Criminal Procedural Code Of Ukraine Research Articles

Postmortem forensic psychiatric examination in criminal proceedings

The article reflects the specifics of postmortem forensic psychiatric examination in criminal proceedings. It is carried out a scientific search for the features of this examination in expert-oriented studies and interviews of expert psychiatrists. It is found that the expert assesses the mental state of the deceased person in their absence on the basis of the person’s medical documentation and the materials of the criminal proceedings. It is determined that expertly significant information is not always reliable and sufficient for the expert to fulfill the duties assigned to them. In this case, the expert must use the rules of Part 4 of Art. 69 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and refuse to give an opinion. In its turn, the court should perceive the conclusion of the postmortem forensic psychiatric examination as a source of evidence that needs to be carefully checked and evaluated in order to make a legal judgment in criminal proceedings.
 Based on the analysis of judicial practice materials, it has been proven that the conclusions of the postmortem forensic psychiatric examination are used in criminal proceedings for the purpose of evaluating: versions regarding the possibility of a person to commit suicide; the mental state of the suspect, the accused, the person against whom coercive medical measures were supposed to be applied, after their death; reliability of testimony or explanations of the victim who died; reliability of testimonies or explanations of a witness who died; the presence in the expert’s actions of the composition of the criminal offense provided for in Art. 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
 It is proposed to standardize the grounds for closing criminal proceedings upon the death of a person for whom coercive medical measures were supposed to be applied and to supplement Paragraph 5, Part 1 of Art. 284 of the CPC of Ukraine by a new subject – a person in relation to whom the application of coercive medical measures was intended. It is established that criminal proceedings regarding the use of coercive medical measures cannot be closed on the basis of Paragraph 2, Part 1 of Art. 284 of the CPC of Ukraine in the absence of the subject and the subjective party of the criminal offense.

Особливості дистанційного кримінального провадження в умовах воєнного стану

The article is devoted to the study of the peculiarities of remote criminal proceedings caused by the introduction of martial law on the territory of Ukraine. The importance and relevance of the issue of the use of the video conference mode in the criminal process during the war are outlined. The article analyzes the legislative innovations that were established in connection with the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation, in particular, the possibility of conducting remote court proceedings at the initiative of a judge or at the request of the participants in the proceedings, its implementation using the technical means of judges, lawyers, witnesses and other subjects of the process. The relevance of establishing the possibility in connection with the objective circumstances of joining the participant in the video conference mode using other means, rather than the technical means specified by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, is substantiated. Disadvantages that are characteristic of remote criminal proceedings and give rise to certain risks of violation of the procedural form are highlighted, in particular, the lack of possibility of reliable identification of the person acting as a participant in the legal process, lack of opportunity for the accused to communicate confidentially with his lawyer, lack of clear information about the participant's awareness of his rights and obligations ties, as well as the ability to ensure the absence of outside influence, pressure on participants, impartiality and confidentiality of the judicial process. The expediency of the further use of the Custody Records system and the EasyCon communication platform in the activities of pre-trial investigation bodies, which, among other advantages, ensure a reduction of the risk of illegal influences on the participants of criminal proceedings during the conduct of procedural actions in a remote mode, is substantiated. The expediency of integrating elements of the Unified Register of Advocates of Ukraine into the "Electronic Court" subsystem, as well as the development of a mobile "eCourt" relationship, was analyzed.

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

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.

Initiation of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings regarding interference in the activities of a defense attorney or a person's representative

The article examines the importance of observing the beginning of the pre-trial investigation established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in general and in criminal proceedings regarding interference in the activities of a defense attorney or a person's representative, in particular. Attention is drawn to the fact that the current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine does not contain a rule regarding the procedural form of starting a pre-trial investigation with the participation of persons who enjoy additional guarantees of independence. Attention is drawn to the fact that, despite the established requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the verification of applications and notifications of individuals, in practice there have been cases of their verification taking too long.
 The normative and legal regulation of the initiation of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings regarding interference in the activities of a defense attorney or a person's representative is analyzed in detail. Attention is focused on the fact that the legal guarantees of the protection of the lawyer's professional activity are negated by the lack of practice of thorough investigation of all facts of encroachment and real punishment of guilty persons in crimes committed against lawyers in connection with their professional activity.
 It is noted that cases have become quite frequent when statements by defenders and representatives of a person about the violation of their rights, which have signs of a criminal offense, are considered not within 24 hours, but within ten days, and sometimes even within thirty days in accordance with the Law of Ukraine "On Appeals citizens", despite the direct prohibition of consideration of such applications.
 The reasons for the refusal to enter information into the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations (hereinafter referred to as the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations) have been identified. During the investigation of interference in the activities of the defender or representative of a person, the following grounds are used: 1) the need to provide additional evidence; 2) lack of legal grounds for entering information into the EDPR.
 It is believed that the current model of the criminal procedural norm, which concerns the entry of information into the ERDR, is limited enough to make a quick and well-founded decision on the initiation of a pre-trial investigation.

