The tasks of verifying evidence at the scene during the investigation of road traffic crimes

Pinchuk Levon Viktorovich ORCID: 0009-0002-1732-5146 PhD in Law Associate Professor; Department of Criminal Law Disciplines; Ryazan State University named after S.A. Yesenin 46 Svobody str., Ryazan, Ryazan region, 390000, Russia lev.pinchuk@mail.ru Other publications by this author

A law enforcement officer investigating criminal cases is daily faced with the need for an optimal, expedient and effective choice from among the investigative actions that would allow him at the present time to establish certain circumstances that are subject to proof in a criminal case. Understanding the tasks that can be solved as a result of an investigative action helps to correctly determine which specific investigative action should be carried out in the current investigation situation.

With regard to such a complex investigative action as checking testimony on the spot, the definition of tasks is the most important and relevant, since law enforcement officers often confuse this investigative action with an examination, an investigative experiment, and sometimes with presentation for identification. However, this substitution of one investigative action for another is primarily due to a poor understanding and understanding of the list of tasks for which on-site verification of testimony can be planned and carried out.

In the investigation of traffic crimes, on-site verification of testimony is an effective tool by which various elements of the mechanism of this crime are established, as well as important initial data are collected for the appointment of forensic automotive technical examinations in a criminal case. Understanding by a law enforcement officer the tasks of verifying testimony on the spot during the investigation of this category of criminal cases makes it possible to use this investigative action as effectively as possible, revealing its cognitive potential to the fullest.

The relevance of the topic under consideration is also evidenced by statistical data on road traffic crimes. Thus, data on the number of registered road accidents show that in 2024, 14,403 people died as a result of road accidents (- 0.7% compared to the same period last year (hereinafter referred to as the APPG)) and 164,754 people were injured (- 1% of the APPG) ^[1]. With a slight decrease, within 1 percent, in the number of dead and injured, nevertheless, their absolute figures remain quite large.

For 2024 out of 132,037 (- 0.3% APPG) ^[1] 18,261 committed traffic offenses (+ 2.2% APPG) ^{[2, p. 8]} are classified as criminal violations of traffic rules and vehicle operation (13.83% is the ratio of the number of registered traffic offenses to registered traffic offenses). Here we can note an increase in the number of registered traffic crimes both in absolute terms and in relative terms - to the APPG and to the total number of traffic accidents. At the same time, this negative trend has persisted for the second year in a row: in 2023, 17,865 (+ 1.5% APPG) ^{[3, p. 8]} committed traffic offenses were classified as criminal violations of traffic rules and vehicle operation.

The existing negative indicators regarding the increase in the number of road traffic crimes being investigated and the difficulty in understanding the tasks of verifying testimony on the spot by law enforcement officers necessitate the study of this issue at the monographic level.

When determining the degree of study of the issues to be investigated, it was found that over the past five years from 2020 to 2024, one PhD thesis was prepared, in which the author examines the forensic features of on-site verification of testimony (S.S. Kim. The specifics of verifying testimony at the scene of the event and the tactics of its conduct at the trial stage. 2020). The most recent monographic study of this investigative action was carried out by E.E. Tsentrov in 2018 (E.E. Centers. On-site verification of testimony in problematic investigation situations. 2018). When expanding the literary search to twenty years, not a single monographic study has been found on the specifics of on-site verification of testimony in the investigation of traffic crimes. These results of the literature search indicate the extreme expediency of developing forensic recommendations in this area.

The methodological basis of the study consisted of: the method of critical analysis (each author's point of view on the designation of a specific task of verifying testimony on the spot was studied from the perspective of its possible application in the investigation of traffic crimes), the method of legal modeling (the criminal procedure legislation of Russia was analyzed with the designation of tasks of verifying testimony on the spot in accordance with it, use cases were proposed the tasks of verifying testimony on the spot during the investigation of traffic crimes), the comparative legal method (the criminal procedure legislation of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was analyzed with the designation of the tasks of verifying testimony on the spot in accordance with it) and the monitoring method (official statistics on the state of accidents and crime were used, as well as examples from judicial practice).

If the purpose of verifying testimony on the spot has a clearly defined legislative definition, contained in part one of Article 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, then the tasks of this investigative action are not defined in the criminal procedure legislation. This approach of the legislator is generally present throughout the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, since the tasks and other investigative actions are not disclosed in it.

