WHO BENEFITS FROM CORRUPTION IN THE JUDICIARY?

This article stipulates that before making a decision that is an act of the judicial system protecting the violated rights, freedoms and interests, it is necessary to determine the actual circumstances of the civil case, as well as the qualification of these cases, ie to establish clear correspondence between the circumstances of the case. Before concluding on the existence of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, the court must determine whether these legal norms are the existence of certain facts linking these rights, freedoms or legitimate interests, the evidence in civil proceedings, their admissibility, the need to prove them, The importance of the necessary reforms, the study of the legal nature of the assessment of evidence in the civil procedure legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, to identify existing problems and offer them legal solutions, following foreign experience, to solve this problem. issues of regulation and national legal regulation, the role and specific features of this area in the development of our national legislation, as well as the basics of legal regulation aimed at preventing potential risks in this area.

WHO BENEFITS FROM CORRUPTION IN THE JUDICIARY?

Keywords: rights, freedoms, protection, judicial system, act, decision, civil case, to prove, evidence in civil proceedings.

Sitora Odilova, 4th year student, the Faculty of Private Law Tashkent State University of Law ORCID (0000-0001-5440-6717) E-mail: sodilova41@gmail.com

This article stipulates that before making a decision that is an act of the judicial system protecting the violated rights, freedoms and interests, it is necessary to determine the actual circumstances of the civil case, as well as the qualification of these cases, ie to establish clear correspondence between the circumstances of the case. Before concluding on the existence of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests, the court must determine whether these legal norms are the existence of certain facts linking these rights, freedoms or legitimate interests, the evidence in civil proceedings, their admissibility, the need to prove them, The importance of the necessary reforms, the study of the legal nature of the assessment of evidence in the civil procedure legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, to identify existing problems and offer them legal solutions, following foreign experience, to solve this problem. issues of regulation and national legal regulation, the role and specific features of this area in the development of our national legislation, as well as the basics of legal regulation aimed at preventing potential risks in this area.

the exercise of the right to a fair trial, and

Corruption destroys the administration significantly reduces public confidence in the of justice, creates serious obstacles to judiciary.

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 3, Issue 2 (2022) TSUL Legal Report 75

Corruption between the judiciary and prosecutors has a particularly devastating effect in developing countries . It has a negative impact on the strengthening of key institutions responsible for maintaining law and order. One of the main features of corruption in the judiciary is its latent nature, which is partly due to the nature of the judiciary. In accordance with Article 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Uzbekistan, the court “evaluates the evidence”, the court summarizes all the circumstances of the case and evaluates them on the basis of its internal confidence, based on a comprehensive, complete and impartial consideration. No evidence has a predetermined force for the court. The institute of evidence plays a primary role in the consideration of civil cases in court and plays an important role in the consideration of cases and the resolution of disputes. Evidence plays a special role in substantiating a claim and in making or rejecting a decision on a case. The procedural order of evidence evaluation requires a great deal of responsibility and a conscious attitude from the participants in the process. Because the final result of the case is formed by evaluating the evidence and defining its procedural responsibilities. In the theory and practice of civil procedural law, the institute of evidence evaluation is the most complex process and procedural action. Evaluation of evidence is the result of procedural, logical and legal action, and a final assessment of all actions taken by the judge. This process resolves the dispute and helps to make a lawful, reasonable and fair decision on the case. It is in this sense that the evaluation of the evidence in the case is relevant. Theoretical, practical and scientific study of the topic, the development of comprehensive recommendations on the work is of great importance. II. Research results and discussion The impact of corruption on the evaluation of evidence in a trial