The procedure for taking samples from things and documents for examination in criminal proceedings: a critical analysis

The article examines the importance of observing the procedure for collecting evidence established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine as a guarantee of their propriety and admissibility, in particular when conducting an examination, when for this there is a need to obtain relevant samples.
 The determined procedure for taking samples from things and documents in criminal proceedings is analyzed for the certainty and unambiguity of the definitions used by the legislator and its compliance with the stated purpose of such an investigative (search) action as obtaining samples for examination. As a result of the analysis, a conclusion is made about the existing conflict of criminal procedural norms, which is a consequence of the lack of definition of the legal regime of certain types of samples for examination in criminal proceedings, taking into account their nature and the replacement of certain procedural categories.
 Attention is focused on the imperfections of the established procedure for taking samples from things and documents in criminal proceedings and the possible consequences of this - the irreversible loss of evidence.
 It is noted that it is impractical to apply the provisions of the established procedure for taking samples from such things and documents that are in the possession of state authorities and local self-government bodies, as well as obtaining an additional court order to conduct a search in case of refusal by the person specified in the decision on temporary access to things and documents, voluntarily provide access to such things and documents for obtaining samples from them.
 Objective factors (embedded in the construction of relevant procedural norms) are determined, which negatively affect the effectiveness of the investigation of criminal offenses, determined by the procedure for taking samples from things and documents established by the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. It is noted that it is inadmissible to use the imperfection of criminal procedural norms to actively oppose the investigation of criminal offenses.
 It is emphasized the urgent need for effective attention of the legislator to the established procedure for taking samples from things and documents in criminal proceedings in order to ensure the effectiveness of obtaining samples for examination as a means of gathering evidence and investigation as a whole.

Reflections on the constitution of part one of article 459 of the criminal procedure code of Ukraine

In this publication, in connection with the consideration by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of proceedings on the constitutionality of part one of Article 459 of the CPC of Ukraine, the author's position on this issue is given. A comprehensive analysis of the legal regulation of the powers of investigating judges in judicial control over the observance of the rights, freedoms and interests of persons in criminal proceedings makes it possible to conclude that by exercising these powers, the investigating magistrate exercises the constitutional powers of the court, and all his rulings are court decisions. The investigating magistrate acts on behalf of the court as a judge – the bearer of judicial power. The exercise by the investigating judge of the powers of judicial control over the observance of the rights, freedoms and interests of persons in criminal proceedings is an integral element of the implementation of the justice function. Answering the question: "whether part one of Article 459 of CPC directly or in connection with other provisions of the Code prohibits reviewing rulings of investigating judges under newly discovered circumstances", it should be noted that part one of Article 459 of CPC does not contain a direct ban on reviewing rulings of investigating judges under newly discovered circumstances. However, there is no direct indication of the right of appeal and review. In fact, an illegal and unfair decision of the investigating magistrate enters into legal force and must be enforced. Such a situation is unacceptable, since the correction of an erroneous decision of the investigating magistrate in the form of a ruling should take place and be as close as possible in time to its review and correction of the judicial error. Deprivation of the right of access to court in the form of reviewing the ruling of the investigating magistrate under newly discovered circumstances should be considered immeasurable in relation to the goal, which indicates the inconsistency of part one of Article 459 of CPC with part 1 of Article 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine in terms of the principle of legal certainty as a component of the rule of law. And since the right of access to court was restricted in such a disproportionate way, this norm for the same reasons contradicts part two of Article 55 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The possibility of reviewing the rulings of investigating judges under newly discovered circumstances will fully comply with the principle of the rule of law and the basic principles of justice defined by the Constitution of Ukraine.

