How to behave in a confrontation: advice from a lawyer

Sometimes during the preliminary investigation, obvious contradictions arise between the testimony of participants in criminal proceedings. To find out the truth, a confrontation is usually held between previously interrogated persons. This investigative action has its own characteristics. The fact is that several people participate in such an interrogation. Thus, it becomes possible to immediately resolve all contradictions that have arisen in order to determine the further course of the investigation. Those present must understand how to behave in a confrontation so as, firstly, not to harm themselves, and, secondly, not to direct the investigation down the wrong path.

Essence of the procedure

Determining the truth is often very difficult. There are cases when two participants in a trial give completely different testimony regarding the same issue. This can happen for various reasons:

Because of the outright delusion of one of them.
In case of deliberate distortion of real facts. Moreover, there is a possibility that both interrogated people incorrectly describe the picture of what is happening.

It is in such cases that confrontation is used. Here, the investigator has the opportunity to ask the participants the same questions and, having discovered in their answers a contradiction or discrepancy with the testimony given earlier, try to find out its reason.

All those present must be warned in advance about such a procedure in order to decide how to behave in a confrontation. Some may want to change their testimony. Although in such a situation it is undesirable to do this. It is better to refuse to give any evidence at all than to make up something on the fly.

Differences from interrogation

Confrontation is a type of interrogation and also has the following unique characteristics:

carried out in relation to persons who have previously been interrogated;
a procedure is required if there are any significant differences in the testimony of different witnesses or other participants;
two persons are attracted at once.

Reference! Many citizens are sure that the stake is psychologically more complex than a regular interrogation.

Interrogation is the process of obtaining testimony from participants in the process who have the necessary data to investigate a crime. With its help, the investigator obtains evidence of the guilt of a specific person.

Good to know

In order to determine in advance how to behave in a confrontation, you need to clearly understand how exactly such a procedure should take place. To do this, you should refer to the legislation. All issues related to confrontation are discussed in Art. 164 and art. 192 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation:

To begin with, it is worth noting that these actions must be carried out on the basis of the relevant decision of the investigator. And sometimes this even requires a court decision.
Such interrogation should take place during the daytime, except in urgent cases.
During a confrontation, a protocol is usually kept where information about everything that happens is entered.
During such an interrogation, the use of threats and various types of violence against its participants is unacceptable. They must provide all information voluntarily, without feeling threatened by law enforcement officials or other persons being interrogated.
If during the conversation it is planned to use various technical means, then all participants must be notified about this in advance.
During a confrontation, the investigator may read out previous testimony or present any physical evidence.
During the conversation, the persons being interrogated can ask each other various questions.

Knowing all these subtleties, participants can think about and plan their behavior in advance.

What human rights can be violated during a confrontation?

During this procedure, not all investigators comply with the norms established by law. They may try to put pressure on citizens or start asking leading questions. This is contrary to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation.

In this case, you should not hesitate, but should immediately file a complaint with the head of the investigation department where the investigator works, or with the prosecutor’s office. Don't be afraid to do this, as you are only asserting your rights.

You can also appeal the actions of the investigator through the court, in accordance with paragraphs of Art. 125 Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In practice, very often the complaint is rejected, but this is done for the future.

In order for the complaint to be accepted, it is necessary to describe in as much detail as possible what exactly the violations of the law by the investigator were, with references to the relevant articles of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. It is recommended to seek the help of a lawyer for this.

Strict order

Simultaneous interrogation of several persons sometimes becomes the only opportunity for the investigator to find out the truth. To achieve the desired result, he needs to follow certain tactics when conducting a confrontation. Otherwise, the procedure may be completely useless. At the same time, each of its participants must understand how to behave in a confrontation and clearly follow this position. Such a conversation usually begins with clarifying the fact that the persons being interrogated know each other and defining their relationship. These people may be friends, relatives or co-workers. In addition, it is very important to find out if there is any enmity between them. Such information is critical to assessing their evidence. Next, the investigator must ask the participants questions regarding a specific circumstance, and, after listening to the answer of each of them, enter the information received into the protocol. In this case, if any discrepancies are detected, it becomes possible to immediately clarify all the nuances and find out the cause of the discrepancy. Only after this should we move on to the next circumstance.

