The article examines the problematic issues of investigative and forensic establishment of the causes of man-made events. The need for cooperation between the investigator and the expert in establishing causal links in cases of man-made events has been identified.
The tasks of the main direction of the investigation are considered, which consist of a consistent solution of the following tasks, namely: collection of data characterizing the place, time, mechanism of development and other circumstances of a socially dangerous event; establishing the immediate cause of this event; finding out the main cause of the event (ie the act or omission that led to the possibility of realizing the immediate cause); identification of the perpetrator (s), motive, purpose and other circumstances of the act.
Based on the data of expert practice, five typical expert tasks are considered, namely: clarification of the question of the existence of a causal relationship between the two phenomena; establishing the cause of the phenomenon; the need to study the conditions (most often such studies are diagnostic in nature, as they are related to determining the condition of the object) (for example, whether the object was in good condition, and if not, what was its malfunction; what is the state of fire safety ; whether these items belong to the categories of fire-resistant; whether the object was (track, locomotive, car, etc.) in a technically defective condition, and if so, what is the fault)); clarification of the temporal relationship (passage) of two phenomena, which becomes important when the commission of a criminal offense is complicated by incoming circumstances (conditions) or consists of several links; based on the results of solving this problem, as well as the previous one, which in some cases have independent significance, and in others - are aimed at clarifying the causal relationship between two phenomena or (i) signs of cause or the possibility of their use in studying the mechanism of criminal offense.
1. Korma, V. D. (2006)_Osnovy kriminalisticheskogo ucheniya o tekhnogennyh istochnikah povyshennoj opasnosti. [Fundamentals of forensic doctrine of man-made sources of increased danger]. Doctor’s thesis. Moskva: ФГУП ЦПП [in Russian].
2. Koldin, V. Ya. (2002). Veshchestvennye dokazatel'stva: informacionnye tekhnologii processual'nogo dokazyvaniya. [Physical evidence: Information technology of procedural evidence]. Moskva: NORMA [in Russian].
3. Adamova, V. A., Viktorova, E. N., Viktorova, L. N. i dr. (1992). Kriminalisticheskoe obespechenie predvaritel'nogo rassledovaniya. [Forensic support of preliminary investigation]. Moskva: Vysshaya shkola [in Russian].
4. Orlov, Yu. K. (2005). Sudebnaya ekspertiza kak sredstvo dokazyvaniya v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. [Forensic examination as a means of proof in criminal proceedings]. Moskva: IPK RFCSE [in Russian].
5. Orlov, Yu. K. (1985). Klassifikaciya ekspertnyh issledovanij po ih zadacham. [Classification of expert studies by their objectives]. Novye razrabotki i diskussionnye problemy teorii i praktiki sudebnoj ekspertizy. № 1, Р. 16-17.
6. Yablokov, N. P. (1980). Issledovanie obstoyatel'stv prestupnyh narushenij pravil bezopasnosti truda. [Investigation of the circumstances of criminal violations of labor safety rules]. Moskva: Moskovskij universitet [in Russian].
7. Severin, V. A. (1986). Lichnost' prestupnika, sovershivshego halatnost' v sfere promyshlennogo proizvodstva. [The identity of an industrial negligent criminal]. Voprosy bor'by s prestupnost'yu, № 44, Р.51-54.
8. Sokolovskij, Z. M. (1979). Ekspertnoe issledovanie prichinnoj svyazi po ugolovnym delam. [Expert study of causation in criminal cases]. Kiev: Redakcionno-izdatel'skij otdel MVD USSR [in Russian].
9. Kornouhov, V. E. (2004). Kurs kriminalistiki. Osobennaya chast'. [Forensic course. The special part.]. Moskva: Yurist" [in Russian].