Some problematic issues of ensuring the conclusion of a plea agreement

In the article, the author examines some problematic issues of tactical and forensic support of one of the compromise procedures provided for in the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine - the plea agreement.
 The most typical abuses of the procedural right by the prosecution during the conclusion of the specified agreement are considered, when using the presence of certain shortcomings in the regulation of the procedure for concluding a plea agreement (initiations, negotiations, the performance of certain actions, or the provision of certain guarantees by the parties to the agreement, etc.), the prosecutor and the investigator from a certain motivations and interests that do not always correspond to the content of the public interest, use situations that are characterized by an increased risk for the abuse of procedural law, as a result of which the rights, freedoms and interests of the parties or other persons may be grossly violated or limited.
 We are considering the situation of concluding such an agreement only in order not to examine all the evidence in court, because the pre-trial investigation made mistakes that cannot be corrected. The "artificial" creation of prejudice occurs when the prosecutor, contrary to the general rules of prejudice, uses a guilty verdict that approved a plea agreement to limit the rights of a person who is not a party to the criminal proceedings. As well as the prosecution's use of the uncertainty of the victim's status and powers in situations provided for in Part 4 of Article 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code, when the victim consents to the conclusion of a plea agreement in proceedings for the commission of particularly serious crimes, etc.
 It is substantiated that in addition to improving the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code and eliminating certain deficiencies in the regulation of the procedure for concluding a plea agreement, in forensic methods and recommendations for forensic support of pre-trial investigation and maintaining a public prosecution, it is necessary to provide for typical situations of abuse of procedural law by the prosecution, which can be used in the implementation evidence in court during the initiation and conclusion of a plea agreement.

The person of the victim as an element of the criminal characteristics of criminal offenses committed with the use of information technologies

The article considers the victim's identity as an element of forensic characterization of criminal offenses committed using information technologies. The article provides data on judicial statistics concerning victims and material and moral damage caused from criminal offenses provided for in Section XVI of the Criminal Code of Ukraine during 2021-2022. It is indicated about the procedural features of the status of an injured person provided for in articles 55-57 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The provisions of regulatory acts concerning compensation for damage to victims are analyzed. It is proposed to adopt a separate law that would regulate the grounds, conditions, mechanism and sources of payment of state funds to victims. It is also proposed to create a fund for compensation at the expense of the state for material and moral damage, including for cybercrime (criminal offenses committed using information technologies). Taking into account the specifics of the commission of these criminal offenses, namely, the fact that they are committed remotely and using information technologies (personal computer, laptop, tablet, smartphone, etc.), which in modern conditions are intensively developing, the characteristic features of the victim's personality in these illegal acts are highlighted: 1) Age; 2) use of the operating system and awareness of the person in the use of Information Technologies; 3) location of the victim; 4) nature of the damage caused; 5) social status (status) of the victim. Attention is drawn to the special importance of finding out the age of the victim's identity. It is noted that there is a certain category of these criminal offenses committed against the elderly; another category against minors. It is stated that information about the identity of the victim plays a significant role in the investigation of criminal offenses committed using information technologies. Understanding and analyzing such information, the investigator, Inquirer, and prosecutor can put forward appropriate versions of the investigation, which will contribute to the rapid and effective pre-trial investigation of these illegal acts.

Types of fixing the involvement of a specialist in criminal proceedings

The article examines the importance of involving a specialist in criminal proceedings as a person who, unlike the subject of the investigation, has such professional competences (in the form of knowledge and skills) that allow establishing factual data about the circumstances relevant to the proceedings. Cases of mandatory involvement of a specialist in procedural actions are determined.
 Attention is focused on the correct definition of the purpose of involving a specialist in procedural actions - gathering evidence, in connection with which the opinion is substantiated regarding the importance of such registration of the results of the involvement of a specialist, which would ensure the appropriateness and admissibility of the collected evidence and their further use in the proving process.
 An analysis of the types of fixation of the involvement of a specialist in criminal proceedings determined by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is carried out and an assessment of their procedural capacity is carried out in relation to the defined purpose of the involvement of a specialist. Conclusions about the inability of certain types of fixation of the specialist's involvement in procedural actions defined by the legislator as evidence are substantiated. Emphasis is placed on the loss of evidence when choosing such types of fixation of the involvement of a specialist.
 The advantages of this type of fixation of the results of the involvement of a specialist in criminal proceedings are determined as a written explanation of the specialist who participated in the relevant procedural action, attached to the proceedings as an appendix to the protocol. By analyzing the constructions of criminal procedural norms, the place of such explanations in the system of procedural sources of evidence is determined. The position regarding the possibility and expediency of forming written explanations of specialists in the form of certain professional conclusions is substantiated.
 The opinion is advocated regarding the need to replace a specialist's written explanation, as a form of reflecting the results of his application of his professional competences, of such a "dead" institution in the investigation of criminal misdemeanors as a specialist's conclusion, which did not find its implementation in the practical activity of pre-trial investigation bodies.