However, when planning the preparation and verification of testimony on the spot, the law enforcement officer needs to understand exactly what specific tasks this investigative action needs to be carried out. If understanding the purpose helps to understand the essence of the investigative action being carried out, then defining the tasks orients the law enforcement officer to understand what specific result may or may not be obtained at the end of this action. M.V. Davydov points out the importance of highlighting the tasks of verifying testimony on the spot by a law enforcement officer, since highlighting even a clearly formulated goal is "not enough to achieve a positive result" ^{[4, p. 14]}. This is evidenced by examples from judicial practice, which show a poor understanding of the tasks of this investigative action. Thus, the witness "on the spot showed and described in detail the circumstances of the traffic accident known to him, from which a specific visibility was established of a road train consisting of a truck tractor SCANIA R500 LA6X4HNA/SCANIA R500 LA6X4HNA, state registration plate No., and a semi-trailer with an on-board platform SCHMITZ CARGOBULL SCS 24/L/SCHMITZ CARGOBULL SCS 24, state registration plate no., in the conditions of the place of a traffic accident (with the emergency light on at night), which was 337 m" ^[5].

Based on the proposals available in the literature, as well as the provisions of the criminal procedure legislation of the CIS countries and Russia, we will outline the tasks of verifying testimony on the spot, which can be solved during the investigation of traffic crimes.

One of the tasks that can be established as a result of the analysis of the legislative regulation of on-site verification of testimony in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is the reproduction by a person previously interrogated of the situation and circumstances of the event under investigation. In our opinion, the task of this investigative action may certainly be to reproduce by the person whose testimony is being verified the situation at the place that the law enforcement officer knows or will become known as a result of the investigative action, and the circumstances of the event about which the person previously testified. At the same time, it is assumed that the person will try to independently recreate the material component of the situation and its accompanying circumstances that took place before the event, at the time when he or other persons committed illegal actions, as well as the situation and its accompanying circumstances after the event. At the same time, the time level of restoration of the situation of interest to the law enforcement officer can also be established at the time of the initial investigative inspection carried out earlier.

During the investigation of traffic crimes, the material situation at the scene may change significantly not only as a result of deliberate actions of road users after the incident, but also due to dramatically changed meteorological conditions (high-intensity precipitation, strong squally or hurricane winds), or the commission of another or a series of traffic accidents at this place.- traffic accidents. Therefore, obtaining information about the situation that took place in all phases of the development of the traffic situation and related circumstances is very important for the investigation. So, "FIO6 No. 3 explained that on 08/20/2022 he witnessed a traffic accident involving a cyclist and a car. He explained that he was walking along the sidewalk along the houses, there was a roadway to his left, and he indicated the place opposite. <the address where he was when he witnessed the accident. Measurements were made, this place is located at a distance of 23 meters from power line No. in the direction of <address> explained that at first he saw a cyclist who was riding along the right edge of the carriageway in the direction of <address>, the cyclist was elderly, rode smoothly. At the same time, the statistician exposed the bicycle, according to witness FIO6 No. 3, so as it was located on the roadway relative to its borders, the distance from the wheels to the right edge of the roadway was 0.8 meters. Then he heard that a car was traveling in the same direction with a bicycle, and then he saw this car" ^[6].

Options for specifying the above-mentioned task are presented in the works of several authors. Thus, S.I. Zemtsova formulates this task as obtaining a complete picture "of the crime scene" ^{[7, p. 71]}. Indeed, reproducing the situation and circumstances can help a law enforcement officer gain a complete understanding of the crime scene.

D.M. Gvilia defines this task as "establishing the actual situation of the scene at the time of the event" ^{[8, p. 14]}. In this case, D.M. Gwilia focuses on the situation, while adding a time factor – the moment of the event. We believe that such a time limit is not entirely correct, since the law enforcement officer should also be interested in the situation preceding the event, as well as the situation after it. Therefore, it is necessary to support the point of view of V.I. Belousov, who highlights a fairly similar task of checking the testimony on the spot without such time constraints - "establishing an objective situation after an accident, in particular, in the absence of signs of braking, skidding, dragging, etc." ^{[9, p. 23]}. I would like to note that it is important for the purposes of our research that V.I. Belousov directly points out the need to solve this problem in the framework of the investigation of traffic crimes. We believe that this task can be described as determining the objective situation at the scene of the event.

