You are on page 1of 240

BEOGRAD Godina LIII

3 2011

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , -

-

,

, , , , ,

.

-

104 : 011/3148-734, 3148-739 : 011/3148-749 e-mail: upobr@mup.gov.rs

: 1.000 : , PDF . 49

: http://www.mup.gov.rs/ http://prezentacije.mup.gov.rs/upravazaobrazovanje/bezbednost.html

. .

5

21 . . 35 -

Csaba FENYVESI, Ph. D. . . . . .

50 73

THE CONFRONTATION AS TRUTH-SEEKING METHOD FROM CRIMINALISTIC ASPECT – ( )

95 112

125

148

OPEN SOURCE

159 169 181 202 , –

220

.

231

3/2011

3

CONTENTS
ORIGINAL SCIENTIFIC PAPERS
Milivoj DOPSAJ, Ph. D. Goran VU KOVI , Ph. D. Marko VUKOVI 5 CHARACTERISTICS OF ISOMETRIC MUSCLE FORCE OF BACK EXTENSORS WITH DIFFERENTLY TRAINED AND NON-TRAINED STUDENTS OF THE ACADEMY OF CRIMINALISTIC AND POLICE STUDIES STATUS AND POSSIBILITY OF IMPROVEMENT OF EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES OF THE STUDENTS OF THE ACADEMY OF CRIMINALISTIC AND POLICE STUDIES ON FIELD TRAINING IN SUMMER CONDITIONS INTRODUCTION OF GENDER PERSPECTIVE TO SECURITY SECTOR REFORM IN THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA

Raša DIMITRIJEVI Ivana RADOVANOVI , MA Dag KOLAREVI , Ph. D. Boban MILOJKOVI , Ph. D. Biljana STOJKOVI , MA

21

35

REVIEW PAPERS
Csaba FENYVESI, Ph. D. Csaba FENYVESI, Ph. D. Slaviša VUKOVI , LLD Snežana ŽIVKOVI , Ph. D. Milanko ABARKAPA, Ph. D. Dragan MLA AN, Ph. D. Željko NIN I , MA 50 73 95 THE CONFRONTATION AS TRUTH-SEEKING METHOD FROM CRIMINALISTIC ASPECT THE CONFRONTATION AS TRUTH-SEEKING METHOD FROM CRIMINALISTIC ASPECT (in Serbian) CURRENT APPROACHES AND PROBLEMS IN SOCIAL CRIME PREVENTION

112 SPECIFICS OF PANIC IN EMERGENCIES

125 CORRUPTION AND REACTION OF THE STATE

PROFESSIONAL REPORTS
Predrag IKANOVI , Ph. D. Duško SIV EVI Stanimir ŽIVANOVI , MA Aleksandar OR EVI , Ph. D. Milan MILETI Žarko BRAKOVI urica NIKOLI , LLM 148 APPLICATION OF OPEN SOURCE SOLUTIONS IN POLICE OFFICERS' PORTAL IMPLEMENTATION 159 RISK OF LIGTNING IN SERBIA 169 THE USE OF CONSTRAINT FACILITIES – ANALYSIS FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF BELGRADE 181 ORGANIZATION OF SPANISH POLICE SYSTEM 202 CORRUPTION AMONG THE TRADE CUSTOMS OFFICES, THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENCE PROCEDURE AND REPORT ON SALE OF GOODS

FROM FOREIGN LITERATURE
220 MEDIATION

REVIEWS
Goran D. MATI , MA 231 NATIONAL SECURITY

4

3/2011

UDK 616. . : . : . F–t . 29. . - “. 35% . 4 5 . (15) (17). . .2011.02%..12. . : je .. 40. . - 52 . (F – t . . . „ . 3/2011 .741 : 796. 5 . .98%.(20). .015 – 057. 2 .87 : 16. ) .

2010. . ( . 2009). . . . Milojkovi . (Blagojevi . ( 2009). . 1995. . )( . . . . . 2010.. ( - . ( - ( . . 3/2011 . . Suboši et – . ( ) . ( . . . et al.. . 2011). 2010.. 2010). ) - . .. et al. - 2007. .… . ( 6 et al. 2002.. . 2010).. 1995). .. ). . . et al. 2010. et al. ( al. 2011).

2010). . 2000. - (MacDougall et al. ... ( et al. . . 2007. 2003). - - .. . . .. .. / / . : 7 . . . 2000. 2010). . (N=52) 2004/2005. (Tyldesley. – (Dopsaj et al. – ( ). et al. .. Ivanovi et al. 1992. Grieve. . . . 3/2011 2003/2004. 1995). et al.. - .

. . 3/2011 . (N = 20) – 2.939 (Dopsaj et al. . – 1. 2 17) . . 2007). „ ( et al. (ms). : 750 daN. „ “ ( - - 0. .. / 100 kHz. 2000). 15) 3. ) 1. – tFmax. ) .… 1. 8 “. Fmax ( et al. . ( 2 3 3 - (N = (N = - (Fmax) . . : (6 (N). 0.25 N.980. 2010).. ): – Fmax.. .

. ( a 2. 3/2011 9 .. – (N). – (4 – Frel. 50% Fmax. Fmax50% . . RFDSPECIF. 1 ). RFDBASICREL. 3 (Shalfawi et al. 1991). . -1 - – (N- F50%. ). . . . RFDBASIC. a s ·kg -1 ). ): (N/s). tF50%. 50% (ms). . (N-s·kg c a -1 ). (N·kg – – (N·kg Frel50%. - Fmax (F50%).. RFDSPECIFREL. 2011).– (N/s). ) F50%. 5 (MacDougall et al.

. (ANOVA). ) ( - 95%. ( . 3 F-t 220 200 180 160 1 2 ) ANOVE. p < 0.… „ “ ( ). / " " (DaN) 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 (ms) 1 F-t 10 . 1 . ( 3): 3/2011 .05 (Mann Prem. 2009).

74 17.16 RFDSPECIF (N/s) 4371. tFmax ).73 1351.75±648.82±117.53 12.08±158.000 vs p = 0.04±4495.10±7.66 * # * # t(Fmax50%) (ms) 228.31# Frel50% (N·kg TM-1) 12.11* 1184.14 2 Fmax50% (N) 787.36* 1949.96* 88.30±82.53±673. p tFmax (ms) 2206.29* 1006. p = 0. (Fmax.67 23.95±597.59±364.51* 14. p = 0.08±9.03# RFDSPECIFREL (N-s·kg TM-1) 61. (Fmax50% RFDSPECIF.000.11±92.74* 177. Frel50% ).34±38.59±292.000 ).60±5.44* 7304.63±531. RFDBASIC.07 8790.59* 1776.16 111. p = 0. .94±117.31±1.58# vs p = 0.040 1 Fmax (N) 1542. RFDSPECIFREL.84±69.80* * # 23.01±1.93±2713..99 1891.009 p = 0. 50% 50% .33±203.58±2.008. 0.45±2.028.23# Frel (N·kg TM-1) 21.041.69 11.02±1. (Frel.72±157. p = p = 0.27±90.88±488. – p = 0.87 969.000 # . . 50% 50% = 0.000 3/2011 11 .77# RFDBASIC (N/s) 854.000 vs p = 0.85±3.95±53.029.04 1590.67±5050.30# RFDBASICREL (N-s·kg TM-1) 12.04 vs p = 0.32 148.

77 3.20 3. : t = 2.91 5.19.008 0.047. p=0. p=0.041 0. p=0.000 0. p=0. .061 0.010 vs t = -2.41 1. 2. : p=0. t = -4.44.034.96 5. : vs t = -2. p=0. p=0.000 0.011.3.71. 12 : vs t = -1. 3/2011 .028 . p=0. ANOVA p 0.040 0.91.43 3.89.79 17.39.009 0.181 0.… 3 ANOVE Fmax tFmax RFDBASIC Fmax50% tFmax50% RFDSPECIF Frel RFDBASICREL Frel50% RFDSPECIFREL F 18.72.028 vs .37 3. . : vs t =t = -1. vs .014.000. vs : t = -6.85 .029 0.000 vs t = 2.11 2.003 vs . p=0.

t= . .008. t= . p=0. 50% . .84.53.78.80. p=0. p=0. 1988).010 vs .003 vs 50% . 3/2011 . (Tyldesley. Grieve.97. t = -2. .041. ) . p=0. p=0. t = -3.000. 50% : - . 2000).000 vs vs t = 1. ( . - .038 vs : vs -1.013.043.35.50% : vs t = -6.52. p=0. : vs -2. p=0. 13 . p=0. (Collingwood.07. p=0. . t = -1. t = -3.23. t= - : vs -2.

0 Fmax tFmax RFDbasic Frel RFDbasicrel ). .0 50.53 41. .0 60.61% ) 8.0 30.… . (22.91 2 (RFDBASIC RFDBASICREL) . 1995. .89 19. 14 3/2011 .0 10. 10.0 10.0 20. - (tFmax) .53%. . 58. 2002. (27. .57 20. Blagojevi .0 0.36% .0 20. - et al. ..0 40.63 26.17 38. ).0 30. KPAb vs KPAs KPAt vs KPAs 19.36 22. ( .0 40.48%. (Fmax Frel) ( 26. 2002).67%.91% 70.48 27.67 10.61 8.

).89%. 23. (35. .53%. ( 101. 3/2011 (Bla15 .93% 9. . .33%. 2002). ) ). . (tFmax50%) .17% ( 11. ) ). . .07% 82. 3 - gojevi . 50% .63% 20.( 58.17% 41.19% 22. ).57%. 50% - 27.12% . (67.75% ( ). .07% 45. (RFDSPECIF RFDSPECIFREL). (38.01%.

. 3/2011 . I . . 2010:113-118) 35‰ ( 84‰. 1995. 88‰. . . 1949. .4 N. . (Dopsaj et al.3 N). et al. . et al.99 N vs 1630.. ( 16 1583. III . 2002).. .59±292. 2 3 1).33±203.37% 1782.57% ( 9. 1630.0±207.. ( 1891. 2007). - (Blagojevi . .1 N) (Blagojevi . . 2011). III 1782. 2002) ( 1542.… 13. ( 1629.1±226. .39% ( 1795.3±235.23. ).72±157.7 vs 1819.5 vs 11.74 vs . 2009.5 N). ( ) . .3 N). et al. . ( . . . II ( .0 N). II 1819..36. . .. . .

. .98%. 17 . (Frel 20% 25% (Fmax Fmax50%). 60% (RFDBASIC . 2011).02%. . . .. 29. . ) 35% 5 . 30 150 (Garber et al. . 5 F–t - 30% (tFmax 40% 100% (RFDBASICREL tFmax50%). 10% Frel50%). . . . 40. III47015. 4 . RFDSPECIF). . . 5 . . . . ( – 2 4 3 5 ). . ( F–t 4 . „ 3/2011 „ . . RFDSPECIFREL). “. .

...… “. . 2000. pp... . 49(4). 166-183. Ivanovi ... . Dept. in „Proceedings of XVIII International Symposium of Biomechanics in Sport Vol. Nieman. Stankovi . R. Neši . 3/2011 2. (2010). Uticaj nastave Specijalnog fizi kog obrazovanja na promene morfoloških i motori kih karakteristika studenata Policijske akademije.. . . . Miloševi . edited by Youlian Hong & David P. . R. Blissmer. 146-149. E. . H. 8. An analysis of the realibility and factoral validity of selected muscle force mechanical characteristic of maximal isometric multi-joint test.. . A. M. .. Physiological testing of the high-performance athlete (2nd ed).. M. (2011).. . . II – . M. 3. MacDougall. J. 1“. Green. A. Lee. 1334-1359. . Jones. . 64(1). M.. .. M. M. Fizi ka kultura. . 9.. Polni dimorfizam kod razli itih indikatora za procenu izometrijske eksplozivne sile opruža a nogu. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Swain. I.. . H. . Illinois: Human Kinetics. (1991). D. Dopsaj. . ... C. 6. . . 46-61. . . . (2009).. 43(7).. of Sports Science & Physical Education. .. D. B. . . Dopsaj. (2010).. . . I. The Chinese University of Hong Kong.. musculoskeletal. . Champaign. (2007). (2002). . – 2011-2014. B. .... Blagojevi .Wenger. M. . - : 1..... . Lamonte. .... . . 7. D.. J.( ) – . Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory. Blagojevi . 18 .. P. . Deschenes.. .. (2011). G. C. MNT Republike Srbije. Garber. Beograd. . Franklin. 5.. . 4. J. and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: Guidance for prescribing exercise. . . (2000).

. D. . . R. . 12.. . . . 52(3). 16(2).. Serbian Journal of Sports Sciences.policija. . . 52(1).. (2009). ( . . 52(3). 24. 30-37. . . 23. (2010). nerves and movement: Kinesiology in daily living (Sec. 1994. . S. (2003).. . .. 18. . (2010). – . . .. B. (2000). : . . Serbian Journal of Sports Sciences... . . . . . . 5(3). . 24-55. . Tyldesley. Keki . Enoksen.). Uvod u statistiku. 147-154. . . 13. 55(4)... (2011)... Nauka . 14. J. .. . . 149-163. Ingebrigtsen. Violence at sporting events in the Republic of Serbia and police engagement.. .. 16.. . 5(4). Ed. 17. 22. (2011).. . Grieve. 9-23. 172-237. (2010). .. John Wiley & Sons i Ekonomski fakultet.. (2011).). . .. Shalfawi. Beograd. 21. 349-459. Testovi iz orijentiringa u proceni uspeha pripadnika policije u terenskoj obuci. Ltd. . . Police Chief. Collingwood.. . . Physical fitness leadership in law enforcement. . 52(3). (2002).. (1995).. S. T. 107-113. 95-107. .. D... 15. Muscles. 52(1). . 267-281. UK: Blackwell Science. . . (2010). . (1988). Mann Prem. 20. Tønnessen. . . Assessing day-to-day reliability of the Newtest 2000 sprint timing system. .. 154-171. . . E. . . . G. . Suboši . . . 11. 3/2011 19 . 52(3). Vu kovi . E.. .. J. . Oxford. . . (2010).10. (2010). .. . 19.bezbednost .

the benefit of additional training or exercise was a 35% higher level of contractile ability of F – t dependency in the back extensor muscles. Regardless of the type of additional training. while training in martial arts amounted to 40.… Characteristics of Isometric Muscle Force of Back Extensors with Differently Trained and Non-Trained Students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies Abstract: This work presents the results of a research whose main objective was defining the level of transfer of additional exercise on the manifestation of the characteristics of the back extensor muscle force compared to regular physical activity in Special Physical Education (SPE) classes.02%. exercise. has. Fiftytwo students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies (ACPS) in Belgrade participated in the research. and the third group consisted of students who had additional gym work out (17). the second group included students who had additional martial arts training (15). The results suggest that. student. Special physical education. for students of the ACPS. Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies 20 3/2011 . The results showed that. a significantly greater effect on the development of contractile capacity of muscles (F . statistically. Key words: muscle force characteristics. in general. back extensor muscles. regular physical exercise from 4 to 5 times a week. the quantitative value of the benefit of additional exercise in the gym for students tested was 29.e. using the “Isometric Dead lift” standardized test. focusing on different type of velocity-strength training. The measurement of the characteristics of muscle force was performed by applying the dynamometry method.98%. i.t relationship) compared to the exercise frequency of only 2 times a week. they were divided into three differently trained groups: the control group consisted of students who exercised following the SPE curriculum (20).

.13%. . ( ). UDK – 379. ) .87%) . . . . .6% . – 3/2011 . .033 – 057.3% . a 67. - . - 21 . 1 : ( ( 10 . - - . rasa_flok@yahoo. 2010/11. 2011-2014.2011. 31. . .87 : 7. III47015. - ( 49 e . ) ). . 21 2007.com 1 - .83 “322“( : 379.12. . 53. (68. .8.

( . . . . . . 3/2011 .. ) . . 2010.… . . . 2010). . - - . . 2011). .. ( . . : . . - ( ). 22 . . . . ( et al. ( ( ) . . . . . Miloševi et al. . 2010). .

. . 2007). 2004). ( uhar. . . . . . . . . 2001).. ( . . ( (2004) . . . . . . . . (Anderson et al. . - . .. ) . .. . . . . . ( 3/2011 23 - . et al. - ( . 2003). . .

. . .30 et al. .… . . .) (Dias et al. ( .. .00 15. .. . ( . 2011). . ) 3/2011 . . . . ( ( 24 . . . 2010) . . .. 2002). / ). ( . . ( ) . . – O ( . 2010/2011. . . . 13. . . . 2010). . . – . 1996)..

. . ( et al. . - . 2010. 2010). 10 . .. 10 21 1 - ) 20 h ( ). . . . . . . . 25 . 2010. . . . 2009. . . . ) ( . (h) – 91 h ( 3/2011 . . . . . . . : . - . - - - 2010/11. III „ “. . . : 2006/2007. 2010/11.

16) 21 . .93. 170 . .5 ( . . . . 2 - . 3. . 2. ( 357 91. ). 3 (34 .93 ( . 3. 10 : 1. ). 20 : 357 8. 21 . .5. - 10 8. . . . . 20 21 ) 10 (2. . X X X X X : . X X .… 1 21 19 2 3 91 (h) 21 19 2 3 91 10 10 0 2 20 ( (h) (h) ) . 3. : X X X X X X 26 3/2011 . 10 21 a 17 . ) . 170 . 2 . 2 : : . 91 . X X X X X X X X X .

6±0. . ( ) 21. . . . . . . . - 49 (40 . 2. 3. . .95 III 40 21. . . 2010/2011 3 - . ( ) 3 9 ) - .10±0.. : 1. . : . .71 III 9 3/2011 27 . 4. . . . . .

00 12.41 32. - 15 10 4 5 6 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 23 10 4 6 6 0 49 % 46.50 15.04 26 28 . 33 („ 24.65 20. 3/2011 .10 0 0 9 .33 11.11 11. 4– ( ) % 37.00 32.11 11.3%.00 10.20 12.11 9 - 8 13 9 5 5 0 2 3 1 1 1 1 10 16 10 6 6 1 49 % 20.90 0 0 11.6%. “ 67.70%. . .24 12. 5 ? % 20.20 12.50 25.50 0 40 % 22. 12 .50 22. 53.00 0 40 % 88. „ “).24 2.50 12.41 12.11 11.40 8.50 12.22 33.… 4 .90 20.20 0 5 .

35 34.53 49 29 31 9 5 4 36 13 . 12 .47 26.50 22.05 12. 7 ( % 77.55 44. - . .02 35. 45 73.50 40 3/2011 45 % 55. 6 .98 14.44 9 )? % 73.85 7 .48%. .13%.00 28. 31.00 - - 13 10 28 30 5 5 7 8 18 15 35 38 % 16.47% . 24.00 32.04 % 20.57 37. - .. - . 6 ? % 16.87%. – 68.00 20.15 33. . .

… ( - et al. - . . 2004).47%) (68. . . . . . . - . ( . - . . . . - 12 24. - .40% 3/2011 . .87%). 2001). - . . . . 30 . ( ). . (73. . .. . . . . .

31 . . . .48% . . . . . . . ( . . .87%. - (Roberg. . . . 2001). . 68. . . : . .13%). 24. . . 2005). . 3/2011 . 2004.. Bonn. - . . . . . (31. . . .

. (2007). Jankovi . D. (2002).. (2001). . 32 . 10 . . . . Beograd. . Beograd. Ž. 49 (3-4). stoletju. 59-77. 4. - 9. C. Fonseca. multidimensional competitive anxiety and cognitive threat appraisal: Differences across sex. 7. .. (2010). pp 23-31. . 3. . . 5.… - 14 .. (2004).. ... F. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management. . Prosti as mladih v 21. . 59-78. G. str. (2003). Uporedni pregled modela obuke i školovanja policije. . P. Socijalna pedagogika.. M. . Coping strategies. 215-229. Koprivica. 4 (1). str. Fakultet sporta i fizi kog vaspitanja. age and type of sport. Plecas. 6. pp 8-31. M. .. Kešetovi . (2001). A.. V. Univerzitet u Beogradu. . (2-3). Kuhar. 7 (3). (2005). 24 (1). . Serbian Journal of Sports Sciences.. Dias. J. . .. 11 (4). T. 3/2011 2. Segger.. IX. Norma. 8. Osnove sportskog treninga. .. .. 453-471. Cruz. - : 1. Vannastavne aktivnosti i u eni ko stvaralaštvo. Viša škola unutrašnjih poslova. Anderson. Police officer physical ability testing Re-validating a selection criterion.

