Ensuring the safety of participants in the criminal process in the mechanism of prevention of criminal offenses against them

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.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the Draft Law "On Ensuring the Safety of Participants in Criminal Proceedings and Other Persons in the Interests of Justice". The system of current legislation in the field of security of persons involved in criminal proceedings is outdated and does not provide the necessary conditions for the proper administration of justice. It is established that the current legislation in the field of protection of participants in criminal proceedings is unreformed, has many gaps and is ineffective. It was stated that participants in criminal proceedings (witnesses and victims) who are in real danger often refuse to testify and cooperate with the investigator, as they believe that the state cannot protect them from the unlawful influence of persons involved in criminal proceedings. As a result of the refusal of witnesses and victims to testify and cooperate with the investigation, the perpetrators remain unpunished. On the positive side of the draft law is the proposal to establish a new specially authorized body - the National Agency for Security of Criminal Proceedings, as in the event of a high level of threat to certain participants in criminal proceedings, their rights and freedoms, life and health must be preserved. It was found that the Draft Law does not provide for the specifics of ensuring the safety of juvenile participants in criminal proceedings, which significantly violates the rights of this vulnerable category of persons. Based on the understanding of the list of persons entitled to the application of security measures proposed in Part 1 of Art. 6 of the draft Law, it can be understood that the legislator provided for the possibility of taking under the protection of a minor, in one form or another, but unfortunately bypassed the attention of their parents and legal representatives. In view of the above and taking into account the concept of "best interests of the child", it is proposed to expand the list of persons subject to protection and add a legal representative of a minor. There have also been a number of other proposals to improve the situation of juveniles who are being protected by the state for giving incriminating testimony. It is concluded that the bill needs to improve and maximize its efficiency and effectiveness of its rules.

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.

Abstract. The application of security measures is not only an effective means of ensuring that evidence is used in criminal proceedings, but also a guarantee of the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of citizens who are involved in criminal proceedings, state activities to combat crime. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation provides for a system of security measures, including the preservation of authentic data in secret, the assignment of a pseudonym and the obtaining of a sample signature from a protected person. This measure may be applied at the very outset of the proceedings, at stage of the institution of criminal proceedings. In practice, however, there are problems with the application of security measures in verifying the basis for the institution of criminal proceedings. Purpose: to analyze the problems of development of modern criminal procedure legislation in the field of ensuring the safety of participants in criminal proceedings at the stage of the institution of criminal proceedings. Methods: the author applies empirical methods of comparison, description, interpretation; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic. Specific scientific methods are used: legal-dogmatic and the method of interpreting legal norms. Results: the study reveals the features of the use of such a security measure as the assignment of a pseudonym and seisure of authentic data from the verification of the crime report during the institution of criminal proceedings. The author’s version of Part 9 of Art. 166 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation is proposed with a view to making it more effective in investigative practice.

The article highlights the problem of practical implementation of such a security measure that can be applied to participants in criminal proceedings, such as ensuring the confidentiality of personal information. It is analyzed the views diversity of investigators, prosecutors, judges and lawyers on the algorithm of application of ensuring the personal data confidentiality, on the issue of storage of resolutions (decisions) on the application of this security measure in criminal proceedings. The practice of conducting procedural actions in court with persons whose personal data have been changed is studied separately. The peculiarities of interrogation, identification with protected participants of criminal proceedings in the mode of videoconference and in a closed court session are studied. Previous attempts to solve this problem by developing a Model Instruction on conducting court proceedings with witnesses, victims and other participants in criminal proceedings, in respect of whom security measures have been taken, are considered. According to the analysis results of the domestic legislation on security of participants in criminal proceedings and identification of gaps, after conducting a survey of current investigators, prosecutors, judges and lawyers, the generalization of modern practice of criminal proceedings with the participation of protected persons is made. The purpose of this research is to formulate proposals for a unified and mandatory for all participants in criminal proceedings procedure for working with persons whose personal data are changed for security purposes at all stages of criminal proceedings. The expediency of enshrining at the bylaw level in a separate normative legal act an algorithm for carrying out procedural actions in court with participants in criminal proceedings, which would meet the requirements of current legislation, including the provisions of the Data Summary constituting a state secret, is substantiated.

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.

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.

The improvement of the security process of citizens' participation in a criminal case is guaranteed by various legal means, among which the legal protection on the basis of Federal Law No. 45-FZ “On state protection of judges, law enforcement and supervisory authorities” and Federal Law No. 119-FZ “On state protection of victims, witnesses and other participants in criminal proceedings” holds a special place. The criminal legislation of the Russian Federation provides for an independent Article 311, which establishes criminal liability for disclosing information on security measures of participants in criminal proceedings. In law enforcement practice, there are problems of initiating criminal cases of this category and their subsequent investigation. The subject of evidence in a criminal case instituted on the grounds of corpus delicti provided for in Article 311 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation includes a body of information of a different nature. It is specific to the problem of delimiting the characteristics of Article 311 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation from the signs contained in Article 310 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, at the stage of criminal proceedings, the absence of an administratively punishable misconduct should be determined. Among the criminal procedural measures to counteract the disclosure of information about security measures, it is necessary to single out, first of all, a warning to participants in criminal proceedings to prevent the disclosure of information on security measures, by analogy to Article 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. The article substantiates the need to highlight a new Art. 161.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation “Inadmissibility of disclosure of data on security measures for participants in criminal proceedings” and the author's version of this rule is proposed. In addition, an analysis of other criminal procedural means of counteracting the disclosure of this property is presented.

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.

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.

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.

The legislator has determined that the purpose of criminal proceedings is to protect the rights and legitimate interests of persons and organizations who have suffered from crimes. Nevertheless, persons acting as victims and witnesses are not only able to exercise their rights properly, but they are also affected by criminals. The result of this is the case of refusal and evasion of victims and witnesses from participating in criminal proceedings. To prevent this state protection measures are applied to witnesses, victims and other participants in criminal proceedings. The protection, the definition of security, the identification of the reality of threats are debatable in the scientific literature. Individual scientists study the concepts of reasons and grounds for security measures. All these issues are closely related to ensuring the rights of participants in criminal proceedings and should be investigated comprehensively with a separate consideration of the interaction of the investigator with the investigative authority and the court while ensuring these measures. The existing problems affect the practice of applying security measures, which reduces the quality of criminal investigations. The article deals with the definition of the concept of the safety of participants in criminal proceedings. The analysis of security measures, their types is made.

Introduction. Security must be ensured in various spheres of socially significant activity. As criminal proceedings are one of the most important activities of the state, the issue of ensuring the safety of participants in criminal proceedings becomes particularly relevant. The term "security of participants in criminal proceedings" is not an abstract concept, as security must be provided to specific persons involved in criminal proceedings, and if there are real grounds for doing so. Summary of the main research results. The need to ensure the safety of participants in criminal proceedings in Ukraine arose not so long ago as some other criminal procedural institutions (for example, the Institute for the Protection of Suspects and Accused). Many procedural scholars have dealt with this issue. It is proposed to expand the provisions on ensuring the safety of a person harmed by a crime and to specify that such security should be provided to a natural person who has suffered from a crime, regardless of his status as a victim, and to a representative of a legal entity in case of property damage. reputation of this legal entity. Conclusions. It should be noted that the vast majority of proposals developed and substantiated by criminal procedure science were requested by the legislator to form a system of security measures enshrined in the CPC of Ukraine. At the same time, a large number of issues related to the establishment of criminal security measures remain unresolved to this day. Ways to improve the current legislation of Ukraine are suggested.

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.