In the development of Hungarian law, the First Act still included this construction among the means of proof, but the justification of this was already disputed in the university notes of the time, which also stated that the inspection is in fact a procedure of proof “in the course of which the authority becomes acquainted with facts and objects by means of its own senses, by sight.”1 The dogmatic uncertainty is shown by the fact that

Initially, most of the representatives of the Hungarian legal literature considered inspection as a basic procedural act of the court.6 Some excerpts from earlier writings:

The definition of Szénási differs somewhat from the above, who sees inspection not as an evidentiary procedure but as a method of proof. 12

A notable definition in foreign literature is that of Florian, who describes the act of observation as “visual observation”, which, in its essence, “represents the traditional element in the forms of judicial activity aimed at achieving the direct perception of the judge: it can be considered as the judicial act by which the judge himself observes, becomes aware of or in any way perceives a specific perceptible object (person or material object) or its specific characteristics.”13

In practice, mixed solutions are also found: for example, according to the German legal dictionary, “a judicial inspection is a means of proof in which the court establishes the evidence of a fact by direct sensory perception (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste).”14

For my part, I believe that we must necessarily include inspection among the evidentiary procedures, since the term refers to a process, a continuous activity. Let us also not forget that the inspection does not in itself carry the intended result of the procedural act, the evidentiary instrument. The latter is the object of the inspection and the evidence is the information conveyed by the object of the inspection. I therefore consider the current solution of the CPC, which places the inspection among the evidentiary acts, to be terminologically acceptable.15

The court, the prosecution or the investigating authority shall order and conduct an inspection if the inspection of an object or place or the observation of an object or place is necessary to obtain or establish the fact to be proved.16 On the basis of this legislation, the term ‘inspection’ therefore refers to a heterogeneous activity which can take several forms: inspection of persons, objects or places.

With regard to the methodology of inspection, the legislator opted for the statutory regulation, despite the fact that this is essentially a matter of a forensic nature. On this basis, the inspection has the following features:

The primary purpose of a crime scene inspection is to accurately record evidence of the crime at the scene.21 Known in legal literature as the “first strike”, this evidence-gathering act is, by its very nature, most closely linked to the investigative phase. In Fenyvesi’s view, it essentially encompasses all the measures taken by the investigating authorities within a short time after they have become officially aware of the crime in order to answer the questions “what, where, when, how, who, with whom, why”.22

During the on-the-spot inspection, various data, facts and circumstances become known, which may make the accused, the defendant or the witness confront the falsity of his or her previous statements, but it may also happen that this act of evidence strengthens the truthfulness of previous statements. It should be noted that an on-the-spot inspection is usually carried out once in a procedure and is therefore considered by the authorities as a one-off and unrepeatable event. Since what is seen there often provides clear – direct or indirect – clues, the on-site inspection often leads to the persons who have previously testified changing or withdrawing their previous statements.23

The prominent role of the on-site inspection stems from the fact that

Before we think that there is a well-established practice of carrying out on-site inspections, it should be noted that there are variations in the way each crime is carried out, and consequently a kind of “targeted specificity” -since “reconstruction cannot be standardised” – is necessary on the part of the investigating authorities.27 A good investigator must “get under the skin of the perpetrator in order to carry out an effective search for clues, i.e. to find and record all the traces, material residues and lesions that may have been left by the perpetrator’s movements, following the supposed path of the perpetrator.”28 For this reason, reports must be drawn up on the basis of the ‘chain of custody’ principle, as known in Anglo-Saxon legal systems, on the public authorities responsible for the custody of objects of value. This ‘pyramid of responsibility’ is ensured by a permanent obligation of accountability, which lasts until the end of the judicial proceedings. All this is intended to confirm to the courts the undoubted origin of the evidence (corpus delicti).29