Nuances

To ensure the safety of a witness, victim, their representatives or close relatives, the investigator may not record personal information about these citizens in the protocol. In such a situation, with the consent of the prosecutor, the employee issues a resolution containing the reasons for making such a decision, indicates the pseudonym of the subject participating in the confrontation, and provides a sample of his autograph with which he will certify the documents. If persons refuse to sign, the investigator records this circumstance. This fact is certified by the signature of the employee, as well as the defense attorney, the legal representative of the person who refused to sign.

Witness participation

Proof of a suspect's guilt is often supported by the testimony of witnesses to the incident. But sometimes they describe the same situation differently. The investigator's task is to find out the truth by determining which of the participants in the process is mistaken or deliberately misleading everyone.

The witness may attend such a conversation together with his lawyer. This is not prohibited by law. When representing the interests of his client, he must explain in advance how to behave in a confrontation with a witness:

You should not be overly picky about the procedure for calling you for such an interrogation. Most often this is done over the phone. There is no need to demand that a summons be sent. You will still have to appear, and the investigator may form a negative or biased opinion about this witness.
It is necessary to immediately decide whether a lawyer will be present during such a conversation. Sometimes the presence of a defense attorney raises doubts in the investigator’s mind about the citizen’s innocence in the event that occurred. It is possible that in such a situation he will have a desire to reclassify the “witness” as a “suspect”.
When talking, you must behave calmly, without showing aggression towards the participants in the procedure. During such an interrogation, various situations may arise. You need to try to control yourself, avoid obscene language and any use of physical force.
It is better to think through several possible answers in advance. This will help you better navigate the conversation depending on the testimony of the other side.
The witness has the right to ask questions himself. Sometimes this helps to confirm his own testimony.

By following these rules, the witness can count on a favorable outcome of the confrontation.

Commentary on Article 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation

1. A confrontation is an independent investigative action, during which measures are taken to eliminate (explain the reasons for) significant contradictions in the testimony of persons interrogated earlier during the preliminary investigation. As a result of the confrontation, evidence is formed such as a protocol of the investigative action - a protocol of the confrontation (and not a protocol of interrogation), as well as testimony of a witness, victim, etc. (there are always more of them than during interrogation).

2. The actual basis for a confrontation is the presence of significant contradictions in the testimony of previously interrogated persons.

3. The decision to conduct a confrontation made by the preliminary investigation body is not documented in writing.

4. The purpose of the confrontation is to obtain testimony from one person in the presence of another interrogated person giving other testimony significant for the preliminary investigation, as well as to clarify the reasons for significant contradictions in the testimony of previously interrogated persons.

5. Part 1 art. 192 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established two provisions:

— basic conditions under which it is possible to conduct a confrontation;

- a requirement that it be carried out in accordance with the general rules for conducting investigative actions.

6. A mandatory condition for conducting a confrontation is that the persons between whom it is being conducted must be interrogated before this. It doesn't matter how many times they were interrogated. But the content of the information enshrined in the interrogation protocol is important. The information coming from each of the participants in the confrontation must, firstly, be different, and secondly, it must indicate that there are significant contradictions between their testimony.

7. All contradictions in the testimony of interrogated persons that can be interpreted by the head of the investigative body, prosecutor, judge or court as such (material), that is, affecting the completeness, comprehensiveness and objectivity of establishing the circumstances to be proven, should be considered significant.

8. The reasons for such contradictions can be either an honest mistake or a conscious lie of one or more interrogated <1223>. ———————————

Note:

Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation (ed. I.L. Petrukhin) is included in the information bank according to the publication - Welby, Prospect, 2008 (6th edition, revised and expanded). <1223> See: Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation... M.: Welby. P. 273.

9. Part 2 of the commented article establishes the mandatory first question, as well as who asks subsequent questions and in what sequence. The sequence established by Part 2 of the commented article should not be violated, otherwise the admissibility of the investigative protocol obtained as a result of the confrontation may be called into question.

