil Proceedings

The institution of proof in civil proceedings is a complex and complex legal category. The features of this legal institution are determined by the procedural status of the parties to the procedural legal relationship, as well as the court. The key importance in terms of the peculiarities of the institution of proof in civil proceedings is the complexity and variability of substantive provisions, which determine the formation of the evidentiary base and the subject of proof. In addition, this fact is also a consequence of circumstances predetermined by legislation, which are subject to proof in a civil case. Features of proof in civil proceedings are also characterized by the powers of the court regarding the subject of proof when considering and resolving a civil case. These issues, as well as a number of other aspects, form the features of the procedural institution under consideration, the work carried out a substantive analysis of the above aspects.

Circumstances to be proved in cases of official crimes related to bribery

The article is devoted to the study of the subject of evidence in cases of official crimes related to bribery as a type of corruption crimes. The purpose of the study is a theoretical analysis of a complex of problematic issues that are related to the process of proof in criminal proceedings and its features in cases of official crimes related to bribery. Attention is focused on the fact that the concept of “circumstances to be proved” and the concept of “subject of proof” have identical meaning and content with the first concept possessing a formal consolidation in criminal procedure legislation, and the second being a theoretical construction lacking a legislative consolidation, yet actively used in scientific research. The general list of circumstances subject to proof according to the criminal procedure legislation is given. It is noted that when investigating a specific criminal case, there is a need to detail typical circumstances related to the specifics of the category of cases under investigation, namely: the establishment of the subject of the bribe; its size and nature; the method often including preparatory actions, direct bribery, measures taken to conceal the crime; the nature of the promised or performed actions (inaction) in the interests of the bribe taker; the subject composition of bribery.

ОБСТАВИНИ, ЩО ПІДЛЯГАЮТЬ ДОКАЗУВАННЮ ПІД ЧАС РОЗСЛІДУВАННЯ НЕЗАКОННОГО ПОВОДЖЕННЯ ЗІ ЗБРОЄЮ ТА БОЄПРИПАСАМИ

In the article studied the views of domestics scientists about the place of circumstances to be proven in the structure of the methodology of investigation of crimes. Emphasized that the subject of proof the same for the whole of the crime process, in addition, it is specified at the time of production in specific criminal cases. Scientific approaches to the systematization of circumstances, that to be proven, during the investigation of certain categories of criminal offenses have been analyzed. It has been found that the content of such circumstances is determinated primarily by subject of evidence, the composition of the crime described in the criminal law, and the specifics of the mechanism of committing a particular criminal offense. It has been noted that in the criminal procedural law the specified category is designated as a «subject of proof». In criminalistics, however, there are such concepts as «the subject of investigation», «the circumstances to be established or clarified». Considers the circumstances to be proven during the investigation of illegal handling of weapons and ammunition. The following are included and analyzed: 1) the event of a criminal offense (time, place and method and other circumstances of its commission); 2) the person’s guilt, form of guilt, motive and purpose of the commission; 3) circumstances that exclude criminal liability; 4) circumstances that confirm the existence of grounds for the use of special confiscation. The method of committing the investigated criminal offense is considered from the point of view of the presence of elements of preparation and concealment, since they confirm the intentional form of guilt, the presence of the purpose of selling weapons or ammunition, and a selfish motive. Through the analysis of judicial practice, factual data indicating the guilt of the individual are highlighted. First of all, this concerns (money) funds received for the sale of weapons or ammunition which is subject to special confiscation.

The subject of proof and the distribution of evidentiary duties in the civil proceedings of individual countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States

The subject of proof and the distribution of evidentiary duties in the civil proceedings of individual countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States

JUDICIAL JURISDICTION OF CORPORATE DISPUTES ARISING IN NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

Abstract: the article discusses the distribution of corporate disputes between courts of general jurisdiction and commercial courts. At the moment, the legislator is guided by the division of legal entities into commercial and nonprofit organizations. The article notes that commercial activity is not included in the subject of proof in corporate disputes, therefore it is a random criterion of judicial jurisdiction. Analyzing the rights and obligations of participants of different companies, the author comes to the conclusion that the division of legal entities into corporate and unitary is important when considering corporate disputes. According to the author, if we recognize the need for a different procedure for the consideration of corporate disputes, it seems more appropriate to allow the separation of cases related to the creation, management and liquidation of unitary legal entities.