Abstract
The article is devoted to certain issues of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, taking into account judicial practice accordingly. The notes emphasizes one of the most important issues in criminal proceedings is the issue of obtaining evidence by the proper subjects. At the same time, in the spotlight when deciding on the admissibility of evidence, should be the rights and freedoms of citizens.
 Based on the Supreme Court litigation and the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights, the article allocates a number of problematic aspects that arise in practical work, as a result, leads to the recognition an evidence as inadmissible due to their receipt by improper subject of proof.
 Since the decision of a court or international judicial institution that has entered into force and establishes a violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and international treaties ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is of prejudicial importance for the court that decides on the admissibility of evidence, the Supreme Court’s practice on these issues is undoubtedly subject to study, detailed analysis and further application in practice.
 Only on the basis of evidentiary information are the subjects of criminal proceedings authorized to make procedural decisions regarding criminal law conflict and ensuring human rights and freedoms.
 The investigator, prosecutor, and investigating judge evaluate the evidence already collected and verified during the pre-trial investigation when making relevant procedural decisions. Of course, the evaluation of evidence by the court during the trial is of great importance, since it is the court that decides on the guilt or innocence of a person in committing a criminal offense when passing a verdict.
 The author concludes that investigators, procedural supervisors, and investigating judges should take into account the legal positions of the Supreme Court in their activities and prevent the violations pointed out by the author in this article with reference to the Supreme Court rulings.
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.