10. Based on the content of Part 2 of the commented article, it is first determined whether the persons between whom the confrontation is taking place know each other and what kind of relationship they have with each other. Part 2 of the commented article does not resolve the question of what should be the form of such clarification. Therefore, any form of clarification of this issue from the interrogated persons used by the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) that does not contradict the law will be acceptable. Usually the question is asked by the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) orally. Although, of course, it can be entered into the protocol and then read independently by each of the interrogated persons. In any case, both the question and the answer of each person interrogated during the confrontation are reflected in the protocol of the confrontation.

11. The first part of the question asked is aimed at finding out whether they know each other. The verb “knows” in this case is understood in the broadest sense of the word. It is not necessary that the interrogated person indicate the last name, first name and patronymic (other personal data) of the second participant in the confrontation. It is enough for it to report when, under what circumstances and where exactly it saw him.

12. However, the fact that the participants did not previously know each other cannot be considered a circumstance preventing the conduct of a confrontation. An example to support such a statement would be a case where several people observed the same event from different places. In this case, they may not have seen each other and, accordingly, may not be familiar. In the testimony of such previously interrogated persons, significant contradictions may be revealed that require the adoption of measures provided for by law to eliminate them, which means that there are factual grounds for holding a confrontation between them.

13. In the first question, the persons being confronted are asked what kind of relationship they have with each other. And in this case, it is not necessary that there be any relationship between the interrogated persons. But if there were any, then they should be recorded in detail in the protocol. Particular attention should be paid to that side of this issue that concerns the existence of previous conflicts, property disputes and other manifestations of hostile relations between the interrogated persons. In this regard, after the interrogated person has provided his answer to the first question, from which it follows that the persons between whom the confrontation is being conducted have at least met before, it is recommended to clarify whether there are (if there were previously) hostile relations between them.

14. The form of the question, whether the persons being confronted know each other and what their relationship is, leads in practice to the fact that investigators (interrogators, etc.) sometimes confuse two investigative actions - confrontation and presentation of a person for identification . Illegal mixing of these investigative actions can also be carried out intentionally. By asking at the beginning of the investigative action the question whether people know each other, in reality the law enforcement officer may seek to establish whether this person was seen by a witness (victim, etc.) under certain circumstances. This practice is rightly condemned by both scientists <1224> and the majority of practitioners. Defenders dispute the admissibility of records of such investigative actions. ——————————— <1224> See, for example: Commentary on the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation... M.: Yurait-Izdat. P. 462; and etc.

15. The interrogated persons are invited to give evidence. This formulation should direct the investigator (interrogator, etc.) to take active action.

16. Immediately after the first person interrogated has completed his testimony, it must be recorded in the protocol of the confrontation and the interrogated person must be invited to sign it. Only after this should the second interrogated person be asked to testify about the circumstances to clarify which the confrontation is being conducted. The testimony of the second participant in the confrontation is also entered into the protocol and signed by him.

17. Only after completing the specified stage of the confrontation, the investigator (investigating officer, etc.) can ask questions to each of the interrogated persons. In other words, firstly, before each of the interrogated persons is asked to testify on the circumstances to clarify which the confrontation is being conducted, the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) has the right to find out from them only whether they know each other and in what ways relationships are with each other. Secondly, asking questions by the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) to the persons being interrogated is not his duty, but his right.

18. Regardless of whether or not the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) exercised his right to ask the interrogated persons questions, after this the stage of confrontation begins, when the persons between whom the confrontation is being conducted have the right to ask the investigator (interrogating officer, etc. .) permission to pose your question to another interrogated person.

19. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not determine how this type of permission is sought. Therefore, both an oral appeal to the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) with an appropriate request, and an official statement of the corresponding petition will be legal. In any case, it is recommended that the fact of receiving such permission be reflected in the protocol of the confrontation. If a petition was submitted in writing, it is attached to the materials of the criminal case (Part 1 of Article 120 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia).

20. The protocol of the confrontation records both questions and answers. Moreover, if the answer took place, it must be recorded immediately after the question itself is recorded in the investigative protocol.

21. Blocks of information consisting of a question and an answer to this question are recorded in the protocol of the confrontation in the sequence that took place during the investigative action in question. This requirement applies only to questions and answers regarding the testimony of the person being questioned. During the confrontation process, the interrogated person and other participants in the investigative action are asked other types of questions.

