استخدام الوسائل العلمية الحديثة في الاثبات الجنائي و مشروعيتها

Abstract EN

The use of modern scientific means in criminal evidence is justified in light of the development of crime and the use of the data of modern sciences and their application in the field of criminal evidence must be reviewed through the search for evidence and bringing it to justice, it is illogical to deprive justice of the potential of modern sciences and to strike a balance between the means and criminal evidence by scientific means.

Criminal proof as a branch of the law of proof has developed vast developments thanks to the modern scientific revolution, which was not known before, it is a revolution based on accurate scientific theories and origins and was able to provide the criminal judge with conclusive and decisive evidence and the judiciary became dependent on them as technical evidence based on convictions or innocence here we are talking about science in the service of criminal justice and not the other way around The modern scientific means in criminal proof are many and varied, including those that are far from the human body, such as tests conducted inside criminal laboratories such as weapons testing and detection of counterfeiting and forgery, including those used to confront the human being, which lead to the violation of some of his basic rights, such as laboratory analysis of blood and fingerprints of all kinds.

However, what is the judge's authority to assess the evidence derived from the modern research organs and their argument and to answer this question, we find that the principles of justice require that procedural legislation follow the principle of the judge's personal conviction, and the principle of freedom of criminal proof, the offences may be established in any legitimate way, which is of course governed by the principles and technical and scientific principles in the general framework of the provisions of the penal procedure laws, so the evidence derived from them is subject to the judge's discretion and conviction with the evidence derived from them.

Scientific means are useful in detecting the crime and establishing evidence of the perpetrator, which may undermine the rights and freedoms of individuals if they are not well used so that the adoption of this scientific evidence may only prejudice the rights and freedoms of individuals to the extent legally permitted.

The strength of this evidence puts the judge in a real dilemma, especially in a case where this evidence is inconsistent with the established personal conviction, in which case the criminal judge has two options: either he cancels his conviction and delivers to the conclusions of the modern scientific evidence or excludes the adoption of such evidence, even if it is conclusive or conclusive, in which case it is natural that the criminal judge will invoke reason and logic and that he will tend to adopt evidence proof that he can stand on the validity of matching mind and logic