Introduction: the paper considers the issue on possibility and forms of using petition on pretrial agreement on cooperation in proof in situations when the suspect (accused) was denied such agreement. Juridical uncertainty, examples of controversial character from court practice and different approaches among the specialists concerning the issue of the article gives ground to the issue actuality. The purpose of the paper is to determine probative significance of petition on pretrial agreement when the suspect (accused) was denied such agreement and formulating the proposals of law enforcement character. Materials and Methods: general propositions of proof theory, scientific researches form related sciences and empirical data (sentences of courts of general jurisdiction and criminal cases materials) were taken into consideration for preparing the paper. Results: the author draws the conclusion that due to legal nature and the function of petition in criminal procedures the content of petition should not have demonstrative meaning. But for checking validity of petition and conditions for pretrial agreement conclusion, an investigator may interrogate the suspect (accused) as a party of the agreement. It gives the possibility to use the evidence for proof when the suspect (accused) was denied such pretrial agreement. Discussion and Conclusions: the author argues that the petition is of interest for further use in the proof, even if it is not satisfied.
pretrial agreement on cooperation, petition, evidence and proof, mitigating circumstances
1. Aleksandrov A.S., Kolesnik V.V. Poryadok zaklyucheniya dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve: pravovye pozicii vysshih sudov Rossii // Rossiyskiy sledovatel'. 2013. № 19. S. 16-22.
2. Derishev Yu.V., Suvorova A.A. Realizaciya principa prezumpcii nevinovnosti pri zaklyuchenii dosudebnogo soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve // Nauchnyy vestnik Omskoy akademii MVD Rossii. 2014. № 4 (55).
3. Abshilava V.G. Pravovye osnovaniya dlya zaklyucheniya soglasheniya o sotrudnichestve mezhdu storonami i provedeniya procedury, predusmotrennoy glavoy 40.1 UPK RF // Yuridicheskaya nauka i pravoohranitel'naya praktika. 2015.№4 (34).
4. Ahpanov A.N., Azarov V.A., Balgyntaev A.O. Processual'nye soglasheniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve: zakonotvorcheskiy opyt respubliki Kazahstan // Kriminologicheskiy zhurnal Baykal'skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta ekonomiki i prava. 2015. T. 9, № 2.
