Stage Of Pre-trial Investigation Research Articles

Chapter 36-1 of the CPC of Ukraine as a ground for closing criminal proceedings

The emergence of a new ground for closing criminal proceedings in the current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine – in connection with the decriminalization of an act committed by a person – has caused ambiguous assessments by scholars. The application of the new procedure in judicial practice necessitates a thorough scientific study of the problem in order to prevent violations of the law. The purpose of the study was to determine the practical feasibility of the adopted amendments for pre-trial investigation and court proceedings. To achieve this goal, the following methods were used: dialectical, systemic and structural, comparative legal, formal and logical, and modelling. The study describes the actions of participants in criminal proceedings at the stage of pre-trial investigation and in court during consideration of the said procedure. The author compares the new procedure with other existing special investigative procedures and emphasizes their differences. The author calls into question whether the legislator has singled out this procedure as a type of special procedure. The author comes to the conclusion that the subject under study is an exclusively improved basis for closing criminal proceedings or further continuation of their consideration, depending on the right of the defence to close or continue the proceedings in court. The author analyses the court practice of application of this criminal procedural institute. Attention is focused on the need for investigators, prosecutors, and judges to take into account the requirements of the new grounds for closing criminal proceedings and to prevent violations of the law, since during its consideration the suspect and the accused are granted an additional alternative right to agree or disagree with the closure of proceedings, which is a guarantee of human rights and freedoms. The author's conclusion that it is inappropriate for the legislator to classify the procedure for closing proceedings as a separate type of special procedure is justified by haste and lack of appropriate scientific research. The study provides the basis for improving the methodology of procedural actions of the prosecution during the closure of criminal proceedings and may be used by the legislator for further regulation of the criminal proceedings' procedure

Dohovirni protsedury u dosudovomu kryminalnomu provadzhenni: aziiskyi dosvid

The criminal procedural legislation regarding the simplification of criminal proceedings and the use of «contractual» procedures in the stage of pre-trial investigation in a number of Asian states (Japan, China, Taiwan, Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia) has been analysed. It is emphasized that the rather conservative criminal procedural legislation of many Asian states during the last decade underwent reforms aimed at optimizing, simplifying and speeding up criminal proceedings, including through the use of «contractual» procedures. It has been established that the Asian experience of applying simplified procedures during pre-trial investigation, in particular, «contractual» procedures in criminal proceedings, attests to the granting of very broad discretionary powers to prosecutors. It is concluded that mostly «contractual» proceedings in Asian states in one form or another involve the procedure of concluding a plea agreement, which must ultimately be reviewed by the court, which, depending on the state, has more or less discretion when approving it and imposing a punishment. Certain Asian states have adopted the classic approach to concluding plea agreements that originated in the United States (plea bargaining), while others have introduced more original models. In particular, the Japanese model of «contractual» proceedings provides for the cooperation of the accused not with respect to the criminal offense he or she committed, but only with respect to the commission of criminal offenses by other persons. Instead, in Singapore, several models of negotiations between parties in criminal proceedings are used — without the participation of a judge, with the judge’s mediation, as well as the conclusion of a «Deferred Prosecution Agreement» available to legal entities. The opinion was expressed that Singapore’s experience in implementing a system of negotiations between the prosecution and defence parties through the mediation of a judge («Criminal Case Resolution») is interesting from the point of view of the possibility of implementation in Ukraine, which provides for the elimination of contradictions with the aim of a quick and conflict-free resolution of the case and, to some extent, has signs of a mediation..

Cancellation Of Seizure Of Property At The Stage Of Pre-Trial Investigation As An Element Of Due Legal Procedure

In the article, with the aim of researching the legal and practical model of cancellation of property seizure in criminal proceedings at the stage of pre-trial investigation and determining ways of their improvement, it is emphasized that the institution of cancellation of property seizure in criminal proceedings is a necessary element of the observance of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Ukraine and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms regarding the restoration of the right to peaceful possession of property, in which the state intervened during the investigation of the criminal proceedings, which were closed.Considered topical issues of the procedure for canceling the seizure of property during the pre-trial investigation in case of closing the criminal proceedings by the investigator or inquirer. The ways of canceling the arrest imposed on property within the framework of criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation are highlighted.It is pointed out the unequal judicial practice regarding the solution of this issue, which was regulated by the adoption of a resolution by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. Further changes in the legislation regarding the termination of the decisions of the investigating judge on the application of measures to ensure the criminal proceedings, which include the seizure of property, after the closure of the criminal proceedings, despite the fact that they should have changed judicial practice, but did not have a significant impact.Attention is focused on different ways of interpreting the procedural norm regarding the powers of the prosecutor to cancel the seizure of property upon closing the criminal proceedings, one of which empowers the prosecutor to issue a resolution on the cancellation of the seizure of property, even if the criminal proceedings are closed by the decision of the investigator, inquirer.The necessity of streamlining judicial practice and legislation, which regulates the procedure for keeping registers of encumbrances of property rights, is indicated. A conclusion was made regarding the need to improve the procedure for canceling the seizure of property in criminal proceedings in terms of introducing a mechanism for automatic restoration of the rights of the owner (possessor) of such property.