22. These questions are procedural guarantees of compliance with the legal status of the person being interrogated (other participants in the production of the investigative action under consideration). We are talking about such questions, for example, whether the content of the announced protocol of the confrontation corresponds to its progress and results, whether the participants in the investigative action have comments and (or) additions to the protocol of the confrontation, etc. The legislator does not require that such issues be recorded in the procedural document under consideration. The protocol of the confrontation reflects only the answers to questions of the specified level. Moreover, it cannot be considered a violation of the law that the answer by the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) to the type of question under consideration was reflected in the protocol not verbatim, but as it was printed on the form of the confrontation protocol.

23. Part 4 of the commented article establishes a mandatory condition, without which the investigator (interrogator, etc.) does not have the right to present to the persons between whom the confrontation is being conducted the testimony given by them earlier during the interrogation. The announcement (reproduction) of evidence previously given by persons interrogated at a confrontation is allowed only in two cases, when:

- at the confrontation, these persons have already spoken out about the circumstances, information about which will be announced (reproduced);

- the person whose testimony is being presented refused to testify in a confrontation about the circumstances that he spoke about during the previous interrogation.

24. In order for the investigator (inquirer, etc.) to have the opportunity to read out the testimony of the interrogated person contained in the protocol of the previous interrogation, as well as to reproduce audio and (or) video recordings and filming of these testimony, it is enough for him to have one of the above conditions. But he may not exercise this right. The investigator (interrogator, etc.) has no obligation to announce the testimony and (or) reproduce the results of audio and (or) video recordings or filming.

25. The legislator did not say anything about what a “refusal to testify” is in the meaning used in part 4 of the commented article. We recommend recognizing as a refusal to testify simply the silence (of significant duration) of the interrogated person after a question was asked to him (an offer to testify about the circumstances to clarify which the confrontation is being held), and a statement that he refuses to answer the question put to him (to report anything about the sought circumstances). Nevertheless, the provision of unreliable or insufficient information, or even a deliberately false answer, cannot be considered a refusal to answer a question. In such a situation, the testimony of the interrogated still took place; accordingly, although not reliable (incomplete), there was an answer to the question. It must be reflected in the first person and, if possible, verbatim in the protocol of the confrontation.

26. Terms of confrontation:

1) confrontation can be carried out only after the initiation of a criminal case;

2) confrontation is carried out only between two persons;

3) the persons between whom the confrontation is taking place have been previously interrogated;

4) according to the content of the interrogation protocols, there are significant contradictions in the testimony of the participants in the confrontation;

5) persons interrogated in a confrontation are not asked leading questions;

6) it must be precisely established that during the confrontation, those rights and legitimate interests of the persons participating in it, the limitation of which is not provided for by the criminal procedure law, will not be violated;

7) the honor and dignity of the persons participating in the sought action will not be humiliated;

the health and life of those interrogated, as well as other persons present during the confrontation, will not be endangered.

27. The procedure for conducting a confrontation consists of a number of elements, which are arranged in the following sequence:

1) in connection with the existence of factual grounds and the possibility of complying with the conditions for conducting a confrontation, a decision is made on the necessity and possibility of carrying out this investigative action;

2) if necessary, a translator, teacher, defender, legal representative and other persons are invited, and technical means are prepared (tape recorder, video camera, etc.);

3) the person conducting the confrontation verifies the identity of the interrogated;

4) participants in the confrontation are notified of the sound recording (video recording) of the entire progress of this investigative action;

5) persons participating in the investigative action are explained their rights and obligations (if there is a need for this, they are warned about the non-disclosure of preliminary investigation data), responsibilities and the procedure for conducting a confrontation;

6) witnesses (victims) are warned of criminal liability for giving knowingly false testimony under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code and for refusing to testify under Art. 308 of the Criminal Code, translator - for knowingly false translation under Art. 307 of the Criminal Code. This fact is reflected at the beginning of the confrontation protocol and is certified by the signature of the witness (victim, interpreter);

7) each of the participants in the confrontation is asked by the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) the same question, whether they know each other and in what relationship they are with each other;

the correctness of the reflection in the protocol of one’s answer to the question posed is certified by the signature of the person who gave the testimony;

9) those interrogated one by one in the sequence established by the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) are asked to give evidence on the circumstances to clarify which the confrontation is being carried out;