The solution to the problem proposed by the authors is quite significant for the investigation, since, in fact, it is thanks to on-site verification of the testimony that it is possible to determine the most important components of the situation at the scene of an accident, which will subsequently allow using the results obtained as source data for forensic automotive expertise, first of all, as well as for building new forensic versions with their subsequent elaboration during the investigation. So, "witness FIO10 pointed to a section of the highway where a Renault Premium car, state registration plate No., with a Schmitz S01 semi-trailer, state registration plate No., drove into the oncoming lane and collided with the rear left side of the semi-trailer with the left front part of a VAZ 21041-30 car traveling in the opposite direction, state registration plate no. sign no." ^[10].

Specifying the task of reproducing the circumstances of the event, S.S. Kim believes that a separate task of verifying testimony on the spot should be considered: "establishing the nature and sequence of actions of persons of forensic importance for the criminal case under consideration" ^{[11, p. 41]}. This task, in our opinion, correlates well with the legislative regulation of this investigative action, since it involves the disclosure of such an element of the content of on-site verification of testimony as demonstration of actions, fixed in part two of art. 194 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation. Therefore, it can be formulated as an explanation of the nature and sequence of actions of various persons in connection with the event under investigation. When investigating traffic crimes, the law enforcement officer needs to collect information about the actions of each road user in the most detailed way. Often, one participant can only provide criminalistically significant information that he directly perceived, based on his location on or off the roadway, as well as the speed characteristics of the vehicle in which this participant was or was driving. So, "PHIO5 indicated the place, namely the edge of the right lane near the curb and explained that there was a person in this place who was walking along the road after PHIO5 noticed him and honked at him. Then FIO5 pointed to the place, namely to the edge of the oncoming lane closer to the left shoulder and explained that in this place he had collided with a pedestrian" ^[12].

In complex investigative situations, it will be quite informative to check the indications on the spot with the establishment of the vehicle's mode of movement in all phases of the development of the traffic situation. Therefore, it is necessary to support the point of view of R.L. Akhmedshin and I.V. Chadnova that checking the testimony on the spot should help establish "the trajectory of the movements of the person being checked and other circumstances relevant to establishing the subject of evidence" ^{[13, p. 112]}. Quite often, this kind of task is referred to as "establishing the route by which the interrogated person entered the scene of the incident or left it, if this is relevant to the case, and the investigator had not previously established it" ^{[8, p. 14]}. A solution to this kind of problem is also proposed by S.I. Zemtsova, who points out that by checking the testimony on the spot, the law enforcement officer will be able to "get a complete picture of the route to the crime scene" ^{[7, p. 73]}.

In fact, in a text format, even using diagrams and drawings, it is quite problematic to correctly and accurately record the testimony of a person, limited only to his interrogation, especially when it comes to how the traffic situation developed. It is during the on-site verification of the readings that a person can provide more objective information, especially regarding the trajectories of the vehicle and pedestrian in conditions of insufficient visibility or in difficult meteorological conditions at the time of the incident. Thus, "PHIO5, being at a controlled intersection "...", testified that he was driving a KAMAZ car, moving at a speed of approximately 50 – 55 km/h along the right lane of the Yashlek Avenue carriageway towards Syuyumbike Avenue; during the on-site testimony check, the defendant PHIO5 pointed to the place where the front was located. part of his car was at the second intersection of the intersection when the green light pulse was turned on (the distance to the Stop line was 4.02 m)" ^[14].

Based on the second part of Article 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, the task can be singled out separately – the indication by the person whose testimony is being checked of objects, documents, traces relevant to the criminal case. If, in the case of the highlighted task of reproducing the situation and circumstances, the dynamic aspect of the development of the traffic situation in all its phases is the main one, then when solving the analyzed task, the person statically draws the attention of the participants in this investigative action to which traces or objects he previously testified about, where they are located and are located.I. Zemtsova formulates this task as the need for a law enforcement officer to "personally verify the existence of traces of a crime (for example, traces of fingers, palms of hands, shoes, tire treads of vehicles, micro-objects, etc.)" ^{[7, p. 72]}.