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

Procedural aspects of appeals against decisions on seizure of property at the stage of pre-trial investigation

Introduction.The article is devoted to the coverage of one of the most complex and severe actions in criminal proceedings, namely, the theoretical and practical issues of imposing an arrest and the importance of the participants in this procedural action during its implementation, the current legislation regulating the imposition of an arrest is analyzed, certain corrections are proposed in the current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. The need for criminal procedural clarification of the subjects who have the right to participate during the consideration of criminal proceedings was emphasized, it was noted that the application of the proper legal procedure will contribute to the protection of human rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings Summary of the main results of the study. Proposed several ways to solve the procedural aspects of the seizure, as well as procedural opportunities for the property owner to challenge the procedural actions of the prosecution in criminal proceedings, as well as the possibility of presenting evidence to the prosecution by the property owner, in case of imposition of burdens by the prosecution. Conclusions. The current legislation, which regulates the seizure of property in criminal proceedings, as well as judicial practice based on the data on the seizure of a person's property, is analyzed, and ways of improving the current legislation of Ukraine regarding the ability of the owner of the seized property to exercise his rights provided for by the Constitution of Ukraine are proposed. during the pre-trial investigation.

Concise summaries of ten years of application of the criminal procedural law (stage of pre-trial investigation)

The work is devoted to the passage of ten years since the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in November 2012. The purpose of the work is to determine those changes in the legislative regulation of the current institutions of the criminal process, which can be considered as global; a brief study of new institutes. Methods - comparative, statistical. Subjected to the study of the purpose of the implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code of 2012, the main principles of the reform of the procedural law as a component of the judicial reform and the reform of the law enforcement system, the measures that were proposed to be taken to achieve the specified goal. The number of laws amending procedural codes was analyzed. Attention was paid to the implementation of new institutions - in particular, the Unified Register of Pre-Trial Investigations, secret investigative (detective) actions, opening of pre-trial investigation materials, indictments, bringing to criminal liability on the basis of agreements; identified shortcomings of their normative regulation and practical application are given. The indictment is compared with the indictment; the register of pre-trial investigation materials and a certificate on the progress of a criminal case. The institutes of private prosecution during the operation of various procedural laws are compared. Attention was paid to the liquidation of the formal act - the resolution on the initiation of a criminal case; instead, the emergence of a new formal act - an extract from the unified register of pre-trial investigations - was assessed. The liquidation of the institution of additional investigation was noted, but on the contrary, attention was drawn to the court's right to return the indictment to the prosecutor as one that does not meet the requirements of the law. The appearance of new subjects of the process is emphasized - for example, the applicant, the whistleblower, etc.; about the emergence of new mechanisms of procedural coercion - in the form of monetary penalties; on the emergence of new bodies of pre-trial investigation - SBI, NABU; on the emergence of a new judicial institution - the High Anti-Corruption Court. Attention was drawn to the imperfection of changes in the legal regulation of recording the actions and decisions of officials of the prosecution, changes in the regulation of specific investigative actions. Attention was also paid to changes in the law, which were subsequently canceled due to their ineffectiveness. As a conclusion, doubts were expressed about the need to adopt the Criminal Procedure Code in its current version.

