Peculiarities of interrogation recording
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №6 - 2014
Author: Alembayev Kairat, Kazakh-American Free University, Kazakhstan
of the main methods of fixing the procedure and results of interrogation is the
record which is taken in compliance with Articles 203 and 218 of the Criminal
Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan . It should reflect the whole
process of interrogation: its progress and results, time of its beginning and
completion, break period if there was any.
record is made in the course of interrogation or immediately after it. It
should be cautioned against keeping the record after a long time after
interrogation, which sometimes occurs in practice because of the diversion of
the interrogating officer to other cases .
is recorded in the first person, word for word (as much as possible), in a
handwritten, typewritten or computer-made way by means of taking shorthand
notes, sound and video recording; the latter being attached to the record and
kept in a criminal case file.
and answers during the interrogation are recorded in the order they have been
asked. It is also necessary to record all demonstrative proof and other
materials concerning the criminal case.
initial interrogation record includes the personal data of the person being
questioned, as well as other information required by the circumstances of the
case. The subsequent interrogation record includes only the interrogated person’s
surname, first name, and middle name (if they have not changed).
to Article 99 Clause 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, if the interrogating
officer issued a decision on security measures taken to the interrogated
person, the personal information will be stored separately (not in the record),
which is also to be recorded. The interrogating officer's decision is placed in
a sealed envelope. Only the interrogating officer, the prosecutor, and the
court have the right to get acquainted with the content of the envelope.
the interrogation was conducted with the help of technical means or with the
use of drawings, diagrams, plans, etc., this should be fixed in the record. It
also should be recorded that the interrogated person and the defender (if
present) are informed about the scientific and technical means used.
interrogated has the right to make a free account of the matter and then to
record the evidence with his own hand. When the interrogated signs all the testimony,
the interrogating officer can ask questions.
of the typical mistakes during the interrogation is if the interrogating officer
offers the interrogated to bear evidence in his own handwriting immediately
after having asked a single question. This is a violation of criminal procedure
law, as the testimony with one’s one hand is to be made only after the
interrogating officer listens to free account of the matter, i.e., completes
the first stage of the interrogation.
the completion of the interrogation the record is presented to the interrogated
or the interrogating officer reads it out. The interrogated has the right to demand
for introducing additions and clarifications to the record that must be implemented.
All additions and clarifications are to be reflected either in the record of
the interrogation, its continuation or in the additional record. Any changes,
additions, or corrections not signed by both the interrogated and the
interrogating officer are inadmissible. Otherwise, such a record loses its
value as a source of evidence because of a serious violation of procedural law.
The interrogated signs every page of the record thus certifying the record
itself and the evidence given. In case of failure of the interrogated to sign
the record, the interrogating officer finds grounds for refusal, puts them in
the record and certifies it with the signature .
entire record of the interrogation is to be signed by the interrogating officer
at the end of the record. If necessary the interrogating officer can certify each
page of the record with the signature, especially when the record is
typewritten that does not exclude further replacing of any page of the record
when transferring the criminal case file to other officials.
record is also to be signed by all persons who participated in the interrogation:
the defender, the investigation department head, the prosecutor, the interpreter,
the expert, and the person responsible for fixing the interrogation using scientific
and technological means. The list of all participants is to be recorded as
to Article 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code the interrogation of the injured
party, witness, suspect, or accused may be conducted by means of sound and
video recording at the request of the interrogated or by the decision of the
interrogating officer. The interrogated is to be notified about it prior to the
and video recording, as well as the record, must include the following
information: date and place of the investigative action; time of its beginning
and completion; characteristics of technical means applied and the terms of
their application; facts and reasons of record suspension; information of a
person producing sound and video recordings.
and video recording of a part of the interrogation or the repetition of testimony
especially for audio recording is not allowed. Audio and video recording must
reflect the entire course of the interrogation and contain the following: announcement
of the interrogating officer about the interrogation; confirmation of the
interrogated person’s consent; explanation of the interrogated person’s rights
and obligations; every question and every answer; supplements to audio and
video recordings made after acquaintance with sound and video records.
the completion of the interrogation all audio and video recordings are fully
reproduced to the interrogated and then are certified by both the interrogated
and the interrogating officer. Audio and video recordings are stored in the
criminal case file and are sealed at the end of the preliminary investigation.
and video recordings are annexed to the record of the interrogation and
together with the paper record constitute a source of evidence. In certain situations,
they can be independent sources of evidence. In particular, when there are
questions about the authenticity of the materials, the conformity of the
testimony in the paper record with the audio and video recordings, as well as
when conducting psychological and psychiatric examination of the interrogated
during the investigative process.
is obligatory to enter all evidence fixed by means of audio and video equipment
on the record of the interrogation.