. 158-190.. ... .. . (2010). (2). M. 27 (4). Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management. . 13. NBP – Journal of criminalistic and law. . Beograd. . pp 83-101. .. 16. 105-116.. 53 (2). . - 15. . X (1). 113-123. . Fakultet sporta i fizi kog vaspitanja. VIII 11. . . 14. . 10. R. . 52 (1). (2009).. (2002). . 46-65.. 17. Mi ovi . M. (2004). . Suboši . 15 (3). D. VII (2). 12. . .. . 3/2011 33 . . Stavovi studenata Kriminalisti kopolicijske akademije o nastavi Specijalnog fizi kog obrazovanja. . S.. 20. . 19.... ... (2001). . . . . pp 93-107. . (1996). G. D. . Practical training of students within the sistem of tertiaty police education in the Republic of Serbia. (2004). . Roberg. pp 469-486... 154-171. . . . Univerzitet u Beogradu. 51 (3). 39-55. Vu kovi G. (2004). . Bonn.. . . iloševi .. Kukolj. . Didactical and methodical standard of teching topografy at Police academy in Belgrade. Fizi ka kultura. . 18.. Dopsaj.. . (2010). . . B. (2011). 33-41.. (2010).. Higher education and policing: where are we now. . . 65 (2). 52 (3). str. 24-55. . Milojkovi . . . . . .9. (2011). . .. Opšta antropomotorika. . N uka-Bezbednost-Policija. .

which is consistent with the way students use their leisure time during the life and work at the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies.13%. extracurricular activities. The aim of this research is analyzing the previous status and gaining an insight in the students’ attitudes regarding the quality of extracurricular activities during field training in the school year 2010/2011 as well as giving proposals for their further improvement.3% is of the opinion that amount of leisure time for sports and recreational activities was not et the level of the students needs. 26 students or 53. students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies.87%) are interested in using sports facilities. The field training contents.… Status and Possibility of Improvement of Extracurricular Activities of the Students of the Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies on Field Training in Summer Conditions Abstract: Students of The Academy of Criminalistic and Police Studies in Belgrade perform all contents of the field training envisaged by the programmes of study. Students' opinions are expressed through the frequencies and percentages. On the basis of these results we can conclude that there is a high level of motivation to engage in extracurricular activities. the implementation of which would be consistent with methodological and didactic principles. leisure time. Keywords: Field training. 34 3/2011 .6% think that the quality and content of the extracurricular activities offered was not at a satisfactory level. At the end of the paper. as well as with professional requirements for future police officers. Results show that 33 students or 67. and the need for well-designed and implemented contents for leisure time. while the percentage of those interested in the activities related to tourism and culture is 31. approximately two-thirds of students (68. as compared to 21 days until 2007). also caused a reduction in the amount of leisure time for extracurricular activities. there are suggestions for possible improvement of the existing extracurricular activities content related to field training. Reduced number of days provided for the field training realisation (currently 10. however. a survey was conducted on a sample of 49 students. In this regard. does not include the students’ extracurricular activities. The results indicate that the contents of extracurricular activities do not fully meet the demands and needs of students.

2010 .1 UDK – 331. .rs 3/2011 35 .86 (497. . . .2 : 351. . . 1325 - 1 1325 . . – (2010-2015).gov. . . E mail: biljana. . . . . . . : . : .stojkovic@mod. . .36 – 055. 2011. .2011.1) : 25. . .11.

1325 .1325 . . 3/2011 . - 1325 2010-2015 ( 36 – . . . . – . . . . . . . . . . . ( . – – . . . . . . 2010:57). 1325 . . . . .

: . 2009. Jam Studa. . . . . UR : Jam KART. . . - 5 37 . . : 1.. . . . 2 . 4. . (1995). . . . . 2.. . . . 3 4 – . UNDP Serbia. . . . 102/10) . . Jam - . : . . . . . 1325 . 4 . 3. . Jam KAS Bas. . 3 - (2000). . 3/2011 2011. . . . Jam KAS Plus. - - . 5 . 2 METS – . 4R. . - . . . .

– . 15671/1/08 REV . (2004).. : 6 40 . NATO. 9 : . 11. . Brussels 1. 11/1981. ( ) 10 . . 8 : 40-1 1325 . )7. . – . BFPE. ( ) 8 ( ) 9. – . . 6 . 7 : . 1325 . General Assembly United Nations A/59/565.. September 2009. peace and security. 13/02. 04-60231 (E) 301104. . 1993. Belgrade 1325 . (2009). . 9/03. . 38 3/2011 . . . 1953. : – . . . . peace and security. . 2010-2015. 206 83 . 1997. . 5/05 7/05 – . New York. (CEDAW). 10 : United N tions Security Council Resolution 1325 in Serbia – on women. December 2008. . ( ( ). . . . . 14/04. . . .. 1950. - . . . 2 December 2004. ) . (2009). Agenda item 55: Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit. . Comprehensive approach to the EU implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women. Council of the European Union. 123 . ( . Bi-SC Directive 40-1. . 1995. . . .

1325 . . . .1. . 2015. .. 11948/10. Women“ „ . 39 ( . 2. – “. . . . Report of the Secretary-General. - 1325 . Brussels. ( . . . 2010). . . ). peace and security. S/2010/173.. . . . . . . . 3/2011 – . . . - . Council of the European Union. - . . .UN 2011. . . . 2011. 2010) 1325 (Indicators for the Comprehensive approach to the EU implementation on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women. . ) . . (Women and peace and security. 2011.

2011. . . 23 40 . 3/2011 . - – . . - . . . .. - . . 2011. 2010. . 2010. . 2011. 11 . . . . . 18. -6 75 - . .UN Women“. . ( 1325 2010. - . . .. 11 30. . .. 1325 . 30. . .. . . . 2011. 190 . ) . 23 . 2011.. . 2011.

2012. . - . “. 2011. 13. . 3 : . . . . . 2011. / / . 05. “. ...8 . .. . 41 . - . . . . . . 1325 . . . . . - . 2012. . . 3/2011 . 2011.UN Women” . 1325 :„ 1325 „ . . . . 02-77706/2011. . “ „ “. “. .

2% . 2010. .. 2011. 19. (27. - . Заступљеност по полу у МО и ВС (септембар 2010) Мушкарци 80. 3/2011 . ..1% Жене Мушкарци Жене 19. . . .4%). 2. - . 2010.6% . 2011. . .5% .5% 0. 42 .4% 7. 19.5% Жене Мушкарци 1 2010. . ..1% ( 1). Заступљеност по полу у МО и ВС (септембар 2011) Мушкарци 80. . . . .9% Жене 19.5% . - . . . 0. . 2012.

1% 80. ( 2).0% - 2010. ) 0.. . ( 0. 0.5% : 0.3%. ( . 16. . 19.3% 2. . 3/2011 . 43 . . . . 0.0% 2 2010. . 2010.1% ( 3).1% 2.2% . 17. 2. .8% - ..5% 17. 2011.1% - 2011. : 0.1% .0% . ) . 17. . .1% 2010. . .3% 19.8% . . 51.

. .8% 3 2011. - . .8% .9% . : .8% . ) 0.2% 80.3% . .0% 2. 0.9% 16. 0. 3. . 1.1% 2011. . 53. . . . . 2.– – . . 10% - ( 0. 44 3/2011 20. 2011. 2010. .

. . ( . 67% 56% .4 . . 22 . . - ( ) (8%). 2011. ) 8. . 0. - . 75% - . . 2010. 23 29 . 3/2011 45 . 42. . 2011. 2010. .5%.4 . MO . . 43. . . . . 13% 1 . . . . . . . . 4%.2011. . .

8% (253 1%) „ 1. . : . ). . . . . 2011. . „ . . . . „ . 1. 31. 2011. 68%. 31%. . . . . 3/2011 . ( . . . . . “ „ “ 10. 46 Jam Studa. . . . . . . . - . . . “ 2010.. METS – . . . 2011. . “.

. peace and security. – . Comprehensive approach to the EU implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women. . . . - 8. 1993. General Secretariat of the Council. 6. 11/1981. 2010. . . . 3. 1997. – . - . 2015. 7. . 11948/10. 14/04. Bi-SC Directive 40-1. . 0. . Council of the European Union. 5.. . 1325 (2004).4%. - . 5/05 7/05 – . - : 1. 67/10. . 11. . 10. . September 2009. . . Brisels. Indicators for the Comprehensive approach to the EU implementation on the United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820 on women. NATO. 0. . . . . . (1950). 14 July 2010. – .1% . (CEDAW). . . . peace and 3/2011 47 . 40-1 . 2. 4. 9. . 9/03. .

(2009). 52. Jam UR and Mapping process. There are a few Serbian normative and strategic documents which deal with the protection of women. there are social necessities to avoid similar scenarios in future by women’s more active participation in the creation of peace policy. The topic of the research was – Condition of women in the security sector. 13. . 11. . among 48 3/2011 . 2009. setting out indicators. 12. . . understanding and cooperation in the region and in the Republic of Serbia. discrimination and gender equality. this paper examines a relatively new methodology of gender analysis. Introduction of Gender Perspective to Security Sector Reform in the Republic of Serbia Summary: The reasons for the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 Women. . United N tions Security Council Resolution 1325 in Serbia – on women. These are. that authentically comprised Jam KART. (2010). Council of the European Union.. 15671/1/08 REV. . Jam KAS Plus. 14. This model is based on method Jam Studa. As the Team of Ministry of Defense was a coordinator of the process of making the NAP. Jam KAS Bas. the method used in this research was used for the first time in the whole security sector of Serbia. . 3. . . BFPE. 115/09. Actual data. peace and security. December 2008.. . . . presented in this document. tools for mapping the process and measuring the progress of the National Action plan for the implementation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1325 in the Republic of Serbia. Method 4R. 2015.security. Brussels 1. clearly show that gender perspective has been introduced in the reform of the Security Sector in the Republic of Serbia. 102/10. ( ) 1325 . (2010-2015). 1325 – . . . Belgrade. Having in mind that Serbia and the countries of the Western Balkans have recently overcome conflicts. (2009). techniques. Peace and Security in the Republic of Serbia can be found in the fact that it emphasizes the consequences of armed conflicts on women and girls and the importance of women’s role in peace-building and post-conflict reconstruction of the country. 76-95. . Therefore. .

but their position as well has become more distinctive by this analysis. plan 3/2011 49 . non-commissioned officers 0. level of participation. Not only the number of women. Implementation of gender analyses as the main research method implies studying of differences in conditions. power and decision making process by women and men in the security sector. first of all Belgrade Fund for Political Excelence (BFPE). the research used 206 documents – 123 of primary sources and of secondary data. professional female soldiers 2. prepared by non-governmental sector.40%). By applying gender equality analysis and introducing gender equality statistics for the purpose of this research.1). conflicts and post-conflict situations. for the first time we obtained the accurate data on presence of women in the security sector (27. the Strategy and Action plan for and improvment of the position of women and gender equality in Serbia.0% the percentage of women professional officers 0. security. Availability of these documents allowed the National Action Plan to deal only with the improvment of the women’s position in the security sector and protection of human rights of women in peace missions. There are only 10% of women at managerial positions of the total number of managerial positions in the defense system. As a source of data. Prior to gender analysis. Besides that. For example.1%. out of which the percentage of women civilian persons is 16. selected and the list was adopted. The research also analysed in details instruction for the document. to find the solutions for improvement of the actual situation of the position of women in security sector through implementation of Resolution 1325 in the policy. After processing the data the results were obtained not only on overall gender equality but on involvement of women in certain ministries. in cooperation with the Canadian Fund. the percentage of women in the Ministry of Defensce (MOD) and Serbian Armed Forces (SAF) in 2011 is 19. and 2.8% out of the total number of employees in the quoted categories (Diagram no. indicators of the European Council concerning implementation of the UN SC Resolution 1325 proposals of BFPE were analysed. These indicators were distributed in the whole security sector and data were gathered in the Department of Strategic Planning of MOD. control of funds. needs. The unique list of indicators for the whole security sector of the Republic of Serbia was prepared by selecting the given indicators and their adjustment to the security sector of Serbia. UN Development Fund for Women and OSCE. to find out the number and position of women in the security sector in Serbia. The starting point for selection of indicators was the 2010 Report of the Secretary-General. plans and life in the Republic of Serbia. analyses. EU. Council of Europe.2%. The objectives of this research were twofold: 1.1%. The analyzed documents were almost all relevant UN. indictors of gender equality in the security sector were identified. gender. Key words: women. NATO-Partnership for peace and OSCE documents concerning the 1325 Resolution.others. directorates and agencies within the security sector.

The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method From Criminalistic Aspect Abstract: The author conducted a special empirical survey in Hungary. The topic was a legal-psychological-criminalistic truth-seeking instrument: confrontation. however.131. Under Section 173 (4). Hungary UDK – 343.1 E-mail: fenyvesi@ajk. Key Words: confession.4 (439) Review scientific paper Recevied: 17. With the author’s new tactical recommendations related to its methodology. Ph. The truth will ultimately serve as a method of examining the forensic directive theory known as the seven key questions. evidence. however. fault of tactics. identity parade. it is rather rarely applied in civil procedures. investigation. The definition that I also agree with needs to be made more precise by stating that the term ‘more than one person’ can only mean definitely two persons. József-Kengyel. and conclusions of scientific research. For the question: "What is confrontation?" can be answered primarily in a procedural way. it would fall into the category of general interrogation and there could obviously be no confrontation. separate room. The study shows the results of examining case documents. If there were only one person. opinions of legal officers. “Since the opinions concerning the efficiency of confrontation vary considerably. University of Pécs.11. especially from criminalistic aspect. if necessary. “If the testimony of a witness conflicts with the allegations of another witness or with the allegations of a person questioned. no more and no less.2012.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect Csaba FENYVESI. if there were more than two. interrogation.” According to Miklós Kengyel.hu It should be mentioned here that this institution is unknown in domestic state administrative or infraction procedures (‘petty criminal procedure’). preparation of confrontation. Definition of confrontation and the main questions of its tactics Resolving the contradictions inherent in the confessions in criminal proceedings involves the use of criminal tactics of confrontation. the psychological and criminaltactical reason for its existence would be called into question.pte. the confrontation’s application can be rendered more effective and the time needed can be shortened as well. the elimination of the contradiction shall be attempted by confrontation. Act III of 1952 on the Code of Civil Procedure contains this institution.D.” For further details see Farkas. Faculty of Law. truthseeking. Miklós: Bizonyítás a polgári perben [Evi3/2011 1 50 .

Women. Flórián-Fenyvesi. deaf-andmute). What is confrontation – from the criminalistic aspect? In addition to the procedural answer. 2005. KJK. 155. Berlin.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER Special literature seems to be of a unified standpoint claiming that “the essence of confrontation is a special. collated and measured in the presence of each other. In case someone does not cooperate with the interrogadence in Civil Actions]. H. depending on its sections.. 1994/409. p.-Roll. These are the following: Preparation for the confrontation („pre-life”). confrontation is “the counter-posing of witnesses. questions and answers and other question. Evaluation of the confrontation. 1999/570. mute. In the third aspect. these sections fill the responses of the question „how?”. 2005. 1981/75. which says that confrontation is nothing but a special conflict-based interrogation. („post-life” – such as mistakes). The institution could be examined in several ways. Budapest-Pécs. Richard Boorberg Verlag. and the special subjects belonging to the issue „whowith-who”. recording and maintenance of order. both in general and in the special tactical recommendations.-Clages. ‘combined’ interrogation. These three approaches contain countless overlaps. Juveniles.) Tremmel. Dalloz. Thus their allegations may be checked. is the simultaneous interrogation of the persons who have already been interrogated and whose statements markedly differ from each other.. Csongor: Kriminalisztika Tankönyv és Atlasz [Textbook and Atlas on Criminalistics ].: Handbuch der Kriminalistik.”2 In this present study. a witness and the victim. For instance. 385. 1992. 1985/406. A similar definition can be found in the German literature. an independent investigatory (procedural) act in the framework of which more than one person is interrogated concurrently in order to resolve any marked contradictions between testimonies made earlier by the interrogatees. Dresden. According to the French special dictionary of criminal law. Weimar.. 1997. p.” Dictionaire de droit criminel. 3/2011 51 2 . (The following guiding civil court judgements contain at least some reference to confrontation applied in practice: 2003/357. Csaba-Herke. “Confrontation. or a witness and the suspect. the emphasis is on the “where?” “when?” “how?” “who with who?” and “why?” questions (tactical side). 2003/286.” Ackermann. fixing the suggestions. which serves the purpose of eliminating contradictions. München. there is a forensic-tactical reply to the question of „what”. Paris. In this study I try to reduce these approaches to the minimum. Budapest.. Hannover.. Implementation of the confrontation (beginning. Subjects with special abilities (for example: deaf. R. Dialóg-Campus Kiadó. some differences and specialities may arise from the subjects such as: Children. Stuttgart. H.

s/he can firmly and safely move and behave during the confrontation. the reality base of the phrase “coincidence is the greatest police”. Care should be taken. Don’t forget. to hold the confrontation on “the home field” of the confronted. that it is especially reserved for this purpose. another victim-witness or someone accused and their own statements.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect tor. Conversely. 3/2011 52 . because the executive party “plays on home field”. The very setting of an official building. that there is enough space for each of the personal auras. These three units provide the merits of ultimate judicial acceptation-discretion-admission of the testimony. is resolved with the collection of the evidence. The independent. in the course of the confrontation. the intrusion into the personal space arouses rather deterrent. for example: his residential place or workplace. are used as evidence during confrontation. whether consciously or inadvertently4. who presumably doesn’t adjust to the reality. This is all the more desirable. will mainly negate. It would be so far advanced. the accused. it reduces the effect of the desired tension. which is known in literature. The conflicting interrogation situation. The size should be modest. where must. because of the knowledge and love of the premise. because the credibility. as with a piece of evidence. Therefore it’s not recommended. which does not serve the emotional stability and protrusion of the – probably truth claiming – confessor. because of the extreme proximity. or to a situation. consistency. for this purpose selected location can’t be too stimulating 3 4 Generally. but minimally comfortable for three persons. or where is it worth. (except on occasion of the proof attempt or recognition at a glance). The official premise location itself – in my view – is not nearly enough. it is rather frustrating for two. that the current incumbent information service provider the victim-witness or the accused-accomplice is discredited and the defending party is authentic and credible. repugnant feeling. the “enemy party” “plays on guest field” and. It is possible. his/her confidence is strong here. to find out. s/he is confronted with the interrogator and with the witness or witnesses with other testimonies during the confrontation. The confrontation is considered as a test or a reliability experiment. where is it recommended to perform the confrontation. but if it’s tiny like a mouse hole. presented to him/her. even more so for three persons and not acceptable or desirable. the expression of ’realism’ is as ’dangerous’ as the expression: ’obvious’. Similarly. The confrontation is not bound to a place. an official environment also creates tensions. If the room is too large. so it can be held in the official premise of the investigating authority. This should rather be a special premise for performing confrontation. and deliberately misrepresents or neglects the reality. Where do we perform the confrontation? The first formulated question is where. and the statement’s truthfulness3 are at stake. in this case.

) Telling something into someone’s face requires clear vision. In the room – as an almost imperceptible manner – there should be a video recording device. Capitoul XVI. have always been taken to the usual office. sarcastic drawing. The confronted are recorded and informed about this – and this device records in good quality both the images and voices. However it is not impossible that the confrontees sit opposite to each other – adds the Romanian commentator. and only after this lead in – maybe as a surprise – the other confronted. juveniles. The separated confrontation premise could provide the possibility of uninterrupted flow of the execution. and the other one will be surprised because of this step. 3/2011 53 . the confidence in the executor. 2000. and it must have enough light. No one should come in every minute. It is extremely undesirable that any witty. support – besides his/her consciousness – not just physically. See more detailed in: Sorin Alämoreanu: Elemente de Criminalistica. This tactical trick is often preferable. For example also: he can lead first him/her into the room. which – sadly – can still be found in the interrogation premises until present day.that the person believed to be sincere by the authority must be led in the room first where the confrontation will be held. decoration. The separated. it causes deprecation. but emotionally. civilized person’s attention. besides.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER (either in furniture. let him/her sit down. something extraordinary.5 The office rooms. which are in use nowadays. (It can’t be a dark or even an obscure hole. just in front of the other confrontee. women) but usually draw the descent. because the possibly repeatedly interrogated (such as accused) confronted. Cluj Napoca. namely because the truth claimer will become confident. can induce tension. and now something other is going to happen. the good visibility of persons. otherwise equipped rooms according to security factors. it can’t be interrupted in any way. label. Therefore their reactions. p. I found a clue in the same literature – a tactical element what I object to – that the persons who appeared at the confrontation are seated in a way where they are facing to the executive of the confrontation. nor should the office phone ring or the participant’s or the presenter’s personal cellular phones. fulfilling the investigator’s dually oriented (security and tactical) monitoring needs it. where two or three detectives/interrogators operate and even perform confrontation (as well as other interrogations) at the same time. are completely inappropriate to execute a 5 I met in the Romanian literature with an approach – what I don’t prefer . There shouldn’t be any sort of music device or a television turned on. restrain their passions. he can also “play over it”. Editura Alma Mater. gestures and the reactions and answers to the asked questions could be well observed by the acting authority. or the street noise can’t be heard). The member of the authority can picture it. or coloured nude photos should be in the room. nobody should knock at the door. let him/her wait for a while maybe. or sound. Things like that distract not only the special participants (such as: infants. 287. because s/he count on the authority’s credible protection. For example: the radio can’t be turned on. which always decreases the truth-claiming confrontee’s concentrating ability. nuisance feeling and disorientation. it shouldn’t distract the attention of the confronting persons. because persons who look into each others eyes need bigger effort to control their facial expressions.

