Current Criminal Procedural Legislation Research Articles

Separate elements of the event of a criminal offense to be ascertained at the initial stage of the investigation of murders committed with particular cruelty

In the article, on the basis of a systematic analysis of the norms of current criminal, civil and criminal procedural legislation, scientific sources on criminology, criminal and criminal procedural law, forensic medicine and other sciences, as well as on the basis of a systematic analysis of investigative and judicial practice of investigation and trial of criminal proceedings on murders committed with extreme cruelty, the circumstances to be proven in the above-mentioned criminal proceedings, as well as circumstances related to the event of a criminal offense, which must be clarified at the initial stage of the investigation of murders with extreme cruelty, are determined. It was determined that such circumstances, in addition to the method of committing the crime in the broad sense, which includes the preparation, mechanism and concealment of the traces of the crime, are the time of the commission of the crime, its duration, the place of the commission of the crime, circumstances indicating that the criminal was aware that he inflicts special physical suffering on the victim by inflicting a large number of bodily injuries, torture, mutilation, torture, including using fire, electricity, acid, alkali, radioactive substances, poison that causes excruciating pain, etc.), and must also be ascertained and proven fact of awareness by the guilty person (criminal) that he is causing mental or moral suffering to the victim. In the article, an attempt was made to reveal the meaning of the above-mentioned concepts, namely, a large number of bodily injuries, torture, mutilation, torture, mental and moral suffering. Proposed procedural measures (investigative (research) actions, forensic examinations), and forensic methods that should be carried out at the initial stage of the investigation and as a result of which these circumstances can be clarified with a high degree of probability. It was concluded that since we are talking about a particularly serious crime, all the qualifying features of this act should be clearly defined and established in the law on criminal responsibility.

The examiner as a subject of a party to criminal proceedings by the prosecution

It is indicated that the process of modernization of the system of criminal justice bodies is underway in Ukraine, the purpose of which is to improve the system of public administration and improve mechanisms for protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens. In particular, the concept of criminal justice reform of Ukraine, approved by the Decree of the President of Ukraine dated 04/08/2008 No. 311/2008, was implemented in the aspect of updating criminal, criminal procedural and administrative tort legislation. As part of the humanization of criminal legislation, the following steps have been taken: felony crimes have been reclassified as criminal misdemeanors, the procedure for bringing to justice persons who have committed criminal misdemeanors has been simplified, and the work of criminal justice bodies has been optimized in the detection, investigation, and trial of cases. The scientific publication examines topical issues of the place and role of the investigator in criminal proceedings, including through a comparison of the procedural status of the investigator and the investigator. Taking into account the powers of the inquirer, defined by the law that introduces this institute, the burden on the specified subject of criminal proceedings is examined in comparison with the investigator on the example of a specific region, with statistical data on registered, completed and sent to court criminal proceedings. The norms of the current criminal procedural legislation are analyzed, which determine the authority of the inquirer in the process of carrying out a pre-trial investigation of criminal misdemeanors. The legal status of the inquirer as a subject of registration in the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations is outlined, the imperfection of the introduced norms is noted due to the limitation of the procedural powers of the head of the inquiry in comparison with the head of the investigative unit, and the negative procedural consequences are indicated due to some legislative gaps that require amendments to the current Criminal Code of the procedural code of Ukraine. Based on the results of the research, conclusions and proposals regarding the improvement of national legislation were formulated, and the prospect of further research on this topic was determined.

Ensuring Confidentiality and Privacy in Criminal Proceedings: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan Experience

The paper examines the limitations of personal rights in criminal proceedings, as well as the risks associated with the lack of compliance with security measures due to the unlawful disclosure of preliminary investigation data. During the research, scientific methods such as analysis, comparison, and expert assessment were used. The study resulted in the identification of significant problems in the current criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation and the Republic of Kazakhstan in the area of observing the personal rights of a person and citizen, as well as ensuring the confidentiality of criminal case materials. Among these are lack of differentiation of principles establishing inviolability in various spheres of life; lack of a clear mechanism and tools for ensuring confidentiality in criminal proceedings; the optional nature of Article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which determines the inadmissibility of disclosing preliminary investigation materials, etc. In studying these problems, possible ways and means of solving them were developed, such as: introducing a special chapter in the Criminal Procedure Code regulating issues of ensuring confidentiality in criminal proceedings; giving an imperative nature to Article 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; differentiation of the principles of criminal procedure in accordance with various spheres of life.