2. What is evidence evaluation? Evidence in civil proceedings is any factual information that determines whether the court has grounds to substantiate the claims and objections of the parties and other circumstances relevant to the proper resolution of the case. The factual information is determined by the explanations of the parties and third parties, statements of witnesses, written and material evidence, expert opinions. Thus, evidence is any factual information, that is, facts of objective activity, as well as information about them. The fact that a person is in one place at a certain time proves that he cannot personally perform any action in another place (alibi) at the same time[1]. The literature sometimes argues that factual information is evidence only when it is relevant and reliable to the facts being sought. This is incorrect because the question of whether there is a connection between the evidence and the fact sought, i.e. the question of the reliability of the evidence, can finally be resolved only after the proof process is complete. If only what “proves” a credible thing is considered evidence, the problem of gathering, researching, and evaluating the evidence is generally removed because only what requires an assessment can be checked and evaluated, there is nothing to evaluate the “credible” evidence - it already admits so obtained. The content of the evidence activity is determined by the court and the number of tasks facing the persons involved in the case. The civil process involves a number of institutions, and one of the main institutions of the civil process is the process of exchanging information indirectly and perspective, that is, proving. The basis of proof is the evidence, their examination, collection, evaluation, and their acceptability. In this regard, the concept of evidence has been defined differently by different scholars, in particular, according to AA Starchenko, the law of evidence works as an indicator

76 TSUL Legal Report Volume 3, Issue 2 (2022) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

of social value, level of development and the purpose of justice in any civil society. According to I.A Zinchenko, one of the most important indicators of the development of not only justice, but also the legal culture of society as a whole is the civil procedure legislation. The process of proving evidence and working with it is, in fact, the core of a civil case.[2] This means that the evidence is acceptable in civil proceedings only if it provides information on the circumstances in which it is required to be proved, that is, if it is considered acceptable and obtained legally, otherwise the available evidence will be invalid.

“Evaluation of evidence is very important, because the operative part of the future court decision depends primarily on it. the principle of non-establishment means that neither the law nor any legislation should contain provisions that infringe on the evidentiary value and significance of the evidence. ”[3] The examination of evidence is the last stage or element of the evidence in a civil proceeding. At this stage, all the evidence presented and examined will be evaluated.

Such an amendment to the law provides a basis for emphasizing that in any case the court must apply the law on the basis of the specific circumstances set out in the trial, which in turn means that the court may make two completely opposite decisions when considering a case under more or less the same factual circumstances. And, even if the judge who decided to “show” these decisions decided to “show” that there was no uniformity in the application of a particular rule of law, he could in both cases advance the specifics of the circumstances considered by the plaintiff and defendant.

It is also marked by the fact that it is almost impossible to track corruption in the courts with statistics. Courts deal with legal relationships in different areas of activity, and an increase or decrease in one or another category of cases is usually due to a number of reasons (changes in legislation, an increase in citizens’ appeals to the courts to protect their rights and legitimate interests). as a structure that ensures its interests.

There are some difficulties in detecting corruption in the judiciary. In particular, a number of offenses committed by judges, even criminal acts, do not resemble the objective aspect of the crime. This includes, for example, cases where judges are paid for actions they are required by law to make a court decision that prevents the judge from being made with certain circumstances, to hear court cases in a short period of time, and so on. In such cases, if you do not have information that a judge was bribed before the crime was committed, it is impossible to prove it after making a decision, even as a result of the most thorough investigations.

Thus, if one of the parties to the court makes a decision “made on the basis of an order,” then the other party cannot say with certainty that corruption has occurred in that case. Even if the Supreme Court later overturns the decision, it is almost impossible to prove that the judge made such a decision intentionally.

3. What are the corruption risks in this process.

According to various estimates, no more than 2-5% of judges take bribes in pure form. Typically, if an interested party is willing to pay for the mediator’s work, it identifies the organization in which the mediator worked before he or she was appointed, which university he or she graduated from, and the people who can or will apply to him or her. Sometimes other judges act as mediators, but they themselves have no formal contact with the interested party.

The next indicative feature of corruption is chronism. This feature mainly explains the small number of criminal cases on corruption among the judiciary. Clannishness assumes that, as a rule, people from the street do not become “customers” of making unfair sentences and decisions. When a judge personally demonstrates the need to pay a bribe and accepts one of the more interested parties, the situation is ruled out in practice,

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 3, Issue 2 (2022) TSUL Legal Report 77

as there is often a risk of arrest and loss of position.[4] However, it should be noted that corruption in the judiciary is observed in the process of the courts and their evaluation. That is, there are attempts to falsify the evidence presented to the court in the case, to replace them, or simply to remove the existing evidence from the documents.

