The article deals with the problematic issues of presenting for identification in order to identify the accused (suspect) in criminal proceedings under the criminal procedure legislation of Poland in the light of the rule nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur (no one is obliged to accuse himself), as well as in the context of coercion. in criminal proceedings. In particular, the procedural and forensic aspects of presenting for identification as an investigative (search) action and as a way to obtain evidence in criminal proceedings are thoroughly investigated. It is important in these cases to comply with criminal procedure law in the context of preventing excessive use of coercion against a person. The article argues for such an investigative (search) action as presentation for identification in favor of the fact that although the testimony of a witness or alleged perpetrator of a criminal offense has a corresponding identifying value, especially in conditions that exclude any assumptions, the law is not limit the conduct of this investigative (search) action only to the direct identification of the person. There is also no prohibition in the criminal procedure law to present both a person and an image in one procedural investigative procedure. Here it is just a matter of considering the usefulness of each of these procedural actions in the factual and evidential realities of a particular criminal proceeding. At the same time, the result of a properly conducted investigative (search) action cannot be considered as decisive evidence of the guilt or innocence of the accused. The article also emphasizes that in the process of presenting the accused for identification, it is important to strictly adhere to the provisions of the criminal process in order to avoid excessive use of coercion in criminal proceedings.
1. Charter dated 06.06.1997. - Kodeks postępowania karnego (tj. Dz.U. z 2020 r. Poz. 30) 2. Huzela N., Szajna A. Rendering of the accused in the context of the rule "nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur" // Actual problems of ensuring the protection of human rights and freedoms in terms of Ukraine's integration into the European space: materials of the international conference (Lviv, October 30, 2020). ). - 2020. - P. 424-427. 3. Lisiecki M., Direct and indirect rendering of persons in criminal proceedings, Proc. and Pr. 1997, no. 3 4. Lisiecki M., Principles and conditions of technical rendering, Proc. and Pr. 1999, No. 4, p. 109. 5. Juszka K., Principles of forensic process and forensics and repetition in practice, Problems of forensics 2009, No. 269 6. Kwieciński J., Recognition - Rendering for Recognition, WPP 1998, No. 1-2 7. Lach A., The limits of the life of the accused in the whole dowry. Studium w świetle reguły nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur i prava do privacy, Wyd. TNOIK House of Organizers, Toruń 2011 8. Lisiecki M., Rendering in the new code of conduct, Proc. and Pr. 1998, no. 3 9. Sikora A., Oskarżony obiektem okazania. Please note that the obligation of the challenged submission is provided for the purposes of recognition, Online Review of the Legal TBSP UJ 2017/7 10. Kulicki M., Criminology, cz. I, Wyd. UMK, Toruń 1972 11. Szajna Arkadiusz, Huzela Mykhailo. Okazanie oskarżonego w świetlereguły nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur - aspekty prawne i kryminalistyczne // Visnyk Natsionalnoho universytetu "Lvivska politechnika". - Series "Legal Sciences". - 2020. - V. 7, № 2 (26). - P. 271-277. https://doi.org/10.23939/law2020.26.271 12. Wyrok SN z dnia 18.07.2013 r., Sygn. Act: III CC 92/13, OSNKW 2013/11/98 13. Wyrok SA we Wrocławiu since 08.11.2017, sign. act: II AKa 300/17, LEX nr 2412864 14. Wyrok SA in Katowice dated 17.06.2016, sign. act: II AKa 149/16, LEX nr 2087866 15. Wyrok SA in Krakow since 28.11.2013, sign. act: II AKa 235/13, LEX nr 1466265 16. Wyrok SA in Krakow since 31.07.2013, sign. act: II AKa 130/13, LEX nr 1362720 17. Wyrok SA in Krakow since 07.12.2011, sign. act: II AKa 225/11, LEX nr 1147598 18. Wyrok SA in Poznan since 11.09.2012, sign. act: III K 147/11, LEX nr 1237532