Problematic Issues of Using Electronic Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (SDG's)

Objective: The object of this scientific publication is the use of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, focusing on the main problematic issues, legislative gaps, and the need for improvements in law enforcement practices. Method: The method of study involves a detailed analysis of the current criminal procedure legislation, identification of the general and special features of electronic evidence, and examination of practical issues related to the collection, assessment, and admissibility of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings. The authors use legal analysis and case studies to propose amendments to the legislation and suggest practical improvements. Results: In this scientific publication, the authors highlight the main problematic issues of using electronic evidence in criminal proceedings, propose amendments to the current criminal procedure legislation, and also make proposals for improving law enforcement practice. It is argued that electronic evidence is an independent procedural source of evidence which has both general and special features and nowadays plays an important role in establishing the truth in criminal proceedings. It is concluded that the use of electronic evidence in criminal proceedings currently has no regulatory basis, which causes numerous difficulties and gaps which, among other things, lead to abuse of procedural powers. Contribution: It is established that in the process of collecting electronic evidence, there are many abuses of procedural powers, which are expressed in the excessive seizure of their carriers, as well as unlawful interference with privacy. The article also reveals the difficulties in assessing electronic evidence as relevant, admissible and reliable evidence. In particular, the use of different copies of electronic documents, compliance by judges with the principle of direct examination of evidence, and the admissibility of electronic evidence obtained from open sources are controversial. Based on the results of the study, the authors propose to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine by supplementing Chapter 4 ‘Evidence and Proof’ with paragraph 5 ‘Electronic Evidence’, which should define their concept, procedural procedure for their seizure, storage, return, and peculiarities of evaluation. The authors also emphasises the expediency of upgrading the qualifications of authorised persons by conducting thematic training on the proper use of electronic evidence and preventing abuse of procedural powers in this process.

Special criminal investigation (in absentia): problematic issues of a defence counsel's participation

Based on the analysis of the criminal procedure legislation and generalisation of theoretical developments, the article identifies some peculiarities of legal regulation of the institute of special criminal proceedings (in absentia). The author identifies the categories of cases (types of criminal offences) and procedural grounds which are sufficient to initiate a pre-trial investigation in the form of special criminal proceedings. The need to exclude certain articles from the list of those listed in part 2 of Article 297-1 of the CPC of Ukraine in order to bring them in line with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is emphasised. The peculiarities of defence counsel’s participation in special pre-trial investigation and court proceedings are analysed. It is determined that a defence counsel in such cases benefits from all the rights guaranteed to a suspect or an accused person in criminal proceedings. In view of this, and in the context of ensuring such fundamental principles of criminal proceedings as the right to defence, adversarial proceedings, observance of human rights and freedoms, access to justice, etc., the author emphasises the need to amend the current criminal procedure legislation to ensure that the defence counsel can appeal against the investigating judge's decision to conduct a special pre-trial investigation The problematic issues of defence counsel's participation are characterised, and the inadmissibility of his/her formal participation in criminal proceedings is emphasised. It is determined that the active actions to be taken by the defence counsel involved include familiarisation with the case file, choosing the defence position, participation in the trial and examination of evidence, participation in the debates, etc. The author emphasises the need for further research on the development of the practice of active participation of defence counsel in special criminal proceedings.

Pre-trial investigation in the de-occupied territories: normative regulation and prospects for implementation

The state of normative regulation of the pre-trial investigation procedure was studied, as well as the prospects for its implementation after the de-occupation of Ukrainian territories were clarified. It was emphasized that the raised issue requires qualitative discussion by representatives of various institutions of criminal justice. It is important in this direction to build effective algorithms for pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor’s office, the court, which cannot be implemented without the introduction of new legislative initiatives. Based on the analysis of the state of normative and legal regulation, it was found that currently, at the level of current criminal procedural legislation, the issue of the fate of criminal proceedings after de-occupation has not been settled. The issue of the procedure for carrying out criminal proceedings in which materials are lost, in particular destroyed in the occupied territory, is also not defined. Currently, there are draft laws (in particular, prepared by the Office of the Prosecutor General and the Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union), which can be taken into account when improving the legislation in this direction. Currently, there are many questions regarding the procedure for conducting pre-trial investigations in the de-occupied territories. In particular, this is a question of evaluating the evidence obtained by the occupation authorities; terms in criminal proceedings that were initiated by national bodies of pre-trial investigation and were not completed at the time of occupation; restoration of lost materials of criminal proceedings. Special attention is paid to the issue of evaluation of the evidence obtained by the occupation authorities and arguments are given in favor of the position regarding the inadmissibility of such evidence. The necessity of standardizing the procedure for restoring (full or partial) lost materials of criminal proceedings (both materials of pre-trial investigation and materials of court proceedings) has been proven.

