Criminal Procedural Legislation Of Ukraine Research Articles

The use of a polygraph in the investigation of criminal offences: problems of tactics and legal regulation

The use of a polygraph in the investigation of criminal offences: problems of tactics and legal regulation

Criminal law and procedural characteristics of war crimes in Ukraine (after the full-scale invasion of the russian federation into Ukraine)

Criminal law and procedural characteristics of war crimes in Ukraine (after the full-scale invasion of the russian federation into Ukraine)

Use of electronic search systems in the investigation of corruption crimes in Ukraine: opportunities and challenges for human rights

The purpose of the article is to study the use of electronic search systems during the investigation of corruption crimes in the context of the balance of interests of criminal justice and ensuring guarantees of human rights and freedoms. Methodology. In the process of scientific research, the following methods were used: dialectical, logical, dogmatic, monographic, systemic and structural, comparative and legal, sociological, legal modelling. Research results. It was established that in accordance with the developed and tested methods investigators use various information systems when investigating on corruption crimes; the content and features of these schemes were studied. International documents establishing the limits of the possible use of artificial intelligence in criminal proceedings were considered. The decisions of the ECtHR on the need for a balanced approach to interference with privacy and delimitation of such interference, were studied. Practical implementation. The ways to achieve a balance of the interests of the parties in the criminal procedural legislation of European countries were investigated in order to implement their positive experience in Ukraine. Value/originality. The principles, on which the process of regulating the use of electronic search systems, databases, algorithms and artificial intelligence in the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine should be based, are proposed.

Actual problems of admissibility of evidence: issues of obtaining and use

The article reveals the problematic issues of admissibility of evidence, as well as the types and criteria of admissibility defined in the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
 Proposals for improving the conceptual apparatus regarding the considered issues and provisions of the current legislation have been put forward. The relevance of the publication is determined by the need to improve the process of proof in the field of criminal justice and the development of effective mechanisms for the investigation of criminal offenses.
 The purpose of preparing the article was to reveal the main provisions of the content of admissibility of evidence in the criminal justice system of Ukraine, as well as some relevant issues that are directly related to this. The prerequisites for the formation of the specified goal were the modern problems that arise during the pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings.
 The author used general scientific and special methods of scientific knowledge. Thus, from the general scientific methods, in particular, the system-structural method, the method of functional analysis, from the special ones - formal- legal, logical-procedural methods, the method of comparative jurisprudence were used. The main legislative norms related to the topic of the publication have been analyzed.
 The publication proves that the requirements that determine the procedure for obtaining evidence in relation to the possibility of their further use are conventionally divided into those that have a negative or positive content. Such a classification makes it possible to predict the behavior of an investigator, prosecutor or judge in implementing the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. It is also proven that in part 1 of Art. 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, it is advisable to establish the provision that the evidence is recognized as admissible if it is obtained in the manner established by the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, and not only the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is also noted that in Art. Art. 87 and 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine recognize certain conditions of inadmissibility of evidence related to a significant violation of human rights and freedoms and groundless use of evidence and information related to the identity of the suspect or accused. At the same time, any other violations of the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine can be considered relatively inadmissible, if only because of the insignificant nature of the legal consequences that arise and the real possibility of their elimination.

PROCEDURAL COSTS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INITIATED IN CONNECTION WITH CRIMINAL OFFENCES COMMITTED BY MINORS: THE IMPACT OF REASONABLE ALLOCATION ON THE ECONOMIC SYSTEM OF THE COUNTRY