Falsification of evidence is a deliberate misrepresentation of facts in order to influence the outcome of a court case, which can result in criminal liability.

In practice, there are the following types of counterfeiting: - forgery of signatures, seals, documents; - corrupt / reprint texts; - change the content of the document - remove / add sheets.

If there are reasonable doubts about the authenticity of the documents and other evidence, the interested person has the right to apply to the court to verify them. This can be done in writing or orally. The key is to make sure it is recorded in the transcript of the trial.

In any case, an application for falsification of evidence may be filed with the department at the place where the court hearing the criminal, civil or administrative case is located, as a result of which the act shall be based on the results of the investigation.[5] 4. World experience In recent years, in many European countries, including Romania, Malta, the Republic of Moldova, Bulgaria, Slovakia and Ukraine, citizens have taken to the streets to protest widespread corruption and demand compliance with state law and corrupt politicians.

Corruption is rightly one of the most insidious social phenomena. This undermines confidence in public institutions, hinders economic development, and threatens the exercise of human rights, especially for marginalized groups: minorities, the disabled, refugees, migrants, and detainees. It also has a disproportionate impact on women, children and the poor, in particular, making it difficult for them to exercise basic social rights such as housing, education and health.

Around the world, active and passive corruption, embezzlement and tax evasion involving hundreds of billions of euros in bribes each year cost developed countries $ 1.26 trillion a year. Such funds will serve to lift 1.4 billion people with incomes of less than $ 1.25 a day out of poverty for at least six years[5].

5. What is the current situation, what are the issues?

According to various estimates, no more than 2-5% of judges take bribes in pure form. Practice shows that in most cases the following schemes work. One of the most common types is which law firm and the judge the contact person will contact. By contracting with such an office, the interested party in the case formally pays a fee for the services of the representative, which is in fact a direct fee to the judge or a closed bribe. In this case, the judge’s relatives or good friends will prevail as mediators, although the case will not have any connection with them. Typically, if an interested party is willing to pay for the mediator’s work, it identifies the organization in which the mediator worked before he or she was appointed, which university he or she graduated from, and the people who can or will apply to him or her. Sometimes other judges act as mediators, but they themselves have no formal contact with the interested party.

6. Reasons Corruption in the judiciary is often accompanied by political interference. Ministers and other high-ranking political leaders do not always respect the independence of the judiciary, resulting in secret instructions to prosecutors and judges about the decisions they must make. In countries where there are close links between political leaders and the business community, the negative impact of these practices is even worse.

III. Conclusion Concise laws that criminalize acts of corruption should be the basis. However,

78 TSUL Legal Report Volume 3, Issue 2 (2022) E-ISSN: 2181-1024

the laws are not sufficient to address all the specific issues in this area. It is very difficult to determine the criminal nature of certain corrupt practices, such as nepotism or political patronage. Issues related to “conflicts of interest” should also be considered in their context. In other words, more precise standards need to be adopted and effective monitoring mechanisms need to be introduced. Judges should be well paid to put an end to such corrupt practices, to minimize its temptation. However, high wages are only one aspect of the problem and are not always effective (sometimes greed increases with income). Priority should be given to the development of a comprehensive program to eliminate corruption at all levels and in all public institutions. We also need to be clear about corrupt practices in private companies, the consequences of which affect public property. The Council of Europe has developed a strong set of anti-corruption legal standards and instructed its specialized body, the Group of States against Corruption (GRECO), to monitor their implementation through dynamic evaluation, mutual assistance and coercion, as well as to identify gaps in national anti-corruption policies. and tasked with encouraging practical reforms. Important documents in this regard are the 1999 Criminal Law Convention on Corruption and the Civil Law Convention against Corruption. In addition, other reference legal documents, such as the twenty basic principles of the fight against corruption, approved by the Resolution of the Committee of Ministers No. 97 (97), supplement these agreements. Relevant standards of the Council of Europe, as well as documents such as Resolution 2170 (2017) and Recommendation 2105 (2017), adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly to accelerate the fight against corruption and restore confidence in the effectiveness of democratic institutions, include the promotion of integrity in public administration. includes