Problematic issues of collecting evidence by the defense in criminal proceedings

The genesis, legislative enshrining in the norms of international legislation and the Constitution of Ukraine of the national process regarding the provision and implementation of the right to professional legal assistance in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine, as well as the state of the procedural mechanism for collecting evidence by the defense party, have been studied. The method of comparison has been applied with respect to the previous criminal procedural legislation of 1960 and the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 2012 on the issues raised. At the retrospective level, existing problematic issues of the procedural mechanism for collecting and obtaining evidence by the defense at the stage of pre-trial investigation have been investigated. For this purpose, it has been clarified the powers of the defense party, including defense counsel, suspect, accused, convicted, acquitted person, person in respect of whom the use of compulsory medical or educational measures are envisaged or the issue of their use has been decided, as well as person in respect of whom the issue of extradition to a foreign state is to be considered, to collect evidence. At the same time, the scientific positions of scientists and representatives of scientific schools, the results of the existing discussion on the raised problematic and promising issues have been investigated.
 Based on the results of the research, a number of proposals and recommendations for improving theoretical and applied issues in the researched direction have been developed and proposed. Attention has been drawn to the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine enshrines provisions according to which the defense is granted the right to collect factual data significant for criminal proceedings, but at the same time, the procedural form of implementing this right is not fully provided for, which is the subject to legislative clarification. In the course of discussion, the suggestions of the scientists regarding the elimination of the inconsistency between the use and application of the phrase “the right to professional legal assistance”, which is enshrined in the Basic Law of Ukraine, but not implemented and used in the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and other legislative acts, have been supported. It has been proposed to eliminate the indicated inconsistencies in a legislative manner.

The simplified order of the court proceedings on the basis of agreements: experience of the procedure legislation of the USA

The paper is dedicated to issues on simplified order of pre-trial investigation in Federal Criminal Procedure Legislation of the USA. It is stressed, the plea agreement is a separate institute of criminal procedure in the USA. The plea agreement is a comprehensive legal category, that includes a few independent criminal and procedural compromises. They are «Nolo Contendere Plea» (“I do not admit guilt, but I do not deny it either”), «Alford Plea» (“I admit the guilt, but I deny it”). The Alford Plea is an alternative to the Nolo Contendere. While Nolo contendere means that the defendant accepts whatever punishment the court deems appropriate but does not plead guilty, an Alford Plea means that the defendant pleads guilty but at the same time maintains his innocence. In general, the plea agreement is a compromise procedure, mentioned by the legislation. As a rule, it has features of agreement on terms of responsibility between the prosecution and the defense, in writing. The plea agreement is established in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure of the United States, (Rule 11) and court decisions of a precedent nature. The plea agreement can be concluded on the stage of pre-trial investigation, at a preliminary hearing in court, at a grand jury trial, at the opening of a court session, but before the merits of the case begin. The appearance of agreements in the criminal justice needs, among other, developing of criminalistic methods of investigation of specifical kinds of crimes. Today, procedural regulation and distribution of agreements in criminal proceedings is practically not reflected in the novelization of the approaches of the forensic methodology of investigation of certain types of criminal offenses and forensic tactics. For the national legislator as well as for law enforcement, the experience of regulation of plea agreements in the USA has a significant mean. The architecture of this institution, provided by the CPC of Ukraine, is very simplified and needs to be developed.

Legal Status Of Forensic Biologist During Pre-Trial Investigation

The current research paper studies and analyses the rights, duties, and prohibitive measures of a forensic biologist at the stage of pretrial investigation according to the current legislation of Ukraine. This research paper’s purpose is to reveal the legal status of forensic biologist during a pre-trial investigation of criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings for murder, grievous bodily harm, rape, robbery, kidnapping, etc., traces of biological origin are significant physical evidence. One of the most effective ways to prevent such crimes is preventive activities of public administration entities, society, and ensuring the irreversibility of punishment of guilty people in the crime which is conducted with the participation of a forensic biologist, in most cases, after conducting a forensic examination.

ПРОЦЕСУАЛЬНИЙ СТАТУС СПЕЦІАЛІСТА В КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОВАДЖЕННІ

The concept of a specialist in criminal proceedings is analyzed in the article. The issue of the procedural position of a specialist in criminal proceedings, determined by the current CPC of Ukraine and other regulations governing his activities, is substantiated. It is proved that the participation of a specialist in criminal proceedings is important for the case, his testimony and conclusions contain factual data that are subject to analysis, comparison with other materials and are the basis for conclusions about the circumstances of the case. The main task of the specialist is to take an active part in the criminal proceedings. Assist the investigator, on the basis of his knowledge, in identifying and obtaining traces of criminal offenses, objects and documents that may be material evidence in criminal proceedings. The concept of special knowledge and their importance at the stage of pre-trial investigation is studied. Proper understanding of the concept of special knowledge in criminal proceedings is an important condition for their use in various forms by participants of criminal proceedings in the investigation of criminal offenses in accordance with the requirements of the law. Special knowledge is an element that determines the procedural and legal status of participants in criminal proceedings. It should be noted that knowledge, skills and abilities in a particular field of science, technology, art or craft, acquired by the subject in the course of his practical activities, through special training or professional experience should be considered as special knowledge. The main procedural forms of using special knowledge in criminal proceedings are determined. This is a forensic examination and the participation of a specialist in the conducting of proceedings. It is reasoned that an important element of the procedural status of a specialist in criminal proceedings is his responsibility.

