USHLAB TURISH VAQTIDA GUMON QILINUVCHINING HUQUQLARINING PROTSESSUAL KAFOLATLAR
##article.subject##:
gumon qilinuvchini ushlab turish, protsessual kafolatlar, himoya huquqi, protsessual majburlash, aybsizlik prezumpsiyasi, konstitusiyaviy huquqlar, ushlab turishning qonuniyligi##article.abstract##
Maqola O‘zbekiston Respublikasi jinoyat-protsessual qonunchiligi bo‘yicha gumon qilinuvchining ushlab turilishidagi protsessual kafolatlarini kompleks tadqiq etishga bag‘ishlangan. Muallif ushlab turilishning huquqiy tabiatini shoshilinch qo‘llanilishi, qisqa muddatliligi va insonning erkinlik va shaxsiy daxlsizlik huquqining konstitusiyaviy huquqini intensiv cheklash bilan tavsiflanadigan o‘ziga xos protsessual majburlash chorasi sifatida ochib beradi. Ishda konstitusiyaviy kafolatlar (aybsizlik prezumpsiyasi, g‘ayriinsoniy muomalani taqiqlash) va jinoyat-protsessual kafolatlar (ushlab turish asoslarining qonuniyligi, protsessual shakliga rioya qilish, qat'iy muddatlar, ma’lumot olish huquqi, haqiqiy ushlab turilish paytidan himoya huquqi, protsessual rasmiylashtirish)ni o‘z ichiga olgan protsessual kafolatlar tizimi tahlil qilingan. Har qanday protsessual harakatlar amalga oshirilishidan oldin himoyachi bilan yolg‘iz uchrashish huquqiga alohida e’tibor qaratilgan bo‘lib, bu ushlab turilgan shaxsning huquqlarini samarali himoya qilishning asosiy kafolati hisoblanadi.
Библиографические ссылки
Stevenson, Megan and Mayson, Sandra G., "Pretrial Detention and Bail" (2017). All Faculty Scholarship. 1745.
Теппеев А.А. Понятие мер уголовно-процессуального принуждения и их виды // Пробелы в российском законодательстве. - 2020. - Т. 13. - №4. - C. 235-238 (Teppeev A.A. The Concept of Measures of Criminal Procedure Coercion and Their Types // Gaps in Russian Legislation. – 2020. – Vol. 13. – No. 4. – Pp. 235–238.).
Spronken, Taru and Attinger, Marelle, Procedural Rights in Criminal Proceedings: Existing Level of Safeguards in the European Union (July 28, 2009). European Commission, December 2005.
Siegler, Alison and Lessnick, Jaden, Pretrial Detention Without Counsel (February 01, 2026). University of Chicago Law School, Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper No. 25-38.
CASE OF BROGAN AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM. STRASBOURG. 29 November 1988 // https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-57450%22]}
Hodgson, Jacqueline S., The Role of Lawyers During Police Detention and Questioning: A Comparative Study (May 6, 2014). Published in Justitiele Verkenningen (Judicial explorations), March 2014.
Ian A. Silver, Jason Walker, Matthew DeMichele, Jenna L. Dole, Ryan M. Labrecque, Does pretrial detention influence time until re-involvement with the criminal legal system?, Journal of Criminal Justice, Volume 94, 2024.
Gupta, Arpit and Hansman, Christopher and Frenchman, Ethan, The Heavy Costs of High Bail: Evidence from Judge Randomization (August 5, 2016). Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2016, Columbia Law and Economics Working Paper No. 531.
Hoag-Fordjour, Alexis, Back to the Future: (Re)Constructing Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (March 25, 2024). UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 58, 2024.
Baughman, Shima Baradaran, Eliminating Pretrial Detention (May 14, 2024). Boston University Law Review (forthcoming), BYU Law Research Paper No. 24-15.