The purpose of the article is to reveal the essence and content of procedural costs in criminal proceedings initiated upon the fact of criminal offences committed by minors; to define the concept, essence and content of procedural costs in the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine; to study the problems of criminal proceedings and judicial proceedings in relation to minors; to consider the principle of procedural economy in criminal proceedings. A scientific discussion of the problem of unification of the provisions of the criminal and criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine with a view to ensuring a full pre-trial investigation, trial proceedings and determination of appropriate types of punishment for minor offenders has been presented. The concept of procedural costs in criminal proceedings in Ukraine was improved and methods of their implementation through the provisions of the national criminal procedural legislation were determined. The authors' understanding of the main distinguishing features of procedural costs is presented. The practice and legal positions of the Supreme Court regarding the limits and methods of covering the costs of proceedings have been considered. It has been established that the principle of procedural economy in the criminal justice system has been implemented by ensuring the smooth functioning of all court instances and the up-to-date comprehensive normalisation of investigative situations that may arise in the pre-trial investigation process and the selection of full investigative (research) and covert investigative (research) actions, with the aim of avoiding cases of repeated procedural measures to ensure the proper course of evidence. Results. It has been established that the procedural expenses in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine should be understood as the material damage provided by the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, caused by ensuring the needs of the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings, in particular, related to the process of evidence and realisation of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the parties and other participants in the criminal proceedings. The essence and meaning of the procedural costs are realised through the prism of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (in particular, Article 124, which regulates the peculiarities of the distribution of the procedural costs), which ensure the protection of the state and the persons who have been the victims of a criminal offence from possible material losses that may arise in the course of conducting pre-trial investigation and trial. The main distinguishing feature inherent in the content of procedural costs is the form in which the decision to recover them is made – a court verdict or a court ruling. It has been proved that in modern conditions, in the context of criminal proceedings against minors, the following issues remain to be solved as a matter of urgency 1) improvement of the norms of criminal procedural legislation in the part of criminal proceedings against minors under the conditions of the special legal regime of martial law; 2) improvement of the personnel provision of the judicial system with regard to the selection of candidates for the position of a judge who conducts judicial review of cases of minors; 3) improvement of the procedure for carrying out investigative (search) actions in criminal proceedings initiated due to the fact of commission of a criminal offence by minors; 4) establishment of international cooperation in the pre-trial investigation of transnational criminal offences committed in complicity with minors. It was concluded that, in order to maintain the economic cycle, it is necessary to ensure a balance between the procedural costs within the framework of criminal proceedings and court costs for legal proceedings and the funds that go to the state budget. This includes, in particular, the establishment of a mechanism for compensating persons who have committed criminal offences and the normalisation of types of punishment with an emphasis on material punishment. Special attention should also be paid to improving the work of the courts of first instance in order to avoid cases being reviewed in the courts of appeal and cassation.

On the issue of procedural legal advocation of a civil plaintiff in criminal proceedings: doctrine and practical problems, ways to overcome them

The issue of the procedural status of a civil plaintiff in criminal proceedings and the issue of a person’s right to compensation for damage caused by a criminal offense has always been in the center of attention of lawyers - academics and practicing practitioners. The relevance of the chosen topic and the purpose of the research is due to certain doctrinal and practical gaps in the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, as well as contradictions between the norms of criminal procedural law, civil procedural law, and the provisions of inheritance law, which arise in the conditions of criminal proceedings, and are caused by death (or the condition, which makes it impossible to participate) of the injured person, who is a civil plaintiff in a civil claim for damages, at the stage of pre-trial and judicial criminal proceedings. Taking into account the set goal of criminal proceedings, which consists, among other things, in compensating the injured person for the moral and (or) property damage caused to him by a criminal offense, in this article the author not only analyzes individual scientific views and examines the relevant legal norms regulating procedural procedure of criminal legal succession, however, attention is emphasized and own proposals are made to improve the legal mechanism of legal succession of a participant in criminal proceedings, such as a civil plaintiff in a civil claim for damages presented in criminal proceedings. In conducting scientific research, the author used the formal-logical (dogmatic) method in interpreting the normative content of laws and formulating the definitions of individual legal concepts of the research issues, as well as the method of systemic-structural analysis, which contributed to the study of types of legal conflicts and gaps. Based on the results of the scientific research, the author outlined separate doctrinal and practical problems of the studied issue, and outlined the conclusions regarding the need to improve the current version of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and clarify the procedural rights of the civil plaintiff during procedural succession in criminal proceedings, by adding a new article to the Criminal Procedure Law, and made suggestions to the specified edition.