Procedural status of participants in criminal proceedings as a means of securing rights and legitimate interests

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.

СТАНОВЛЕННЯ ІНСТИТУТУ ПРОВЕДЕННЯ ПРОЦЕСУАЛЬНИХ ДІЙ ЯК ОДНІЄЇ З ФОРМ МІЖНАРОДНОГО СПІВРОБІТНИЦТВА ПО КРИМІНАЛЬНИМ ПРОВАДЖЕННЯМ

The article examines the establishment of the institution of procedural actions as one of the forms of international cooperation in criminal proceedings. Attention was drawn to the fact that international cooperation in criminal proceedings, including the conduct of procedural actions, is a tool that can be used to overcome the barriers of sovereignty and allow the international community to properly respond to illegal actions that encroach on the goods protected by criminal law, despite the existing differences between legal systems. That is why, at a certain stage, the international legal regulation of international cooperation in criminal proceedings was intensified, in particular, the conduct of procedural actions, and the appearance of relevant norms regulating such relations in national legislation. It was established that the formation of international cooperation in criminal proceedings, including the implementation of procedural actions, and its legal support took place gradually. Initially, to achieve tasks in this area, Ukraine primarily used international legal norms. At a certain stage of the state’s development, the need for intrastate regulation of procedural actions as one of the forms of international cooperation in criminal proceedings became obvious. The impetus for this process was Ukraine’s 2011 ratification of the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, which was signed by Ukraine on November 8, 2001, which, at the same time, required updating domestic legislation. The need for domestic regulation of these relations was reflected in The Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. Norms regarding international legal assistance during procedural actions are codified in Chapter 43 of Section IX of the current The Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. Key words: international cooperation, international legal assistance, conducting procedural actions, procedural actions in the order of providing international legal assistance, criminal procedural legislation, international obligations.

Inquiry as a form of pre-trial investigation: challenging issues of reform at the present stage

The article examines the problematic issues of inquiry as a form of pretrial investigation of criminal misdemeanors, the peculiarities of inquiry by units of the National Police of Ukraine. It was determined that the inquiry as a form of pre-trial investigation consists in the accelerated implementation of procedural activities by authorized subjects regarding the investigation of criminal offenses provided for by law at the stage of pre-trial investigation, while the inquiry is carried out in full with the involvement of all organizational and procedural resources within the limits defined by the legislation of Ukraine in order to fulfill the tasks of criminal proceedings. On the basis of the conducted research, the inconsistency of the current criminal procedural legislation in the part of the regulation of the pre-trial investigation of criminal misdemeanors, which consists in the uncertainty of the sources of evidence, the procedure for conducting separate investigative (investigative), secret investigative (investigative) and other procedural actions, as well as the procedural procedure for the application of security measures, has been established criminal proceedings during the investigation. The judicial practice regarding the application of criminal procedural legislation in the part of the regulation of the order of seizure of confiscated property during the pre-trial investigation of criminal misdemeanors was analyzed, changes to the legislation were proposed in view of the needs of practice, which consist in making appropriate changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The resolution of the considered problematic issues during the investigation will contribute to the fulfillment of the tasks of criminal proceedings and the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of the participants in criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation of criminal misdemeanors

TOPICAL ISSUES OF PROTECTING THE RIGHTS AND LEGITIMATE INTERESTS OF THE ACCUSED IN CORRUPTION CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING CONFIDANTS (REGARDING THE PROCEDURE FOR ATTRACTING A CONFIDANT BY AN AUTHORIZED ENTITY)