Органы полиции Росгвардии в персональном виде подследственности Следственного комитета Российской Федерации

Officials of the Rosgvardia police are not mentioned in paragraphs “c” of paragraph 1 of part 2 of article 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation among law enforcement officials included in the personal form of investigation of the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation (IC of Russia). The investigative practice of the territorial (linear) bodies of the Investigative Committee of Russia follows the path of initiating and investigating criminal cases in the discovery of crimes committed against Rosgvardia police officers in connection with the performance of their official duties, or crimes committed against Rosgvardia police officers in connection with the performance of their official activities. This investigative practice of the bodies of the Investigative Committee of Russia, in our opinion, does not contradict the current criminal procedure legislation and needs regulatory consolidation. It seems expedient to include the police of the Russian Guard in paragraphs “c” of paragraph 1 of part 2 of article 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation and to expand the personal type of investigation of the investigator of the Investigative Committee of Russia.

THE EXPERT'S OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONCLUSIONS ON EXISTING AND NEWLY RAISED QUESTIONS IN HIS TESTIMONY

The production of forensic examinations is important for establishing the objective truth in criminal cases. Making a fair decision in each specific case often requires the use of special knowledge possessed by experts. The current criminal procedural legislation regulates in detail the material and procedural aspects of the organization and implementation of forensic examinations, as well as the peculiarities of using the results of their conduct in court proceedings. Forensic experts are often called upon to participate in criminal proceedings. However, despite the developed legislative framework and large-scale law enforcement practice, a number of controversial issues still remain that affect the institution of «additional expert conclusions». The purpose of the presented study is to analyze the expert’s ability to provide additional conclusions on existing and newly raised questions in his testimony. The authors come to the conclusion that the current legislation rightly provides grounds for additional and repeated examinations, which allows in various situations related to both the ambiguity and incompleteness of the submitted expert opinion, and the presence of specific contradictions in it, to resort to appropriate examinations. Attention is focused on the need to appoint additional examinations when new questions and circumstances arise in the case, since their solution and accounting require the use of special knowledge, as well as full-fledged research in individual situations.

Юридические гарантии реализации принципа равенства граждан перед законом и судом в уголовном судопроизводстве Российской Федерации

The article delves into the analysis of the constitutional principle of equality of all before the law and the court. The relevance of this topic is due to the problem of contradictions that have arisen between the normative and law enforcement position in implementing the principle of equality. In this regard, the author considers it para-mount to address the issue of creating special guarantees that ensure the foundational idea of equality for all before the law and court. It seems that the development of a system of guarantees for the implementation of the analyzed constitutional principle in the provisions of the current Criminal Procedural Legislation of the Rus-sian Federation will serve as a support for ensuring access to justice in criminal cases. It’s worth mentioning that the principle under consideration was reflected and actively applied in ensuring the rights of participants in criminal proceedings, according to the edition of the Criminal Procedure Code of the RSFSR. The author exam-ines various approaches to formulating the definition of “guarantees” in terms of implementing the researched principle and provides recommendations to eliminate the existing contradiction between legislation and prac-tice.

Проблемы досудебного уголовного производства в электронном (цифровом) формате

Some problems of conducting pre-trial criminal proceedings in electronic (digital) format are considered. The main obstacle to introduce the electronic records management in pre-trial proceedings is the current criminal procedural legislation, the provisions of which exclude the implementation of criminal proceedings in the concepts provided for in Articles 7.0.3 and 7.0.8 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Azerbaijan Republic.

Complex Investigative Actions as Effective Means of Proving Elite Crimes

The article examines the investigative instruments approved by the current criminal procedure legislation that ensure an effective counteraction to elite crimes. The author takes into account the fact that elite crimes are committed by people who, due to their access to various resources, strive to impede the investigation and avoid liability. It is also considered that not every investigative combination can answer all the questions formulated during criminal proceedings. The author points out key problematic aspects that the investigator needs to take into consideration when developing and implementing the investigative strategy. The role of expert knowledge in investigative work is stressed. It is concluded that the current criminal procedure legislation requires amendments which should give the investigation more powers.

