Definition of Vulnerable Persons in Criminal Proceedings: EU and Lithuanian Perspectives

Criminal law means of protection of criminal offenders cooperating with justice are considered. The purpose of this article is to consider the norms of specialized laws, sources of criminal and criminal procedural law of Ukraine, its international obligations as a comprehensive legal basis for ensuring the safety of certain types of participants in criminal proceedings, conditionally united within the category of “cooperating witnesses.” While collaborators with justice expose other persons involved in illegal activities, such cooperation takes place includes a risk of intimidation or retaliation. In order to reduce this risk to a rationally acceptable level, the legislation provides, in addition to protection measures (which technically complicate a possible massacre), also means designed to reduce the impact of violent interference. Such means are procedural methods of overcoming the irreplaceability of participants in criminal proceedings during the trial (testimony “from other people’s words,” judicial interrogation during the pre-trial investigation); criminal law protection of relations of participation in (criminal) proceedings. However, unlike actual witnesses, “cooperating witnesses” enjoy a lower level of criminal protection. Their possible statuses (suspect, accused, convicted, person released from criminal responsibility, acquitted) are not mentioned in Art. 386 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (including threats, blackmail, bribery of a witness, a victim, an expert). Liability for intimidation, torture, murder, etc. of collaborators with justice has a general basis, in isolation from a special purpose (to induce false testimony, revenge, etc.) and generally outside the context of participation in criminal proceedings; there is no responsibility for their bribery. Therefore, the work on the implementation of certain provisions of international treaties of Ukraine in the field of combating corruption and organized crime is not complete. In addition, the criminal-legal protection of participants in criminal proceedings against the illegal inaction of officials of bodies that provide security and against the disclosure of data on the content of relevant measures (Articles 380, 381 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine) is formulated in a way that assumes the existence of a cause-and-effect relationship complex of legally significant intermediate events. This puts the subjects of criminal liability in a case-by-case situation and is inconsistent with some recognized approaches in the science of criminal law (namely: theories of equivalence, direct causation).

The article provides a comparative analysis of legal acts regulating the organization of forensic activities, as well as the legal status of knowledgeable persons in criminal proceedings in Russia and Latvia. Comparative legal analysis of normative acts consists in comparing the prescriptions of legal norms, legislative terms and definitions, allowing one to see the general and special, typical and unique in the regulation of forensic activities, as well as the rights and obligations, the volume and nature of the procedural functions of knowledgeable persons in criminal proceedings Russia and Latvia. The study is carried out on the basis of a comprehensive comparative legal analysis of the latest editions of criminal procedure laws (codes), laws in the field of organizing forensic activities in Russia and Latvia, by-laws, as well as other primary sources, including foreign ones, in the original language. Knowledgeable persons, i.e. persons applying special knowledge in criminal proceedings in Russia, are experts and specialists, in Latvia – experts, auditors and specialists. The legal status of knowledgeable persons in criminal proceedings in Russia and Latvia is largely comparable, but not identical. And, despite the transformation of the criminal procedural legislation of Latvia, in accordance with international legal norms and standards of the European Union, the provision of Soviet law on the use by knowledgeable persons of special knowledge in legal proceedings was preserved in the Latvian criminal process. The Code of Criminal Procedure of Russia classifies an expert and a specialist as other participants in criminal proceedings, that is, persons performing the function of promoting justice. Whereas the Latvian Criminal Procedure Law refers an expert and an auditor to persons having powers in criminal proceedings, a specialist – to other persons involved in criminal proceedings. And, if the expert and the auditor in the Criminal Procedure Law of Latvia are considered as independent participants in the criminal process, then the role of a specialist in legal proceedings is reduced to the level of “auxiliary personnel”. An expert and an auditor, according to the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law of Latvia, are involved in criminal proceedings to give an opinion and fulfill the obligation to provide evidence, that is, as “means of ensuring judicial evidence”. Specialist – to assist officials performing procedural actions in fixing the progress and results of their conduct, using technical means to identify circumstances relevant to the case, but without conducting practical research in search of traces of a criminal act. The results of the comparative legal analysis of the normative acts regulating the rights, obligations, scope and nature of the procedural functions of knowledgeable persons in the criminal proceedings of Russia and Latvia allow us to expand our understanding of the application of special knowledge in the criminal proceedings of foreign states, as well as to critically assess the national criminal procedure legislation for the purpose of its further improvement and optimization. Based on the results of the study of the normative acts of Russia and Latvia, certain problematic aspects of the legal regulation of the procedural status of knowledgeable persons in the Russian criminal procedure legislation is noted, and generalizing conclusions are made.