at the “capture”. tired and tense. These are for example: a) Straight after of the interrogation of the accused. against him/her. what is called by the criminal jargon as interrogation tone. Basically five behavioral styles are distinguished: factual-neutral. and comes with hypnotic involvement and power. The theoretical answer says: “Do it. There is much bigger chance to bend the will. inexorably accurate. 1984/5.. 1986. and may have “magical power”. With a boxing metaphor. The primer element of these is the interrogative communication style. Tóth Mihály: Feloldható-e a béklyó? (Is the fetter resolvable?) Jogtudományi Közlöny. 6 7 I must note here. There can’t be a substantive – which is criminal psychology based and appropriate for the criminal tactical recommendations – implementation of focused confrontation. and becomes stronger in soul and in body alike. When do we execute the confrontation? Its time is determined by the criminal tactics (within the investigation. so it is always the law enforcement officer who decides in the particular case. p. Out of these. attritive. The “eyes appear as the souls’ mirror”. “pally” (as a “fellow”). precarious. coming from the eyes of the victim/witness.”6 When does this moment come in the practice? This must be decided by the executor at all events. at the first strike (erste Angriff). cold meaning. hour). day. zigzagive. confession. change the intention. s/he is much more retarded. and initiating the acquisition of additional evidence. hot-cold shower (good guy-bad guy) tones. could be confronted. Polizeiliteratur. who committed a crime. is the most intensive. fox-sportive. organizes his/her thoughts. Distinguishable also: probetive. So it can be said . the psychical burden. The suspect doesn’t know any proof possibilities. confessive. See more detailed: Stüllenberg. rests. gives the method of the confrontation but s/he thinks that these evidence is known by the investigating authority. the (capable) victim-witness. we can record some considering aspects. etc. Maybe any surprise will be less effective. and inducing the feeling that “nothing matters”. At this time the dismay. defence. that Mihály Tóth already formulated the confrontations in two most common instance when used as a surprise and a tactical trick: The suspect knows one or more proof possibilities. neither theoretical nor practical result can be expected.und Studienbriefe Kriminalistik. worried.with a theoretical edge .7 Afterwards. certain defeat-consciousness. the sagged accused could be at last “punched” then and there. disappointed. H. wrath. who provides the incriminating data. 3/2011 54 .O. causing a K. interception. 283. regardless of any part of the day. its timing. part of day. when there is the biggest chance to win.: Lehr. At most. hate. the attritive and confessive is applicable at the confrontation. discovery. which is accepted in the interrogation terminology. tentative. the witness’s weight which comes from the truth-power. It could be called an “attack” tactics. which is known by the investigating authority. emotional. and facilitate the relief. in my view.that it already implies the failure if we use a room where it is impossible to create this intimate tensional base. the accused calms down. Düsseldorf. And without this. By contrast. despise. then and there.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect successful confrontation.

within it. The confronted could take advantage on the other party. “how?”. It’s a sign indicating that the defence waiting for a result hopes (legally). fatigue.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER b) However. indeed the confronted is going to feel immediately the weakness. and hear again the incriminating data (let to be seen after this to the D. who is struggling with a fatal question (represents not an object but an affair). 205-213. because the defence may see a tactical opportunity that criminalistics (science of investigation) and. 2003/2-3. we could approach the negative side of the examined theme. because of the acquired negative experiences. then the human aspects may be stronger than the defencetactical interests. I note here that the defender doesn’t like to see in the record. so as defender/protector. takes rest. Although. then it is a sure sign. attorney) strongly calls. The defence attorney defends a man. For example: the defence attorney. Its purpose is the nursing of the victim. The confrontation will be certainly unsuccessful. until the victim/witness recovers. So when the defender (accused. uncertainty. criminal tactics does not hold desirable. gets stronger. Secondary victimization8 and additional pain should be avoided then. We have to wait. What is could be seen as a criminal-tactical “nursing”. when all evidence is available. memorial/ support. but it rather called as “defensing nurse”. and only after this. middle and endgame) – which is parallel with the criminal tactics. pp. (Violence in the criminal procedure) Belügyi Szemle. We need to make a decision in that case. urges to keep a confrontation. and is able to endure the not easy. which have been formulated by my professional experience: 3/2011 55 . (I note that the accused could also receive this. move on to the tactical recommendations of “how to confront?” Listing the most frequently committed confrontation failures is important for learning the lesson and to preventing11 them as well. and to the judge) on the confrontation (the defence attorneys prefers to avoid the confrontation).A. and we don’t provide any information of the authority to the untruth teller.10 Failures of confrontation Before we answer the next question. it is not the “magic bullet”. /spiritual. it is uncertain if the victim/witness is able to undergo the confrontation right after the act. does not recommend participation in the confrontation and the testimony. So first we should list the possibly hazardous sources which we need to avoid. and the whole act could have the opposite effect. I can formulate it this way: when the defence requires this. The advice is then to plan and keep it for the end of the investigation. mentally hard situation.) Don’t forget the existence of defence tactics – similar to the chess-theory (contains open. the “forensic nursing”. in protecting the accused’s soul and to avoid the additional harassment. (which is performed by the trained representatives of the authority) stimulating him/her to the most accurate testimony. which is unknown in Hungary. then we must think twice when it should be performed. 8 9 10 11 See more detailed written by the author: Er szak a büntet eljárásban. but used in America. propose. when it can be highly assumed that the test won’t give any results. Gives big help in the process.9 c) It may also be a case that it is worth keeping the confrontation for the end of the investigation. this could be useful to the executors: my “ten commandments” of criminal-tactics.

5. Singapore. These methods are legitimated by the courts in the way that observing the criminal judicature-system’s “fair process”. significantly prejudiced13 (etc. The detective poses a “bluff12” in the course of the confrontation. Timing is tactically too early or too late. Sidney. The investigator must be infinitely patient. 10. pp. (eds. 4. 7. obscure. 3. The confronter tells even the family and acquaintances degrees into the face. The executive of the confrontation is indefinite. The examiner must be half a merchant. then s/he always keeps his/her word. However. because the expectations for the police are. The witnesses are the eyes and ears of the judicature. actor and soul-teacher. including tricks and frauds. excludes any possible failure of the judicature. The questions are irrelevant. degrading. Schematic repetition of statements and logging the report goes without any substantive act. The change from the confession-pursued police culture over to the truth-seeking behavior is yet rather difficult. The leading question is bad but without it an executor can’t exist. not to each other. “masculineimage” /macho-image/).and case-knowledge. s/he misses planning. 8.: Canter. “discipline”. the enemy-characterized work in the system. 11. that America when must – beside of the trauma of their judicature system – review their interrogation methods and introduce a “truth-seeker” much more neutral – similar to the ethics and requirements of the “Police And Criminal Evidence Act” – strategy.V. that’s the sign of weakness. so his/her case becomes definitive. they don’t see into each others eyes. but must prove! 2. Aldershot. and it’s straight against the police culture based on “tradition”. A hear-witness confronts with a fact-knowing witness. accurate person. 7. 9. uses sarcastic tone. The eye-contact does not happen. just dribble! 4. The examiner shouldn’t hoodwink. 12 13 1. 65-84. The examiner shouldn’t maund. The examiner couldn’t promise anything. The examiner couldn’t believe. threatening. 12. The confronted are waiting in the same room before the confrontation. Dartmonte. In. 1997. his/her words must have weight and substance! 3.-Alison L.in favor of squeezing confession. instead of the confronted telling it to each other. They keep the confrontation without any actual contradiction. 5. The material evidence is the witness. “English police officers are trained to be neutral in favor of acquiring precise and reliable information. what you can’t buy. The person performing the confrontation is not prepared. 14. The questions are incomprehensible. D. 8. impatient.J. The suspect is also human. and it is felt as well. 13. and complicated.): Interviewing and Deception. just more accused as the examiner! I mean under the word “bluff” here. 2. 6. it is just matter of time. The executor presents the essence of the testimonies. the American policemen are trained for using complicated psychological manipulations.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect 1. the non-recommended and inadmissible misleading-attempt of the freedom of will. 9. 6. (The high-ranked police leaders feel.” See more detailed: Lidya Sear-Tom Williamson: British and American Interrogation Strategies. cheat. Brookfield. 3/2011 56 . It is executed instead of identification. The confronted parties confess to the detective.) non-competent. Diametrically oppose. that if they change to the “new program” of neutrality. 10.

14 26. the detective’s aims are pointless. Confronting a person of – appearing established . malformed (incorrect. To keep the channelling. execution. 21. 20. No one takes care of personal and material safety during the confrontation. which may end in a battery. 17. defender or attorney of witness. almost inexhaustible answers could be given to the question “how?” – related to the interrogation also. schematic.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER 15. evaluation) as a “guideline15”. 23. It starts with the preparation and the opening of the confrontation. 19. novel. composition. They keep a half-parted confrontation. 24. when the accused already (even previously) refused to testify. With a continuously pressurizing behaviour towards a confrontee. its sounds like this: “Get prepared for your enemy!” This call-like suggestion could be useful and applicable for almost every act in criminal tactics (interrogation.) have also a beginning. The confrontation turns into a coarse. and confronted with a fact-knower. the interrogator does not interrupt the confrontation or release the control out of his/her hands. made by the authorities. deficient) record is logged. Right after the change of the testimony neither the continued interrogation nor crime scene investigation (interrogation at the premise) takes place. (For example: “the record doesn’t contains my words. 16. How do we perform the confrontation? Bering in mind the long list of mistakes. The confrontation is led by a person who concentrates just on typing instead of leading it. 3/2011 57 .serious drunkenness and blackout under the act. “I don’t sign the ideas of the police officer”). it was grammatically manipulated”. and ending. 22. The execution of the authority is uninspired. and handed over (without receive anything) for the accused. Unknown data and evidence are revealed. 18. The post-life is evaluation. the main part is the askinganswering section. main part. etc. I use the above mentioned stages of confrontation (preparation. The confrontation is performed on a closed-circuit video network. investigation). I can also say an artistic creation (play. and ends with recording. Neither tension nor “atmosphere” develops during the execution. routine-like. 14 15 The empirical research I performed led to there one-third (37%) of the asked persons detected incorrect record logs. Without appropriate preparation. A) I construct the preparation of a confrontation “the production of evidence” that is built on a guidance which is used in my professorship. proof-attempt. 25. personating argument. In keeping with the preconception of the authorities.

Gradual showing of arguments during the interrogation. Inspectors’ reports and expert-judgments must be examined. and work. or preventable in any other way. .The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect positive results16 can’t be expected. gabby-swanky. one must have precise case-knowledge. The preventing. registers. They discovered. D. circumstances..): Interviewing and Deception.V. and must know the early confessions. that “good evidence” needs time. and breaks. Hants. See more detailed: Lydia Sear-Tom Williamson: British and American Interrogation Strategies.Confrontation-alike.Directed confrontation to subordinated facts. influenced. curious. Dartmouth-Ashgate. substituting methods which may include some example: . I’ll explain the “what to do list” of actions during the framework of preparation of the law enforcement. if the interrogation of the victims and witnesses were more careful. the methods for tension-procreation. Before the preparation to the confrontation there must be a course of evaluation and “check”. behaviour-mode. (from weaker arguments to stronger). 65-84. (eds. In. but the witness-confessions and the possible confronting witness’s personality also. nothing-knower.-Allison L. etc. It is advisable to know what kind of human and social relations have influence on the confrontation process (such as: fear. Information must be gathered from earlier criminal records. such as previous files related to discipline. shy-ashamed. if it is substitutable. his/her level of consciousness and intelligence. Namely. and execution must be planned. direct show up of the exhibits of the crime (physical. health status. misdemeanour. which focuses on a quick result. 1998. friendly-feared (who afraid to confess the mistakes/untruths and/or afraid from the accused) reluctant-suspicious. Also the order of the questions to clear the contradictions. This makes him/her to confess or change the previously given statement or at least shakes his/her well-built defence system. . range of participants and questions for the detected contradictions – either in a simplified or shortened way – must be planned. Vermont. pp. efforts in favour 16 17 18 Research results show that the interrogation of suspects could be more successful. and it is explicitly contradicts with the interrogation-method nowadays.C. psychological consequences).) The confrontation-plan and the executive tactics must be adjusted to these specifications. defence-style-practice. too. silent. disinterested. socialdependence). This could be interpreted and desirable17 for the purpose of confrontation. P.) I attempt here to discuss the theoretical question whether the investigator should encourage the confrontation? Should s/he take steps. Among the witnesses we can make a difference: voluntary (classical-honest-cooperating). From the statements of the colleagues the detective must investigate the accused (usually s/he is the one of the participants during the confrontation) pre-life. If there is. 3/2011 58 .18 The place. bends his/her stubbornness.: Canter. (The thorough preliminary mapping is felt by the deception-diligent person as if the police knew everything about him/her. record-log. exact time. These are: First of all. hostile (who feels antipathy to the accused). mentally-physically handicapped. Not just the accused’s testimonies and personality should be known by the prepared detective. then it must be chosen because of its subsidiary-alikeness. if there are any better methods the examination can be continued with.J.

S/he concentrates on the main and accurate (concise. because s/he can say anything at any time or s/he is able to start to defend his/her right. there is the risk of plot). That is why the authorities do not perform the confrontation in the “old” way. s/he can then concentrate on the substantive part of the interrogation. If the accused thinks logically (with the defence-attorney) then s/he is going to feel or know that it is not going to be good when the authority wants to keep the confrontation in that way. confident. B) The execution of the confrontation must be done in a precisely thought-over and well-developed way. Pécs. All of the criminal-tactical guidance (notes. The word of a confession-refusing accused might not be the last. then s/he can do it without a confrontation at any time. I’m a devotee of simplicity and concentration. experienced accused. 22. if the expected potential is possible. and evidently understandable) questions. text19 20 According to my questionnaire survey. half of the replying accuseds encourages considers confrontation appropriate in his/her case. which means: the legal notifications and presentation of the executive rules being presented by the detective. shy. precarious victim.. witness (accused. So it is unfortunate – out of thousands of reasons . and ready for the confrontation. I experienced it very often at the people who took part in crimes against sexual-morality. According to their word: “…this is my last chance…” or “…I encourage it because I’m really innocent. If the non-truth-teller wants to change the confession. And predictably the persuasion-attempt leads to a failure in the practice. It makes sense to use legal tactical elements or to attempt when the investigating authority sees reasonable hope to end the confrontation in a successful way.. 2003. avoiders say: “…non-expected things could be presented by the people…”. witnesses. (Witness-protection possibilities in the light of our domestic law-practice) Kézirat.” The non-preferants. when out of moral causes an honest “volunteered” participation can’t be expected. p. Only in case of a surprisingly kept confrontation is it worth preparing. We can see it nowadays that the accused tries to avoid these things and they make declarations in advance saying that they don’t want to take part or give a testimony at the confrontation. confirming. “…I think that is unnecessary…” or “…Not always good. clear. During the concretized execution. when truth comes to light…” As a practising examiner. concerned. and encouraging the victim or witness. or the possibly confession-refusing accused people to reconsider themselves and take part in the confrontation?19 From the criminal procedural aspect I have already explained my opinion related to the case of a victim-witness. (And. 3/2011 59 . It is not a good and inhuman solution in these cases when we require the confrontation at all costs and it comes with a non-desirable solution because of the victim’s anxiety and phobia of retaliation. among accusedpartners.that a fearful. But the decision should be considered so that we shouldn’t get the opposite effect and increase the possibly non-truth confessor’s resistant ability and self-confidence20. if a penitent person) is confronted with a strong-minded. Simon Andrea: Tanúvédelmi lehet ségek a hazai jogalkalmazás tükrében. Andrea Simon confirms my assumption who formulates like this: “…the theories don’t negotiate the event of confrontation.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER of that the reluctant victims.

partner. 24. For example: The confrontees are relatives. The confrontees must be declared about their relation to each other. according to the NYER’s 52.“good or bad” . and must be asked in a way to force the – non-truth-teller – confrontee to act. brother-in-law. I find that surprisingly many important questions are asked (and later precised) and the given reactions to them25. foster-parent). 1986.detailed rules of the investigations and the otherwise recorded investigation acts. shortly. The other methods are: controlled. The 23/2003. except if it is unnecessary22. and unnecessary conversations could be avoided. In this case the detective must seek balance and calmness similar to the basic interrogation. managing ones. It seems to me that this is a relaxation-attempt for the possibly non-truth-teller (mostly the accused) – “capitatio benevolentiae”. 3/2011 60 . Then the professionally unevaluable. distractive. self-evaluative. if it is “not obvious”…“It must be cleared also how they are related each other. opened. H.relations21 to each other. Joyful data that during my survey only 19 case (3.” Stüllenberg. when it seems like an apparent contradiction or misunderstanding rather than an issue of lie or truth. (VI.5%) revealed the detective’s “tracking question”. the opening relation could be discovered without clearing. and we don’t get any change or fracture on the 21 22 23 24 25 26 In the German practice the confronter must rate and justify his/her relation to the other confronting party. In spite of the fact that sometimes the accomplice or the victim-witness asks quite well either of the knowledge of the facts or because of his/her abilities26.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect books of the domestic and international literature) wish to clear first the confrontees’ . Regarding the 326 accused who participated in the empiric survey every ninth of them (38) met a relative during a confrontation. 58-77. If this does not work. (Such as: sister. It does not serve the stress-procreation and reservation that is formulated in the psychological aspect.§. I think it is possible to resolve the stress. Then some of them add to that the use of a formal or informal mode of speech. I do not know how it brings forward the method of confrontation if it comes to light that – as in the most cases – the confronted know each other from somewhere24 or in the minor part they don’t know each other.” Out of this formula it seems that after the opening question or without it we must ask about their relation each other whether it is “obvious” or not. indirect. According to Stüllenberg: “In the case of helpful subject. The two suggested above.) BM-IM joint regulation about the investigating authorities – under the direction of the Minister of the Interior . Düsseldorf. It might be a good method that persons confronted with the accused come after each other. I recommend two of the following questionning methods to use during the confrontation. are aiming at the goal. In the meantime I accept that we don’t need that big tension. I detected this standpoint in the German literature also. s/he could be explained. Polizeiliteratur. Naturally we must handle the accomplices other way because their reactions and intentions are unpredictable. which is not so fortunate here compared to the interrogative situation where the detective’s goal is to terminate the flurry situation and to create a calm atmosphere.: Lehrund Studienbriefe Kriminalistik. pp. namely the opened (or direct) questions. S/he could participate in the preparation of the surprise. then the knowledge of the degree of acquaintanceship is irrelevant and so is the questioning or the help of the defence-attorney. According to my opinion. Particularly the second and third is worthy because every following is less surprising and routine occurs. I’m not absolutely convinced that this contact-conversation must take place and that it is fortunate for the effectiveness from the confrontation’s aspect23.

It is not allowed to find either an object or a tool nearby that can be used to harm each other. it is not sure that the second one is also meaningless. its intensity. It might happen that new. After the second and third confronters the accused is becoming aware of the fact that the deceptive behaviour27 is useless. Care should be taken to provide for the appropriate distance between the confronting participants and for the escape routes. When anger and excitement reach new peaks. 1976. at the same time let them rampage. „started to doubt during the confrontation.S. unknown essential antagonism comes to light. On the other part. because the pro27 28 Its inverse might also happen. By contrast in nowadays practice the computerized-record logging and printing takes so much time that the tension and restlessness of the confronted flies away. Lübeck. During the execution we must take care of the security factors also. pp.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER other side. 3/2011 61 . the method of execution. It is inadvisable to repeat the confrontation. at the questioned night. either. it may happen that someone comes out with a brand new thing. “The fighting cocks must be protected from battery. It can happen in practice that one of the confronters who already testified that the accused committed the crime. See more detailed: Friedrich Geerds:Vernehmungstechnik. and only the minimum information could be given out. Georg Schmidt-Römhold. that s/he really saw or heare D. If one confrontation was unsuccessful. For the health-safety reasons. 122-125. and atmosphere. I said theoretically the repeatedly held confrontation is not excluded but I never experienced it in the practice and it is not found in the empiric research. they must say the answers to each other and not to the confrontation executive. Verlag für polizeiliches Fachschriftum.”28 The confronted must be seated opposite each other. Partly the data-supply security should be taken care of. but s/he didn’t notice the authority before…” Bírósági Határozatzok (Court Judgments) 2000/19’th case. One can find the yarn which s/he has searched for desperately. the participant who can’t take the tension or the psychological stress – in case they are not able to notify the confrontation executive about that but the investigator notices it .the confrontation must be interrupted. One can sometimes hear new things. thus the debate and contraargumentation should remain in the mainstream of the investigation. the safety of the participants must also be guaranteed. The executive party can immediately concentrate on the following confrontation which might get effect. The new data and facts shed different light on their relationship. Theoretically it is not excluded to repeat a confrontation between the same persons. but our eyes and ears must be opened. It belongs to the sphere of security that the participants shouldn’t see into the documents or get access to the evidence. I recommend recording in report when a confrontation was substantively unsuccessful. The surprise power might come with the fact that the non-truth-teller would not expect a new meeting a repeated confrontation with the same person.

