Collection of evidence VS examination of evidence in the context of the Shafer theory of investigative actions (on the 100th anniversary of the Teacher’s birthday)

The article identifies the most probable reasons that influenced the predetermined absence of a clear normative distinction between components of criminal procedural proof that differ in meaning and purpose: collection of evidence and examination of evidence. These reasons are primarily associated with the shortcomings and tendency to improperly interpret some well-known provisions of the theory of investigative actions developed by Professor S.A. Shafer, which is supported by many procedural scientists. This theory understands investigative actions as the main and virtually uncontested methods of accumulating evidence, which should be used to establish circumstances that are significant for a criminal case. In particular, it is noted that the scientist and his associates ignore other methods of working with evidence that are more predisposed to understanding the differences between collecting and examining evidence. In this regard, prospects for new scientific research are predicted, which will be aimed at examining the essence, subjects, forms and methods of examining evidence, identifying clearer and more understandable criteria for distinguishing it from other components of proof, primarily from checking the collection and evidence.