Legal regulations of interrogation in conditions of maritime

The article examines the legal regulation of interrogation in martial law. During the statement of the problem it is noted that the imperfect legal regulation of interrogation in peacetime causes an increase in problematic issues of regulatory regulation of this procedural action in martial law. In the course of presenting the main material, the expediency of regulating during the martial law regime the exclusive possibility of the court’s departure from the principle of immediacy of the examination of personal testimony is emphasized. At the same time, the legal regulation of written protocols of interrogation at the stage of pre-trial investigation with the warning of individual participants about criminal liability should be left. Attention is drawn to the fact that the decision to recognize pre-trial testimony as evidence by a court cannot be made formally only in view of the imposition of martial law throughout the country. The court must assess the specific circumstances of the proceedings, the activity of hostilities in a particular area, the level of danger to the participants in criminal proceedings, and so on. It is stated that the legal regulation of international standards in extreme situations allows the recognition as evidence of pre-trial testimony recorded in the interrogation records at the stage of pre-trial investigation. It is concluded that during the martial law regime the legal regulation of interrogation should be carried out in such a way that in exceptional cases the court has the opportunity to deviate from the principle of immediacy of judicial examination of testimony. As a general rule, such cases should provide for the observance of appropriate procedural guarantees of human rights and freedoms in the course of obtaining and recording testimony at the stage of pre-trial investigation. Although in the most extreme situations of criminal proceedings (illness, death, threat of danger, etc.) the court should be able to accept as evidence the results of pre-trial interrogations outside the observance of procedural guarantees. It is concluded that the current legal regulation of interrogation during martial law generally corresponds to the circumstances of the relevant legal regime. At the same time, it is emphasized that the criminal procedural norms regarding the legal regulation of interrogation during the martial law regime need to be improved in relation to the regulation of the exclusive possibility of the court to recognize the results of pre-trial interrogations as evidence in criminal proceedings.

Directions for improving the legal regulation of forensic DNA analysis in Ukraine in the context of integration into the European Union

An analysis of European standards and main trends in the field of legal regulation of forensic DNA analysis has been carried out. It has been established that the general European legislation defines recommendations on the general principles of using DNA analysis within the framework of the criminal justice system, establishes the obligation of each state to create and maintain a national DNA database, exchange information based on DNA databases, take measures to protect personal data, store DNA profiles of persons convicted of sexual offenses against children, to accredit forensic laboratories to ensure the proper quality of molecular genetic research. Taking into account the experience of European countries, it can be seen that a comprehensive approach to the improvement of domestic legislation, namely the implementation of the law on the national DNA database, the introduction of amendments and additions to the current Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, other laws and departmental regulations regarding the use of DNA analysis in criminal proceedings, is a necessary prerequisite for bringing this area of law enforcement to a new qualitative level.
 Together with the adoption of the Law of Ukraine “On the State Registration of Human Genomic Information”, it is necessary to introduce changes and additions to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine in order to harmonize the provisions of these normative legal acts, which primarily concern the improvement of the procedure for obtaining samples for molecular genetic research. It has been substantiated that the experience of Germany and the Netherlands regarding the legal regulation of mass DNA testing at the stage of pre-trial investigation of serious and especially serious crimes can be useful for Ukraine. Taking into account the rapid development of forensic DNA analysis technologies and the introduction of the latest methods, which are characterized by a much greater degree of interference in the personal and family life of a person, compared to traditional methods of STR profiling, there is a need for a legislative definition of the permissible limits of forensic DNA research within the framework of criminal proceedings in Ukraine.

