The scientific study addresses confrontation as a means of evidence in criminal proceedings and is based on the results of international research conducted at the Academy of the Police Force in Bratislava. The author highlights in particular the importance of criminalistic-tactical procedures and compares the approaches of Slovakia and the Czech Republic, especially with regard to the preparation of investigators, the use of psychology, and the willingness to pursue further education. From a historical perspective, confrontation in Slovak law long did not exist as an independent means of evidence and was understood merely as a component of examination. It is only the current legal regulation in § 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that grants it an independent status. At the same time, it remains an exceptional (subsidiary) instrument, employed only when fundamental discrepancies exist between statements and cannot be resolved by other means. The law also protects vulnerable persons, such as minors or victims of violent offences, in respect of whom confrontation is restricted or entirely excluded. From a practical standpoint, this is a relatively demanding act that requires thorough preparation, active direction by the investigator, and the ability to perceive the non-verbal expressions of the confronted persons. The research, however, revealed that Slovak practice has considerable room for improvement in precisely this area. Preparation is often brief and unsystematic, with many investigators failing to think through the tactics of conducting confrontation in advance. Moreover, psychological knowledge is utilised only minimally, which can significantly reduce the effectiveness of the entire act. The comparison with the Czech Republic revealed interesting differences. Czech investigators devote more time to preparation, perceive the demands of confrontation more realistically, and show greater interest in further professional education. In Slovakia, by contrast, there is a noticeable decline in interest in education and a strong orientation toward gaining experience directly from practice. Differences also emerged in the actual approach to confrontation. Slovak investigators tend to respond actively to false statements and attempt to challenge them directly, while Czech investigators are more inclined to allow the person to testify and subsequently use the statement as evidence. The physical conditions also present a problem - confrontations are most commonly conducted in standard offices without specially adapted facilities. Overall, the study shows that while the legal regulation of confrontation in Slovakia is adequate, its practical application encounters several problems. These relate in particular to insufficient preparation, weak utilisation of psychological knowledge, and a low level of systematic education. The author therefore highlights the need to improve the professional training of investigators, create better conditions for conducting confrontation, and strengthen their criminalistic-tactical skills.
Martin Laca (Mon,) studied this question.