Legal and tactical basis for conducting a search of a person’s residence or other property: identifying the ways to resolve the controversial issues

A search of a person's residence or other property is one of the most typical and, at the same time, the most complex investigative ( search) actions. Its purpose is to identify, record factual data on the event of a criminal offence or related event, find and seize the instruments of a criminal offence, property acquired by illegal means or items excluded from use by law, as well as to establish the location of the wanted persons. This investigative (search) action is associated with the restriction of the rights of the person in whose residence or premises it is conducted, who may not even be involved in the commission of a criminal offence. For this reason, it is important to ensure that the search is conducted in compliance with a number of legal and organisational principles, as well as using a set of effective tactical techniques.
 The legal basis for conducting a search is determined by the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine and the provisions of international legal treaties ratified by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. With regard to the grounds for conducting a search, the actual grounds are the need to achieve the purpose set out in part 1 of Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and the legal grounds are the existence of a reasoned court decision in the form of a ruling by an investigating judge. At the same time, a large number of legal and normative regulations are subject to contradictions, which is why it is important to eliminate ambiguity in them, as well as to introduce into the practice of conducting searches proven tactical methods of applying this investigative (search) action.
 Today, it is important to resolve the issues of unification of the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine in terms of regulating the procedure for technical recording of a search, determining the scope of recording of actions and circumstances of the search, as well as determining the powers of the defence counsel to involve a specialist in the search, etc. Given the importance and controversy of this issue, it requires further in-depth and comprehensive research.

Detention of a person under suspicion of committing a criminal offence and the possibility to appeal in criminal proceedings

The article analyzes the provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine and separate scientific works in the field of criminal procedure regarding the detention of a person under suspicion of committing a criminal offense without a decision of the investigating judge or a court, especially when the detention of a person under suspicion is carried out by an authorized official at the scene of the crime or immediately after its commission. It is emphasized that in addition to the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, bodies authorized to carry out a pre-trial investigation, subjects who also have the right to detain a person under suspicion of having committed a criminal offense include all policemen, all military personnel serving in the National Guard of Ukraine, all employees of the special law enforcement military formation of the law enforcement service, employees of the State Security Department, military personnel performing duties for the protection of the state border, employees of the special law enforcement body of the Security Service of Ukraine, employees of the state law enforcement agency (NABU), employees of the customs service, officials involved in the anti-terrorist operation, officials and officials of enforcement agencies prisons and detention centers, captains of sea or river vessels of Ukraine located outside its borders, employees of the Department of Economic Security. The question of the presence of legal aspects of the justification of detention, especially when such detention is carried out by an authorized official, is considered. It is proposed to provide in Art. 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a provision that would explain the requirements regarding the validity of decisions, and especially when a person is detained, which is carried out within the framework of the provisions of Art. 208 of the CPC of Ukraine. The provisions of the criminal procedural legislation regarding the possibility of a person detained on suspicion, who already has the procedural status of a suspect, to appeal, in accordance with Clause 6, Part 1, Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine the validity of his/her detention. Attention is also paid to the problematic legal aspects that do not allow a person detained (without a ruling of an investigating judge) on suspicion of committing a criminal offence during a pre-trial investigation, when such detention was carried out at the scene of the crime or immediately after its commission, to exercise his or her right to challenge the validity of the detention and file a relevant complaint with the prosecutor or investigating judge. For this purpose, it is proposed to provide for a provision in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, according to which, when detaining a person within the framework of Articles 207, 208 of the CPC of Ukraine and drawing up a detention report, the authorised official who drew up the said report is obliged to draw up a resolution on the justification of detention and hand over copies to the detainee immediately upon placing the detainee in a temporary detention facility. In order to ensure the exercise of the right of a suspect (detainee) to demand verification of the validity of detention, a possible procedure for appealing to the prosecutor, investigating judge against such detention during the pre-trial investigation is proposed.