It is indicated that ensuring human rights and freedoms in conditions of armed conflicts is one of the most pressing issues of modern international law and national legal systems of many states. The article examines the system of participants in international criminal proceedings and their functional role in ensuring international justice in the context of modern challenges, in particular the Russian- Ukrainian war. The author analyzes the evolution of the subject composition of international criminal courts from the Nuremberg Tribunal to the modern International Criminal Court, emphasizing the relevance of the study in the context of full-scale armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The study reveals the specifics of international criminal proceedings as the activities of specialized subjects who participate in the process, regulated by the norms of international law, in accordance with the requirements of international criminal law. The author analyzes the founding documents of international criminal jurisdiction bodies, in particular the Rome Statute of the ICC, revealing the lack of unified terminology regarding the subjects of criminal proceedings. Special attention is paid to the classification of participants in international criminal proceedings according to their procedural status and functional purpose. The five-member classification of T. Syroid is considered, which includes bodies and officials with authority, parties to the proceedings, persons who facilitate the administration of justice, states as subjects of the proceedings, and subjects of legal aid. The author emphasizes the complex nature of this system, which combines traditional participants in the criminal proceedings and specific international legal subjects. The study reveals that the subjects of international criminal proceedings are characterized by various grounds for involvement in procedural relations - from the performance of official duties to the exercise of their own rights and interests. The author justifies the need to rethink the role of various categories of participants in the judicial process in the context of ensuring effective cooperation between states and international judicial bodies, especially during the investigation of mass crimes in modern armed conflicts.

This article presents theoretical and practical aspects of the use of modern technologies to promote the rights of persons with disabilities as participants in criminal proceedings. In this context, modern technologies are considered as means of compensatory nature. These technologies help persons with disabilities to become active participants in criminal procedural legal relations and independently exercise their rights and perform duties in the field of criminal proceedings. Through the use of modern technologies, persons with disabilities can level their position in relation to other participants in criminal proceedings who are active subjects of criminal procedural legal relations, and can independently exercise their rights and perform their duties. This is part of the compensatory approach that should be implemented in criminal proceedings in order to compensate persons with disabilities for the restrictions that they have due to circumstances beyond their control. The social vulnerability of individual members of society should be compensated by the state in the person of the legislator and further implemented by state bodies such as law enforcement officers. This is the essence of the compensatory approach. One can note the importance of this approach for observing human rights and building the rule of law and a welfare state in countries that view themselves as democratic. This is also important for improving the quality of international legal acts that introduce a standard for all States, members of the world community. In this connection, it is proposed to develop at the international level the direction of using the achievements of modern science and technology as means of compensatory nature, to equalize the legal status of persons with disabilities participating in criminal proceedings. As a general conclusion, a proposal is made to extend the compensatory approach not only to the field of criminal procedure, but also to the entire legal sphere, both in the norms of international law and national legislation.

The problem of security of participants in criminal proceedings in criminal procedural law is covered. It is argued that this is one of the most fundamental human rights, as the safety of participants in criminal proceedings indicates the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms that form the basis of everyone's life from emergencies and any other threats or dangerous situations. Security as a legal phenomenon is understood as a legal mechanism (legal system) that helps a person in real danger. In this regard, it is concluded that in general, security is meaningfully revealed as a complex and multidimensional legal phenomenon, which in different areas acquires the appropriate content and form, because it is a certain state of legal protection of the subject, however, it is a special state within the framework of criminal procedural legal relations in a certain period of time and under certain conditions. In this regard, it is argued that security should not be seen as a fixed, unchanging state, ie a regime of protection of subjects from threats when there are no external encroachments. With this in mind, the threat in criminal procedural law is seen as a negative development, as a set of potential or actual conditions and factors or actions of individuals or legal entities that disrupt the normal state of participants in criminal proceedings and can lead to undesirable changes. It is substantiated that the security of the participants in criminal proceedings is a state of legal protection in which the participants in criminal proceedings are not in danger due to the timely detection, prevention and neutralization of real and potential threats. Ensuring the safety of participants in criminal proceedings is the activities of law enforcement agencies aimed at implementing the necessary measures (legal, organizational, technical and other) in the presence of threats to life, health, property, honor, dignity and reputation of persons in connection with their participation in trial of criminal proceedings.