Evaluation: General terms of evidence evaluation are stipulated by the Criminal
Procedural Law and subject to the evaluation of evidence obtained during the
interrogation. However, there are some specific peculiarities between the
evaluation of evidence of witnesses and injured parties, of suspects and
accused persons (Articles 25 and 128 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
evaluating the evidence of a witness or an injured party, it is necessary to
determine the significance of the information of the facts previously used for
establishing the circumstances subject to proof. In this regard, every item of
evidence is to be evaluated from the perspective of relevance, admissibility,
and reliability. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the following:
whether the evidence is relevant to proper resolution of the criminal case;
whether they are given in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law;
whether the information reported in the interrogation corresponds to the facts
in the past;
what is the place of the evidence in the whole set of available proofs on the
greatest difficulty is related to the evaluation of the evidence reliability
and conformity with the objective facts previously perceived by the party and reproduced
during the interrogation. This takes into account the following factors:
conditions of evidence formation (objective and subjective);
personality characteristics of the interrogated;
procedural status of the interrogated;
attitude to the case under investigation and its outcome;
reasons for giving evidence.
of the proposed factors reflects personal characteristics of the interrogated,
thus influencing the formation of evidence. The process of evidence formation,
as mentioned above, is quite complicated and should be fully taken into account
in evaluating the evidence together with the features of the person being questioned.
the interrogation the evidence cannot totally conform to the objective reality.
Therefore, evidence evaluation involves understanding the relevance of the
information to real circumstances of the case. The evidence can be recognized
as completely appropriate the circumstances of the case or as not appropriate
scientific observations and experiments on the testimony, as well as
summarizing of the investigative and judicial practice provide a basis to
challenge the absolute and unconditional credibility of even bona fide
often has serious disagreements, inaccuracies, and mistakes depending on a
number of factors: significance of the event, the quality of perception by the
eyewitness, and other objective and subjective factors mentioned above.
this regard, personal bona fides of the witness conflicts with reality, thus resulting
in fallacious evidence. The interrogating officer requires accurate knowledge,
wide experience, and high professionalism during the interrogation and in
evaluating the evidence.
connection with the above mentioned, it is necessary to consider such concepts
as “truth”, “falsity”, and “deliberate falsity of the evidence”. The Criminal
Procedure Law provides that witnesses and injured parties: a) must truthfully report
all known in the case and tell the truth and nothing but the truth; b) are
responsible for perjury (Articles 75 and 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
word “truth” means something which is in accordance with fact or reality. The
law requires a witness or an injured party to give truthful testimony. At the
same time, in terms of the legal concept the evidence truthfulness is
determined not only by objective but also by subjective attitude of the
interrogated, by his or her good faith.
witness or the injured party may be veracious in the case when their testimony
is appropriate to objective reality or when they are mistaken in good faith and
their testimony does not correspond to the case file. In the Russian language
the word “falsity” means a deliberate distortion of the truth, the fact of
being untrue or insincere. But the science of criminal law considers the term
in two ways. The evidence can be proven false and untrue as a result of
unintentional situations of subjective and objective factors. Willful false
testimony means that the interrogated deliberately tells lies.
for conscious and deliberate falsehood in the testimony of a witness or an
injured party vary. Quite often they are the following: attitude and
relationship to the outcome of the case; fear of revenge by the criminals;
distrust to the investigating bodies; and some other not disinterested motives.
All this does not diminish the value of the correct determination of the
veracity of the witness or the injured party. In some cases, false statements
may be associated with slander and self-incrimination. This refers to the
testimony of the suspect and the accused.
is the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a
person's reputation. Such statements are most often deliberately false or are
the result of honest mistakes.
is the action of false admitting oneself guilty of an offense. There are two
types of self-incrimination: a simple one, when the interrogated falsely pleads
guilty, and a complex one, entailing a false confession of one’s guilt and
false accusations of others, supposedly accomplices. The origin of
self-incrimination in the testimony is most often associated with the use of
illegal methods and means of interrogation, used contrary to the prohibition,
or out of mercenary considerations of the person conducting the interrogation.
Sometimes self-incrimination becomes a provocation on the part of the
interrogating officer when the latter intentionally suggests the idea of the
subjective benefit of certain evidence, actually false, to the interrogated.