10) each of the interrogated persons is asked additional questions if the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.) considers this appropriate;

11) persons between whom confrontations are made are given the opportunity, with the permission of the investigator (interrogating officer, etc.), to ask questions to each other;

12) subject to the above conditions, the interrogated persons may be asked questions by other participants in the confrontation;

13) all participants in the investigative action are given the opportunity to familiarize themselves with the content of the sound recording (video recording); if necessary, each of the interrogated persons has the right to make additions to it, but even if there are none, the interrogated persons are invited to complete the audio and video recordings with their oral statement about its correctness;

14) according to the rules of the commented article and art. Art. 166, 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the protocol of the confrontation is finally drawn up.

28. See also commentary to Art. Art. 53, 56, 72, 164, 166, 187 - 189, 191 Code of Criminal Procedure <1225>. ——————————— <1225> For a more complete commentary on this article, see: Ryzhakov A.P. Confrontation. Presentation for identification. Checking evidence on site: grounds and procedure. M.: Delo i Servis, 2013. 192 p.

What should a suspect do?

For a suspect, a confrontation is a real test, a kind of psychological battle with the participants in the process. Such interrogation can have two consequences for him. On the one hand, for example, having exposed an unscrupulous witness, he gets the opportunity to prove his innocence. This will be the first step towards his acquittal. On the other hand, circumstances may work in favor of the prosecution. Then punishment will be inevitable.

To exclude the second option, you need to clearly understand how to behave in a confrontation with a suspect:

You need to speak confidently so that every phrase spoken does not raise doubts. It is better to stand your ground if the other side has no valid arguments.
You need to admit only what is impossible to deny at the moment.
Sometimes it is worth trying to play by the rules of the investigator: if he is aggressive, then it is better to feign fear, and in a heart-to-heart conversation, try to feign understanding. This will partly help win him over to your side.
Refuse threats and any negativity. Such actions can only anger law enforcement officials.
The presence of a lawyer will help avoid unnecessary mistakes.
If necessary, you can submit various petitions, demanding that they be entered into the protocol.

In addition, we must remember that suspicion of committing a crime is not a final accusation. During the confrontation, circumstances may become clear that will help the “suspect” in practice prove to everyone that he is right.

Why is the confrontation done?

It is advisable for the investigator to conduct confrontations in cases where he has doubts about the sincerity of the persons he has already interrogated. In addition, he carries it out when he needs to verify evidence or establish that one of the citizens has used self-incrimination for his own purposes or the purposes of other persons.

This procedure is often resorted to if there is no other way to establish what the contradictions are in the testimony of two citizens. The fact is that this is a very complex process, and the psychology of confrontation must be taken into account. After all, it can play a dual role in the procedure. The negative influence of one person can change the testimony of another or leave them unchanged.

Actions of the victim

The victim, more than anyone else, is interested in the outcome of the case. He needs the person who committed the crime to be punished. If any questions arise during the proceedings, then it is the victim who must do everything to clarify them. Of course, he wants to punish the offender. But for this you need to act strictly according to the law. How should a victim behave in a confrontation? Usually the investigator appoints it in order to clarify some dubious points that are presented differently by both sides.

In such a situation, the victim must:

Answer questions regarding the specific circumstances of the case very frankly. There is no need to invent or speculate on anything. In this case, the investigator is not interested in assumptions. He only needs facts, and truthful ones at that.
There is no need to insult your opponent. You must prove your point of view calmly. Excessive aggression and lack of restraint can negatively affect the investigator.
It is advisable to confirm your words with facts, because we are talking about a specific moment.
Sometimes it is worth inviting a lawyer. He will expertly help confirm the unfoundedness of suspicions and bring the liars to clean water.
Sometimes discrepancies in testimony are caused by outright misconceptions of the victim himself. Without knowing the true picture, he is often inclined to express his assumptions regarding the event that occurred. Any lawyer will advise him in such a situation to say only what is initially beyond doubt.

The victim must take these points into account so as not to mislead the investigation.

What it is

The main purpose of opening any criminal case is to obtain information about the crime and the culprit. Based on the information received by the investigators, an evidence base is formed that allows the person responsible for the incident to be punished.