The article is devoted to the criminalistics research of the personality of participants in criminal proceedings as a particular criminalistics theory. The stages of formation are analyzed, expediency, scientific viability and practical significance are substantiated. The author›s own point of view on the correlation of the scientific categories “criminalistics doctrine”, “criminalistics theory” is expressed, the names and essence of the foundations of criminalistics research of personality developed in science are analyzed. It has been established that its specificity lies in the subjects, goals and objectives of the study. Unlike criminological, criminal law and criminal procedural study of personality, criminalistics research is aimed at identifying personal properties, signs and conditions that characterize the subjects of criminal proceedings, expressed in the process of carrying out activities related to the commission of a crime, to address issues of identification and diagnostic nature. The results obtained are used to build criminalistics models of a crime, to put forward a sufficient number of substantiated criminalistics versions, as well as to develop techniques and combinations of tactical influence. The main trends in horizontal and vertical development of the criminalistics theory of personality are outlined. It is noted that the horizontal development of particular theory involves a criminalistics study of various categories of participants in criminal proceedings, traditionally limited to the off ender and the victim. It is indicated that the vertical direction of development of the criminalistics study of personality is aimed at the study of individual features, substructures and personality characteristics, among which at present the most popular are the study of the digital image and digital behavior, as well as the ethnic characteristics of the personality of participants in criminal proceedings. It is concluded that it is necessary to develop a criminalistics doctrine about the personality of participants in criminal proceedings and the implementation of its results in practical activities to identify, investigate, disclose and prevent crimes.

The article analyzes the conceptual approach that was used by the legislator to classify participants in criminal proceedings. It is noted that the current classification into participants in criminal proceedings and participants in judicial proceedings looks very illogical, since the concept of criminal proceedings also includes judicial proceedings as a separate stage. In addition, the specified classification groups do not include a court and an investigating judge, but the secretary of the court session and the court administrator are present. The purpose of the article is to formulate proposals for improving the classification of participants in criminal proceedings on the basis of clarifying the functions they perform and taking into account the rights granted to them and the duties assigned to them. To achieve the set goal, the following main scientific tasks were solved: to analyze the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine regarding the determination of the status and classification of participants in criminal proceedings; to analyze scientific publications after the adoption of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine in 2012, devoted to participants in criminal proceedings; using a systemic approach to determine the connections between participants in criminal proceedings with their distribution by stages of criminal proceedings and functions performed. Taking into account the fact that the institute of participants in criminal proceedings with their distribution into parties and other participants is a novelty in domestic criminal procedural legislation, it is proposed to consider the problem of their classification based on the application of a systemic approach. In particular, a classification of participants in criminal proceedings is proposed, built on the basis of the use of two bases – stages of criminal proceedings and the nature of the functions performed by participants in criminal proceedings. In the author's view, this makes sense from several points of view: 1) clarity in determining the regulatory and legal status of participants in criminal proceedings; 2) use of a systemic approach in scientific research; 3) performance of didactic tasks when teaching a training course on criminal proceedings.