In the scientific article, the author examines the theoretical and practical problems of the procedure for the investigator’s involvement of a person in confidential cooperation and conducting covert investigative (search) actions during the pre-trial investigation of corruption criminal proceedings. It also reveals the issue of the use by the defence side of the established violations in the algorithm of involving the relevant person in criminal proceedings in order to justify the inadmissibility of evidence obtained as a result of covert investigative (search) actions with the participation of the confidant. Based on the analysis of the judicial practice of the High Anti-Corruption Court and the Appeals Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court, the author concluded that there is no uniform application of Article 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the activities of law enforcement agencies. Most often, investigators attract confidants by selecting an application for voluntary consent to confidential cooperation and participation in covert investigative (search) actions and the adoption of a corresponding resolution. There are cases of a decision on the participation of a confidant in criminal proceedings by the prosecutor when adopting a resolution on the conduct of covert investigative (search) actions – control over the commission of a crime (with the written consent of the person). The author has researched judicial practice in cases where the materials of criminal proceedings do not contain any procedural documents regarding the involvement of a confidant in covert investigative (search) actions and confidential cooperation. The article stated the fact that the High Anti-Corruption Court and the Appels Chamber of the High Anti-Corruption Court ignored all violations of the prosecution regarding the implementation of Article 275 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

CERTAIN ASPECTS OF ARTICLE 6 «RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL» OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS

The article examines the issue of disclosure of the content of the principle of the rule of law, its elements and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights in the context of a violation of Art. 6 «The right to a fair trial». Changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the restoration of lost materials of criminal proceedings under martial law are analyzed. The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that the principle of the rule of law, which was reflected in the preamble of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and in a number of other international documents on human rights, must be ensured even during the war. After all, according to Art. 8 of the Constitution of Ukraine, the principle of the rule of law is recognized and applied in our country. In connection with the full-scale war and the legal regime of martial law, Ukraine faced many challenges, especially the criminal justice authorities, since peacetime laws could not regulate all the events and circumstances that arose. As a result of the events that took place in the spring and summer of 2014, as well as after the full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation into the territory of Ukraine, the government temporarily lost control over parts of the territory of Luhansk and Donetsk regions, where the courts of first instance and appeals were located, some of the materials of criminal proceedings also remained in this territory Therefore, the state authorities were faced with the issue of restoring lost materials of criminal proceedings to ensure the rights and legitimate interests of suspects and accused persons. These issues were highlighted in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in several cases against Ukraine. Therefore, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine made a number of changes to the legislation, in particular to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

DIGITAL INFORMATION AS AN OBJECT OF EXPERT RESEARCH IN THE CONTEXT OF DIGITALIZATION: PROBLEMS AND DEVELOPMENT PROSPECTS

The article is devoted to the problems of considering digital information as an object of expert research. It is proposed to amend the current criminal procedural legislation by adding part 2 of Art. 84 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with new sources of evidence – digital, namely, to state it in the following wording: «2. Procedural sources of evidence are testimony, material evidence, digital evidence, documents, and expert opinions. The definition of digital information is formulated in the context of the investigation of criminal proceedings, namely, it is indicated that it can be understood as data presented in electronic (digital) form, containing information relevant to the case, containing traces of a criminal offence that is an instrument or means of committing it, stored on tangible media: computer, mobile devices, digital cameras, routers, etc., or intangible resources such as the Internet, databases, local networks of institutions and organizations, etc., while on the specified media may contain: files (containing text information, audio or video); a variety of software used as a «tool» for committing a crime or to hide the traces of its commission; files containing traces of forgery or falsification; databases, free access to which is prohibited by the current legislation in the field of protection of state secrets, protection of personal data; scanned copies, photocopies of restricted documents, etc. Two groups of digital information are identified, which are the object of expert research in the course of the pre-trial investigation: digital information located on a material storage medium; digital information located on the Internet or in cloud storage. Attention is drawn to the forensic computer-technical examination of digital information located in the darknet, since persons carrying out criminal activities using it use a fairly extensive data protection system to exclude the possibility of identifying the offender by law enforcement agencies: «protected» operating systems are used: Linux, Kodachi Linux, etc.; browsers are used that are not widely used by consumers, such as, for example, Tor Browser, which allows you to establish an anonymous network connection that has some protection from outside interference; access to the Internet is carried out using a VPN in order to prevent the determination of the actual location of a person and his IP address.