Some aspects of the implementation of doctrines of admissibility of evidence in the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine

The author of the article researched the provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and the modern practice of the courts of Ukraine regarding the application of the doctrines of “fruit of the poisoned tree” and “inevitable detection”. It has been proven that at the present time, the verification of evidence for its admissibility is the most important guarantee of the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the participants in criminal proceedings and the adoption of a legal and fair decision in a criminal case on the merits, it is enshrined in Part 3 of Art. 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular: “the accusation cannot be based on evidence obtained illegally and on assumptions, and all doubts regarding the proven guilt of a person must be interpreted in his favor.” It was determined that in the national criminal procedural legislation the above-mentioned doctrine is actually enshrined in Part 1 of Art. 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in particular: “evidence obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, international treaties, the consent of which is binding by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, as well as any other evidence obtained thanks to information are inadmissible , obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms.” The essence of the “fruits of the poisoned tree” doctrine was studied. It is emphasized that the specified doctrine and its application are not categorical, international experience contains certain exceptions to it, which are no longer focused on violations of the procedure as such, but on the consequences and impact of these violations on causing damage to individual rights or on the credibility of relevant evidence, raising doubts about their authenticity, general ensuring the justice of the judicial process, etc. As its exception, the provisions of the doctrine of “inevitable discovery” are given and analyzed. Attention is drawn to the fact that the presence of the specified doctrine as an exception to the rules provides an opportunity to maintain a balance between the interests of the accused and the interests of society, to observe more fully his rights and freedoms, and also contributes to a comprehensive consideration of the case by the court aimed at establishing the truth and preventing release guilty persons from responsibility, ensuring the inevitability of punishment. It was concluded that the application of both the doctrine of “fruits of the poisoned tree” and doctrines and concepts that are an exception to it give flexibility to the criminal process in the matter of recognizing evidence as admissible, which ensures the justice of the judicial process for both parties and a certain balance between the public interests of society and the individual, which is criminally liable, its rights and freedoms. Key words: decision of the European Court of Human Rights, courts of Ukraine, the doctrine of “fruit of the poisoned tree”, the doctrine of “inevitable detection

Rape: criminal proceedings of private or public prosecution?

The article is devoted to the problematic issues of implementing the provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (Istanbul Convention) into the criminal and criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine. It is noted that the norms of criminal and criminal procedural law regulate social relations related to the resolution of the most dangerous social conflicts. Legal norms are aimed at protecting the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the participants in these relations, in which private and public are combined. This issue is most acutely manifested in criminal proceedings regarding criminal offenses against a person’s sexual freedom and sexual integrity, a special type of which is domestic sexual violence, including rape. In particular, the problem is the definition of the border between private and public. The immediate prerequisite for the emergence of the mentioned problem was the submission to the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine of a draft law that provides for the full implementation of the relevant provisions of the Istanbul Convention into the national legislation of Ukraine after its ratification. The authors of the draft law proposed to postpone criminal proceedings under Part 1 of Art. 152 (rape without aggravating circumstances), as well as Part 1 of Art. 153 (sexual violence) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine from the category of private prosecution to public prosecution proceedings. The article analyzes this proposal from the point of view of its consistency with other provisions of the Istanbul Convention, as well as with fundamentally important provisions of the national legislation of Ukraine. Attention is drawn to the contradiction of the proposal set out in the draft law with the constitutional rights of a person regarding the collection, storage, use and distribution of confidential information about him, subjecting him to medical, scientific or other experiments without his free consent. Arguments are given regarding the occurrence of significant obstacles in the implementation of pre-trial investigation and court proceedings in cases of this category without submitting a statement (complaint) of the victim.