In cases of traffic crimes, such explanations regarding each of the tracks and objects help to further recreate the entire mechanism of this crime. So, if the vehicle has previously had traces of contact with other vehicles or surrounding objects, then the owner of the vehicle or its driver can easily explain the traces that relate to the event under investigation and show their exact location. It is also essential to help distinguish the tracks in those areas that are also called "emergency". In these places, there are always a large number of scuff marks on the asphalt, traces on fences separating oncoming traffic and separating the curb, on light poles, as well as on the posts of road signs and traffic lights. In such an investigative situation, solving this problem will directly contribute to providing the expert with adequate and correctly presented source data. Thus, "Witness No. 1 pointed to the location of the traffic accident, as well as the location of objects after the traffic accident" ^[15].

In the Criminal Procedure Codes of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan, it is noted that the task of identifying traces and objects can be supplemented by finding objects and traces by a person. Therefore, we consider it possible to formulate this task as a search for traces, objects and documents by the person being checked.

If some traces and objects have changed their final location as a result of a traffic accident, in which the person being checked directly observed them, then their detection outside the carriageway will be an additional task of the investigative action. To solve it, it may require a significant expansion of the area where on-site verification of readings will be carried out.

V.I. Belousov identifies a rather voluminous task related to the establishment of "new circumstances previously unknown to the subject of the investigation" ^{[9, p. 18]}. This task can indeed be solved during this investigative action, since the presence of a participant in the investigation at the place about which he previously testified may help him to recall and point out new circumstances that the person may have forgotten during the interrogation or considered them insignificant for the purposes of the investigation, and the law enforcement officer for various reasons did not independently ask or did not raise clarifying questions about these circumstances. In such a situation, checking the testimony on the spot is a unique investigative action that makes it possible to establish new circumstances that must be proved in the case. It is also possible that a person did not fully understand the essence of the questions asked by the law enforcement officer and replied that he did not know the circumstances, but was able to point them out on the spot in connection with previously given testimony.

We believe that the above-mentioned task needs to be further specified. Therefore, D.M. Gvilia, in our opinion, correctly clarifies this task and focuses on the detection of "any traces of a crime previously unknown to the investigator" ^{[8, p. 14]}. By R.L. Akhmedshin and I.V. Chadnova, this task is divided into several subtasks, which is also a more optimal option for a law enforcement officer. Among the previously unknown new data being established, they propose: firstly, determining the location of the scene of the incident, about which the law enforcement officer has no information; secondly, detecting new traces of the crime and information of evidentiary value ^{[13, p. 112]}. D.M. Gvilia also points out that checking the testimony on the spot can be used to detect "the scene of an accident or several accident sites that the investigator was not previously aware of, and the person who testified finds it difficult to provide landmarks by which the investigator himself could find these places" ^{[8, p. 13]}.

The suggestions of these authors are reasonable and can be used in the investigation of traffic crimes. Thus, when investigating crimes of this category, it is possible to establish a significant number of new circumstances at the scene, since a rather complex mechanism of a traffic crime could be burdened with additional elements that the law enforcement officer did not know about earlier or had a misconception about these elements. Possible scenarios for the development of such investigative situations are when several accidents occur at one place at once, each of which was not recorded earlier than the next accident occurred at the same place.

A new scene can be established if the law enforcement officer initially has information about the discovery of a corpse outside the roadway, and the localization and mechanism of causing bodily injuries that caused the death of a person indicates that they were caused as a result of a traffic accident. In such an investigative situation, before checking the testimony on the spot, the task may be to determine the location of the place where the traffic accident itself occurred.

V.I. Belousov's allocation of such a specific task as "detecting crimes concealed by the preliminary investigation authorities" seems rather controversial, since identifying new facts of criminally punishable acts is certainly the task of verifying testimony on the spot, but considering this investigative action as a tool for departmental or interdepartmental control and supervision of the activities of law enforcement agencies is probably allThere are no such grounds ^{[9, p. 23]}. Here, V.I. Belousov proposed a position that cannot be supported, since to identify crimes that are hidden from accounting, non-criminal procedural methods should be used, which are more effective in this situation, namely: obtaining explanations from citizens, "checking and studying books of records of crime reports, conducting reconciliations." with other internal affairs bodies, organizations and enterprises, monitoring of mass media, etc." ^{[16, p. 42]}.

It is hardly possible to assume a situation where a law enforcement officer investigating a criminal case will plan and organize an on-site verification of testimony precisely to solve this problem. It is also unlikely that the head of the investigative body or the prosecutor gives instructions to carry out this investigative action to solve this problem. The materials of judicial practice that we have studied do not contain such examples. The task outlined by V.I. Belousov of verifying testimony on the spot should be adjusted to identify new crimes and episodes of criminal activity. In this case, the cognitive purpose of this investigative action will be related to the purpose of criminal proceedings. Given the category of unintentional crimes we are considering, this task of verifying testimony on the spot will not be specific to them.