To obtain data, various investigative measures are carried out, which include:

Free legal consultation

+8 800 100-61-94

inspection and analysis of the crime scene;
interviewing witnesses or persons represented by victims;
interrogation of suspects.

Confrontation is a type of interrogation, which is represented by an investigative event, thanks to which two people are questioned at once.

Investigator's behavior

Usually a confrontation is an initiative of the investigator. It is he who decides whether it is necessary. After all, the result of such a procedure is unpredictable. It can eliminate the contradictions that have arisen or, conversely, expose the staging of a crime, a false alibi, or confirm the fact of a slander. At such an event, the investigator must first of all know how to behave correctly in a confrontation.

He must try to follow the following rules:

Properly notify all participants about the upcoming event and monitor the presence of each of them.
Warn the interrogated persons about the responsibility that they will bear if they refuse to testify. Separately, it is necessary to pay attention to the provision of deliberately false information on their part.
During the conversation, all questions of interest must be asked gradually, giving each participant the opportunity to give their answer. After this, you can move on to the next point.
Do not use obvious aggression or physical force towards interrogated persons. The investigator should not intimidate or try to influence their decisions in any way.
Skillfully using physical evidence, try to find out how everything really was.
Do not play along with one of the parties, misleading the other. Although in some cases it is possible to use measures of psychological influence on someone who provides deliberately false information.
Allow the interrogated persons to ask each other questions to clarify the reasons for the contradictions that have arisen.

A skillfully conducted confrontation always leads to the desired result. The main goal of the investigator should be to find out the truth, which will allow the culprit to be punished in the future.

Video recording

It is used primarily in cases where the subjects giving evidence have mental or physical disabilities. For example, if deaf-mute, deaf-blind, or citizens with paralysis of the speech apparatus are interrogated, simulating nervous disorders. Video recording is also advisable when giving testimony by minor victims and witnesses, as well as persons accused of particularly serious crimes. This method is also used in complex cross-examinations. Investigators analyze the results obtained and develop effective tactics for subsequent actions. The interrogation with video recording is carried out in a spacious, evenly lit office with good sound insulation.

It is advisable to conduct a preliminary inspection of the premises. It involves trial video recording, assessment of image and sound quality. During the inspection, suitable survey areas are selected. The most important conditions for the effectiveness of an investigative action and ensuring the quality of recording are clarity, conciseness, specificity of questions, as well as expressiveness of gestures (in cases where they are appropriate). The key place in the video recording should be the subject's story about the circumstances that he knows, supplemented by answers to the questions asked by the investigator. When filming a confrontation with incriminating materials being presented to individuals, it is necessary to capture this moment and the reaction to the evidence. If readings are given using signs (for example, using the alphabet of the deaf and dumb), it is necessary to emphasize gestures. During sign language interpretation, an interpreter must be present in the frame. This will make checking much easier in the future.

Tips for a lawyer

Any participant in legal proceedings may invite his or her lawyer during a confrontation. This will allow him to feel more confident during such a procedure. The role of the defense attorney will be to uphold the rule of law as much as possible in relation to his client. How should a lawyer behave in a confrontation?

Experienced defense attorneys can give some useful advice on this matter:

First, you need to remember that the investigator in such a situation is not a friend to the lawyer. They have completely opposite goals. The investigator needs to find out as much as possible. The goal of the defense attorney is to provide the minimum amount of information necessary.
During a confrontation, it is necessary to ensure that the client’s interests are not infringed. It is necessary to give him timely advice regarding the competence of certain issues.
Carefully read all the documents that appear during the procedure. Perhaps there is a catch in some of these papers.
Prevent any negative impact on the client. In an emergency, you can simply stop the conversation. At the same time, the lawyer himself must remain calm and restrain his emotions.
Submit motions on behalf of your client that will help turn the situation in his favor.

The correct actions of a lawyer can provide the client with all possible assistance without prejudice to his interests.

Alternate recording

This option allows you to make the confrontation protocol compact. The document is not divided. It consistently reflects questions and answers. Each person giving testimony certifies it with a signature and puts an autograph on each page where they are present. To make it clear who exactly the questions were asked, the investigator gives the appropriate instructions: “Question to the accused,” “Answer of the accused.” This option for recording readings is optimal when the procedure involves changing the order of the survey.