Don’t forget that great significance is attached to his/her abilities and personality. 887-893. suggestion. antipathetic. the confronted and attorneys . and it weakens the other (maybe) truth-telling person’s attempt at the same time. (About the rules of confrontation) Belügyi Szemle. S/he speaks in the possibly non-truth-teller’s face and the opponent reacts30. S/he must transmit confidence. When being used the hot-tempered detective gets angry and leaves the room and leaves the suspect to the “likeable” colleague. and hard-handed. The application of this technique leads to a “straight fracture” between the two detectives. On the other hand. 3/2011 62 . s/he doesn’t get prestige. witnesses. 1984/5. pp.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect cess shouldn’t expose the participant’s life to risk and the surprise-power has already flown away.and acts as if the suspect were a despicable person – to get the confession. 1966/12. judges the suspect . information exchange. This is also known and felt by the non-truth-tellers. guidance. This solution is dictated by our faith in the power of surprise. case-knowledge. the detective.are prohibited to be asked by the confrontation executive. provocation. p. This applies “vice-versa”. I also agree with Mihály Tóth’s assumption that the first surprise could be the appearance of a non-expected accuser (usually a new witness). The first question by the detective31 asked from the new comer which excludes any calm-down-time for the opponent (mainly the negating accused). Mihály Tóth: Feloldható-e a béklyó? (Is the shackle resolvable?) Jogtudományi Közlöny. inexorable. and 29 30 31 For example: Bertalan Lázár: A szembesítés taktikai szabályairól. and the organizer. It belongs to the maintenance of order when the detective does not let the defender. As for the sequence of questions. My empiric research shows also that the victim was asked firstly by the authority in the two-thirds of the events. the attorney of the witness or the legal counsel of the victim to unduly distract the course of the confrontation – as a questionnaire-based survey related to law enforcement highlighted – or even answer the questions. collusion. The most frequent reasons are: influence. I think it is also appropriate that some questions and the reactions to them – by the defenders. the detective. Or the “likeable” detective criticizes the hot-tempered colleague and advises the suspect to cooperate with him/her and give a statement about the facts attached to the case. 286. Detected by just a few people the interrogated participating in the confrontation (“player”) pays also attention to his/her first “judge”. and professionalism. one is tough. the confrontation executive. Out of the two detectives. I think the most important factor in the execution is the authority. The question might arise as to how an old trick is useful against a hardly manageable accused to get hidden information and confirm his/her guilt. the second detective acts as if s/he were worried for the welfare of the suspect. Without these. I agree with the often stated recommendation29 that the first question must be asked by the possibly truth-telling party. This technique is known in America as: “Mutt and Jeff” (or saving the good guy).

and can have an effect on the final decision. versions. helps the confronted in surviving. other detective practices. possibly deceptive. categories in reliance with the confronted persons’ reliability. suggestions. such as mentioning the moral of his family. hypothetically reliable. tactics. So hypothetical levels of reliability can be: reliable. nothing changes on the other hand and it leads to undesirable consequences. but there cannot be a promise of any benefit or future release. In the report. presumably deceptive.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER then s/he will arrange that the hot-tempered college is taken off the case. Drawing attention that confession is always the first sign of regret valued by the court. in everyday life and mental state. I suggest writing only one sentence saying that the confrontation between X and Y was unsuccessful.32 Detectives should not get desperate in such cases and by no means should they show disappointment in front of the confronted persons. Mentioning the possibility that with acknowledging the confronted person’s real (and not more) role could be cleared in the crime with which the ground for sentencing can weaken. Such as: Indicating that further denial is meaningless. telling. A detective has to notice it with ‘poker’ face. the goal is that the suspect should feel it is better to collaborate with the “likeable” detective. general moral conduct. 32 At the same time it is possible to draw other suspicions. but there is no need to record or draw up in the end of the report as I have already mentioned in the previous chapter. communicational tools could also be used in order to prompt ‘bringing the denying accused to his senses’. Pointing out further contradictions. C) Evaluation of the confrontation belongs to its “past life”. This technique is only expedient in the basic interrogation because in the confrontation the detective(s) are/is just (a) sideactor(s). Referring to the confronted person’s integrity. 3/2011 63 . moreover he has to show a kind of frigidity of which the probably lying confronted thinks that this is not important and the authority have a card up their sleeves. Appealing to emotions. liability. It is too soon to valuate which part did not lead to success and where there was no change at all. During the confrontation. evidence other than the already mentioned. than to tolerate the other detective’s harassment. possibly reliable. hears with his own eyes and ears the accusing data from a certain person. and deceptive. It can be done mentally. Referring to the general experience of the detectives that relief. Regardless of the assumed roles. Plus the “bad” or “strong” detective may cause fear in the possibly truth-teller often in the victim-witness that may cause his/her indetermination. since he sees.

In the case of a minor. where the accused can show the routes on the spot. The European treaty of 1983 – about the compensation of the victims of violent crimes.) which can only be known this deeply by the one who really committed the crime. the crime scene. many of those who apply the law use the expression “cancelling” the confession in a wrong way. No confession of the accused can be cancelled according to the Miranda rules. can be regarded as evidence and do not disappear. at the same time he can watch over security/safety factors while in the meantime the other one is leading the real confrontation. the facts and some pieces of evidence (tool. if something new has occurred from one or both of the persons. One of them is drawing up the minutes almost silently in the background. relative. In the evaluating period. attendant. The interrogation can take place during crime scene investigation (interrogation at the crime scene). Children and mentally handicapped or sick persons 3/2011 64 .’) If the confronted accused changes from denial to confession. or psychologist could be an encouraging factor. continuously recording. (More shrewdly ‘from weak witness he becomes a strong suspect.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect It is more remarkable if something substantive happened. such as his/her legal counsel. The circle of participants of the confrontation is determined from a tactical point of view determining whose present is advantageous. being confronted. presumably truthful.also declares that “the victim –in every phase of the procedure – shall be interrogated in a way where his personal situation and rights and dignity are taken into account. Are two detectives necessary or is one sufficient? Considering the requirements of today’s recording. The things he once said.33 Then we have to touch upon the motive of confessing. However. teacher. two persons representing the authority are beneficial. then a detailed continuous confession with the knowledge of the accused has to be recorded immediately and it cannot be changed. the order of the events. the events. So we can only talk about changing the confession. Who should be present at confrontations? The question intends to answer who should be present at the confrontation beside those who are mentioned by the legal procedure and coordinators of authority. not just to the questioning of the facts. By all means it must be done so that the lesson can be formulated and thus errors can be avoided next time. owing to the warnings. the presence of a confidential person. etc.34 33 34 For this. it may happen that because of the confrontation someone’s position in the criminal procedure changes as legal practitioners say a suspect becomes a ‘weak’ suspect from being a ‘strong’ witness. In case of some little or essential change it is practical to record a continuous confession in accordance with the confronted person’s position. it is necessary to consider the mistakes (faults/errors) made during the confrontation and to plan the possibility of correction. catch.

The lawyer of the witness. My survey made among law enforcement officials shows that in the case of an experienced detective. Weimar. Kapitel XV. 1986. Hannover. their confessions are not complete or can be evaluated differently because of their mistakes. 125. there is no significance of the presence of the lawyer or the lawyer of the witness regarding the tactics of the confrontation though there is less probability of efficiency in case of “lawyered” cases. This point of view predominates in the German literature as well. which is unwanted during the confrontation.: Confrontational stress and children’s testimony: some experimental findings. Gegenüberstellung-Lichtbildvorlage Richard Booberg Vorlag.36 My complete prohibiting suggestion refers to confronting children 37 that is held38 by criminal tactical reasons as well.(szerk. where the questioning happened without the perpetrator.35 That is why the above mentioned function – detailed at the question ‘when?’ .): Informatika és büntet jog.(Informatics and criminal law) PTE ÁJK. 2000. 481.: Lehrund Studienbriefe Kriminalistik. Dresden. The uncertainty of the witnesses’ (plaintiffs’) confession occurs in the German literature as well: “Despite of the fact that most witness would like to help jurisdiction. 2002/2-3. Düsseldorf. the plaintiff’s legal representative. Peters also did some research.” I regard this to be a standard in case of confronting.-180. Stuttgart. Berlin. 1953. p. München. which works against the result of the confrontation. weakness in their case.-Nagy Z.” See in more details: Ackermann-Clages-Roll: Handbuch der Kriminalistik für Praxis und Ausbildung. H. 170. In this group five times fewer children talked about the previously seen actions than in the other group. Polizeiliteratur. In: Gál I. or its consequence – outer influence. Then some of them deliberately make a fake confession. For the tactics of confronting children under the age of 18 see: Friedrich Kleinschmidt: Lehrbuch für den praktischen Kriminaldienst. In my empirical research 1% (altogether 5) as children under the age of 14. Idézi: Kulcsár Gabriella: A gyermek-tanúvallomások információtartalmának torzulási lehet ségei (The possibilities of distorting related to the information content of children’s testimonies . Afterwards some of them were interrogated in the presence of the perpetrator. See in more details: Hajdú Magdolna: A b ncselekmények áldozatainak védelme (The protection of the victims of crimes) Belügyi Szemle. Later due to the changed defence of the suspect a new psychological examination was ordered to be held. It derives from its catalyst. p.” Peters. in which “the children watched a mock robbery.P. p.40 In one practical case the investigating authority interrogated the minor aggrieved party as a witness who had to recall his experiences he had felt during the crime against him when he was examined by the psychologist specialist. can also be an encouraging factor whether on the side of the truthful person or the liar in case of whom telling in the eye doesn’t lead to a change. after which the expert added that he didn’t recommend further interrogations or confrontations for the sake of the – obviously and if it is possible – may be questioned in the presence of their parents or custodian. “Children under the age of 18 can only take part on identity parade. “tranquilizer” function that increases the sense of security.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER It is not an exaggeration saying that the same effect predominates if the accused is also represented by his lawyer. respectively someone who has medical skills to help them. D. Referring to fear. pp. 163. Confrontation cannot be applied in case of minors. and 7% (39) as children between the age of 14 and 18 took part in confrontations.” Stüllenberg. 2006. 73-75. It applies to the plaintiffs too.Of the “lawyer-free” confrontation immediately after catching is valuable. Confrontation between relatives occurred in 24 cases (4. moderateness.4%). since we can count on – moreover we have so far mentioned fear39. 3/2011 65 35 36 37 38 39 40 . pp.

I reckon that after the crime has happened. We can say that they are good observers and if they are part of an activity. their interrogation. If the detective treats them as “equal” partners. avoiding to be awaited.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect psychical development of the child as they tend to fix the horrible experience and the awareness of being a victim. Complete separation is especially recommended before confronting. but they definitely do on the things that have impact on their emotions. furthermore they are unable to analyze and to relate. We have to plan the confrontation by paying respect/considering the data coming from these. teachers. 2003/2-3. therefore they are often sensitive to being treated like minors. they quite exactly remember what happened. they become honest. and that is a beneficial power in case of confronting them. as well as the use of the specially furnished. tired. Usually they do not concentrate on everything that surrounds them.41 We must not forget that the dream of the children is to grow up. 3/2011 66 . confronting should be done by such 41 Gyula Cserei: The success of the rights of the plaintiff Belügyi Szemle. combine with reality in their afterimages. The intermediate decision is better than the omitted or adjourned one. Their fantasy is lively and often compound. In case we experience it during the execution of confrontation then it has to be led into a different river or has to be finished. For example. their self confidence rises. Finally. in which he/she was raised. especially if the truth is on their side. making a study on the environment. I must remark that the confronter has to take into consideration that the confronted juvenile. 127. and hungry but feel comfortable. In their case. we must decide not to perform the confrontation. neat confronting room built for this purpose. questioning or confronting should take place as fast as possible. neighbours. This danger also exists in the case of juveniles and avoiding this is the responsibility of the confronter. as well as about his/her environment. If this danger exists. we must take care that they should not be sleepy. we have to take into account that the representatives of this age-group cannot contemplate the events critically. by questioning the minor’s relatives. On the other hand. particularly the minor mentality differs in every aspect from the adults. p. as they are easily suggestible. has to obtain a clear picture of his/her personality. and acquaintances or rather with the help of the thorough preliminary interrogation. The detective has to gather all the relevant information about the minor’s character. In our case the preliminary data search is also necessary during the preparation for the confrontation since at every stage of their lives they have their special distinguishing features which must be taken into consideration before and after the special interrogation. They often remember such tiny little facts over which adults would pass.

the detective has to pay attention to the fact that the weaker gender should not feel any kind of psychological impact. It is worth reconstructing the events on the crime scene. physically and mentally weak persons. PTE ÁJK. 2006. My point of view is the same in the case of – though I have not experienced it in practice – confrontation through video. There is also another question: can we confront a hearsay-witness? My answer is a definite no. “A gyermek-tanúvallomások információtartalmának torzulási lehet ségei” (The possibility of distortion of information content in the testimonies of children) címmel.43 In relation to confronting a woman and a man. stronger regret that can even increase the burden of conscience. we’d rather set aside confronting and apply it as a supplementary action. such as is required for the powerful. It is not to be ignored that minors may make imprecise or false testimonies unintentionally even at the interrogation before the confrontation. 3/2011 67 . nonHungarian speakers. For what purpose/reason shall we apply confrontation? In answering the final question. I regard Endre Bócz’s division. Even with the best technical support we cannot achieve the real effect of the face to face confrontation. or even deaf-mute persons since handicap with its compensation of strong gesticulation can be a psychological advantage. The investigator should apply methods that help focusing on the details and stimulate memories with associations. 119-132. the desire for disclosure.): Informatika és büntet jog (Informatics and criminal law). Especially because of such criminal tactical reasons. fear or false solidarity. Some of them make false testimonies without any motive but very often they act on shame.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER a person42 who has attended a related special training and who has the ability of understanding and has patience. mute. On the other hand. The accused confronting with the aggrieved party-witness may feel compassion. pp. It is not impossible to confront deaf. humiliation. (szerk.-Nagy Z. In such cases the reasons for the imprecise testimonies have to be explored before the confrontation. the confronted also senses the hearsay-fact and it gives him a chance to attack. and the need for asking for forgiveness. I have the same conclusion in the case of confronting foreigners. If we want to protect the confronted person. perception of reality. and which I have completed below. Employing an interpreter in itself makes the confrontation impossible. most suitable: 42 43 Gabriella Kulcsár has written a detailed study on the distortion of data in confession of children. I do not see its point or any grounds for it. since witnesses like this lack the power and faith derived from knowledge of reality. since the power of telling to one’s face psychologically groundless. We can say the same in the case of confronting old-aged. Pécs. or secondary victimization. In: Gál I. the human cogency through our senses. meaningless/pointless. according to which we can talk about the following cases. suggestive telling to one’s face.

if either of the opposite confessions seems to be true. made by a person from whose connection with the other person we should be afraid of his being influenced and perhaps later he may change his true confession. mentioning the social workers who work with children. then it is certain that no more is needed. 1981. In a case like that it is harder to justify the changing of the confession made during the confrontation than to justify the confession without the presence of the accused. we can talk about the following): in case of a multiple offender a hard-headed and unscrupulous perpetrator (suspect). Lübeck. though it was not successful. and younger boys. why we leave the confronting of minors to interrogators who are corresponding and have corresponding qualifications/skills. not by conflict of interest. 174-177. or both confessions are doubtful.: “private” charging procedure) they tried to clear the contradiction.” See in more details: Friedrich Geerds: Vernehmungstechnik Verlag für polizeiliches Fachschrifttum.45 d) Hopeless (according to Mihály Tóth. pp. Beyond their ability of understanding and sophisticated senses. His cogency. “It is clear. the ability of creating faith is as important as orientation of topics relating to the general intelligence in order to make a common ground with the interrogated person to promote conversation. fortitude and persistency are crucial to his success. in a single phase action the accused denies regardless of the completely concordant evidence.g. 3/2011 68 . and combine the versatility of an artist and the ability of persuasion of a vendor. c) Definitely required (cannot be omitted): if one. if the accused has already changed his confession several times. and the “authority” confronts with one or two of them unsuccessfully. 44 45 As it is drawn in the American literature: “An effective interrogator has to be qualified in several areas of art and science. rather perceptive and observing variances that could be eliminated. the female members of the authorities. though they are more often competent in the case of girls. 83-95. pp. while he knows the statements of the witnesses. Georg Schmidt-Römhold.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect a) Unnecessary: if in a previous procedure (e. if the bearing of the case is simple. Positively resolved approach. 1976. the interrogators of children must be experienced and have to have huge patience.” Swanson: Criminal Investigations.44 if several witnesses make a concordant confession to the same piece of evidence. He has to possess such ability with which he can utilize psychological techniques. He must make a close connection with the persons from whom he wants to get information. if the opposite confessions previously became known for example: the accused persons are at large. The interrogator must be sympathizing and be objective at the same time. b) Practical: if there are differences in the statements of the witnesses.

(Organizing interrogations) Belügyi Szemle. custody or rather his spouse. or rather disadvantageous. 1973/1. parallel hearing of experts. 46 47 According to the expression of one of the German literature it is “useless”. I can answer the following: a) for correcting the consciously false confessions/statements. polygraph and cross examination. pp. Ministerium des Innern. if the accused has denied to make a confession. 3/2011 69 . Berlin. onsite investigation.presumably truth-telling plaintiff-witness. attempt to prove the case.46 e) Should be avoided: if either of the persons is living in the same household with the presumably lying accused. c) for establishing that the contradictions from different confessions cannot be cleared up that way. b) for correcting the mistakes non-deliberately made in the false confessions. neurotic . search/body search. 96-97. S. it can be well distinguished from the following procedures: interrogation. If the situation is not obvious and confession stands against another confession despite of deploying all criminalistic possibilities then confrontation is necessary in order to clear up the situation. in case of a young. Final thoughts and recommendations The concept. As an evidentiary procedure it is distinct and it can be well distinguished in the criminal procedure law and from other truth seeking methods applied in criminalistics as well. types (and grouping) of confrontation is clarified. exclusion. f) Permitted: if any of the confronted persons is a minor. Publikationabteilung. if the accused does not make a confession despite of the pieces of evidence. if the confrontation is tactically (because of protection of information and the witness) not desired. the active participation. See in more details: Die Vernehmung von Zeugen und Beschuldigen. 1971. As long as the guilt of the accused is proved with the help of witnesses and objective evidence and there is no chance that his confession comes to a result. in the case of opposite confessions confrontation is not performed. if any of the confronted persons is blind. particularly if he is under his nursing. Bócz Endre: A kihallgatások szervezése. if the witness bears any ground for exemption. very old. so we have to search for other possibilities of determining objective facts. 119-124. companion or child.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER if we have to confront him with a foreigner and an interpreter is needed. Consequently. In summarizing the why / what reasons for is confrontation applied? question. identity parade. if the witness is reluctant with a reason.

3. Bachmaier Winter. H. 2000. Ackermann. omission of recording meta-communicational and physiognomic signs. the emphasis of confrontation is now also on the investigation and not on the trial stage. Stuttgart.: Mutual recognation and procedural safeguards: the Proposal for a Council Framework Decision on certain procedural rights in criminal proceedings in the European Union. Arntzen. 5. Berlin.: Handbuch der Kriminalistik. (ed. Pravna fakulteta Univerza v Ljubljani. The following belongs to the novelties regarding the recommendations of the tactics related to criminalistics: establishing a separate room for confrontation. Sorin: Elemente de Criminalistica. Právnická fakulta Univerzita Kalova v Praze. F. 3/2011 2. 1989. 4. H. in case of unsuccessful confrontation a report is advised to be prepared instead of drawing up the minutes. R. Editura Alma Mater. Therefore the faults of the tactics of confrontation that are likely to be committed and the ones that have been told about in detail can be avoided with greater chance. Dresden. there are several confronting methods resulting in excluded evidence. omission of starting question(s) related to ’finding relations’ in the process of carrying out confrontation. München. Richard Boorberg Verlag. 270-281. In: Tomasek. Cluj Napoca. especially on the basis of the arguments referring to the crime-solving tactics I have expounded in the respective chapters. 70 . Alämoreanu. I myself support the above mentioned idea. Praha.-Claeges.: Vernehmungspsychologie.): European Law and National Criminal Legislation. 1997. 2007.München.-Roll. Aleksi -Škuli : Kriminalistika. References: 1. pp. moreover. 2004. L. Hannover. the following idea should be borne in mind: a planned and thorough preparation and an intensive and focused performance of the confrontation is sure to result in a better outcome. I suggest the present legal regulation to be amended as follows: in case of minors application of confrontation should be excluded and on the other hand executives should get possibility to record it in the report of the investigation – instead of the minutes of it. 6. M. In my view we can’t speak about obligatory confrontation.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect Contrary to the original intent of the jurisprudence and the legislators. 1973/1. Beograd. Weimar. Capitoul XVI. Bócz Endre: A kihallgatások szervezése. (Organizing interrogations) Belügyi Szemle.

(szerk.: Pirucni kriminalisticki leksikon. Csaba: Teoreticke modely ziskání „kriminalistické” Novely ceny. 22. 23. Václav a kolektiv: Kriminalistika. 4/2006. 11. 24. Z.-Timm. K.: Polygraphietest im Ermittlungsverfahren. 2002. 1999. 8. 2006. 1997. Vladimir: Kriminalistika taktika. 17. Mircea. Policajná teoria a prax. Kriminalistik. Herke. Metenko. pp 119-132. Bratislava. Lázár Bertalan: A szembesítés taktikai szabályairól. Mészáros Bence: A fedett nyomozás a b nüldözésben. M.): Krimináltaktika. (Prága) 2007/1. Fenyvesi Csaba: Szembesítés.(Informatics and criminal law) PTE ÁJK. Kulcsár Gabriella: A gyermek-tanúvallomások információtartalmának torzulási lehet ségei (The possibilities of distorting related to the information content of children’s testimonies. Bratislava. Zdislaw: Remarks on Evidence in the Polish Penal Law Procedure and Crime Detection. Darko: Kriminalistika.D. I-II. 19. Clages. Editura Lumina Lex. Pécs. Lübeck. Verlag für Polizeiliches Fachschrifttum.: Vernehmungstechnik. 15. 16. Praha. Akadémija Policajného zboru v Bratislave. Stuttgart. 272 pp. Maver. Georg Schmidt-Römhold. Kube. Bratislava. 18. 1999/7. 21. 1998. (Handbuch für Praxis und Wissenschaft).-Nagy Z. 1998. Rejtjel Kiadó. Prawo 2000 nr.): Informatika és büntet jog. (Tactics of Confrontation) Rend rségi Szemle. 3/2011 71 . Academic Press. 1997. Policijska akademija. 2011. Bucuresti. 2005.: Kriminalistik. Bratislava. Akadémia Policajného Zboru v Bratislave. Beograd. Face to Face in Criminal Cases) Dialóg Campus Kiadó. Fabian. O’Donohue: Handbook of Forensic Psychology. 45-52. 2000/9. In: Gál I. 2004. Geerds. Lehrbuch für Ausbildung und Praxis.. 231-244. Javovszky. Kertész Imre: A szembesítés: (Confrontation) In: Illár Sándor (szerk. 1960/12. 1997.-Hautzinger.A. értekezés. E. Krajnik. Sarajevo. Richard Boorberg Verlag. Stuttgart-München. Szemt l szembe a b nügyekben. 25. 13. Fenyvesi. H. pp. Ljubljana. Cs. Budapest. T. pp. 20. 2008. Horst: Kriminalistik.: Criminalistica. Jozef a kolektiv: Kriminalistické metódija moznosti kontroly sofistikovanej kriminality. 10.: The Hungarian Criminal Procedure Law. D. I. Krivokapic. F. Pécs. U.-Störzer. Kegel.-Stadler. J. 26.: Zeugenvernehmung mit Video. o. 2006. Kriminalistik. Kriminalistika. Acta UWr. Budapest-Pécs. 9.REVIEW SCIENTIFIC PAPER 7. (The Covered Investigation) Ph. 131-138. 14. 1992-1993. 49-52. 2004. Modly. 12. (Confrontation. T.