Separately, V.I. Belousov highlights the task associated with the formation of a law enforcement officer's "inner conviction of the awareness or ignorance of the person whose testimony is being verified about the event of the crime as a whole or about its individual circumstances in connection with personal participation in it, or in another way related to it, etc." ^{[9, p. 18]}. The fact that checking testimony on the spot involves solving the problem of establishing "the awareness of the person being checked to the circumstances of the crime that should be known to the person who committed it" is also indicated by E.V. Shishkina, assuming only suspects or accused persons as the main participants in the verification to solve this problem ^{[17, p. 128]}. At the same time, the awareness of the witness and the victim may also be essential for evaluating their testimony and for planning subsequent investigative actions. D.M. Gvilia pointed out the possibility of establishing "the awareness of the interrogated person regarding the scene, objects or routes, and circumstances of the event" during the on-site verification of testimony ^{[8, p. 14]}. S.S. Kim offers his own version of the task under consideration: "establishing the reliability of previously obtained testimony about the places of events, routes, and objects related to to the crime in question" ^{[11, p. 41]}.

The solution to the problem proposed by the authors can be understood from the very name of this investigative action. By checking the testimony on the spot, the law enforcement officer can actually verify to what extent the person from whom the testimony was previously received has a clear understanding of the place, the surrounding environment, and possible changes that have occurred since the last time this person was in this place. The proposed formulation of this task is to establish the awareness of the person being checked about the event and circumstances about which he previously testified.

R.L. Akhmedshin and I.V. Chadnova propose to specify this task and single out as such – obtaining information "on the degree of awareness of the person being checked about certain elements of criminally significant information" ^{[13, p. 112]}. In this case, the degree of awareness is well combined with the task of determining awareness, since it assumes sufficiently active and confident actions of the person being checked on the spot.

With regard to the investigation of traffic crimes, the law enforcement officer, solving this task, will be able to determine how much the road user is guided on the spot, identifies and indicates the most important elements of the roadway that influenced the development of the traffic situation. During the investigation of traffic crimes, the presence of such awareness will be confirmed by the designation of places of contact between road users and elements of the surrounding environment. So, "FIO17, in the presence of an investigator and witnesses, pointed to a piece of terrain located 50 meters away in a northerly direction from <address> and explained that there was a pole on this site, which was hit by a FIO44 DD.MM.YYYY. FIO17 also pointed to an area located 30 meters north of the specified house, explaining the location of the car after the accident. In addition, FIO17 pointed to an area located at a distance of 12 meters in a southerly direction from <address>, explaining that PHIO110 was in the ditch at this site after an accident" ^[18].

The awareness and awareness of a person may indicate the reliability of the testimony that he previously submitted to the law enforcement officer. In this regard, D.M. Gvilia recommends checking the testimony on the spot and to expose "false testimony, self-incrimination, false alibi" ^{[8, p. 14]}. With regard to the exposure of false testimony, self-incrimination and false alibi, verification of testimony can also be quite effective, since only a person who was actually in a certain place can provide unique criminalistically significant information about him and the situation that was at the time of the traffic accident.

S.S. Kim notes in his work that on-site verification of testimony should facilitate the collection of "data confirming or refuting the defendant's involvement in the commission of the imputed crime" ^{[11, p. 41]}. The task of working out the involvement of a person in a committed crime can actually be effectively solved during the conduct of this investigative action. A.S. Melnikova and E.E. Kolbasina believe that a law enforcement officer, when verifying testimony on the spot, has a real opportunity to "thoroughly verify the testimony of a person who has turned himself in, verify and obtain evidence that that the person was indeed at the scene of the incident and it was this person who committed the crime" ^{[19, p. 93]}. The testimony about the relevant road user, which he presents in relation to himself or designates the actions or role of other persons, may contribute to the solution of the above-mentioned task.