Violation of the rights of the suspect (accused) in criminal proceedings (analysis of ECtHR practice)

Ensuring the protection of all the rights of a suspect (accused) in criminal proceedings, who has inherent rights, freedoms and interests guaranteed by law, is one of the main tasks of judicial and law enforcement agencies within the framework of the implementation of the principle of human-centeredness. The purpose of the study was to establish the effectiveness of law enforcement of the norms that ensure the rights of suspects (accused) in Ukraine based on the analysis of relevant decisions of the ECtHR, and to provide suggestions for its improvement. In practice, during the pre-trial investigation and trial, there are frequent violations of the rights of the specified persons, which are enshrined in national and international legislation, which indicates insufficient effectiveness of law enforcement. It has been established that the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine is co-used with the norms of international normative legal acts, in particular the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, in terms of ensuring the rights of the violated (accused) in criminal proceedings. The proposal as a result of the conducted research is the training of employees of state bodies in the field of implementation of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code, taking into account people-centeredness and the obligation to take into account the practice of the ECHR in their activities in order to prevent new similar (or similar) violations of the rights of the suspect (accused) in criminal proceedings. This study does not exhaust all the problems associated with the violation of the rights of suspects (accused) in criminal proceedings, but it opens up prospects for further research in this area.

The system of procedural guarantees of the participants’ rights in criminal proceedings during pre-trial investigation

The current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine contains legal guarantees designed to ensure proper protection, safeguarding and realisation of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings. However, in the legal literature, there is no unified approach to defining the essence and content of the system of procedural guarantees of the rights of participants to criminal proceedings, which negatively affects the functioning of the entire system of criminal procedural guarantees, its efficiency and effectiveness. The stability and effectiveness of the studied system of guarantees is an indicator of the level of development of many areas of public life and the legal status of an individual in the State. In this context, the issue of guaranteeing the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of participants to criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation is controversial for both legislators and scholars, and is important for every citizen of Ukraine, since pre-trial investigation and criminal procedural activities in general are associated with interference with a person's private life and restriction of his or her rights, freedoms and legitimate interests in cases provided for by law.
 An analysis of the essence of the system of procedural guarantees of the participants’ rights in criminal proceedings during pre-trial investigation has been made, and its structure and main constituent elements have been characterized. It has been proved that the system of the studied guarantees forms a set of conditions and means which are inextricably linked and interact.
 Based on the results of the study of scientific discussions and positions of procedural scholars, the author establishes that the system of procedural guarantees of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of participants to criminal proceedings should be considered as a set of interrelated and interacting regulatory and organisational guarantees contained in the provisions of substantive and procedural law and regulatory legal acts.
 Based on the results of the study, it has been proposed to define the elements of the system of procedural guarantees of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of participants to criminal proceedings during pre-trial investigation, namely: criminal procedural form, principles of criminal proceedings, procedural status of a person, measures to ensure criminal proceedings, measures to restore violated rights of a person, control and supervision of authorised bodies, legal sanctions.

Certain aspects of the definition of the concept of “evidence” and its properties in criminal proceedings under martial law

The authors of the article studied the provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, the European Convention on Human Rights (1950), the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, defined and clarified the concept of “evidence”, its properties, the procedural mechanism for obtaining and evaluating in the conditions of martial law. It has been proven that despite the positive results of legal reform and improvement of the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, the study revealed a number of gaps in the issues related to the definition and clarification of the concept of “evidence”, its properties and the procedural mechanism for obtaining and evaluating it under martial law. The provisions of Art. 86 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine establishes that evidence is considered admissible if it is obtained in accordance with the procedure established by law. Inadmissible evidence cannot be used when making procedural decisions, it cannot be referred to by the court when passing a court decision. In contrast to the norms of the Rome Statute of the ICC, the established wording is quite categorical and does not provide “flexibility” to the process when resolving this issue by the court. At the same time, the legislator’s position on this issue, which is defined in the provisions of Art. 87 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and stipulates that evidence obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, international treaties, the consent of which is binding by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, as well as any other evidence obtained thanks to information obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms. In the conditions of martial law, the provisions of this article are applied taking into account the features specified in Art. 615 of the CCP of Ukraine. It has been determined that the specified provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine provide for a procedural approach to the issue of admissibility of evidence, but do not have the primary goal of establishing the truth and, accordingly, achieving justice, which significantly distinguishes this approach from that enshrined in the Rome Statute of the ICC. There was a need to depart from the formal procedural position enshrined in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, to provide courts with flexibility in accepting and evaluating evidence to establish the truth.