Odenthal. 1984/3. Gregory L. Weimar. Szilovics Csaba: Csalás és jogkövetés az adójogban. 35. 1984/5. Springfield. O'Hara. o. (Binding of Confrontation) Jogtudományi Közlöny. . 1992.-Veic. 1981. Ch. Budapest-Pécs. Düsseldorf.R. 30. 1981.: Lehr. Tóth Mihály: Feloldható-e a béklyó? (Unbinding of Confrontation?) Jogtudományi Közlöny. 2006. 2004. 282-287. 2002. N. 33. Richard Boorberg Verlag. Tremmel Flórián: Szembesítés. New York. Swanson.: Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation.The Confrontation as Truth-Seeking Method from Criminalistic Aspect 27.. Budapest. 72 3/2011 . 29. München.58-77. Pavisic. o. (Confontation) In: Tremmel FlóriánFenyvesi Csaba-Herke Csongor: Kriminalisztika. Hans-Jörg: Die Gegenüberstellung im Strafverfahren. Dialóg-Campus Kiadó. Charles E. Stuttgart. 139-145. o. 36. Zagreb. 1986. 37. B. Stüllenberg. Berlin.: Criminal Investigation. Zagreb. 2003. B. B. P. Pavisic. pp. 2005. Hannover. 31.Chamelin. Kragujevac. 384-391.O'Hara.: Kriminalistika. L.: Kriminalistika. Tóth Mihály: A szembesítés béklyójában. 34. 28. 32. Random House. H.C.-Modly D. (Fraud and Legal Bahaviour in Taxlaw) Gondolat. Simonovi . Tankönyv és Atlasz.und Studienbriefe Kriminalistik. Polizeiliteratur.-Territo.: Uvod u kriminalistiku.

. (2005). . .2012. : . . :„ . : Farkas. . 1952.1 1 . Bizonyítás a polgári perben 73 .. . . - . . . (Miklós Kengyel) . . . - . . - - ( ( .11. . ) . :„ ?“ . . UDK – 343. . . József-Kengyel. .„ . .4 (439) : 17. .“ 3/2011 173 (4). . . . Miklós. .“ ). . . : . .131.

. (1992). ( .-Roll. ). - .– „ ( ) . 385. . . H. - 2 [Evidence in Civil Actions].“2 . - . . ( : 2003/357. Paris. : . 1999/570. . : ). Hannover. . .“ Dictionaire de droit criminel. H. . (2005). Richard Boorberg Verlag. Flórián-Fenyvesi. ). . . . . 1994/409. . Budapest-Pécs. . ( ). 74 3/2011 . R. Weimar. Budapest. Tremmel. München. . . Kriminalisztika Tankönyv és Atlasz [Textbook and Atlas on Criminalistics ]. . Dialóg-Campus Kiadó. Stuttgart. 1985/406 1981/75). Csaba-Herke. „ . (1997). Handbuch der Kriminalistik. . . . . Berlin. 155. 2003/286. :„ .“ Ackermann. . Dalloz. KJK. . .-Clages. . Csongor... Dresden. – - . . ( ( . . . . ? . .

. . - ? . . . 3 . . . . . . . a . . . . . 4 . . . . 3/2011 75 . . . . . . . . . . . . . - a e . . . . 3 4 . . . - . . . - .. . . . . ( ). . . . . . . – . / . . . . . .

. . . – – . - . . . . . . . . a – . .5 5 . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . .– . . ( . . . . – . . ( ). . . . – . . . – 3/2011 76 . . . . . . . . . ( . . . ) . . . . . . ).

Mater. . – . Düsseldorf.. . . Jogtudományi Közlöny. . : Alämoreanu.und Stu- 77 . Feloldható-e a béklyó? (Is the fetter resolvable?). ) ? ( : 6 . (1986). Cluj Napoca. . S. Lehr. dienbriefe Kriminalistik. . . . ( . - . H. 7 . 1984/5. M. . . 3/2011 . . )./ . . Editura Alma . – . . Tóth. - : . .. Polizeiliteratur. . . . .. Capitoul XVI. . . – . 287. . . Elemente de Criminalistica. . . . . . ? . 283. (2000). 7 : . – . . (1984). ( ). : Stüllenberg. . . . ? . . . .. . . . – . . . . . : 6 - / . . / .

. / . 2003/2-3. . . (Violence in the criminal procedure). . . . ( ) ). 9 . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . / .( . . . . . . . 205-213. . .) 3/2011 78 . . . - . / 8 . 9 . .– . . . . . . - . . ( : Er szak a büntet eljárásban. ) . . . ( ( . . Belügyi Szemle. ) . ( ) : . . . . . . . .

. 7. 1. ! 79 . ( . :11 . . 4. ( ) . 9. )– ( . . . 2. ! .. . . . . - 11 . ! . ). - – . 3/2011 . ( ). . 6. . . . . . 5. . 10 ( ) ( . . 3. . . 10 ). . . . . . . . . ! . . . . 10. 8.

-Alison L. Brookfield. . . . . . S. . T. . .“ : Williamson. . . ) . ) ) . . . Singapore. . . . 65-84. . ( ( - . .– . D. . . Aldershot.J. . - . . . 80 3/2011 . (eds. ) . ( . L.13 . 12 . . / ( 12 . (1997). . British and American Interrogation Strategies. - . 13 „ . . Dartmonte. . . . . .14 . In: Canter.V. . . . .. .): Interviewing and Deception. . Sidney.

): Interviewing and Deception. . .. .„ “). . . ( . Hants. . . British and American Interrogation Strategies. . . . . . .( ). . S.18 14 : ( .. 1998. 65-84. : . Vermont.-Allison L. .C. ( / / ). ! ). (eds. : Williamson. . “ . . ) . ( . T. . ). . . . . „ . ( ). - 15 ( . . . D. (37%) . . . : ( ). ? . . Dartmouth-Ashgate. 15 ( . (1998).V. In: Canter. 16 17 . L. . . : ( ). . P. . . . 16 17 18 . 3/2011 81 . .) .J. . . .

– . „. . .“ : „.. . ..) 19 . : ) . .. .“ .. :„ . ).. .) .( . ( . . 20 82 3/2011 . . . ( . . .. „ : „.20 ( . . . . . . . ( . . ...“.. . ). . .. .. . .. . - . . . .. . . .. ?19 – . - ..“ „.“ ...

NYER’s 52. . - . . . . Düsseldorf. . . ( ) . ) . . (1986). (2003). – . . . Lehr. .. Pécs. .) BM-IM – – . 58-77. . .§. . . ( . (Stüllenberg): „ .23 21 22 23 . A. . . Polizeiliteratur.. . 3/2011 83 .und Studienbriefe Kriminalistik. 24. (VI. . : . . . 23/2003. ( ). .â . H. . . .. . 22. 21 - . .“ Simon. .. . . Tanúvédelmi lehet ségek a hazai jogalkalmazás tükrében.“ Stüllenberg. (Witnessprotection possibilities in the light of our domestic law-practice) Kézirat.22 .

- 3/2011 . - . 24 . capitatio benevol ntiae. . ( . .. .– – . . . . . . . . . : . . . . / 84 . 27 - ) . . (3. ) . . . . ( 38) . ). 2000/19th case. . . .25 . . . 326 ( 19 . .24 . 27 : . . ( . . . . . - 25 26 . .5%) : . . .26 .. . Bírósági Határozatzok (Court Judgments). . .

. . Tóth. . . . (Mihály Tóth) ( ). 28 . A szembesítés taktikai szabályairól. . (About the rules of confrontation) Belügyi Szemle. . . 29 . 28 31 - 29 : Geerds. . (1976). - . Vernehmungstechnik. . (1984). 1966/12. 1984/5. . 85 . .. : Bertalan. . . 3/2011 30 31 . - . Feloldható-e a béklyó? (Is the shackle resolvable?) Jogtudományi Közlöny. 887-893. (1966). . . )– . - . . .. . . F. M. Verlag für polizeiliches Fachschriftum. – ( . 286. .. Georg Schmidt-Römhold.. Lübeck. . . .30 . . - . L. . 122-125. . .

. . . . . . . . . ( . . . . â . . . . . . . . . . . . . – – . . . . . . . . . . . ) . . . . - . (Mutt and Jeff) . . - . . 86 . . . . . - 3/2011 . . . . : . : / / . . / ( ) .– ( ). . .

.) 32 . . . . . . - . 3/2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . Y . .32 . - - . . . ( ) . . 87 . ( . : .

. ? . . . 88 3/2011 . . . . - . ( . . . 34 1983. 33 - . . . . . . . . / .– . ( . . - . . . 163. A. .” . . ( . (2002). . . – 33 . . . ? . . . : Hajdú. „ ). . ( ) . . 34 - . . . . ).). . b ncselekmények áldozatainak védelme (The protection of the victims of crimes) Belügyi Szemle. 2002/2-3. . .

P. . Hannover. 24 (4. 37 . . . 1%( 5) 14 7 % (39) 14 18 . . ( ) . :„ 36 37 38 39 . Lehrbuch für den praktischen Kriminaldienst.36 . „ . F. In: Gál I. . . 73-75. (2006). . . .und Studienbriefe Kriminalistik. . Handbuch der Kriminalistik für Praxis und Ausbildung. . Düsseldorf.. Polizeiliteratur. 1953. . . Berlin. München. Kapitel XV.. .? . . Lehr. 125. 35 38 . C.39 . . Stuttgart. . R:. D. 3/2011 89 . .(szerk. . Idézi: Kulcsár Gabriella: A gyermek-tanúvallomások információtartalmának torzulási lehet ségei (The possibilities of distorting related to the information content of children’s testimonies.(2000). . .): Informatika és büntet jog.(1986). . . . H. .4%) . Gegenüberstellung-Lichtbildvorlage Richard Booberg Vorlag. 35 .“ Stüllenberg. 170-180. . Weimar. . 481.„ 18 . .-Nagy Z. . .(Informatics and criminal law) PTE ÁJK. . . Confrontational stress and children’s testimony: some experimental findings.“ Peters.“ : Ackermann. . Dresden. - - . 18 : Kleinschmidt. . .

. .. . . . Informatika és büntet jog (Informatics and criminal law). - . . The success of the rights of the plaintiff Belügyi Szemle. 127. . 3/2011 90 . (szerk. . . . . . (2003). . .42 40 41 - . .40 . 41 . . . .. . . . . . .– . G. . . . “A gyermek-tanúvallomások információtartalmának torzulási lehet ségei”(The possibility of distortion of information content in the testimonies of children) címmel. 2003/2-3. . . . . (Gabriella Kulcsár) . 119-132. - 42 Cserei. .) (2006). In: Gál I. . . . . - . . Pécs. . .. . - . PTE ÁJK. Nagy Z. . . . . .

. 3/2011 . . – . . . . - ? . . . . . 91 . . . . ) : ( ) . . . . . . – .. . . . . : - . . . . . - – . . ? .

“ : Geerds:. .Criminal Investigations. Vernehmungstechnik Verlag für polizeiliches Fachschrifttum. . . „ . . / .– . Georg Schmidt-Römhold. . 45 . . .“Swanson. - . .44 ) ): ( . . ). . ): . . . . 174-177. Lübeck.45 43 - ( : :„ . (1976). . . . 44 83-95. . . ) : . . . . 92 3/2011 .. . F. . . ) ( .43 .

3/2011 93 . . . . ( ). . E. . . Ministerium des Innern. - - 47 . . . . . 119-124. . ) . ( . .) : . . : . . . 2. . : Die Vernehmung von Zeugen und Beschuldigen. - . (1973). . .. . / : . - . : . A kihallgatások szervezése. 96-97. . Publikationabteilung. . 3. . 1971. . Bócz. . / . Berlin. . / - ) 1. . . . . 1973/1. (Organizing interrogations) Belügyi Szemle. .

/ . . - - : . . . . . . . .– . . . . . . : . 94 3/2011 . : . . .

( (2011 2014). .85 : 8. . 95 - . . . . . . . . . 1 : . 3/2011 . UDK . . . .2011.343. . - . . .12. . : . . - . 1 . 179045). . ..

- . . . . 96 - - 3/2011 . 2009). Youth Justice Board-a (2005) . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . (Public Safety Canada. . . ) - . . ( .

. . . : . . . . . . . : 1) ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4) ). 2) . . . . . ) : - ). . . . . . 3/2011 97 . 3) : . - - : ( ( . . .

.. . 9 4-5). D. . . - . 8-9 .. 70 4-5 . . ). . 3 50.6 ). Jolliffe. (0. . Home Office Research Study 299. N.. D. . 21. 3/2011 98 . (Tilley. ( . David Farrington . 21. . 50 . . 2009:58-60)2. 16 . 398 70 21. 411 . 75% 4 21. . ). (Tilley.. . Harnett. ( ).. L. J. : ( ). . . 2009:58-60). - 2 Farrington. . 2. 2009: 58-60. . 4-5 . Criminal Careers up to Age 50 and Life Success up to Age 48: New Findings from the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. R. – : Tilley. Coid. . 21. . . Soteriou. and West. 1. ( . - 1953. . D. . 16 21. . IQ . (2006). London: Home Office. 11 . Turner. 18 4-5 (6 . 8-9 55 . .. . .

23. ..7%. - . (Youth Jus.8%. .2% (Youth Justice Board. 2003).3%.4%.3%.6%.500 Communities that Care. . . 21.4%. . tice Board.1%. . . ( 22. ( : 11-16 . 2005).7%. . ( .6%. ) 25. 21.2%. 21.8%. 3/2011 99 . . . 19. - 14. . . 18. . 21. .7%. . ( 2010:208-209). . . 20. . 17. ) 20. . . 2005). . 17. 17.

. 100 ). . 4 . . . Stephen Schneider (2010:98-99) : 1) 2) . . ( ). 11 - 25 . . . (Schneider. . . 25 . 3 . . 2010:98-99). . . 3) : . 19. . 12 19 . . . 3/2011 . - . . . . . . . ( . . . . . .

). „ . - (Schneider. 10 18 . . . . . . 3/2011 101 “ . . . . . 7 16 . . . .. ( . ( . . . : . . - . - . . 12 19 . Schneider 13. . ). . . . . 14 16 11 14 . ( . ). ( . - . ). 21. 2010:122). .

3/2011 . Early Head Start) . - . - - visiting programme) (World . 102 ( ( . . . . : Positive Parenting Program) . - 12 . 2010:10). . . Parents Anonymous) . . . (the Nurse Family Partnership home Health Organization. (Sutton et al. - 193 . . . . 2010:10). ( . . 2008:33). (World Health Organization. . .. 2010:853). 15 : . ( .. . ( ). . Elmira .

. Cherney . . 2) .. . . : 1) : . . . (World Health Organization. . . 5) : . 4) . Perry . . . . . 2010:28-29). . Sutton. 3/2011 . . . . - 103 . . . . . . (World Health Or. . . . (2010:100-118) : . 3-4 . . 60. . : . . . . . Schneider ganization. 3) : . : . . 2010:14). . . White (2008:32-33) : Perry . 40 .

. . . – . . . .. . 2008:32-33). : ( . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 104 3/2011 - (Sutton et al. . . . 29 . . ). . . . : . - . . - - .

3/2011 105 2010. . : - . . - – . (580 ) . - ( ) . . 2005:103-107).( . . . . 2010:155). – . . . . . . - . - . . ( . . . .. . 2010:156). 2004). . . . . . ( ). . . ( . . ( . : .

( . - . . .000 Serbia. UNICEF. . 188 136. - . . 2008/09. – - . . 2) . 2) – – . 64 101 . . . 3/2011 - .500 . . 4) / / . 2011). . 4) . . . . UNICEF. . . (UNICEF . (2011) : 1) . 9 12. 3) . . . 5) – . 6) 106 75% 2005/06. . : 1) ( ). . / – . 3) . . .. 2011:232). . . . .

( - . . „ . . tegic Marketing. UNICEF-a (Ipsos Strategic Marketing. . . “ - 23%). 4. . . 7) / . ( ). . . (UNICEF Serbia. ) . 19%. . . . ( (Ipsos Strategic Marketing. .922 3-8 15%. 2009. 3/2011 – - . 2009). . ( 9%.635 . 2011). 18%. (Ipsos Stra(12% 107 . .. . 2009). . . . ( : Ipsos Strategic Marketing. . 2009). ). 2009). . . . 5%. 1. 40 . 44%. . .

. - . ) . . : 1) ( . ( ) / . 2009:282. . . . . . 3 National Institutes of Health. 2006. 457-470 – : . 3/2011 108 . 2) . . . . ( . Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 2009). . ting. . : . . 4) ). (2006). .) . 34. 3) . . . . (Ipsos Strategic Marke- - . National Institutes of Health state-of-thescience conference statement. 3 .. .

3/2011 109 . . . . .). „ 46 (5). (2011). . . . . . 2. 761-775. .. . . – “. . . . . . . . . . 219-236. „ . - ( . .. : 1. “ . . . . . (2004).. . . . . . .. - . - . 53 (2). .

and effective interventions to prevent it. . . (2009). Public Safety Canada. (2009). (2009). (2005). 12. . Crime prevention: theory and practice. Crime prevention: principles. . Supporting the Successful Implementation of the National Crime Prevention Strategy. Violence prevention: the evidence. Tilley. . . from: http://www. Cherney. N.. Boca Raton.. . 6. Youth Justice Board. Devon. godine. (2003).rs/files/evaluacija_ programa _strategic_marketing.. . (2010). 17. . .X (1). perspectives and practices. 48 (1).ca/res/cp/res/_fl/ssincps-amosnpc-eng. Crime prevention. . . . Cambridge. Retrieved 23 July 2011 from: http://www. . . . Evaluacija programa „Škola bez nasilja“ evaluaciona studija sprovedena od maja do juna 2009. 10. Retrieved 20 August 2011. ... (2011).unicef. 13. Cullompton.yjb. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada. UNICEF SERBIA. 4. . 8. A.pdf 110 3/2011 . Ipsos Strategic Marketing. 15. .. 11.html. 5. .uk/publications/Resources/Downloads/ Risk%20Factors%20Summary%20fv. 97-113. Program „Škola bez nasilja – ka sigurnom i podsticajnom okruženju za decu“.ppt.pdf.gc. Youth Justice Board. (2010). From: http://www. . Schneider. .rs/skola-bez-nasilja. Retrieved 20 August 2011. . Vic. 7. UK: Willan Publishing. World Health Organization. . . – .. FL: CRC Press – Taylor & Francis Group. 14. – – . . ..gov. 145-168. (2008).publicsafety.: Cambridge University Press.unicef... Port Melbourne. . White.3. LIX (9). 16. (2010). Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved 23 July 2011 from: http://www. (2010). 9. 847-859.. Sutton. (2005).. (2009). . Risk and protective factors: a summary of risk and protective factors associated with youth crime. (2010). R. S. A.

In this experience of domestic and foreign institutions will be used. protective factors 3/2011 111 . Key Words: crime. as for results of some preventive programs evaluations that are classified in the field of social prevention. This is one of the most important areas in crime prevention. social prevention. as well as problems that often arise in practice during its implementation. risk factors. eliminating the risk factors. if possible. as well as problems that arise during their designing. and often includes legal activities of state and non-state actors aimed at preventing delinquency of children and minors through the weakening and. and also strengthening protective factors. which is also known as crime prevention through social development. but rather a critical review of their opportunities given the problems that arise during the implementation of social prevention programs.Current Approaches and Problems in Social Crime Prevention Abstract: In this paper the topic of consideration focuses on current methods and forms of implementation social crime prevention. The aim of work is not only a description of current methods and techniques of social prevention.

. .11. . . .. . . - 1 . . 1 : . . . . (43007) : - 3/2011 . . . . . 112 . . . . . . . . . . ao : .624. . 2011-2014. . . . . . . . UDK – 364. . . . . : .6 : 355. ..271 : 4. .2011. . .

- . - . . . ) . . . .( . . - ( . . 2011 ). . . . . 2011 ). . 2009). . . . . . . . . ( . . 3/2011 . . . . . . . ( . 113 .

. . ( 114 . . . . : . 2001). . : . . – . . . ( . . . . . : . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . . .. . - . . 2004). . . 3/2011 : . (Baker. . . . . 2003). . . . . . .

( ). . .. – – . . - . - . . . . . . . 3/2011 . – - 115 . . . . . ( 1. . . . . .. . . . 3. . . . . 2005): . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . et al. 2. . .

- – – . 8. . ( . . . . . - . . . . . 10. 6. 2011). . (2002) . . . – . : 1. – – – – . – – . . . . „ 116 . . 3. 5.4. . - . . 7. 2. . . 9. – - . . . . 3/2011 . – . . 11. – . . . . . . . . . . . .

. ( . . . 117 . “ „ . . “. . . . . . . ( . . . et al. . . . . . . .). . . . „ . ... . 2005). . . . ( . . . . . . ( . . . . . . . . . - - . . . - . 2005). . . . ). et al. .. . “. 3/2011 .

. ( . . 2011 . . . ( . . ). . . - . . . ). . . ) ( ( ( . . . . 3/2011 . . . . . . - - . . . ( . . . . . . . . . . . 2008). . . . 118 . . . 2010).. . . ). . . .

. . . . . . . . „ !“ . . . . - . . ( . - - .. ) !“). . „ 3/2011 - ). . - “ „ - . . . . . ( . . . „ !“. : ( . . e (1908) “. „ . . 119 . . .