Участники стадии предварительного расследования с неопределенным процессуальным статусом

Introduction. Section II of the CPC of the RF “Participants of criminal proceedings” does not contain a complete list of persons involved in criminal proceedings. The analysis of the norms of criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practice indicates a rather extensive list of persons actually involved in criminal proceedings, but their procedural status is not clearly defined. In this regard, this article is devoted to the issue of procedural consolidation of the general status of participants of the preliminary investigation stage. The purpose of the research is to propose amendments to the current criminal procedural legislation related to the introduction of a norm regulating the rights and obligations of all persons involved in criminal proceedings at the stage of preliminary investigation, but not specified in Section II of the CPC of the RF. Methods. In order to comprehensively analyse the issues related to the procedural status of persons whose legal status is not fixed in the criminal procedural legislation, general scientific methods were used: formal-logical, generalisation, analysis, description, and the legal-technical as a private-scientific method made it possible to propose changes in the legislation. Results. The author concluded that the participants of criminal proceedings, who do not have a procedural status regulated by law, have equivalent procedural opportunities. This allowed to suggest fixing a norm regulating the rights and obligations of all participants of the stage of preliminary investigation in the CPC RF.

Prospects for the development of forensic fingerprinting in the context of digital transformation of society

The subject of the study is the provisions of the current criminal procedure legislation, the norms governing fingerprint registration, investigative, judicial and expert practice aimed at collecting, researching, storing and processing evidentiary information. The author sets the tasks to determine the main directions for further improvement of the collection, research of fingerprint information, its accounting in the context of digital transformation taking place in society. The paper considers available and promising technologies, methods and techniques in the field of forensic fingerprinting. The legal aspects of the use of fingerprinting in the practice of combating crime have been studied. The problems in the field of legal regulation of biometric registration, technical and forensic support for the activities of law enforcement agencies in the field of collecting, researching and evaluating fingerprint evidence information are identified and ways to resolve them are proposed. The research methodology includes the following methods: observations, comparisons, descriptions, experiments, as well as special technical and forensic methods. The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that the author has identified promising areas for further development of forensic fingerprinting in the context of digital transformation of society. The author presents them through the prism of consistent and interrelated directions – collection, research, accounting and use of information. When collecting, attention is drawn to the possibilities of expert light sources, digital detection technologies, recording of trace information, and its verification by accounting. A legal justification of this activity is being carried out, new complexes of forensic tools such as smart cameras are being proposed. At the stage of fingerprint information research, the author draws attention to modern and promising techniques and technical means. Particular importance is attached to the prospects of research on micro-signatures, further diagnostic studies, as well as the development of specialized software and hardware complexes aimed at solving these tasks. During registration, the author draws attention to the need to take into account biometric parameters within a single system.

Sufficiency of evidence in court decisions in criminal cases: Particular problems

The article analyzes problems of assessing evidence in criminal cases, in particular, the use by courts of such a criterion when assessing the sufficiency of evidence. In the absence of this criterion, it is impossible to talk about compliance with the requirements for the sentence and, as a consequence, about the legality of the latter. However, the law does not contain objective criteria for assessing a sufficient body of evidence to make a decision in a case. The concepts of standards of proof and standards of proof in a case developed in the doctrine of criminal procedure are currently only theoretical constructs. The article analyzes the positions of the courts of appeal, cassation and supervisory instances in assessing evidence. The categories under consideration — the totality of evidence, the limits of proof and the sufficiency of evidence — are often used in judicial decisions of courts of various instances. Judicial acts containing conclusions about evidence, the totality of which is recognized as sufficient to establish the guilt of the defendant, often indicate evidence of questionable quality, drawn up and obtained in violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, containing factual errors. The use by courts of standard formulations about the “sufficiency of the totality of evidence”, which is present in all the studied cases, and they are characterized to a greater extent by an acceptable quantitative level than a qualitative component, is probably due to the fact that in the current criminal procedural legislation there is no necessary definition of the concept of “sufficiency”. And as a result, a significant part of judicial acts contain wording that is of a standard nature, indicating the need to confirm the court’s conclusions “with the totality of evidence examined by the court”.