Quite a large number of authors come to the conclusion that by checking the testimony on the spot, contradictions in the testimony can be eliminated. Thus, D.M. Gvilia recommends checking the testimony on the spot to clarify and eliminate "contradictions in the testimony" ^{[8, p. 14]}. S.I. Zemtsova also points out the need for this investigative action when there are contradictions "in the testimony of several persons about the route to the crime scene or about the crime scene itself, as well as the actions performed on it" ^{[7, p. 73]}. S.S. Kim believes that by checking the testimony on the spot, a law enforcement officer can identify and eliminate contradictions in the testimony of not only "the person being checked, including as a result of self-incrimination, and other participants in the process" ^{[11, p. 41]}.

Here, the authors correctly point out that contradictions can be eliminated not only in the testimony of the person being checked, but also of other persons, since criminalistically relevant information obtained during the check can help eliminate such contradictions in the testimony of other persons. In this case, it will become clear to the law enforcement officer which circumstance or element of the situation was or could be a factor producing such contradictions. The possibility of eliminating contradictions by checking the testimony on the spot was also noted in the works of P.A. Kononov ^{[20, p. 199]} and E.N. Makarova ^{[21, p. 121]}. This task can be described as eliminating contradictions in the testimony of persons questioned in a criminal case.

In fact, in certain investigative situations, checking the readings on the spot can help in solving this problem, since a large volume of material traces and a large number of environmental elements in contact with each other at the time of a traffic accident are always difficult for each of the road users to recognize. Therefore, contradictions in the testimony of different persons may inevitably arise, and they can be eliminated on the spot by observing the objective situation.

According to E.N. Makarova, checking the testimony on the spot may set itself the task of identifying "victims or witnesses previously unknown to the criminal prosecution authorities" ^{[21, p. 120]}. D.M. Gvilia also believes that "detecting witnesses, victims previously unknown to the investigator" can be designated as a task. on-site verification of readings ^{[8, p. 14]}. In this case, the investigative action will help to establish the places of residence or stay of those persons about whom the interrogated person cannot provide any sufficient personal data so that the law enforcement officer can find them on his own. The proposed formulation of the task is to find previously unknown victims or witnesses.

The identification of a witness with a large amount of criminalistically significant information on the fact of an investigated traffic crime, through on-site verification of testimony, may be the most acceptable option. Since the interrogation of a previously unidentified witness in a case always raises questions from the defense: – where did this witness come from? – from what materials of the criminal case can information be obtained that this witness was actually at the scene of a traffic accident? – Who provided information about the identity of this witness? By checking the testimony on the spot, places can be established where potential witnesses could be who were traveling in the same direction. So, "Witness No. 1 pointed to the scene of the accident, where the driver of the BMW M4 COUPE registration plate no. FIO2 hit a pedestrian FIO7. Witness No. 1 also pointed to the gas station where the car was refueled before the accident" ^[22]. When solving this problem, victims whose close relatives died as a result of a traffic accident can also be identified, and information about the victims themselves and those who need to be recognized as victims is incomplete or absent altogether.

E.N. Makarova designates the task as "the identification of other persons involved in the commission of a crime" ^{[21, p. 121]}, and D.M. Gvilia identifies the task as "the identification of other suspects (accused)" ^{[8, p. 14]}. On-site verification of testimony can also contribute to the search activities of a law enforcement officer, when one of the interrogated persons can provide information about the places of residence, stay or possible appearance of suspects (accused). The solution to this problem is relevant in the situation of investigating traffic crimes, for which it is assumed that there is a mutual form of guilt, when one suspected driver has been identified, and the second of the drivers has fled the scene, and the work carried out with the help of extra-procedural and procedural actions has not yielded a positive result.

D.M. Gvilia defines the next task as "identifying the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of a crime" ^{[8, p. 14]}. S.S. Kim ^{[11, p. 41]} and S.I. Zemtsova ^{[7, p. 73]} also point out the need to single out such a task in their works. When solving it, the cognitive aspect of checking on-site readings can be used to establish objective and subjective reasons that contributed to the violation of Traffic Rules and vehicle operation by the driver or pedestrian. Separately, road users may note various unfavorable conditions that have developed on this section of the roadway, which contributed to the onset of dangerous consequences. They could have previously indicated this in their testimony or noted it as an addition to the previously given testimony.