. . . . „ . . . . . . . - 120 3/2011 . . . . . ). . “. .„ „ . . . . . - . “. . “. . . . : . . . . . . . . . ( . . . . - . .

(Helbing. . 121 - “ . . . . . Vicsek. . ( ). . . . Farkas. . . . - . . . . . . . 3/2011 . .. . - - . . „ ( ). ( ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . 2000). .

. . . - . . . . . . . ( . . 122 3/2011 . . . : “ . . ( . . . . ). . . : . . ( . . . : . . .. . (Mawson. 2007). . . : . . „ . . . ). . ).

. Lion Hudson Plc.. . .. . . . ( . ( . . VII „ “. . . ( . . ). (2009). . - . 2010). . . „ “ . . (2003). “. (2005). 2. 5. . . „ . .. Baker. . .. . (2011 ). . . 3/2011 123 4. . . (1908). . .. . . Understanding panic attacks and overcoming fear. 6. R. . . . . ... . . . . . . ) “ . . . . . 3. 132-142. . : 1. (2011a). . . . „ .

125-131. have become our daily reality. : ( ). . 124 3/2011 . . 12. . . . (2007). 61 (6). (2004). exceptionally. . and.: . VIII . Psychology of the crowd is very interesting for studying. pp. Nature 407. . (2010). . 11. Anxiety. 16. (2011).. emotional reaction.. terrorist attacks. the flow of mental process gets its own characteristics.. Instincts become the main regulators of individual and crowd behavior. . Ecologica. – “. 181-186. Ashgate Publishing. . 10. 49-60. emergencies. 675-682. . (2011 ).. Vicsek. while the rules and norms lose their regular function.7. . . 2. . 15. (2001). . . 487-490. 13. . Ltd. . the total response and behavior. democracy. .. . 9. XV... to the loss of life. . Specifics of Panic in Emergencies Abstract: Along with the progress of modern society in terms of material prosperity.. D. (2000). . T. „ “. . The panicstricken crowd radically changes in terms of human psyche. . 14. Key Words: panic. . . . . panic and threat to life are no longer rare . (2002). Cognitive processes. crowd. endanger the health. military interventions etc.. 27-35. . the interaction between people becomes one-sided. . VII .the tragic personal exeriences. Helbing. 6803. . . .. . . new threats arise and the risk factors that cause fear or panic. . (2008). Mass panic and social attachment: the dynamics of human behavior. ... Farkas. . Vol. Mawson. lead to psychological breakdown of the personality.. Simulating dynamical features of escape panic.. No. .. the tragedies of relatives and friends. . „ 21. R. political rights and personal freedoms. 8. I. aimed at identifying and categorizing the world are significantly weakened.

2000. . .11) : 9.352(497. 1990. UDK – 343. . . . . . . .10. . . ) . . . : . . . . corruptio) . . . . . . 3/2011 125 - . - . . ( . : . 2010:166). ( . . 1999. ( ( . . .2011. 1980:472). . . 2009. . . . „ “ . .. . .

. - . . . (Kouplend. . „ - “ 3/2011 . 1995). . . ( . ( . . . . . 1999:145). - ). 1995). . 2002). . . . . . ( ) ( . . . 1995). . . (Bosh. - . . . . . . 1997). . .. . ( 1988). (Yunglong. . . . . . 126 . . (Queloz. . . . . . 1996). ( (Savane. . 2004:259). .

- . . 1997. . . . . . XIII . . - . .. . . - . . . . . 3/2011 . . . . “ . . ( . 127 .1 . . . . . . . . 1 . . „ . . . . - . ). ( ) 150 - . . . . . .

. 1716. . . 3 )2 . . . . . . - “ . . . - . ( . (recumiae repetundae). . . . . . . . Lex Calpurnia. 3 . . . . .. . . XI . . . . . . . . 2 . . 128 3/2011 . - . . . . Lex Servilia. . . ( . ) . quaestiones . „ . . . . . . . .

„ ”. 1914. . . . „ . 1838. 7 Code penal. 105 . . 1882. . . 1861. . . ). 6 1794. 3/2011 . - . . . . 1. . konkussion. 1871. Karolina ( 5 . . 1851. 1813. . . . 1845. ( . . 4 “ .400 . . „ 1810. 6 1532. . . . . . . . le krime de . 129 - 5 . 1855. . 4 . . 1996). . XIX . . .. 1840. . 1840. . “ . . 1852. . . . . 1791. 7 . 1717. .

. . . 9 - . . - . ( - ) . “. 30 3/2011 . . . . 1992. . . - 8 . . . ) . . 10 .. . ( . . . - . ( . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . 8 .. . .) . . 10 130 . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 „ . .

. . . XVIII . . . . . “. XVII ( . „ . . . ”. ”. . . . “ - . “. . ”. 3/2011 131 . . 11 . . 1731. . . . “ . . . „ . . „ . …). . ) . 1880. :„ :„ XVIII . . „ . . . ”. . „ . .– . „ . . „ :„ . . . - . 11 . “. . . . . ”. . . . ( . . . . . .

. . . 38 . . . . . - . . ) . . . . . - “ 13 132 3/2011 . . . . . 13 . . . . . ( 28) „ . ( .. . 1219. 22 ( . . 12 . . . . ) . . . . ( ). 1349. . . 1347. . . - . . . . . . . . . . 12 .

. 14 . 1829. . . - . 1830. ( . ( ). 1954:151-161). . . . . 1859. “. „ . . 14 .. . 3/2011 . . - . . . 1990:39-60)16. . “. . . . . . ”. . . . 3. 12 „ - 133 . . 1860. ( . . „ . . . 15 . . . . . . . . . . ( . . . „ . 16 25 . 15 . 1922). . “.

13). - . . 1. 12). 1929. . . 1851. . 3/2011 . . . . . . . 18 29 . . . . . . 325 . . II . „ XI - ”. . 1929. ( . ( . 88/1948). . . . 17 . 30. 18 . 17 . . 1959. . . . . .. . 134 . ( . 36/1945) ( 1951. . 29. . . 1948. 1977. - - . 86/1948). ( . . . ( . 13/1951) . . . 2003. .

. . . „ . . - . . 135 . . . - . . “). . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . ( . . . . ( . „ . . 2009. “ . . . . . . . 2005. . . . . . . 2010:79-81). 3/2011 . . .

. . - - - . . ( . . ( . . - . . ) 136 . .. . . . . . . . . - 3/2011 . . . ). . . . ( . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2010:90-94).

. „ . . “ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 . „ . . . . . . - – „ 3/2011 ”. . 2003:180). . „ “ . . .. . . „ ( “ . “ . . . . .

. . ( . 2000:121). 4.3 % ). . . . .214 . . 1999. - . . . 6.„ . .6 % . – 3.5 % 1990. . ..780 3. . 1999. . ( . . 6. . . 2009. 43. .169 . „ “.175 23 % 4. . 47.323 . . 1990. 1990. “ 1990. 1990.094 .332 14 % . . 7. - . 2000. 138 . . 1. . . . . .464 67.3 % 1999. . 3/2011 20.325 . . . . - . . 20.1996. .2 % 13. . . .

.9 % 2001.5 %.073 . 12. 2009. 1. 1. 1996. 45. .6 %. 1995 (875) 1996 (830) .452 . 1. 4. 2. . 2008 2000. .15 % 10. 1996.9 % 830 - . 1. . 2000. . 1999. . 2009. - 2000.6 %. 69. 31. 1999. (206). 177 5. 4.102 326 3/2011 8. 2009. 2002.4 % 17. 2007 (185).473 8.1 % 1999. 5. 1. . 2002.149 11. 2000. 2009 (193). .566 . 18. 2009. .568 5.038 2004. 1. %. 139 290 . .9 % .907 10. 2006 1.4 % - 2006.428 2.6 % . 1. 2009.4 % .5 1. .133 . 878 8.9 % 59. 38.0 % . . 1990. .885 20.3 %.3 % 2006. 2009. 2004.( ). .236 314 25.681 . 360 12. 72. 6% 1996. .583 1.378 1990 ( 596 ).7 % - 1. . .031 . 1.536 .900 1990. 8.4 %.384 27. 1993. . .

2009. 330 1999. 1990. . 2000. 471 . . - “ . .0 % 1. . 39.6% 55. .181 . . . 23. . . .756 6 . 1999.210 20. 2009. .736 55. . 5-10 3 36.0% . 2009. 2000.7% „ . 5-10 6 1990.027 .4 %) 32. 686 243 73. .8 %. 5. . . 6. 2000. 436 1. . 2000. . - ( 9.968 4. 1999.4%. 3 . . . 9. . - (1999).9 % (2009). . . 26. 17. .2 % .0 %. 3/2011 135 140 . 8. . . . . . .5 % .055 62.1990.4%.581 24. .

.010 1999. .9% . 7. 1999. 34 716 % 34.040 77. 3-6 90 920 316 100 . 1994. 3-5 (2006). 1999). 4. 5-10 2000. 233 .7% .0 %. 3-6 49 .7% . 1990. . (2000.797 67. (1992. 417 . . 3 325 6 82. 3. 4.3 %.8%. 1999.6 %. . 114 35. 3 6 36. 3-6 101 38. 3-6 311 1.451 68.8 % . (1990-2.5 % . 1997-3. 1. 2. .3-5 (1997). . . . 43. 3. 2000.7 %. 2009.121 30. 38. - 1990. 4.1 % .7% 31. - 1990. 1998-2). .0 % (2004).056 307 2-3 113 .786 . 2002). 1991-1.7 % 75. 1. 2000.5 2-3 . 5 . 75. .6 % 3 (1995). 3 5 . . 1992-2. 394 2009.3% 14.809 . 400 2009.651 . 2.246 .0%.643 75. . 261 14. 3/2011 141 45 33.

. 25 2. 2002- 11 55.6% 17.6 % 2009.8 %. 1990. 2003. . 46. 3-6 - 39. . 2005).8 % 1-2 36. 2000. .6%. 64 . 81.170 . 2000. 6-12 2.5% 1. 2002.077 28. 3/2011 .3 35.8 %. 2003-1). 142 2009. 613 36. 62 603 1. 4. . 3-6 2009. 3-6 1. 1999. . 2001. . 508 (1991. . 322 1999. 3.1 % 399 3-5 (2000. 1999. . 14 252 69. 2000.7 % 20. .9 %. 20 . . . 8% 16.499 77.281 168 .7%.925 42. .3 % 40 % (2005). 6-12 494 69.2 %. 2-3 1999). 142 416 . 3-6 99 (1996).0 %. 217 64 29. 160 3-5 21 32. 3-6 1990. . . . 901 . .6 % (1991).2 % 1990. . 466 2009.145 6 5.0 %. 38 - 225 - (2001-1.082 34. 955 2-3 2000. . . .

89. 596. 2000. 1 2 6 1 .192. 3 2 6 3 49. 23 12 2 5 2 3 30 .5 % 18.5 % 2009.5 % 2 3 2.5 %.4 % . - . 70 .363 . 118. 1990.463 . 223. 5 10 . 2 2.8 % 41. (2004-1). 3 6 .6 %. 2-3 - . 1 . 2009.192) (575) 12 . 3/2011 6. 3-5 41 43. 6 575. 2 12 2009. 719. 1990. . .8% : 143 . 1. . . 38 12 2 . 2009-1). 178 68.006 . . . 5 206.4 % . 1999. 81. 1999. . 77. . 1. . 94 . 3 . (1999-1. 2000. . 3 1999.6 % (2005).506 . 1 2 22. 3 2 6 3 2 3 30 3 - 35. 19. (1. 2000. 12 (616) 19. 6 209. 82.1 % 6 12 (719) .128) .128. 616. 1990. 3 6 (1.6 %. 2 (596) 20.

. . . „ “. . . “ . . ( . . . . „ . 144 . . . ). . „ . . “ . .– . . .4 % . . ( - 12 „ . . . 2009: 460). “ . . - . . - 20 . . . . . . . 3/2011 . . . . . 79. . . .

12 . 3/2011 145 . . . - . . . . XVII XVIII . . . . . . . . . . . ? . . . . .. 1990. . . . . 2009. . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . . ( . ). . . . . . .

8. . 7. G. . . (2004).. 11. . ... (2002). . (1996). 2. . . I. . . . 12. (2009). . . . . . E. “. (2010). (1995). . .. . 35. . „ . . . . . ( ): . . (1999). 58. Seventh International Anti-corruption Conference. (1995). . . (2000). Peking. . Tanzi.. (1996). . . N. (1922) . . . (1997). . . .. 6. . 259-278. E. 279-304.. 451-463. 8-12. . . 2-3. : „ “. Savane. Corruption the World. . . . ..: 1. . . . 4.. Boch. Queloz.. . . 13. . (1995). . 9.. . 3/2011 3. 11. . . 15.. (1988). 52. . . 5. .. 10. Property decleration and discovering and prevention of Coruption. . . Kouplend. . . .. 14. . L. 303-314. XVI . Yunlong. 146 .. . .. 2. (1980). : .. V. . . 162-179.

. The repressive policies of the state as one of the forms of opposition to corruption are discussed. . bribery. . Key Words: corruption. with the emphasis on its specific etiologic features. The possibilities of opposing the corruption in our country are discussed.. and with different achievements in combating corruption. . . . - . . (2003). (2010). Serbia 3/2011 147 . the paper points to its origins. 19. . . (1954). Corruption and Reaction of the State Abstract: Starting from the actuality of corruption as a phenomenon. criminal act. we observe the occurrence and treatment of corruption in Serbia through history. .. . .. In particular. through the analysis of crimes against official duty in the periods from 1990 to 1999 and from 2000 to 2009. 17. In particular. .. its development and reaction of the state during different periods of society’s development. and the interdependence of ways and forms of corruption manifestation with methods and forms of opposition is emphasized. .16. with special emphasis on imprisonment as a sanction. (1804. . The parallel is made between two periods within different sociopolitical system. it highlights the importance of planned and organized state action to combat corruption. opposition. 1813). 18. (1990). crime.

Open Source

...

, UDK – 004.738.1 : 005.57 – 057.36 : 28.12.2011.

Open Source

: , , . web . , ( ( ) ( ) . 2012. , open source softvera (OSS), , IBM Lotus Domino ( . , w : open source, web , , . , , , . ) ). ,

, -

-

open source

, -

web-a . .
148

web

,
3/2011

on-line

(on-line tool) , . . Web „ “ : . , e-mail, web „ “

,

website on-line. Web , , chat,

(content management), (document management), ment) . . . Web , web . 6 7. 4 . . ,

:

(records manage, 2 3 . 5. -

8.

2011-2016. , , , ( , - . . . , source) ,
3/2011 149

, , 2010:74-75). -

, . (on-line central -

Open Source

...

. . „ . , . , . , “ -

. on-line - . , , . . , . . (collaboration tool), . , . , e-mail material), , , website ( – . , ,w (office content), (discussion group (web documents) . , , , ). . , „ “ – „ “ -

: ; ; ; ; ;
150 3/2011

; a– ;

; ; E-mail ; – , 1 , , . . . . , . . :

Web ( , ) ...) . , , . : / – ( . ), ) ); , , .
3/2011

, . ( , -

:

/ ( ( ( . . . ,

. ) , ,

, -

.
151

4

. уредбе. : e-mail. - . . .. (chat). . . 3/2011 .Open Source .. . . прописи ИКТ у безбедоносним системима Технологија – Roadmaps Помоћ Претрага Персонализација e-mail сервис Сервис за чланове Регистрациони центар Технологија – Roadmaps Пројектни менаџмент ИКТ догађаји Менаџмент идеја Извештај о завршетку пројекта * УПРАВА ЗА ИНФОРМАЦИОНЕ ТЕХНОЛОГИЈЕ 1 – 2 ( ) . ) – 152 . ( . ПОЧЕТНА СТРАНА УИТ* Сервиси Апликације Подршка и сервиси Научне институције ИКТ компаније – вендори Вести Апликације Буџет Запошљавање/надлежност Регистрациони центар Сазнања из окружења/свет Закони.

. , , . .

,

-

ЦИЉНА ГРУПА КОРИСНИКА * ( НКТЦ)
РЕГИОНАЛНИ КТ ЦЕНТРИ, ПУ/ПС, УКП/ОКП

ПРИСТУП

Ин

фо

рм

ац и

је

• слобо дан • уз регистрациј у

• • • • • • • • • • •

С ер

в ис

и

• уз регистрациј у

• • •

ЖАЈ СА ДР вације и ино огије ције л Техно нститу је еи Нучн е компани ћење јн иш Разво ције и кор , експерти а ка Апли ност, знањ еж Надл Буџет програм шка подр и План сервиси и стандарди и и Сличн , прописи е Уредб нове а чла амо з иси с ирани на Серв и баз с а Серви риступу ервис п -mail лизација с устава е к на ис Персо а знања и тар н ен Разме ациони ц тр Регис

Ап

лик

ац и ј

е

• уз регистрациј у

аја • ЈИС ник догађ учиниоци и ев • Дн ична дела в • Кри

*

НАЦИОНАЛНИ КРИМИНАЛИСТИЧКО ТЕХНИЧКИ ЦЕНТАР

2

. ( . / , .
3/2011

). / . 153

Open Source

...

-

, , , . , open source web . . . , . ,

,

,

,

(patches). . .

.

, .

.

, . -

. (Lightweight Directory Access Protocol) . Lotus Domino ,

Lotus Domino Servera LDAP . LDAP , ... , . , -

(ACL – Access Control List). Lotus Domino Mail Servera .

: Web Transfer Protocol (HTTP) . Web .
154

„ web ,

Hypertext “ web , Apache,
3/2011

Microsofta, Oracle : http://www.apache.org/download. UNIX Windows . Datebase server back-end

. Open source web web -

, , , , , , database front-end MySQL. .

, . MySQL open source : http://www.mysql.org.

PHP Hypertext Preprocessor, open source, server-side, HTML web . HTML PHP PHP . PHP , HTML PHP ( ASP – Active Server page Cold Fusion), HTML. PHP, PHP . PHP , . , PHP IMAP, SNMP, NNTP, POP3 HTTP. PHP : http://www.php.net/downloads.php. Lous Domino Server “groupware” Domino Lotus Domina e-mail , , „ “ , , “knowledge managementa” ( web. , . 4 .
3/2011 155

. , Lotus .

) Lotus Domina

. ,

-

Open Source

...

DBMS

Lotus Domino Server

3

4
156 3/2011

2nd Edition. Lyons.web on-line . John Wiley & Sons Inc. J. M. “ . San Francisco.. J. (2006). M. 3/2011 157 1. Microsoft Expression Web Step by Step. ... Google Analytics 2. 10... M. web . John Wiley & Sons Inc. M. . Creating a Website: The Missing Manual. Donvan. McGraw-Hill Ryerson. O'Reilly Media.. (2010). . SEO – Search Engine Optimization Bible.0. McCubbery. . Jamsa. Web . Anderson. J.. Managements Information System for the Information Age. 3.. 6. 52. 2. John Wiley & Sons Inc. . . 8. King. (2001). 2. 7. 9. 74-94.. San Francisco. . Tyler. Leeds. Cummings. „ - : .. open source . R. M. (2004). Sebastopol. San Francisco. California. . K. 4. MacDonald. . (2007). 250 HTML and Web Design Secrets. Pinsonneault. John Wiley & Sons Inc. . (2007).. Haag. Third Canadian Edition. . 5.com. . Lynda. (2002). D.. A. Ledford. (2011). Microsoft. San Francisco. . C. Expression Web Essential Training.. HTML i W ... Ledford.. . An Introduction to Search Engines and Web Navigation.. Third Edition. 11. web . M. Levene. Holzschlag. Marini. (2008). A.. C. (2006). S. (2010). K.

B.. Second Edition. JavaScript Step by Step. Suehring. Stylin' with CSS: A Designer's Guide. 21. C. (2005). data. Osborn. Smith. Yatco.. McIntire. O'Reilly Media. as well as the benefits obtained from the use of the web portal and services offered by our future PS portal for knowledge exchange. C.. Schafer.. 14. Microsoft Press. the MoI has offered one of the possible portal solutions created as a central source for knowledge. Key Words: Open Source. New Riders. Rosenfeld. its adequate understanding and use. Joint Application Development. C. Course Tehnology. (2006). (2001). editting and restoring of the data and information. D. the police officers of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia (MoI) need a Web portal to facilitate access to information.. it should be upgraded by necessary modules and will use the existing IBM Lotus Domino platform for secure (encrypted) way of electronic communication and storage of confidential content.... J. Pfaffenberger. B.. Joint Application Design/Development. Beograd. . Wood. Peachpit Press. 19. Principles of Web Design. information. Silver. M.. Visual Design for the Modern Web. White. Of course. San Francisco.. P. Web portal. J. Schneiderman. Taking into account the restricted budget for 2012. Application of Open Source Solutions in Police Officers’ Portal Implementation Abstract: In recent years.. the MoI has made a decision to develop the portal that will use an open source software (OSS) within the open source content management system.Open Source . . J.. 17. P. (2004). 16. HTML. 12. S. Information Architecture for the World Wide Web. and CSS Bible. ... information systems security. University of Missouri. a tool for sharing experiences. Adobe Creative Suite 5 Design Premium: Digital Clasroom. AGI Creative Team. 18. . For that purpose. Mikro knjiga. John Wiley & Sons Inc. John Wiley & Sons Inc. (1999). San Francisco. According to this. C.. Morville. . (2010). 158 3/2011 . J. 15. a rapidly increasing amount of information (systematically or individually stored in various applications) requires a new solution to manage such a quantity of information in a systematic way. P. 20. making them available only to the individual who needs it. Plaisant. This paper defines the needs for the PS portal.Louis.. (2008). L. 13. electronic communication. 3rd Edition. Thomas. This Police Officers portal (PS portal) should enable efficient creating. (2005).. Web : . S. (2010). St. XHTML. (2008). Sklar. (2007). 22. experience and cooperation exchange among police officers (PO) within the organizational units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia.. Wyke-Smith.