The article highlights the problem of ensuring the effective functioning of the criminal justice system in Ukraine, especially in the context of modern challenges, such as martial law and social transformations. The study of the implementation of criminal proceedings tasks as an effective means of combating criminal-illegitimate abuses by individual participants is relevant. The complex nature of criminal proceedings tasks is considered, which include not only the fight against crime, but also the urgent need to protect the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of all persons involved in the criminal process. It is proven that criminally unlawful abuses, which can be committed primarily by persons vested with power, pose a significant threat to the fairness of justice and the achievement of its goals. The article substantiates the need for a deep understanding of the essence of the tasks of criminal proceedings, enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as the criminological and criminal-legal nature of possible abuses by individual participants in criminal proceedings in order to develop effective mechanisms for counteracting the commission of criminal offenses in the field of justice. The concept of due process of law as a fundamental guarantee of respect for the rights of participants and its connection with the principle of the rule of law is analyzed. International experience, in particular that of England and Wales, is studied in ensuring a fair resolution of criminal cases, including equality of parties and respect for human rights. The article analyzes the problem of abuse of procedural rights, which, despite the absence of a direct prohibition in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, is recognized as a general legal principle, which is confirmed by judicial practice. The author argues that the insufficient legal certainty of the concept of "abuse of law", especially in the professional activities of individual participants in criminal proceedings, creates difficulties for the legal qualification of such actions. Various forms of criminally unlawful abuse are considered, in particular, both abuse of power during criminal proceedings and abuse of procedural rights to delay the process. Special attention is paid to the problem of criminally unlawful abuse by the prosecutor. It is concluded that the implementation of the tasks of criminal proceedings is directly related to the creation of a reliable system of countering criminally unlawful abuse by individual (authorized to conduct the process) participants in criminal proceedings, who undoubtedly encroach on the rights and legitimate interests of participants involved in the criminal proceedings. The definitions of "tasks of criminal proceedings", "criminally unlawful abuses", "abuse of procedural rights", "due legal procedure" are analyzed. The feasibility of improving legislation on liability for criminally unlawful abuses, as well as means of counteracting criminally unlawful abuses in criminal proceedings, is established. Directions for increasing the efficiency of judicial control are indicated, and it is also proposed to restore the institution of a separate court decision, taking into account positive international experience. Keywords: criminal proceedings, tasks of criminal proceedings, participants in criminal proceedings, criminology, means of counteracting criminal offenses in relation to participants in criminal proceedings, criminally unlawful abuses, abuse of procedural rights, due legal procedure, counteracting criminally unlawful abuses in criminal proceedings, rule of law, fairness of justice.

The paper addresses some aspects of the compensatory approach in criminal proceedings in the context of the social value of law, which is critical in ensuring the rights and interests of participants with disabilities in criminal proceedings. The legal mechanisms established in criminal proceedings should aim at ensuring equal conditions for all participants in criminal proceedings in terms of access to legal and fair justice. The author believes that there is a need to draw attention to the legal status of participants with disabilities in criminal proceedings. It is necessary to recognize socially vulnerable categories of persons (persons with disabilities) as the participants with special legal status in criminal proceedings. A compensatory approach should also be adopted in the implementation of the legal regulation of the participation of such persons in criminal proceedings. It is necessary to “reach”, “raise” the possibility of exercising their procedural rights to the level of other participants. The procedural mechanism should contain a list of general and special rights and obligations of these persons, as well as guarantees for their implementation. This approach is compensatory and reflects the social value of law in criminal proceedings. The author considers the consolidation of the compensatory approach as the realization of the idea of a social state and international socially significant values to ensure equal and fair criminal proceedings.

The concept of procedural status of participants in criminal proceedings is considered. According to the Criminal Code of Ukraine, participants in criminal proceedings are parties to criminal proceedings, persons who take part in criminal proceedings. A comparison of this definition with specific norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which refer to participants in criminal proceedings, shows that the law includes not only persons involved in criminal proceedings, but also the subjects of criminal procedural activity themselves, i.e. officials and bodies that conduct (investigate) criminal proceedings, etc. The procedure for recognizing a person as a subject of criminal procedural relations established by law is of great importance for ensuring the legality of criminal proceedings and allows to properly protect the interests of persons involved in this field of activity. Ambiguity of understanding and extended interpretation of the reasons for involvement in criminal proceedings, failure to establish a clear procedure for acquiring the relevant status violate the orderliness of procedural activities, which thus reflects on the legitimate interests of the participants in criminal proceedings. Therefore, a formal approach to determining the circle of participants in criminal proceedings should be followed. This approach is able to give such positive results as certainty, stability of the procedural provision, predictability of the behavior of participants in criminal proceedings and the results of their actions, as well as to create a logical and consistent system of mechanisms for the exercise, protection and protection of their rights and legitimate interests.