Statistical data indicate a fairly large percentage of road accidents, where unsatisfactory road conditions were noted, which contributed to these accidents, as well as a serious negative trend in this matter last year. So, in 2024, 4,251 (+ 6.0% APPG) ^[1] people died as a result of a traffic accident, in places where violations of mandatory requirements for the operational condition and arrangement of public roads, streets and roads of cities and rural settlements, railway crossings were detected (29.51% - the ratio of the number of deaths in places with unsatisfactory road conditions to the total number of deaths). Here we see disappointing statistics - almost a third of all victims suffered fatal injuries in places that do not meet the standards, which indicates that law enforcement officers should always carefully identify the causes and conditions of traffic crimes. Thus, "when checking the testimony on the spot, PHIO1 pointed out the irregularities of the highway and the place where his car began to move into the oncoming traffic lane, and he lost control of the vehicle" ^[23].

V.I. Belousov highlights another task – "checking and clarifying the testimony given by a person (suspect, accused, victim, witness) during interrogation" ^{[9, p. 18]}. V.I. Belousov's designation of this task may be questioned, since in all the previously considered tasks proposed by these and other authors, this task finds its place in one way or another, or its solution is assumed. This is due to the fact that the verification of previously given testimony, as well as the clarification of testimony received from a person, should not be considered as a task, but as two independent goals of this investigative action. This is evidenced not only by the work of the author of this article ^[24], but also by the work of other authors who identify precisely such additional purposes for verifying testimony on the spot ^{[25; 26]}.

It should be said that not only V.I. Belousov, but also other authors, compiling a list of tasks for verifying testimony on the spot, include in them those that relate to the objectives of this investigative action. Thus, D.M. Gvilia considers as a separate task – "clarifying individual circumstances related to the actions of the interrogated person at the scene", although this formulation covers most of the other tasks solved during the verification of testimony on the spot ^{[8, p. 14]}.

Also, the argumentation with such a focus on the goals rather than the tasks of this investigative action is related to the legal regulation in the criminal procedure legislation of the CIS countries. Thus, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova explicitly indicates the similar goals of this investigative action. Moreover, V.I. Belousov himself highlights in his work the verification of testimony on the spot precisely as one of the goals of this investigative action, therefore, an additional definition as a task seems rather controversial and contradictory ^{[9, p. 23]}.

Based on the above, we consider it possible to suggest that the tasks considered can be grouped based on their importance in the investigation of road traffic crimes and the current legislative regulation in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.:

1. The main tasks of checking the readings on the spot:

A). reproduction by the person whose testimony is being verified of the situation at the place that the law enforcement officer knows or will become known as a result of the investigative action performed, and the circumstances of the event about which the person previously testified;

B). determination of the objective situation at the scene of the event;

C). understanding the nature and sequence of actions of various persons in connection with the event under investigation;

D). an indication by the person whose testimony is being verified of objects, documents, and traces relevant to the criminal case;

E). the person being checked searches for traces, objects, and documents;

F). determining the location of the scene of the incident, about which the law enforcement officer has no information;

G). discovery of new traces of a crime and information of evidentiary value;

H). establishing the awareness of the person being checked about the event and circumstances about which he previously testified.

2. Additional on-site verification tasks:

A). elimination of contradictions in the testimony of persons questioned in a criminal case;

B). finding previously unknown victims or witnesses;

C). identification of other persons involved in the commission of the crime;

D). identification of the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of the crime.

Thus, the conducted research made it possible to identify a certain list of tasks for verifying testimony on the spot, which can be solved during the investigation of traffic crimes. Each of the designated and formulated tasks contributes to the greatest understanding by the law enforcement officer of the great cognitive potential that lies in this investigative action, and will also help him in planning, preparing and tactically correct verification of testimony on the spot.

References to the criminal procedure legislation of the CIS countries used in the work:

1. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated July 4, 2014 No. 231-V (with amendments and additions as of 03/13/2025) URL: CPC - Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2024 | Paragraph Online. Part two of Article 257.

2. The Code of Criminal Procedure of Turkmenistan dated April 18, 2009 (with amendments and additions as of 11/25/2023) URL: The Code of Criminal Procedure of Turkmenistan dated April 18, 2009 (with amendments and additions as of 11/25/2023). part two of Article 285.

3. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Tajikistan dated December 3, 2009 (with amendments and additions as of 01/3/2024) URL: The Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Tajikistan dated December 3, 2009 (with amendments and additions as of 01/3/2024). part two of art. 207.

4. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova dated March 14, 2003 No. 122-XV (with amendments and additions as of December 05, 2024). URL: Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova dated March 14, 2003 No. 122-XV (with amendments and additions as of December 05, 2024). part one of art. 114.