Conclusion No. 21 (2018) on the Prevention of Corruption among Judges proposed a definition of judicial corruption by the European Council of Judges: it provided for dishonest, deceptive or immoral conduct by a judge in order to gain an advantage for personal gain or others. The report called on member states to take a number of measures to prevent corruption in the judiciary. In particular, he recommended the legal framework used to make decisions on the activities of judges, a set of rules, principles and guidelines on judicial ethics, a strong system of property declaration, rules for the rejection and self-denial of judges. The issue of taking appropriate criminal, administrative or disciplinary action for a judge’s corrupt conduct was analyzed. On a global scale, the United Nations Convention against Corruption (2003) provides for prevention, punishment and repressive measures, international cooperation, asset recovery, technical assistance and information exchange. In addition, one of the commitments under Sustainable Development Goal 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions) is to significantly reduce corruption and bribery in all its forms. Corruption is a serious threat to human rights and justice The judiciary and law enforcement agencies are among the institutions most affected by corruption. In a number of Council of Europe member states, governments have hastily adopted judicial reforms, which have already strengthened the executive’s significant influence on the judiciary through parliament. This blow to the independence of the judiciary weakened the control exercised by the judiciary over the executive, and hence its ability to fight corruption. GRECO stressed the need to ensure genuine independence for judges in order to prevent undesirable political influences that could lead to biased and corrupt judgments that serve interests beyond the common good. Corruption is dangerous in law enforcement because it undermines the

E-ISSN: 2181-1024 Volume 3, Issue 2 (2022) TSUL Legal Report 79

security of citizens and their pursuit of justice, including in cases of political corruption and police abuse. Corruption in Ukraine seems to be explaining a number of highprofile cases, including the lack of progress in the investigation into the murder of anti-corruption activist Katerina Khandyuk.

The importance of protecting transparency and freedom of speech Investigative journalists and disseminators play a crucial role in the fight against corruption. The assassinations of journalist Daphne Caruana Galicia in Malta and Jan Kuciak in Slovakia show how much risk these experts take in exposing politicians to corruption and their links to organized crime and forcing them to report to them. Impunity continues in Serbia after a brutal attack on a journalist in 2015. Investigator Ivan Ninich and CRIC (Crime and Corruption Reporting Network) journalists were threatened with death and targeted by a smear campaign. Another symbolic case is the arrest of Khadija Ismailova, an Azerbaijani investigative journalist who has criticized some members of the government and their relatives for corruption and illegal business activities. The European Court found several violations of the Convention, in particular Article 18, and concluded that the real purpose of depriving Ms. Ismailova of her liberty was to silence her and punish her for her work as a journalist.

Journalists who report cases of corruption are also threatened with strategic allegations against public mobilization, known as SLAPP allegations. It is a journalist by powerful individuals or companies insulting lawsuits filed to intimidate the police into refusing to investigate. For example, when Daphne Karuana Galizia was killed, she faced 40 civil and criminal defamation charges in Malta, some of which still remain open against her family.

Transparency is an important means of preventing corruption. Fighting corruption should remain a priority. Despite strong anti-corruption standards and effective monitoring by GRECO member states of compliance with these standards, corruption poses a serious threat to the rule of law and human rights in the region.

Public officials must behave conscientiously and avoid actions that lead to conflicts of interest and increase the risk of corruption.

It is equally important to provide a strong, functional and well-funded mechanism for monitoring police abuse, and to provide regular training of law enforcement personnel on ethics and integrity.

Public spending on health care remains inefficient, especially in countries with poor governance. To prevent corruption in this sector, Member States must ensure strong and effective governance, which is an important tool for the optimal functioning of national health systems and the prevention of emergencies such as pandemics.

Governments must ensure the safety and freedom of speech of journalists and fight impunity for crimes against journalists. Politicians should refrain from any pressure or ruthless criticism of investigative journalists, actions that could paralyze and lead to selfcensorship.

Finally, public authorities must resolutely oppose SLAPPs by providing them with the opportunity to dismiss them at an early stage, taking action to punish abuses, in particular by reversing the burden of court costs and mitigating the consequences of these abusive prosecutions, by clearly supporting targeted individuals.

80 TSUL Legal Report Volume 3, Issue 2 (2022) E-ISSN: 2181-1024