ВИДИ КРИМІНАЛЬНИХ ПРОЦЕСУАЛЬНИХ ВІДНОСИН НА ДОСУДОВОМУ РОЗСЛІДУВАННІ... МІЖ СЛІДЧИМ ТА ІНШИМИ СУБ’ЄКТАМИ КРИМІНАЛЬНОГО ПРОВАДЖЕННЯ

The article is devoted to the study of problematic issues related to the types of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation stage between an investigator and other parties to criminal proceedings. The purpose of the article is to classify the types of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation stage between an investigator and other parties to criminal proceedings. Based on a systematic and comparative analysis of the legal provisions of the current CPC of Ukraine and the by-laws regulating pre-trial investigation, the author proves that at the pre-trial investigation stage, there is a variety of criminal procedural relations between its subjects. The nature of these legal relations is different. Some of these legal relations have only their own peculiarities and specific features, which are determined by the legal status of their subjects, procedural functions performed by certain subjects in criminal proceedings, their procedural interests, stages of pre-trial investigation, etc. This diversity of criminal procedural legal relations at the pre-trial investigation stage allows classifying these relations according to certain criteria with a view to improving the criminal procedural status of their subjects, and to enhance the efficiency of pre-trial investigation and strengthening criminal procedural guarantees of participants to criminal proceedings in achieving the goals and fulfilling the tasks of criminal proceedings. The author substantiates that based on the results of the analysis of doctrinal approaches to the classification of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation stage according to such criteria as: the task of criminal proceedings, procedural interest of criminal proceedings subjects, procedural functions of criminal proceedings subjects; sources of regulation of criminal procedural relations, content of criminal procedural relations, the most productive for studying the problems of procedural status of investigators and enhancing. The author offers her own classification of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation between the investigator and other subjects of criminal proceedings.

PROCEDURAL PARTICULARS OF ADOPTING A DECISION ON THE APPLICATION OF REMOVAL FROM OFFICE

In the article, the author considered certain procedural aspects of decision-making on the application of suspension from office. The concept of ‘application’ in the context of measures to ensure criminal proceedings is considered. It was established that the term ‘application’ in the context of measures to ensure criminal proceedings, including removal from office, actually implies a complex approach, which includes both the selection of a specific coercive measure and its direct application. The author notes that making a decision on the expediency of applying to a person the very removal from the position of investigator, prosecutor depends to a certain extent on his criminal procedural competence. It is indicated that the analysis of the criminal procedural legislation shows that removal from office can be carried out both at the stage of pre-trial investigation and directly during court proceedings. The existence of procedural differences in the procedure for applying removal from office to a person depending on the stage of criminal proceedings is substantiated, in particular, at the stage of pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor, the investigator, in agreement with the prosecutor, apply for removal from office to the investigating judge, at the stage of court proceedings directly to the court. It is argued that it is inexpedient to submit in the motion for removal from office at the stage of court proceedings information containing a statement of the circumstances that give grounds to suspect a person of committing a criminal offense, since the indictment contains information about the circumstances of the commission of the criminal offense and the involvement of the person in its commission, which are substantiated by arguments, and with which the court familiarizes itself in the preparatory court session. The author emphasizes the importance of the criminal procedural regulation, the possibility for the inquirer, upon agreement with the prosecutor, during the investigation of criminal offenses and in the presence of reasonable grounds, to file a petition for the application of a person's removal from office.

Механізм оскарження та способи перевірки висновку експерта в кримінальному провадженні

The article is devoted to the study mechanisms of appeal and methods of verification of the expert opinion in criminal proceedings. It is proved that the expert opinion, as well as other collected evidence, should be verified for its compliance with the requirements of the legislation and consistency with the case materials, and if violations are detected during its preparation, such an opinion should be subject to appeal. It is indicated that the methods of verifying the expert opinion are defined by articles 332 and 356 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. However, the peculiarity of carrying out this verification of the expert opinion is that such verification is possible only at the stage of judicial proceedings, while the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not provide for a mechanism for verifying the expert opinion at the stage of pre-trial investigation. Attention is drawn to the fact that despite the absence of a legally defined mechanism for appealing an expert opinion in accordance with the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a party to criminal proceedings is not deprived of the right to appeal against such an opinion in a different order, namely by submitting to the Central Expert Qualification Commission of the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine an application for initiating disciplinary proceedings against an expert who violated the current legislation during the relevant expert examination. The grounds for submitting this application for initiation of disciplinary proceedings are: non-compliance of the expert’s specialty with the type of expert examination conducted by it; non-compliance of the content of questions put to the expert’s decision with the requirements of scientific and methodological recommendations; application by an expert of improper methodology of forensic examination; conducting expert research to clarify issues of law. It is argued that if, as a result of a review of the disciplinary responsibility of a forensic expert, it is found that he violates the norms of current law, then such an expert will be held disciplinarily liable, and the expert’s expert opinion drawn up by such an expert will be considered inadmissible evidence.