Forensic support of evidence in criminal proceedings: concepts and signs

The scientific article, based on the study and analysis of the positions of scientists, the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, highlights the concepts and essential features of forensic evidence support in criminal proceedings.The research of the topic was carried out using the inductive method, highlighting separately the following components: «forensic support», «evidence» and «criminal proceedings».The author of the article sets the goal of defining the concept of forensic evidence support in criminal proceedings and its essential features.The work emphasizes that forensic support includes only such basic elements as: technical, tactical, and methodical forensic support, and evidence: collection, verification, and evaluation of evidence. The doctrinal content of each key element of both forensic support and evidence is highlighted.The list of authorized subjects who are obliged and have the right to conduct evidence using the means of forensic techniques, tactics and methods is presented. Highlighting the elements of the concept of “forensic support” and “proof” made it possible to form the features of the general concept of “forensic support of proof in criminal proceedings”.
 In general, the author came to the conclusion that the forensic support of evidence in criminal proceedings is the activity of meeting the needs of authorized subjects during the collection, verification and evaluation of evidence, providing them with the means of forensic techniques, tactics and methods in order to establish the subject of evidence during pre-trial investigation and court proceedings regarding criminal offenses, as well as conducting procedural actions in connection with the commission of an act provided for by the law of Ukraine on criminal responsibility.

Compensation for damage caused by a criminal offense as a condition for implementing a criminal procedural compromise

Until recently, the resolution of the conflict between the state and the criminal with the use of punitive measures was the main means of combating crime. The process of humanizing the criminal and criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine fundamentally changed the situation and caused the need to improve the criminal procedural form, introduce new institutions, the functioning of which will ensure the protection of the interests of society and the state.This was the reason why the subjects of the criminal process had the opportunity to resolve the criminal legal conflict by reaching a compromise and concluding an agreement. The corresponding norms were established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The main goal of such innovations is to simplify the court procedure and improve the efficiency of law enforcement agencies.The analysis of statistical data shows the active use of compromise in the practical activities of law enforcement agencies and the positive impact on the process of settling legal conflicts in criminal proceedings.But, despite the success and popularity of this institute, there are still a number of problematic issues, the emergence of which is due to the need to operate not only with the norms of criminal procedural legislation, but also with other branches of law - civil, civil procedural. We came to the conclusion that the legislative provisions of the specified normative acts are sometimes inconsistent, contradictory and require detailed regulation in the criminal procedural legislation. The legislative provisions of which are sometimes inconsistent and contradictory. This fully applies to issues of compensation for damage caused to the victim of a criminal offense, which is one of the conditions for the implementation of a criminal procedural compromise. Unfortunately, until now, neither the Civil, nor the Civil Procedure, nor the Criminal Procedure Codes of Ukraine, operating with the concept of “damage”, do not even establish its essence. This causes difficulties in law enforcement. In practice, the concept of “damage” is often identified with others, such as “damages”, “losses”, etc.But this concept is key and defining, as it provides an understanding of the specifics of the implementation of such a specific function of the criminal process, such as compensation for damage caused by a criminal offense, which is the activity of the subjects of the criminal process whose rights have been violated by an illegal encroachment and their representatives. This line of activity is aimed at restoring violated rights (material, non-material), interests of the victim or the state. This justifies the relevance of this study

Media Report as a Ground for Initiating Criminal Proceedings: European Experience and Ukrainian Realities

Objective: The objective of this article is to analyze the possibility of initiating a pre-trial investigation based on information obtained from mass media sources. Theoretical framework: The theoretical framework of this article revolves around the intersection of media and criminal justice systems. It explores the potential benefits and drawbacks of relying on media reports as a trigger for criminal investigations. The article also considers the importance of clear and detailed legislative provisions to facilitate effective cooperation and understanding between law enforcement agencies and the media. Method: The article employs a comparative analysis of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine and other countries, evaluating the normative regulations surrounding the initiation of pre-trial investigations based on media reports. It also examines international standards and guidelines that govern the relationship between journalists and law enforcement agencies in the context of criminal offenses. Results and conclusion: Based on the analysis of criminal procedural legislation and international standards, the article concludes that there is a need for more precise and comprehensive regulation in the Ukrainian legal framework regarding the initiation of pre-trial investigations based on media information. It highlights the importance of clear guidelines to ensure a harmonious relationship between law enforcement agencies and the media, while maintaining the principles of fairness and justice. Originality/value: This article contributes to the existing literature by specifically examining the possibility of initiating criminal investigations based on media reports. It provides a comparative analysis of the legal frameworks in Ukraine and other countries, shedding light on the potential challenges and benefits associated with utilizing media information in criminal proceedings.

КОНЦЕПЦІЇ ДОПУСТИМОСТІ ДОКАЗІВ ТА ЇХ ІМПЛЕМЕНТАЦІЯ У КРИМІНАЛЬНИЙ ПРОЦЕС УКРАЇНИ

The author of the article examines the provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and the modern practice of the courts of Ukraine regarding the application of the concept of “fruits of a poisoned tree” and exceptions to it. It has been proven that establishing the commission of a relevant criminal offense by a certain person or, conversely, his non-involvement in its commission is carried out on the basis of evidence provided to the court by the participants in the adversarial procedure. Determining the admissibility of the evidence presented to the court is a guarantee of the balance of rights of all participants in the criminal proceedings and ensuring that the court adopts a legal and fair decision on the case. In this context, the implementation of the concepts formulated in the criminal trials of foreign countries, regarding issues of admissibility of evidence, to the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine becomes important and requires additional research. The purpose of the article is to study the essence of concepts that are an exception to the rule of “fruits of the poisoned tree”, to implement their application in the judicial practice of Ukraine, in order to obtain new scientific knowledge and ensure correct understanding. In the world practice and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, in particular, certain concepts were formed when solving the issue of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, which are implemented at the present time and in the judicial practice of Ukraine. The most widespread and well-known of them in matters of inadmissibility of evidence is the concept of “fruit of the poisoned tree”, the essence of which is that if the source of evidence is improper, then all the evidence obtained with its help will be the same. However, at the present time there are already a certain number of concepts that are an exception to it and offer a different approach to the issue of recognizing evidence as admissible. It is noted that all exceptions from the concept of “fruits of the poisoned tree” have common features, in particular: first, the focus of the research is not on the violation as such, but on its essence; secondly, on establishing the impact of certain violations on ensuring a fair trial; thirdly, the credibility of the relevant evidence and the ability of the court to reach certain conclusions regarding the establishment of a person’s guilt in committing the relevant criminal offense. That is, they provide opportunities to move away from formalism in matters related to: admissibility of evidence, ensuring a fair trial and achieving the goal of criminal proceedings. It was concluded that the application, when the issue of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings is resolved, along with the concept of “fruit of the poisoned tree” of other concepts, which are actually an exception to the stated one, gives flexibility to the criminal process in the matter of recognizing evidence as admissible, which ensures the fairness of the judicial process for both sides and a certain balance between the public interests of society and the person who is brought to criminal responsibility, his rights and freedoms. The justice of the process as a whole and the decision (sentence) of the court, as a document that is accepted according to its consequences, can be achieved by transparency and comprehensibility of the applied norms and procedures for the participants in the process and society.

