ЗБИРАННЯ ПОТЕРПІЛИМ КОПІЙ ДОКУМЕНТІВ ПІД ЧАС ЗДІЙСНЕННЯ КРИМІНАЛЬНОГО... ПРОВАДЖЕННЯ: ПРОБЛЕМНІ ПИТАННЯ

Abstract

Collecting evidence, as one of the elements of criminal procedural proving, is the driving force for a complete and comprehensive determination of criminal proceeding circumstances and achievement of its objectives. Based on the obtained evidence, subjects of proof form and defend their legal positions, provide certain arguments, counterarguments and objections. In this way they realise their rights and interests in criminal proceedings, and achieve their intended procedural purposes. In the meantime, the court, as an independent and impartial arbitrator, also takes procedural decisions in accordance with collected and available case evidence. The same applies to investigative judge, who, performing the function of judicial review, evaluates collected and submitted evidence. Therefore, appropriate normative regulation of the right to collect evidence and procedure of its realisation is crucially important. However, regarding the victim, the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine are imperfect since they do not fully guarantee their right to collect copies of documents. Moreover, in certain cases collecting them is illogical according to the need of submitting to the court original documents, not their copies. Nevertheless, the victim has no ability to collect original documents (in accordance with the literal interpretation of criminal procedural law provisions). The above-mentioned and certain other problematic issues constantly concern scientists and practicing lawyers, and therefore require thorough research. The purpose of the article is: 1) to analyse current legislation, relevant conclusions of the Supreme Court, and scientific works regarding collecting copies of documents by victims; 2) to explore the problematic issues in this regard; 3) to provide scientifically-based suggestions for resolving current issues. The article analyses the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine which regulate collecting copies of documents by victims and reviews conclusions of the Supreme Court regarding peculiarities of electronic documents (videotapes) and their copies. It is concluded that the existing legal mechanism of collecting copies of documents by victims, including electronic documents, is unsatisfactory and is not accompanied by sufficient legal guarantees. The presence of collision between part 3 of Article 93 and part 3 of Article 99 of CPC of Ukraine is substantiated. Thus, the author demonstrates his own vision of the above-mentioned issues and suggests certain ways of the possible solution.