СТРАТЕГІЇ СТОРІН КРИМІНАЛЬНОГО ПРОВАДЖЕННЯ З ПОЗИЦІЇ ТЕОРІЇ ІГОР

The article includes the analysis of the principles of criminal proceedings under Article 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine"Adversarial parties and freedom to present their evidence to the court and prove their persuasiveness before the court" from the standpoint of game theory as methods of mathematical analysis and evaluation of criminal proceedings and optimal solutions in the conditions of formal procedural confrontation. The works of domestic and foreign scientists considering the problems of the criminal process and those scientists studying the theory of games in criminal proceedings are analyzed. The functions of the parties to the criminal proceedings, such as the functions of the prosecution and the defense, are considered as well as the equality of their powers is investigated. The application of strategies of the parties to criminal proceedings by analogy with players in game theory is substantiated, grounding on the fact that the strategies of the parties to the criminal proceedings can be deciphered in the appropriate matrix of actions of all parties in each stage of the criminal proceedings. The concept of strategy, antagonistic and matrix games is defined. An example of the maximum and minimum strategy of the parties to criminal proceedings in the activities of the prosecution and the defense is provided. The asymmetry of powers of the parties at the stage of pre-trial investigation is considered and the formal equality of the parties to the criminal proceedings in their interaction with the court is noted. It is concluded that the choice of the appropriate strategy by one of the parties to the criminal proceedings affects the strategy of all parties as a whole.

The legal regulation of the preliminary investigation bоdies activities according to UPK Uzbek SSR 1929

At the present stage of development of the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, many legal institutions that have a long history of doctrinal development have received normative consolidation. Among them is the institution of participants leading the criminal process at the stage of pre-trial investigation. In the history of Uzbekistan, the activities of these subjects of the criminal process were regulated by numerous normative legal acts, including codified ones. The first Criminal Procedure Code of the Uzbek SSR was adopted in 1926. Soon the Uzbek SSR Criminal Procedure Code of 1929 entered into force. In comparative legal terms, the latter was significantly inferior to the previous one in terms of the degree of detail in the regulation of criminal procedural relations with the participation of pre-trial investigation bodies. Analysis of the content of the legal norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1929, regulating the activities of these bodies, allows us to identify features that, from the standpoint of the modern vision of the optimal model of the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan, are assessed as shortcomings in the legal regulation of the relevant public relations. As such, we can name the following: the CPC does not contain norms defining the sources of criminal procedural law; the code does not provide for a separate chapter devoted exclusively to investigative actions, a detailed description of their procedural form; there is no clear delineation of the competence of the bodies of inquiry and the investigator; the investigator is by law entrusted with supervisory functions that are not characteristic of him in relation to the bodies of inquiry; the Criminal Procedure Code does not include a norm prohibiting persons conducting a preliminary investigation from obtaining evidence by violence, threats, etc.; The Criminal Procedure Code determined the existence of sufficient data, and not evidence, as the basis for the accusation. After being charged, the person acquired the status of a defendant, not an accused; the application of preventive measures, including detention, was carried out by the investigator independently, without the sanction of the prosecutor, which testified to the absence of guarantees of the observance of the right to personal inviolability.

Guarantees of protection of the right of minors during their interrogation on the pre-examination investigation