Criminal activity in the modern world is developing at a very fast pace and in practice there are situations when criminals influence participants in criminal proceedings in order to conceal the real facts regarding their criminal behavior. In this context, the mechanisms of state protection of participants in criminal proceedings are of particular importance in order to exclude various forms and methods of unlawful influence on their functioning in the framework of the relevant proceedings. The above-mentioned institution has existed in Russian criminal procedural practice not so long ago, however, a significant increase in the number of applications for state protection objectively necessitates its improvement, taking into account the existing realities. Criminal influences on various participants in criminal proceedings can significantly complicate investigative activities and negatively affect the results of the proceedings. The purpose of writing a research paper is to identify the features of the organization and implementation of a set of protective measures in relation to the participants in the proceedings. The author comes to the conclusion that the institution of state protection of participants in criminal proceedings is essential for the effectiveness of criminal proceedings in Russia. Attention is focused on the need to improve the mechanism of state protection of the aforementioned persons in the context of the dynamic development of criminal practice and the availability of many new methods of illegal influence. On the basis of the conducted scientific research, the essential features of the current institution of state protection of participants in criminal proceedings have been identified, which it seems obligatory to take into account in the further development of appropriate protective mechanisms, taking into account the transformation of the Russian criminal legal system.

The article identifies and characterizes certain problematic aspects of the protection of participants in criminal proceedings, which are caused by the introduction of martial law in Ukraine. It was established that with the introduction of martial law in Ukraine, the practice of implementing the norms of criminal procedural legislation received many new problems and challenges that require regulatory regulation or solution by judicial practice. One of such unresolved problems is the restriction of constitutional rights and freedoms and legitimate interests of individuals in the context of the protection of participants in criminal proceedings during martial law. Attention is drawn to the fact that the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine do not provide for any special forms of criminal justice in the languages of martial law, and therefore the subjects of criminal proceedings (investigators, judges and courts) face a difficult task - to ensure the implementation of criminal justice in extraordinary conditions, but according to the rules peace time It has been proven that participants in criminal proceedings can actively move around the territory of the country and beyond its borders in order to minimize threats to their health and life, which complicates both the realization of the procedural rights of the participants in criminal proceedings and their fulfillment of their procedural duties. The opinion is substantiated that changes related to the specifics of criminal proceedings under martial law should be formalized by a separate special law, which will come into force only in emergency conditions or under martial law. The factors that influence the fact that the norms of criminal procedural law, which were effective in peacetime, became ineffective in the conditions of martial law are identified: 1) the presence of a real threat to the health and life of the subjects of criminal proceedings (investigators, judges, prosecutors); 2) the existence of a real threat to the health and life of participants in criminal proceedings; 3) disorder in society, which occurs in extraordinary conditions, is used by individual participants in criminal proceedings to delay criminal proceedings or to avoid criminal justice; 4) lack of evaluation criteria in the conditions of martial law of violations by participants in criminal proceedings of their procedural duties; 5) the use of traditional forms of court proceedings, which in the conditions of martial law and conditions of scientific and technical progress, no longer meet the needs of modern civilized society; 6) the potential of the forms of protection of individual rights in criminal proceedings provided for by criminal procedural legislation is not fully used in practice.

Alongside establishing the procedure for criminal proceedings, a primary objective of criminal procedure legislation is to precisely define the legal status and procedural powers of participants in criminal procedure relations. This involves setting the boundaries of their rights and obligations. Accordingly, particular emphasis should be placed on delineating the subject matter of criminal proceedings by devising a plan to enhance their position, role, and procedural status. The aim of the study is to scrutinize legal issues concerning the exercise of procedural powers by various participants in criminal proceedings and to explore avenues for enhancing the composition of criminal pre-trial proceedings. The article delves into matters concerning the procedural role of the investigator and examines their interaction with the procedural leader and the prosecutor. Special attention is paid to the procedural status of the person in respect of whom a crime report is being checked, the problem of criminal prosecution when checking a crime report is revealed, the roles and functions of an educator and a psychologist are investigated. In addition, the author substantiates the idea of expanding the range of participants in the pre-trial stages. The methodological framework of this work encompasses principles from the general scientific method of cognition, including formal logic, generalization, analysis, and description. It also draws upon methodologies from the fields of general theory of law, criminal procedure, criminology, psychology, pedagogy, logic, and other related sciences. As a result, the following conclusions were drawn. When exploring the primary issues concerning the enhancement of participants' procedural status in pre-trial proceedings, the author proposes considering the following provisions: shifting departmental procedural oversight and prosecutorial supervision in favor of the latter and establishing a unified format for preliminary investigation; engaging the suspect at the initial stage of a criminal case; elucidating the purpose and function of involvement by educators and psychologists in the case; broadening the subject composition by granting individual participants procedural petitioner status.