Self-incrimination, as well as slander, can be the result of influence of the
actual perpetrator and his/her relations, as well as an initiative of the
interrogated and his/her personal considerations, e.g., the interrogator may
take the blame of a criminal groups to shield the accomplices, or take the
blame of own relatives, friends, etc. .
and verification of evidence are inextricably connected to each other. Evidence
verification, as well as evidence evaluation, occurs throughout the
interrogation presenting a system of actions aimed at obtaining reliable
evidence. Evidence verification includes:
analysis of the information of the evidence;
comparison of this information with the evidence in the case file, as well as
collected after the interrogation including obtained during the interrogation;
detection of inconsistencies in the evidence in relation to other testimony.
evaluating the evidence it is very important to distinguish between the
information resulting from the deductions of the interrogated or true facts and
credible facts, as well as sources of information perceived directly by the
interrogated or received by the interrogated from other sources.
investigative actions, interrelated to the previous interrogation, such as
confrontation, evidence verification at the place of the crime, investigatory
experiment, experimental testimony, etc. are conducted during the investigation
for final evaluation and verification of the evidence.
verification of evidence is not an end in itself. Its task is to obtain new
evidence, which collectively form a system contributing to proper resolution of
the criminal case.
character of verification of evidence of the suspect and the accused is
determined by four main provisions:
obvious interest in the outcome of the case;
the presumption of innocence, which excludes treating the evidence as given by
a guilty person;
discharge from proving the innocence and giving credible evidence;
the position taken with respect to the accusation (suspicion).
any situation – whether the accused (the suspect) recognizes his/her guilt in
full, in part, denies it, gives evidence about his/her own actions or other persons’
actions, or declares an alibi - the interrogating officer must fully and impartially
verify the information received.
are cases when the suspect changes the contradictory evidence fully or
partially. Sometimes it happens without a motive; therefore, all evidence
(previous and further) must be evaluated and verified.
for the previous evidence refusal must be thoroughly examined, and each of the
available evidence must be proven and evaluated. All new evidence are verified
and compared with the evidence collected during the investigation.
the suspect (the accused) changed the evidence, rejecting the first conviction
of a crime, reasonably referring to the use of illegal methods of influence, an
official or criminal investigation is to verify such statements. Only after
that the evidence of the suspect (the accused) can be evaluated.
it comes to a complex of procedural and criminalistics issues, it is necessary
to draw attention to the fact that the evidence obtained during the
interrogation in violation of law, have no legal force and evaluated as
unacceptable evidence (Article 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code).
violations include cases when the interrogation is conducted:
with the use of torture, violence, threats, deception or other unlawful actions
by the investigating authorities;
with the use of delusion or the interrogated person’s ignorance of his/her
procedural status and rights guaranteed by the law;
without full explanation to the interrogated his/her rights and obligations
taking into account the procedural provisions;
in violation of the interrogated person’s rights guaranteed by the Criminal
by a person who is not entitled to interrogate under the given criminal case;
with the use of tactical criminalistics methods, other equipment and techniques
contrary to the Criminal Procedure Law and modern science;
before instituting criminal proceedings.
responsibility of the person(s) who committed violations during the interrogation
depends on the extent of the violations. For example, the use of torture by the
interrogating officer, the person conducting the inquiry, or any other official
for getting the evidence from the tortured or a third party is a criminal
offense (Article 347-1 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan).
to testify by threats, blackmail or other illegal actions on the part of the
interrogating officer or the person conducting the inquiry also entails
criminal responsibility (Article 347 of the Criminal Code) .
liability is also stipulated for falsification of evidence (Article 348 of the
Criminal Code). In relation to the interrogation it is revealed:
when the interrogating officer or the person conducting the inquiry draws up a
false record with fictional testimony;
when the evidence are recorded improperly, subjectively, for mercenary motives;
when the record is forged (including signatures of the interrogated and other
persons participating in the interrogation, etc.).
are some other hidden (latent) violations of the law during the interrogation.
One of such relatively common disorders is the interrogation before the initiating
of criminal proceedings. According to Article 194 Clause 2, Article 221, and
Article 242 Clause 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the interrogation, as well
as other investigations, except the crime scene investigation and forensic
examination can be carried out only after the decision to institute criminal
order to conceal such a violation, the interrogating officer does not write the
date and time of the interrogation in the record immediately at the beginning
of the interrogation and fills the gap after the criminal proceeding
instituting. It may seem a minor violation, but it is a falsification which is
1. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan as of December 13, 1997. http:// zakon.kz
2. Bozjigitova D.
(2006). The record is the mirror of the interrogation: legal compulsory
education. Legal newspaper. Kazakhstan, September 5, 2006, # 159, p. 4.
3. Rogov I. (2003). The
Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (special part). Commentary. Almaty.
4. Nikolenko A.
(2005). Theory of judicial proofs.
5. Samoroka V.,
Borodkina T. (2006). About possibility of special psychological knowledge
use foe evidence verification during the interrogation. Criminal Law, part 3,
6. Shalabayeva Zh. (2002). Protection of rights and legitimate interests of the injured party and
problems of providing safety measures in the criminal proceedings. KazGU
Bulletin, Law Series, # 1, p. 97-100.
Table of contents: The Kazakh-American Free University Academic Journal №6 - 2014