Problem setting. One of the tasks of criminal proceedings is to protect the rights and legitimate interests of participants in criminal proceedings. Additional guarantees should be created for juvenile participants in criminal proceedings, taking into account their age, physical and psychological characteristics, taking into account the principle of the best protection of the interests of the child enshrined in Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, despite significant scientific developments in the issue of guarantees for the protection of the rights of minors and the relevant regulatory support, there are still difficulties in law enforcement on this issue, which, in turn, requires scientific analysis. The state of research of the problem. Issues related to proceedings involving minors are the work of many procedural scientists: I.V. Glovyuk, Y. M. Groshevoy, Z.Z. Zinatullina, O.P. Kuchinskaya, L.M. Loboyko, V. T. Nora, M.A. Pogoretsky, V.V. Romanyuk, S.M. Smokova, L.D. Udalova, O.G. Shilo, D.O. Shingarev and others. The purpose of the scientific article is to study the guarantees of protection of the rights of minors and juveniles during their interrogation in the pre-trial investigation and to develop proposals based on it to improve the current criminal procedure legislation. Article’s main body. The research is devoted to determining the status of a minor in criminal proceedings, features of interrogation with his participation, analysis of additional guarantees of protection of his rights and interests during interrogation, features of specialization of subjects of such investigative (search) action and requirements to other participants of interrogation. It is noted that at the stage of pre-trial investigation, the method of interrogation of a minor is effective - "Green Room." This technique is developed to introduce the best experience of interrogation of the child, when the child is not injured and provide an opportunity to collect all the necessary evidence in criminal proceedings. It is stated that despite the positive impact of this technique, cases of interrogation of the child by the "Green Room" method are not frequent, given the small number of such "Green Rooms," and, therefore, the significant remoteness of law enforcement agencies from such specially equipped premises. The scientific novelty of the study is to make suggestions for improving the current criminal procedure legislation, which relate to the application of additional guarantees for the protection of the rights of minors, specialization of juvenile prosecutors, mandatory participants in the interrogation of minors. Conclusions. Among scientists and practitioners, the issue of mandatory and conditionally mandatory participants of interrogation of a minor listed in Part 1 of Article 226 of the CPC of Ukraine remains debatable. In our opinion, it is appropriate to apply to the motivational part of the Resolution of the United Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court of the Supreme Court of 18.11.2019. resolution of the scope of documents confirming the authority of the defender to participate in a particular criminal proceeding (listed in Art. 50 of the CPC of Ukraine). The resolution states that: … para. 2 of Part 1 of Article 50 of the CPC is formulated using a syntactic construction in which homogeneous members of the sentence, namely: "order," "contract" and "errands," are connected by a relentless separation, and between the last two used a connector "or," which clearly indicates an alternative list, that is, the possibility of choosing one of the three mentioned in In addition, if such a list presents the conditions for the occurrence of a certain legal consequence, the use of a separating connector "or" indicates that the consequence occurs in the presence of at least one of the listed conditions.... ". Thus, taking into account such a syntactic design, formulated in part 1 of Article 226 of the CPC of Ukraine, we consider it mandatory to interrogate a minor or legal representative, or teacher, or psychologist, and conditionally mandatory - a doctor (if necessary).

Appropriate subject of obtaining evidence of a criminal offense in the opinion of the court

The article considers the collection of evidence by the prosecution, because it is in this order that the evidence base of criminal proceedings is most often formed. Thus, the prosecutor, investigator (investigator) acting under Articles 36, 40, 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as an employee of the operational unit pursuant to Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine on behalf of the investigator or prosecutor have the right to collect evidence. The purpose of the article is to study the affiliation of the subjects of evidence collection as part of the procedural form of the criminal process of Ukraine, taking into account the analysis of court decisions, namely the assessment of the evidence base as a basis for deciding on the merits of criminal proceedings. Cases of involvement of an improper subject in the pre-trial investigation, which are common and typical, are systematized. There are two types of improper subjects within the investigative (search) or procedural actions, namely the subject: 1) is not appointed in the manner prescribed by law, although according to current legislation according to the list of its powers may be appropriate; 2) does not have the authority under the law to make a specific decision or to conduct investigative (search) or procedural actions. An analysis of court decisions according to which courts provide an assessment of the procedural activities of the subjects of evidence collection in criminal proceedings at the stage of pre-trial investigation, including their relevance and admissibility. Thus, attention is paid to the assessment of courts on the legality of the presence of persons during investigative (investigative) or procedural actions; the correctness of fixing such a presence. In addition, the situations of appointment of relevant subjects in criminal proceedings to fulfill their powers are considered. It is proposed to supplement the first part of Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with a provision that clarifies the grounds for the stay and authority of the employee of the operational and investigative service during the search.

Allpying the Method of Criminalistc Computer Modeling in Crime Investigation

The authors of this article reviewed certain issues, application features and development perspectives of criminalistic computer modeling in crime investigation. The article gives a more precise definition to the term “criminalistic computer modeling” and the strategy of automized crime investigation, reviews the existing programmed hardware-software complexes and forensic equipment, which use criminalistic computer modeling. Moreover, it outlines the possibility of using certain AI elements for building automized strategies to investigate particular types of crimes. