Features of the application of temporary access to things and documents in the process of criminal procedural evidence

Abstract

In accordance with Part 2 of Art. 93 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Procedure Code), the prosecution, as a subject of evidence in a judicial investigation, obtains evidence through conducting investigative (detective) actions and covert investigative (detective) actions, requesting and receiving things, documents, information, experts' conclusions, audit conclusions and inspection reports from public authorities, local self-government bodies, enterprises, institutions and organizations, officials and individuals, as well as carrying out other procedural actions provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Other procedural actions that can be ways of obtaining evidentiary information include: filing motions, complaints, statements, objections, as well as separate measures to ensure criminal proceedings, in particular, temporary access to things and documents, temporary seizure of property, seizure of property. In this article, I would like to consider in more detail the specific features of such a procedural action as temporary access to things and documents, provided for in Chapter 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code. A system analysis of the provisions of the given chapter, other norms of the current the Criminal Procedure Code, as well as the application thereof, suggest a conclusion that there is an imperfection in the legislative regulation on the issue of applying temporary access to things and documents in the process of criminal procedural evidence.
 The publication comments on a number of norms of the Criminal Procedure Code which establish the specifics of the application of the given measure of ensuring criminal proceedings in the process of criminal procedural evidence during the pre-trial investigation, and proposes approaches to eliminating their shortcomings, based on the analysis of the specifics of the normative regulation of temporary access to things and documents. This issue is evaluated differently by both practitioners and scientists and is actively used during criminal proceedings, which is confirmed by court statistics. Theoretical and practical aspects of the given issue are considered. The article claims that despite the widespread use of the given institute, there is a significant amount of misunderstandings and contradictions between theory and practice. The paper contains critical remarks regarding the procedure of normative regulation and the use of temporary access to things and documents in the process of criminal procedural evidence. The materials of the article are both of theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further scientific research on the specifics of the application of measures to ensure criminal proceedings in the process of criminal procedural evidence, as well as for the proper understanding and implementation of law-enforcement criminal procedural activities.