Some questions regarding freedom from self-disclosure as one of the principles of the criminal procedure

One of the principles of criminal proceedings - freedom from self-incrimination and the right not to testify against close relatives and family members - is analyzed in detail. The main disadvantages of its use directly in practice have been identified. The opinions of numerous scientists, the practice of the ECtHR and the experience of foreign countries regarding the application of the above-mentioned principles of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine were considered. Based on this, a number of proposals for improving the effective use of this principle are highlighted. It is worth noting that the entire criminal process must be carried out in compliance with all 22 principles provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Any procedural actions committed in violation or non-compliance with at least one of them becomes illegal. That is why it is extremely important for all participants in criminal proceedings to understand in detail, and most importantly, the meaning and essence of each of these principles, without exception. Because it depends on the observance of human rights, the establishment of justice and, above all, the decision of people's fate. A detailed explanation of each of the principles, the search for ways to improve, the elimination of conflicts in the current legislation and the exclusion of the possibility of abusing the rights arising from these principles are no less important than their observance in criminal proceedings.

ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ПРОЦЕСУАЛЬНОГО СТАТУСУ НЕПОВНОЛІТНІХ У КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ СУДОЧИНСТВІ УКРАЇНИ

The scientific article is devoted to the development and substantiation of logically interrelated theoretical conclusions regarding the procedural status of minors in criminal proceedings, the formulation of recommendations on the basis of them for the improvement of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine. The author states that the formation and consolidation of the procedural status depend on a number of factors, among which the age of the person should be highlighted. The influence of this factor on the regulation of the procedural status of minors in criminal proceedings is considered as the main theoretical basis for further research. The scientific work argues that the peculiarities of the implementation of the criminal procedural status of minors are related to the determination of their legal and legal capacity in criminal proceedings. As a general rule, minors are limited in their legal personality. Firstly, they cannot be subjects of a wide range of legal relations, and secondly, in those areas where they act as subjects of legal relations, their legal capacity is limited by law. It is noted that minors who have committed a criminal offense have a limited criminal procedural status in the criminal justice system of Ukraine. The recognition of full or limited legal capacity of minors significantly affects the content of the elements of their procedural position in the criminal process and the relationship with the defender and legal representative. The basis of the structure of the criminal procedural status of minors who have committed a criminal offense will be the corresponding criminal procedural status of an adult suspect, accused, defendant, based on the unity of the nature of participation in the criminal process, with its appropriate adaptation to the psychophysiological characteristics of the minor The author states that in criminal procedural science one can observe a peculiar preference of the interest of researchers in favor of minor accused or suspects. Much more attention is paid to issues of criminal proceedings against minors compared to issues of protecting the rights and interests of minor victims or witnesses. One of the main rules of criminal justice for minors is its maximum individualization. The personality of minors and the reasons for their offenses are at the center of the judicial process, so these features should be studied as much as possible during the investigation. The presented provisions define the place and role of a minor in the criminal process in a new way. Keywords: procedural status; a minor; criminal proceedings; criminal justice; juvenile suspect; a minor accused; a minor witness; minor victim.

Ways of reforming the criminal and criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine in the context of European integration

The purpose of the research is to highlight problematic issues and ways of reforming the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine in the context of European integration. Main content. The article analyzes the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine and that of European Union countries. Methodology: The methodological basis of the research is the dialectical method of scientific knowledge, through the application of this method considered were legal, functional, organizational and procedural aspects of methodological approaches to understanding of problematic issues and ways of reforming criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine in the context of European integration were considered. Conclusions. Shortcomings of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine have been highlighted. Prospects of their reforming were outlined and changes to the current legislation in the context of European integration were proposed.