The fundamental rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a person, being subject to the greatest restrictions during criminal proceedings, are guaranteed by the existence of substantive and procedural rules in the legislation aimed at protecting, defending and implementing procedural guarantees of participants in criminal proceedings. The dynamics of social, political, economic and legal life, the social mentality of today, as well as convergence processes determine the adaptation of national criminal procedure legislation to International law. However, the issues of adaptation of national legislation to the provisions of foreign legislation in terms of guaranteeing each participant in criminal proceedings the protection, defence and realisation of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests in accordance with international standards remain controversial. At the same time, there are a number of gaps and inconsistencies in the provisions of the criminal procedure legislation, the gradual elimination of which will allow Ukraine to reach the international level as a state that guarantees each participant in criminal proceedings the protection, defence and exercise of their rights, freedoms and legitimate interests in accordance with European standards, as well as reduce the number of applications to the European Court of Human Rights. Based on the results of the study, and on the basis of a selective analysis of foreign experience of certain countries, the article identifies the existing problematic issues related to the guarantee of the rights of participants to criminal proceedings, and also formulates proposals for improving criminal procedure legislation in this area, using international experience. The problematic areas of guaranteeing the rights of participants to criminal proceedings include the legal status of individual participants to criminal proceedings, compensation for damages, and the use of procedural terminology. In order to improve and bring the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine closer to international standards in terms of protection, safeguarding and realisation of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings, the following proposals have been presented: to establish a unit, body or organisation for the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of witnesses with the development of appropriate programmes for their protection; to introduce the use of separate procedural terminology; to develop a procedure for granting and exercising the right to free legal aid to victims, civilians as well as the procedure for compensation for damage caused by a criminal offence.

Purpose. The purpose of the article is a comprehensive study of the phenomenon of mistake. committed by participants in criminal proceedings who have powerful powers, including the causes and conditions of their occurrence. Methods. The methodological basis of the study was a set of general scientific and branch-legal methods, united by an integrated approach, thanks to which it was possible to consider, mistake. The methods of analysis and synthesis, deduction and induction, the formal-legal method, as well as the modeling method made it possible to build a system of conceptual approaches to the problem of the causes and conditions of making mistakes by participants in criminal proceedings who have powerful powers. Results. It was concluded that the concepts of reasons and conditions for the occurrence of errors cannot be equated. The reasons affecting the making of mistakes by the participants in criminal proceedings who have authority are the circumstances or processes that cause and condition the making of mistakes in the process of applying the law by these participants, reducing the effectiveness of law enforcement. At the same time, the conditions for making mistakes by the participants in criminal proceedings, who have powerful powers, do not directly give rise to them, but are a factor that makes it possible to make these mistakes both now and in the future. In particular, they are any shortcomings in the management and organizational activities of these entities. From the point of view of criminal procedural activity, it is difficult to draw a clear distinction between the causes and conditions of making mistakes, because in criminal proceedings there are factors that can be both causes and conditions. Scientific novelty. Attention is drawn to the fact that the activity of eliminating errors by participants in criminal proceedings who have powerful powers requires the development of a concept for solving a complex of theoretical and practical problems of these errors, with the aim of improving the organizational and legal, including criminal procedural error elimination mechanism. Practical significance. The conducted research will contribute to a deeper and comprehensive understanding of this problem, and also provides a basis for the development of effective recommendations to prevent mistakes by participants in criminal proceedings who have powerful powers.