Problems of Conceptual Apparatus and Legal Regulation of the Form of Expert Opinion in Criminal Proceedings

The regularity of inclusion in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation of conclusions and testimonies of an expert and a specialist as sources of evidence is due to the rapidly developing field of special knowledge, achievements of science, technology, crafts, digital technologies. It is impossible to imagine a modern criminal process without the participation of such participants in criminal proceedings as an expert and a specialist. At the same time, if the legal status of the expert, as well as the form of his participation in a criminal case in the legislation, is more complete, then according to many researchers, the legal status of the specialist and the form of his/her participation is difficult to recognize completed. The author of the article conducted a study of the norms of the current criminal procedure legislation regarding the sufficiency of the volume of legal regulation of the legal status of a specialist and issues of the forms of his/her participation in criminal proceedings and determined his insufficiency. The most problematic issue, according to the author, is the problem of determining the form of the expert's opinion, since the legislator bypasses the issues of legal regulation of the form of the expert's opinion. In turn, this causes problems of application in practice, and, as a result, reduces the effectiveness and potential of applying special knowledge in the form of involving a specialist. Based on the study, the author proposes the concept and structure of the specialist's opinion form as a possible option for improving the form of his/her participation in criminal proceedings.

Some problems of appointment of expertise by the defense in Criminal Justice of Ukraine

The aim of the work is, based on the analysis of current criminal procedural legislation, special literature, investigative and judicial practice, to identify criminal procedural and organizational problems in the appointment of forensic experts by the defense in criminal proceedings and to formulate proposals for their elimination.
 The methodological basis of the study is based on dialectical method of scientific cognition. Formal- logical, formal-legal, comparative and modeling methods helped the author to identify and try to solve problems of appointment of expertise by the defense in the criminal justice of Ukraine.
 Results. It is noted that according to the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, parties to criminal proceedings have equal rights to collect and submit to the court things, documents, other evidence, motions, complaints, as well as to exercise other procedural rights provided for by this Code. However, as a study of the investigative and judicial practice shows, the defense party does not always have the opportunity to exercise the right to appoint expert examinations at its own discretion by engaging an expert on contractual terms. It was established that most often the defense side is deprived of the opportunity to obtain the originals of the objects necessary for referral to the disposal of the expert, and, accordingly, it becomes difficult for the defense side to exercise the right to conduct an examination. Therefore, in reality, in practice, the defense side can only apply to the investigator, the prosecutor in accordance with Article 220 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with a request to appoint a specific examination. Most often, the defense side is deprived of the opportunity to obtain the originals of the objects necessary for referral to the disposal of the expert, and, accordingly, it becomes difficult for the defense side to exercise the right to conduct an examination. Author thinks that the content of the request of the defense to the investigator, the prosecutor for the involvement of an expert, as well as the procedure for its consideration should be additionally regulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.
 Conclusions. The author concludes that the procedural rights of the defense party to appoint an expertise declared in the CPC of Ukraine do not fully correspond to the general principles of adversariality of the parties and freedom in providing their evidence to the court and proving their persuasiveness before the court. Therefore, this issue requires further study, generalization, refinement and legal improvement, which must be provided by clearly formed norms that determine the set of rights of the prosecution and the defense in relation to the involvement of an expert to conduct an examination.

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.

Институт судебной экспертизы в уголовном судопроизводстве

The difficulties that at the present stage arise in the modern legal regulation of all social relations in general, the peculiarities of the formation of a rule of law state in Russia, the strengthening of the role of the judicial sys-tem is happening very rapidly, but the key issue still remains the problem of legal regulation of the institution of forensic examination, which is one of the ways obtaining evidence in court proceedings. At the same time, the development of many areas of forensic examination lags behind the demands of the time. The practice of ex-pert activity shows that there are difficulties that are directly related to the legal regulation of this area, there are some contradictions and inconsistencies in the provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation, in addi-tion, some areas of forensic examination lag behind the requirements of modern times. The practice of ap-pointing and conducting examinations shows that difficulties often arise associated with the legal regulation of this area. It is still possible to detect individual contradictions and inconsistencies in the provisions of civil, ad-ministrative and criminal legislation. Of course, the legislator eliminates all problems promptly, which is often facilitated by law enforcement practice. However, there are a number of fundamental problems that prevent the effectiveness of forensic examination. Consequently, today the role of scientific research in the field of legal regulation of forensic examination remains significant.

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.

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.