NOTIFICATION OF SUSPICION TO A CERTAIN CATEGORY OF PERSONS: PECULIARITIES OF LEGITIMIZATION DURING LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES

The research conducted in the article is due to a number of problems and gaps identified by judicial and law enforcement practice related to the interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the law on subjects and the procedure for reporting the suspicion of a separate category of persons. The legal institute notification of suspicion is one of the defining procedural institutes in the modern criminal process of Ukraine. The problem of reporting suspicions of committing criminal offences to people’s deputies of Ukraine and other persons who are referred to as the «separate category of persons» by the criminal procedure law has become especially relevant. The article examines legal justification or legitimation of the grounds and procedure for applying the procedure for notification of suspicion of committing a criminal offence to the above-mentioned persons. For this purpose, the notice of suspicion is, first of all, considered as a complex procedural measure provided by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which consists of successive, interconnected and interdependent stages: establishing legal grounds for notification of suspicion; adoption of the relevant procedural decision and its execution in the form of a written document indicating all the circumstances and qualifications of the criminal offence; conducting a procedural action, the content of which is reduced to the direct delivery of such a document (notice) to a certain person with an explanation of the content of the suspicion and his procedural rights. It is concluded that compliance with the above-mentioned legal procedure for notification of suspicion, in particular, personal, direct delivery of such notification to representatives of certain categories of persons by law special entities, is the basis for the legal legitimization of this procedural institution, ensuring the special legal status of these persons, as well as guaranteeing the rule of law, respect for constitutional rights and achieving legal objectives of criminal proceedings.

LEGAL REGULATION OF FORENSIC EXAMINATIONS IN UKRAINE

At the current stage of development and construction of a legal state, as well as with a change in the paradigm of state administration, forensic examination occupies an important place in the judiciary. However, today there are some gaps and shortcomings inherent in the regulatory legal regulation of forensic expert activity, the presence of which does not contribute to fully guaranteeing the independence of forensic experts and their full performance of their activities. Therefore, the question arises regarding the detailed consideration of the content of the legal framework that regulates the forensic expert activity and ensures the functioning of the human rights system of the government in the state. The article also highlights problematic issues related to regulatory and legal regulation and the conduct of forensic examinations in Ukraine. A review of the scientific opinions and statements of leading scientists and scientists regarding this situation was carried out. Current articles of the criminal procedural legislation concerning the Institute of Forensic Expertise have been analyzed. Changes in regulatory documents regulating forensic expert activity in Ukraine were studied (special attention was paid to changes in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine). It has been established which directions are included in the normative and legal regulation of the institute of forensic examination in the state. The role of forensic expertise in the judiciary is emphasized and the opinions of scientists regarding the improvement of the apparatus of legal regulation of forensic expertise in Ukraine are analyzed.

INSPECTION AND CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

The article is devoted to the consideration of individual procedural actions, namely the inspection and inspection of the scene of the event. The article examines the historical retrospective of the emergence and peculiarities of the specified procedural actions in the criminal procedural legislation of different years. The article examines the procedure for conducting an inspection and inspection of the scene of events according to the current Criminal Procedure Code, in particular, points out shortcomings and suggests ways to eliminate them. the article examines the historical retrospective of the conduct of investigative search actions as a review and review of the scene of the incident, the specifics of the conduct of these procedural actions in the criminal procedural legislation of different years are determined. The problems in the issues of inspection and inspection of the scene of the incident in the current Criminal Procedure Code were identified and options were proposed to eliminate existing controversial issues by making changes to the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, for the purpose of effective pre-trial investigation.

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.

Problems of interaction in the investigation of corruption crimes in the field of official activity and professional activity related to the provision of public services

Modern realities and the state of the criminogenic situation in the country require fundamentally new approaches to the interaction of law enforcement agencies. Today, the interaction of the investigator with other bodies and units is more and more actively carried out at all possible levels, departmental, interdepartmental, international. Interaction in the detection and investigation of criminal offences is a rather complex and comprehensive form that involves a number of interrelated procedural and operational search actions and measures aimed at maximising the achievement of the goals of the criminal process. Cooperation in the investigation of crimes, in particular in the field of official activity, is one of the methods of combating crime, which consists in the coordination and combination in order and on the basis of the law, the efforts of several persons, divisions, bodies, etc. in order to ensure the optimization of the pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses. The specified activity is objectively necessary and often begins from the moment of checking the received information about the commission of a crime. This activity by its nature is very complex, which finds its expression in its phasing. Among the latter, we suggest making a decision about the necessity and expediency of interaction, choosing the form and methods of interaction, procedural consolidation of the decision, direct interaction, and registration of the results of the indicated cooperation. However, the structural clarity of the interaction does not relieve it of the difficulties faced by its participants. This situation is mainly due to the lack of clear regulation of issues related to the organisation and implementation of cooperation in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. In connection with this, it would be expedient to supplement the specified legal act with a separate section, which would define the concepts, principles, types, forms, methods and procedure of interaction during criminal proceedings.
 Having analysed the legal acts, the author concludes that there is no clear regulation of such interaction.