3/2011 36. ( . . .11) : 26. .83% . 115 6. . . . 41 51 05 18 49 13 23 00 46 11 25 88. 2007). . 2010). . . . 1991.– UDK – 551. . .221 (497. : .164 .5 :: 551. ) 2. 200 m .498.( . km2 ( . . 43 .10. ( .361 km2 7. . : .596. 2010. .656 m ( 159 200 m 1984). 500 m.594. 500 m 35 m ). 1951. 1980. 2002.2011.001 . .70% 40% 470 m. . 24.

. . ( ( . . . . . . . . . ( . . 2010). . . . . . . . . .. . . . . – . . . 50 70 . . . . . . 2009).000 C ( . . 10 30 . . 160 et al. 1982). 2001). . . 3/2011 . . . . . . 2005) . .. 16 27. . ( . . . .

. 1 : . ( . . . 803. . . 4. .gov). „ ( “ 1 2010. . . 1991. . . . . 30). . . . 1 - ( . Study on Economic Benefits of RHMS of Serbia (The World Bank study group. . (W (LINET). 161 . .000 (http://www.noaa. . . . . . 2009). . 2005) . . . ). . . . .1. . (>40 ) . . 3/2011 ). .

3 0.2 7.8 5.7 36.2 0.6 6.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 29.2 6.1 0. .4 0.2 0. 8 5.2 2.3 0.9 6.2 0.1 1.9 2.2 0.2 0.4 4.2 0.3 0.2 2.0 7.4 8.5 6.4 0.8 5.4 2.1 0.4 5.5 6.2 0.9 1.4 0.2 36. 3/2011 162 .5 0.0 1.5 0.6 2.0 6.2 6.1 6. .3 0.5 5.1 3.1 5.3 0.6 7.4 0.4 7.6 41.5 2.0 6.4 7.3 1.8 9.1 0.1 0.2 - .2 2.3 33.2 39.4 0.2 2.5 2.0 6.4 0.6 8. .1 0.2 1.7 7.8 5.2 0.7 7.3 7.1 1.8 3.5 0.1 1.4 2.9 7.0 2.1 0.7 6.6 2.0 5.4 0.4 0.0 5.7 2.7 6.2 0.5 6. 2009).4 0.3 0.5 32.1 0.1 0.0 1.5 6.0 4.2 2.5 7.2 2.1 0.7 .1 2.9 5.9 33.4 0.3 5 5.5 0.2 0.8 1.1 0.6 6.1 0.0 1.3 7.7 0.3 0.1 5.0 0.5 6.8 0. ).1 2.8 26.8 3.2 2.1 6.1 ) 6 7.5 0.1 7.3 0.5 0.6 7.3 0.1 0.3 33.9 26.4 4 2.2 ) ( ( 3 0.1 0.9 1.1 0. 1 ( ).2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0. 0.2 0.2 0.4 12 0.2 0.711 m .6 28.6 6.6 32.4 0.1 0.4 1.9 6.2 2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 8.3 3.9 6.3 1.4 38.2 0.3 0.2 5.7 7.8 2.1 0.8 2. ).4 7.0 0.3 0.6 4.8 5.3 0.9 5.7 6.7 1.9 38.6 29.2 5.3 2.5 7.5 7.2 0.9 7.1 0.3 6.7 1.4 0.9 5. 2009).2 0. 9 2.2 6.6 7.8 5.6 7.1 2.7 6.9 3.1 0.1 0.4 2.9 6.2 0.3 6.7 4.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 ).8 4.7 1.3 0.2 0.8 2.8 6.4 1.9 0.3 0.1 2.2 33.9 5.1 0.2 6.9 6.9 .5 0.9 1.1 0.3 34.4 0.1 8. 31.1 0.0 11 0.9 1.3 0.6 1.2 0.5 6.9 8.2 0.1 0.2 0.5 8.1 7.0 37.6 6.4 2.9 7.1 0.3 0.4 7.4 0.4 5.4 2.3 0.0 0.9 6.2 0.6 .1 7.1 6.1 0.4 5.2 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.2 0. . ( .2 1.7 5.3 0.2 0.1 2.1 5.2 6.4 0.0 3.2 0.6 33.6 ( 2010.2 0. ( .5 0.1 1.0 1. ( / 1 0.6 6.3 5.2 24.4 3.3 0.7 6.1 0.3 0.7 0.1 0.3 7 6.2 0.9 33.5 7.2 6.7 6.3 0.(1.8 1.2 0.5 5.3 0.3 40.6 2.3 33.9 7.0 2.7 33.4 1.7 2.8 2.4 2.4 0.5 7.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.4 1.4 0.5 3.9 8. 1991.4 0.6 0.2 6.2 7.2 1.3 6.2 8. 10 0.5 1.1 0.8 2. .3 35.

0 ). . 40 30 40 . 163 . 1 ( . ) . .6 15 ( .8 . . (4. . 4. 2). . 26 ) 73% (8. 33. . : 19 . 803/1996) 1991 1951 1980. 1 1 . .. 3/2011 ( 2010. . – .

0 29.2 28.0 33.0 33.0 43.7 41.7 33.3 30.0 36.2 41.2 42.0 29. .0 33. .9 31.1 (km-2 ) 3/2011 .3 33.04 x Nd 1.0 35.0 28.9 32.7 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 (Td) 38.2 (km-2 .0 41. 2.9 28. .6 23 .0 38.0 40.6 36.0 33. 6 . 1996): ) .2 (km-2 Nd – (1) 1991 2010.3 34. 4.9 42.4 30.0 32.0 33.0 24. .0 36. ( -1 2) -1 ) 3. (Nep) ( Nep =0. 164 -1 .6 37.0 38. 17 .0 32.5 33.6 29.3 34.0 36.0 31.0 33.6 34. . ) 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1951 1991 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 1980 2010 (Td) 32.0 26. .2 ( ( ) .6 37.0 37.0 34.

1 3.8 -1 m ) (1027) (450) (1711) (215) (230) (42) (84) (310) (121) (82) (80) (144) (80) (km-2 3.4 3. 1993.2 2. ( 4 . 1km2) ) . 1991 2010.6 3.9 (km-2 .3 3.8 1994. 8 9 10 2 2 3 2 2 1 11 ( .7 2. ).8 3.4 3.1 2.4 3.1 4. 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 12 2006 2010 2 7 1 1 2 165 .2 3.8 3. ( 1 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1 5 1 1 2 3 4 9 3/2011 4). - m (132) (123) (81) (185) (166) (121) (204) (102) (1038) (87) (388) (432) (1028) (km-2 3. 3 ( -1 ) .2 3. ( ) 1km2 (0.2 3.6 3.6.8 3.5 4. 2006.4 2.2 3.3 3. 2010.9 2.3 3. ).0 2.1 -1 ) .

. . ) . 82%..( - 5 ( ) . . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 . 3 0 1 2 895 1131 1927 1523 1352 2223 1534 17310 16 45 12 7 1 5 6 110 . . . . . ( 0. . 3. 1631 1389 1731 2379 1403 1209 1707 2329 3077 2293 1193 1272 21613 2009. .1 . . . . . . 4. ( .5% 5). ) 2009-2010. .3 . 3/2011 . 0 0 2 2 11 955 12 18 25 11 1 3 0 0 73 1488 1108 2029 1145 2010. 166 .

. . . .. . . . . pp. . 7. (2009). 11. . . . 9. (2010)... et al. . . . 2. . . . (1984). .noaa. . . . . . JAT Flight Academy. . 10. 277-286. . . . . . .. . 52. . . 300... . . (2001). Environment in Serbia: an indicator – based review. . . . ?. - : 1. . 5. . 179-190. . 803/1996: . . 3. . 4. . . . 8. . . . 154. . . . . 89. et al.. . . 2. . . (2007). Risk factors for forest fires.. .. 4. (1982).gov . .. . . (2005). 6.. . http://www. . . 4. . . 317.. 3/2011 167 ..

thunder. Lightning can cause an injury or the loss of life. Key Words: lightning days. risk of lightning. destroy plants and buildings.1980. Average values in these periods show that there is a reduction in the number of days with thunder in the major part of the territory of Serbia. Serbia 168 3/2011 . start fires on flammable and explosive substances.Risk of Lightning in Serbia Abstract: Atmospheric discharges are meteorological phenomena that could be dangerous. they are a real threat to human lives and they can also cause a substantial damage to properties. kill animals. Official data and reports indicate that this seasonal natural phenomenon kills and injures people in Serbia every year. The aim of this study is to determine the trend in the number of days with thunder and the number of discharges to the ground in Serbia with reviewing adverse consequences. In Serbia. This paper presents the change in the number of days with thunder on the territory of Serbia in the period 1991 2010 in comparison to the period 1951 .

. – : 5. 2010.265 2009 . 3/2011 169 . 29%.11) : 8. . 6 2009.74 (094.56%. 138 . . . . . ( 2009. 2010. 2010. 25. . . 108. 328 254. . 27.5) (497. 7 33. 2010.. ).3% 2010. ( 2009. UDK – 351. 114. 12 . .3%.78%. 24. 12 : . - .11. 2009. ) 108. 2010. 2010. 2009. . .2011. . 2009. 2010 142 . .

2009. . . . . . . . ( ( . . . . 2011:198). . . . 19/07) . . . . 170 - - ). . ( . 101/05). . 2010. . ( . 2009:218-219). . . 3/2011 - . 1997:210). . . . . 5% ( . . . . ( .– . .

3. . 29%. . . 2010. -14 -14/1. . 2009. . 2010. . . 3/2011 . . : 1.. . . 2. . : . . 1). . 171 ( 254 . : . 2006. a . . 5.265 . 326 2009. . . . . . . 328 . . . .

,

-

.

2009. .

1

2009.

2010.

29% 2010. 2010. , , 295

. 468

. 376.

, 2009.

2010. , 2009.

161 , , 2009. . 23 148

. 117 ,
172

2010. . 322 , 2009. 83 . ,
3/2011

2010. 145

186 ,

. 323 .

,

2009. , 2010. , 2009. . 2010. ,

-

12.564, , 3.843 2 . 17% ( 41 2009. (19), , . , (15), , 2009. 2010. 230 , . 2010.

. 15.117, , 92- ) 105% -

(5) ,

2 (* 21 )

3/2011

173

3 . , – 26, 21 425%. , 550%. . , 34, 27 , 2010.

-

,

-

3

2009.

2010.

( 2010. . 2009. ,

4), , 2009. , 138 108 12

, 142 114 2010, . 2010. 2009. 2010. 5).
3/2011

6. 12
174

,

, 2009.

7

, , (

– , , . ,

,

.

.

4

2009.

2010.

, , , .

2010. ,

-

-

, . 2009. -

, . 2010. ,

, ,

,

, , , , 2010.
175

, .
3/2011

, , . .

5 2009.

/ 2010.

6 2010.

176

3/2011

. ). ( 33,3% ( ( , ), 5). ( 12 ( , , 6). , ( 2010. , . , 3,4 (5,5), 55,4 . 55. ( 6). . (6,7), (6,9) 2010. 2010. ) 108,3%, 5). , 2010. 25, 2010.

2009.

2009.

-

. 2010.

, . . , , ( 6).

, / , . . 3/2011 177

,

(

. ).

/ ,
1

, , . . ,

. , -

. , , .

, , (

. .1( ). : ; ; ; ; ; , . , ; ),

;

-

. , , .
1

-

-

. http://www.blic.rs/Vesti/Hronika/179247/Ubijen-policajac-na-duznosti,

17. 11. 2011.

. 3/2011

178

2009. ( 27 . . .4 2010. (2011). . 29% . . 2010. . 3. . 2. 2). . 3/2011 . 138 108 . 2009. 2010. ( 4).1( ). . : 1. . 101/05. . 3). . 142 114 2010. 1). 2010. 3. - 2010. . . . - 2009. 179 - . 2009. . . . 2010. 34. 328 . . 2009. . . . . . . (2010). . . ( 17% . 2010. . ( 2010. 254 .. . 2009. . 2009.

. Key Words: Law on Police.. . . . police officer. In 2010 three persons suffered serious body injuries (SBI). (2009). . . . The Use of Constraint Facilities – Analysis for Police Department of the City of Belgrade Abstract: Comparative analysis for the years 2009 and 2010 involves 5265 police officers enforcing police authorities of the Police Department of the city of Belgrade. 9. Namely. . . . . . . . . (2003). constraint facility. 5. 12 cases each for the year 2010. 218-232. and in 2009 it was 12. 53. . . .. (2011). 2007.. 3. . The police officers of the Police Department of the City of Belgrade used 328 different constraint facilities during 2010. . physical strength. 2. . 7.. 180 3/2011 . which is the increment of 33% compared to 2009. and for 2009 baton was used in 6 cases and firearm in 7. 197-219. Physical force. 10.3% of injured persons with lighter body injuries (LBI) was also recorded in 2010. which is the increment of 27. . 51. 19/07.56%. the number of the injured with lighter body injuries was 25. . and in 108 cases during 2009. Binders have been used in 138 cases during 2010.78%. - . . .– 4. in 2009 the number used to be 114. 6. . . . (2001). .. . which represents the increment of 29%. . . as the mildest constraint facility. in 2010.. while in 2009 the number was 254. . is the most frequently used: in 2010 in 142 cases. What characterizes the given periods is the almost identical usage of baton and firearm. (1997). The increment of 108. 8. which is the increment of 24. .

. . - ( 1999). . . . UDK 351. . 3/2011 . . 741 (460) : 21. : .2011. . . . : . . 181 .. . . . . .12. . . . . . .. . . . : . . . .

. . . 148. . 2010:500) . . 1 - Constitucion Española el 27 de diciembre de 1978.. . . : . . . . . . . . . 1. . .030 17 2 . . . . . .). . . 8. . . . . . articulo 1. 3/2011 182 . . . - 1 . - . .098 ( . . . . . 22 . . - . . . . 2010:506). . .030. . 46. . . . .( . - (2010. 504. . . .109 : .

) ( e - . (Guardia Civil). . . . ) . . 1997:345). . . 3/2011 183 . . . - . . . . . . - . . .. . . ). .) ( (Cuerpo Nacional ... . . .. . . . . . - .( ) ( . . . . ( . ( - de Policia) . . . . . . .

. . za). . . . : . ( . . . Carabinieri) . - . . (Guardia di Finan( ) . . . articulo 1. . . 2 . Gendarmeria Nationale. . . 2006:401). Ley Orgánica 2/86 de 13 marzo. . . 3/2011 184 . Police Nationale. . . 1997:361). . (Cuerpo Nacional de Policia. . Polizia di Stato) (Guardia Civil. . 2 . de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad. (BOE 14/03/86). . ( ) . . . 2. . .. ( . . . - . . . 1.

( 1). (BOE 14/03/86). de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad. articulo 2. . - 1 3 . .. Ley Orgánica 2/86 de 13 marzo. . 3/2011 185 . . . : : : 3 .3. . . 1.

. . . 3. 2. . 5. . : 3/2011 . . . . . .. - . . . . . : . . . . : . . . 4. 186 . . . : - .

3. Real decreto 1599/2004. 2. 3/2011 187 . . - . . 5 . . . 4 5 6 Ley Orgánica 2/86 de 13 marzo.. (BOE 15/4/1997). .por el que se desarrolla la estructura orgánica básica del Ministerio del Interior. : 1. 12 6 . articulo 5. 5. 4 . - . . : . de julio. . . . . . . - . (BOE 14/03/86). . . .. de Organización y Funcionamiento de la Administración General del Estado. . Ley 6/1997. de 2. 4. articulo 1. de 14 de abril. . . . 6. de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad. .

articulo 5.- ( ) 2 - 7 7 Real Decreto 495/2010. de 30 de abril. 3/2011 188 . por el que se aprueba la estructura orgánica básica de los departamentos ministeriales.

. . 8 . ( 1. . . 8 - 2): - : . . .. . . . de julio. 2. . 2. . . 4. . . . . 3/2011 189 . . . . por el que se desarrolla la estructura orgánica básica del Ministerio del Interior. . Real decreto 1599/2004. - . 3. : 1. . de 2. articulo 2. . .

articulo 2. . . 4. 9 - : . . . . . 5. . . . de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad. :10 1. 8. .. : 1. . 3. 9 10 . - - Ley Orgánica 2/86 de 13 marzo. - 1. . 2. . 7. Ibid. . . . 9. . . . . 3/2011 190 . (BOE 14/03/86). . 2. 2. . . . . . articulo 11. 6. . .

. . . . . . 1824. 8. . . . . . 3/2011 - - . . . : . . .. . . . . - . . . . . . . . . 191 . . 7 . . . . . - - .

. de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad. . . por el que se modifica y desarrolla la estructura orgánica básica del Ministerio del Interior. . Ley Orgánica 2/86 de 13 marzo. 7. 11 . . 2. . (BOE 14/03/86). : . . 2. . 2. . ( . 2. 1844. de 11 de julio. . . ( 1. 13 ) . 3/2011 192 . ( ). . 12 . ) ): ). Real decreto 1181/2008. por el que se modifica y desarrolla la estructura orgánica básica del Ministerio del Interior. 1. . . 13. de 11 de julio. ( . . . . . . articulo 7. ( ( . 2011).. . 1. - : . 3. articulo 3( ). - 11 12 13 Real decreto 1181/2008. . . articulo 3. - . : . 3. 4. .

7. . Ley Orgánica 2/86 de 13 marzo. . .3. . . de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad. . . 5. . . 7. . 3. . . 15 ) ): ). . de 11 de julio. 14 : ( 1. por el que se modifica y desarrolla la estructura orgánica básica del Ministerio del Interior. . . 16 . articulo 37. 3/2011 193 . : . . . 3. - 6. (BOE 14/03/86). (b). . . 14 15 16 Real decreto 1181/2008. . articulo 3. 2. - . . ( ( . . . . . - . . . ). 1. . . 4. ( 2. . . .

. - . . . . : 1. 17 - Ibid. . . .2 17 : . . . . 3/2011 194 . . . . . . .. . . - . . . . . 29. . . . 2. . : .

. . . . . . 19 - 3. - - . de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad. articulo 29. 5. . .. . . 8. . . ( ). 2. . Ley Orgánica 2/86 de 13 marzo. 1. . 3/2011 - 195 . . . 6. . 19 . 7. . 4. 18 . . : . (BOE 14/03/86). 18 . . . . . . .

. ( 3). . . . . : 1. . 2. ( . . .. . . . . 196 . . 3. - . 4. 3/2011 . . - - - . . . . . . . . 1999:682). 5. . . 6.

- Ley Orgánica 2/86 de 13 marzo. . . 3/2011 197 . Capitulo II. 50. . 3 20 . . 20 . (BOE 14/03/86). 54. de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad. articulo 48.. . .

. . - . . . . . e ( . - . . . . . . . . . ) - . ( . . . . . .. 2011:255). . . . . . - 198 3/2011 . . . . . . . . .

. . 11. Metuchen.. . (BOE 14/03/86). Constitucion Española el 27. 9. .. 5. K. .. 16. por el que se desarrollan determinados aspectos de la Ley Orgánica 5/1992. . . (1982).. . de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad. Ley 26/1994. (2011). . . . . de 29 de septiembre. . 13. Ley 6/1997. Handbook of the World Police. : . . . Ley Orgánica 2/86. . . por el que se aprueba el Reglamento de los procesos selectivos y de formación en el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía. de Estructura Organinica Basica del Ministerio del Interior.. 15. 254-274. 6. de 22 de febrero. . por la que se regula la situación de segunda actividad en el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía. Becker. . de 20 de junio. .. 3/2006. 399-413. Real Decreto 1885/1996. 8. de 14 de abril. . de 9 de junio. Becker. Real Decreto 221/1991. .. . 17. . de Organización y Funcionamiento de la Administración General del Estado. 2. . Real Decreto 1089/2000. . H. . 3. 14. . (2010). . Real Decreto 1332/1994. (BOE 15/4/1997). . . . por el que se regula la organización de Unidades del Cuerpo Nacional de Policía adscritas 3/2011 199 3.. 53. (2011). . . . D. 2. . de 21 de abril. . de 22 de febrero.. 7.. Real Decreto 614/1995. . 489-530. . . (BOE 30/09/94). por el que se modifica el artículo 8 del Real Decreto 221/1991. . . de 13 de Marzo.. .. 48. 10. 669-686. . 12. por el que se regula la organización de Unidades del Cuerpo Nacional de Policía adscritas a las Comunidades Autónomas y se establecen las peculiaridades del régimen estatutario de su personal.: 1. 5/1999. . . 4. de diciembre de 1978. L. . .. . de regulación del tratamiento automatizado de los datos de carácter personal. . de 2 de agosto. 41. (1986). (1997). de 29 de octubre.

. por el que se desarrolla la estructura orgánica básica del Ministerio del Interior. de 25 de mayo. aprobado por Real Decreto 614/1995. por el que se modifica el Real Decreto 355/2004. 22. 20. de 21 de abril. G. por el que se desarrolla la regulación del proceso de titulización del déficit del sistema eléctrico. por el que se modifica el Reglamento de procesos selectivos y de formación en el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía. de 1 de febrero. de 12 de abril. por el que se modifica el Reglamento de los procesos selectivos y de formación en el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía. Real Decreto 1181/2008. por el que se regula el Registro central para la protección de las víctimas de la violencia doméstica. por el que se modifica el Reglamento de procesos selectivos y de formación en el Cuerpo Nacional de Policía. de 5 de marzo. Le polizie d' Europa. aprobado por Real Decreto 614/1995. de 30 de abril. Atzori. Real Decreto 495/2010. 200 3/2011 . 27. Real Decreto 102/2008. Scandone. 28. de 3 de junio. 24. de 3 de abril. de julio. por el que se aprueba la estructura orgánica básica de los departamentos ministeriales. Real Decreto 438/2008. 21. de 2. Real Decreto 660/2007. Real Decreto 1599/2004. de 14 de abril. Real Decreto 249/2006. de 21 de abril. Real Decreto 437/2010. de 11 de julio. 29. 19. 23. de 3 de marzo. (1990). Real Decreto 776/2011. por el que se suprimen determinados órganos colegiados y se establecen criterios para la normalización en la creación de órganos colegiados en la Administración General del Estado y sus Organismos Públicos. de 21 de abril. P. por el que se aprueba la estructura orgánica básica de los departamentos ministeriales. Real Decreto 440/2007. por el que se reestructuran los departamentos ministeriales. 26. en relación con el acceso a la información contenida en el Registro central. 25. de 9 de abril. Real Decreto 432/2008.18. por el que se modifica y desarrolla la estructura orgánica básica del Ministerio del Interior. aprobado por el Real Decreto 614/1995. a las Comunidades Autónomas y se establecen las peculiaridades del régimen estatutario de su personal. Roma: Laurus Robuffo..

etc. social relations and all security factors through its history. Exploration and research of police services organization singles out a common distinction of their functioning: their determination to stay close to the citizens they serve and to always be at their service. In certain segments. as well as to practical demands of the police. designed to conform to all the specifics of the state system. The structure involves numerous levels of organization. a clearly defined coordination of activities is needed. national police 3/2011 201 . Key Words: Spain. as it is in Spain. cultural. police system. The organization of Spanish police structures in itself reflects the same complexity. public security. and especially when they are mutually dependant on the state levels that form them.Organization of Spanish Police System Abstract: Organization of protection and security of a state and its' citizens is immanent in all contemporary state systems. Civil Guard. with the specifics it achieved with the evolution of the state. If there are more police organizations within a country. diversity and ramification. traditional. known police systems worldwide function more or less in the same way. Police system of this country comprises a complex police structure organized in accordance with certain principles. although each state takes different factors into consideration when developing them: territorial. in a manner adequate to the state constitution.

1 . . . . : . - - . . .11) : 14.11. . ( . . . . .. . . . .com 3/2011 202 . 2010:163).24.2011. . . .08(497. . . 1 - … UDK 343. - -mail: dnikolic635@gmail.352:336. . : . .

. . . . . - . 351. 203 ) . . . 126. . . . .1 ( . . . 3/2011 . . . ( . . . . . . . 73/2003) . . . . . . . .1 . . . . .. . - - . .

. . . . - . . .. . 20 EURO-3. . .) 700. . . . - … . . - 4 200. . . . . . 1 . . . . EURO-3 4 . . . 2010.. 106/2005). . . . .000 27. . .000 . . 2 3 . . 4. 3/2011 - 204 .. - . . . 12. . EURO-3 . . . . . . EURO-3 ( .. . 2 . . ( . 3 . – . . . 2006. . . .

( . . . . . . . . . .. . .1 . . . 3/2011 205 - . . ( 6 ) . .) . 6 . 358. - . . .. . . .). . . . .) . . . 5 .) . . . . 1 . ( . . . . . - ( . . . . . . . . . . 139.. 5 . . .. . ( . ) . . ( . .

. . 3/2011 6 EUR ( .000 . 354..000 2. 2002. . . . . 95% . . - . . . - … 3. 2000. . . . . - . . 2002:123). et al. . . 1. 206 . . ) . . . . . . . . ( - . . . .. . . . . 800 EUR 500 EUR . . 2 . - . . . . ( . . . .). ..000 . . . 1. .

0. . . . - . - . 0. . .6% 7217 10 90 00.( ( et al. - 2 - . – .. . . ( . . . . . . . 3/2011 207 . . . ( . . – – – . . ) . 127/2003). . 207. . .6% 7217 1050 00.1 ) . . 2002:123). . 94. ( . 1%. . . 7 . . 10%. . . . . ) 6 EUR .25% . .. .1 . .7 0.

. . . . . . . . . 208 3/2011 . . 15% . 227. . . . 226. . . 0901 21 00 00 30%. - . . . . . - … ( 8 . . . . . . . 8 . . . . 8 .) 1996. . . . .1 . . 0901 11 00 00 30%. ( . . . . .). .1 . 1% . . . .. . . . .

2001. 4005 99 00 00 . . . . . . - . . . 5%. 9 . . 2004. .. ( CEFTA. 88/2007). . . ). . . . . ( . 8. . . . CEFTA . . .1 . 1%. . EUR-1. – . . . . 9 ) . . . 3/2011 209 . 5. CEFTA . ( . . . . . . 14. . .

345 . . . . K . . . . 345 3/2011 . . 394. . . . . . 210 . . 1 . . . 340 . . . . . . - … . 2004:206). . . . . . . . ( .. - . .. . . . . . .

000 . . - . . . . 351. .000 . 345 . . . . . . .2 . . - – . 351. 6. . . . .1 . .2 - . . 1 . . . . 351. . 351. 351. . . .. . 340 - . 355 . . . . . . . 351. . 2. . 3/2011 . . 211 . 1 . .2 . 351. . 30. . 340 . . .

. .. 10 . . . - . . . - … . . . . 10 . . . 212 . . . . . - . . . . 3/2011 . . - - . ( et al. . . . . . . . 2002:127). .. . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . - . 2004:99). . . . . . . . . . . . . .. - . . . . . . - . . . . . ( . . 3/2011 213 . . . . . . - .

- … . . . : . . . . . . . . . . .. 5. . . - . . . . . 3/2011 . .) . - - - . 11 . . 11 . . 2009. . 214 . .1 . . Press . . 234. 6. . . . . . . - .. . . . . . . . ( .

302. - . . . 2004:142). 215 . 127/2003).. . (Nike. . . Adiddas 3/2011 . . 12 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . 12 . . . . . . . . 188. . - . .) . . . . ( . . - . .1 2 ( - . . - . .

. . . . . - . . - . 14 . . . . . - . . . . . . 13 2007. 125.. . arlboro . . . . . . 15 . . . . . .000 2009. 13 - . . 14 2007. . 216 3/2011 . . . . .. ( . .) 15 1997. . . - … . .

( . . . . . 217 . . . 2. . . . . . 16 . . . . . : 1.16 . . . . . . . . . . . - .. . 3/2011 .) . 2006. . .

. . . . 218 3/2011 . . . . . . . . - - . . . . ( ). . 5. . .. . 8. 6. . . . . . . . 9. . . . - … 3. . 4. 7. . . .

. . 6. (2002). . . . customs offense proceedings. et al. . .. . . . Measures to combat corruption among the customs offices must be continuous. the Administrative Offense Procedure and Report on Sale of Goods Abstract: Customs Service is an important state institutions. 7. 3. the custom departments of civil and administrative processes and sale of goods point out to the diversity of forms of corruption that exist today in the Custom Service. . 5. . 9. report on sale of goods 3/2011 219 . . which would contribute to more efficient collection of customs duties and other duties. for it is the only way to keep corruption within the socially acceptable framework. . . (2010). 73/2003. . - . 88/2007. customs administrative procedures. . . . Corruption among the Trade Customs Offices. 127/2003. - : 1.. . . 52. . . . A states which is aware of the forms of corruption in the customs may take adequate measures to combat corruption among the custom offices. . customs. Key Words: corruption.. trade customs office. 162-179. Getting familiar with the forms of corruption among the custom department offices. .. . and custom are the operational part of the customs service.. . which is most exposed to all forms of corruption. . . . . 106/2005. . . . .. 2. (2002). . . . 4. . . 8. . (1980). long-term and organized. (2004). 2.

3. .: Moderne Polizeipsychologie in Schlüsselbegriffen. . Stuttgart 2012. . . - ? – ( (Glasl. . . . . . Boorberg Verlag1 : : . 1 – „ ). Boorberg 2012. H. P. 1999:215). .SCHMALZL. . . . “ - – . – – . . und HERMANUTZ. . . . . 3.Neuauflage. – . . . . – . . . . M. 220 3/2011 . . . .

1999 221 .3/2011 Glasl.

. . „ . . - „ “: „ – “. . . “ . . 5. / . . . . . . : . . “ „ . . : . . - . :„ 4. . . . – . : . “. 6. - “. . . 2.:„ 1. . . : „ “ „ . . a 3. : . 3/2011 . 222 . . .„ “ “ . . . .

8. 9. “ (Kerntke. . . . . . 3/2011 223 . . “ - ? ( ) : „ : „ . . 2009:52). . . . “ : .“). . . . : „ . . . . .:„ 7. 3. !“ . : . . !“ !“ . : („ . . . („ . . . – . . . - : „ . . . . . 7. 2. 8.„ .“).

. . „ - (Kerntke. 2002:383-392): 1. (Klappert. 2. 2005:11). . “ „ “ . . 3. (Garbe. . „ “ : . . . - . . . . .). . . (Kracht. 224 . ? / .( . . . 2009:62). 2009:51). 3/2011 . - . .

- . . . . „ . 2010. . 2011). . . . . Engagemnet Index. : . . . . . „ . 3/2011 . . . “. . . . . 2011). . .. 5. .4. „ 120 . .. . . ! . “ (Berner. 225 . (GALLUP. . “. - . . .

. . 2004:48). . 2006:30). 2011:34). - ? . . . . „ “. “ (European Code of Conduct for Mediators. . 2010:38). (Dörflinger-Kashmann. “ „ . - ? . “ . „ “ (Pricewaterhouse. 226 3/2011 . - - . . :„ .. : . . (Reith. . „ . . (win-win) . .

. . . (Röchling. . . . – . . . . . 227 . 3/2011 . . . . . . .? . “ . . . - o . 2010:162). „ - . . . . 2005:8). . (Garbe. .

- . „ “ (Kerntke. / . 3/2011 . . . . . . “ . . . - . . . . ) .( „ 2005:132). (Froschauer. . . 2009:26). . . . „ . . . “ (Froschauer. . . . 2005:133). / . 228 . . . . .

. 2011:70-75) 1. 6. . „ “. . 3/2011 229 . e je . . . ( 2. ) . . 5. - . . . - / - 3. 4. . „ . ) „ “ (Klowait. / . . . “. - .„ . . 2009). - “ „ “ (Pricewaterhouse. . ( . . . 7. : / . .

9. Nachhaltige Gewinne aus der Mediation für Individuum und Organisation. Froschauer.com/File/Berlin/146030/Präsentation zum Gallup EEI 2010. F.pdf 7. 12. 1. (2006)... Rothenburger Beiträge. S. 6. 230 3/2011 . (2009). Advoice 02/2009. Bern.. „ . Mediation als Mittel zur Konfliktlösung innerhalb der Polizei. .8. . Konfliktmanagement.. Hagen. Bern. 10. Konfliktmanagement. N. ( - : Berner. Chancen der Mediation als Verfahren zur Konfliktlösung innerhalb der Polizei. A. 9. Senghaus. . (Hrsg. ) . (2010). (2009). P. Bern. Dörflinger-Kashmann. S. N. 13. . Wien. W. Konzerne erproben Mediation. .. Kerntke. 14. Gallup GmbH. 4. Mediative Konfliktlösung bei der Bayerischen Polizei – Stand und Potenziale. Villingen-Schwenningen.. .umstzungsberatung. Klowait. (2005). 48. U. 2. (2011). Mediation und Polizei.de/ Konflikte/konfliktkosten. Engagement Index Deutschland 2010. European Code of Conduct for Mediators. Universität Viadrina.). 11. (2010). http://eu. W.gallup. Klappert. (2005). Pricewaterhouse Coopers AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft und Europa (2011). - . 123-155. Wirtschaftsmediation für Klein und Mittelunternehmen in Österreich. http://www. U. Röchling. . 8. Garbe. 3. 5. abgedruckt in Zeitschrift für Konfliktmanagement. 4/2004.. Reith. J. (2009). Polizeiwissenschaftliche Schriftenreihe. Glasl. U. 21. . Mediation als Organisationsentwicklung.. - “. (1999). Konfliktkosten: Der ökonomische Preis von Grabenkriegen und Harmoniesucht. / .. .. Von den Elementen zum System. Rothenburg.

. . 428 . . . . . - . - - .. 1. - : . . . . . . - . . . . . . 2011. . . 231 - 3/2011 . . . . . .400 . . . . .

- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - . 232 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3/2011 . - . . . . . . .

- . . . . . . . : 92 - .1 .. . . . . - . 276-279). . . 176 . . . . - . . 29. .1 . : . . . - . . . . . 3/2011 233 2006. . . . . . . . ( ) . . . . 21 1 7 . . . . . . . . 5 3 . . : . . 259-267. . . . . ( . . . . . 2008.

. . . . . . - 234 3/2011 . . . . . . ). . ( . . . . . . ..

.. 3/2011 .). Times New Roman. . .). . ). . 13 pt. ( . . . ( . . 1. . . 1/10 .). . . . ( 14 pt bold. :. . . 12 pt 26 30 . . 1– . JPG 300 dpi ( . Excel-u .. - . bold. 250 ).italic) . ( EPS 1:1. . 16 (30. . 235 . ( pt .. . PDF ) ( . . 11 pt. . ( .. ( . . . . ( ) . . . . italik).. . 5) .. 16 3 . .bold. ( . . 100 - . . . - . - . ( ( . . . . . 2006). . 14 pt . ) : . .. . . .000 . 12 . .) . . 65 ). 2.

. 2009:147). . . - . : . . - .) . Journal of Law & Policy. 2005b) . . . ) .. . :( .. .. ( . . XLII . . .. . . Vol. - 3/2011 . www / . . 2010). . 10:267. . - .. 10. 2010. : et al. . . . 236-253. 236 APA – Public ti. . (2002). ( . Witkowski.) . (http:/www. Can Juries Really Believe What They See? New Foundational Requirements for the Authentication of Digital Images.edu/Journal/10/p267_Witkowski_book_pages. . (2009). 1. . 51. ( . . . . 2007:92). - on Manual of the American Psychological Association. 1-2. (:). „ “. . 2008. . .. ( . 509-543. . . . . J. ( . .. . . (2009). http://law. . et al. .. (2005). ( (..wustl. 2009).pdf. 2005 ). ..

.rs. .. e: upobr@mup. . : - - . 3/2011 237 . . .edu. / : . : darko. . : 011/3148-734. 104. . : „ “. . 11070 . . . – . .rs. . .gov.marinkovic@kpa. 011/3148-749. . . .

methods. tables. institutions they work in and their locations. For graphs in Excel. and should be followed by the body of the paper.. italic). the authors are obliged to write their names in the original form. In case the paper also includes illustrations. materials and methods. paper copy. Footnotes (notes) are to be used only for substantive observations. scientific publications. the magazine of the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Serbia publishes scientific and expert papers in Serbian and English from the area of security science. are cited before the paper topic.). and if more than two authors are cited. in Serbian and in English (font size 11 pt. for the original scientific papers. 65 characters per line. conclusion and bibliography. Names of the authors. documents. Translations of the papers from foreign sources from the areas of security science can be up to 16 pages long. bold... subheadings. the necessary follow-up comments.. and the length of the summary can be up to 1/10 of the article length. The citations (quotations) in texts should not be marked in footnotes.). The name of the project. Reviews can be given in the form of a special attachment to the end of the article. italic) in the JPEG format for photos and EPS for the other graphs. results and conclusions (100 to 250 words which will allow the readers to assess quickly and accurately relevance of the article through the short informative review). in a separate document in order to preserve their graphical quality. discussion and conclusion. legislation. as a so-called summary.. that have not been published before.Powder particles before the combustion. 12 pt for the body text.. 2006). Appendix 2. it is necessary to deliver the Editorial Board high quality copies of the appendices in electronic form. Cyrillic. The abstract in Serbian language should be between the heading (name of the author and title of the paper) and key words. 26 to 30 lines per page. reports and so on. and one in printed. authors should deliver the abstract containing the research goal. or when referring to somebody’s paper (Savi . Original scientific papers should be structured as follows: introduction. Furthermore. The manuscripts are delivered to the Editorial Board in two copies.). and reviews and expert papers should consist of introduction. followed by the year when the paper was published and the number of page in parentheses (Mijalkovi . references to useful materials (More about this:. bold. graphs. manuals. The abstract in English language. with the title of the paper (font size 14 pt.. Subheadings should be in font size 13 pt. key words in both Serbian and English (up to 5) and the reference list.) and indication of additional sources used (for example. It is desirable that the abstract in English is also given in an extended version with a more detailed presentation of the research findings. centered and not numerated. main text 12 pt. size 14 pt. followed by the 238 3/2011 . whereas book reviews from the areas of security science can be up to 3 pages long. standard margins). but at the end of the citation. but it is important to emphasize a reference to their content in the text (Annex 1. as well as the name of institution which financed the project or programme is cited in a separate footnote at the bottom of the first page. or the programme within which the article was written. should be placed after the References section. but but it is important to emphasize in the text references to their contents (Picture 1 . with the titles written above the table. Text of the manuscript should be typed on a computer (font Times New Roman. photographs and so on. one in electronic form. The magazine is published three times a year. but they can not be a substitute for reference list. bold for the headlines. and that their resolution is 300 dpi minimum for the 1:1 ratio. When citing other authors. only the first one should be listed in the text. Tables and graphs should be given in a uniform manner. use different tones of black raster and PDF format. address or e-mail is given in a footnote at the bottom of the first page. Scientific and expert papers can be up to 16 pages long (30 000 characters with spaces). results.Instruction for the Associates About Editing the Manuscripts Bezbednost. It is desirable that the titles of all reviews be given bilingually. 2009:147). and contact data. and the names of graphs below.

name of the publisher and where it was published.. 1-2/2009. pages (from-to).). by no means in the translated form.. numerated. publishing year. If the author is an institution or collective copyright holders. birth name initial. the internet address is stated (http:/www. Vol. Every quotation from the text must be found in the list of bibliographic resources. (2009). References in parentheses should be written in the original form. by alphabetical order of the authors' surnames. Beograd. It is essential that the citations in the text and list of bibliographic items at the end of the text are in complete accordance.. B. Nacionalna bezbednost. (Boškovi . S. 2005b). and names of different authors of different papers by a semicolon (. monographs. no. In the reference list. 2010). pp 509-543. Specijalne istražne radnje i nove tendencije u savremenoj nauci krivi nog prava.Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.. XLII Savetovanje Udruženja za krivi no pravo i kriminologiju SCG. textbooks and anthologies are to be provided in the original. The name of the author should be separated from the year of publishing by a comma. Zlatibor Beograd. D.. full form. B. number of the volume. pp 236-253. in Anthology „Nove tendencije u savremenoj nauci krivi nog prava i naše krivi no zakonodavstvo“. (2009). 2005a). and vice versa. Witkowski. (Dopsaj et al. When quoting internet sources. 2010..abbreviation: et al. http://law. The Editorial Board keeps its editorial right to decide when and in what scope the paper will be pub3/2011 239 . it must be stressed that they are the e-resource . and because of the ongoing change of www environment. as follows: the authors’ family name.. Mijalkovi . Foreign names in the text should be written in the original form or transcribed according to Serbian pronunciation. with the original form of the name in the parentheses. papers are listed in the original form (references are not translated into the language of the paper). E-source References may be cited as prescribed in the instruction of the APA . etc. (2005). e. 1. 2009). In the reference list.pdf available on 10. in alphabetic order of the authors’ family names.. year 51. (2002). Journal of Law & Policy. and when titles of books are in question. (Boškovi . The manuscripts will be submitted to recension by an anonymous reviewer.electronic version and/or internet address. J. the papers are cited with original titles and numerated. If one author with several papers published in the same year is cited. and in the following way: Type of paper Magazine/ journal Monograph Anthology References Simonovi . and if there are more references.wustl. 2008. name of the magazine or anthology. Banovi . 2007:92).g. with the next titles of papers the alphabet letters are added next to the year. For references in electronic form. Kriminalisti ko-policijska akademija. minimum information necessary for identification is cited (State Statistical Office. it should also be stated the date when the text was downloaded from the internet.. they are cited in alphabetical order within one parentheses.edu/Journal/10/p267_Witkowski_book_pages. title of the paper. The number of the page is separated from the year of publishing by a colon (:). Marinkovi .) (Simonovi . Can Juries Really Believe What They See? New Foundational Requirements for the Authentication of Digital Images. or evi . 10:267. Bezbednost. Standardizacija i akreditacija kao jedan od na ina profesionalizacije policije i kriminalisti ke službe. Titles of the cited national journals.

rs.gov. as co-authors. We invite all current and new authors to contribute to the content of our already established magazine in the scientific public. The common goal is to advance the policing practice. Ph.lished. 11070 Belgrade. Possible suggestions of the editor and the reviewer are sent back to the author for correction of the paper. Editorial Board telephone number is: +381 11 3148 734. For the published papers the fee is paid. raise the level of security culture. and the ones that are not published are not returned to the authors. according to the recension. the authors should also deliver the Editorial Board their full family name and birth name. e-mail: upobr@mup. rank.D. Bulevar Zorana Djindji a 104. the photocopy of their personal identification card and check card. Darko Marinkovi 240 3/2011 . EDITOR IN CHIEF Assistant Professor. how current the topic is and the insight into the paper and the databases. and ensure that the pace is kept with contemporary scientific and professional achievements in security issues. their telephone number and mobile phone number. The manuscripts are to be sent to the following address: Editorial Board of the magazine “Bezbednost”. please note that it is possible to submit a joint paper by foreign and national authors. With the paper. with the long tradition. address. by sending their expert and scientific papers. Also. e-mail. fax: +381 11 3148 749.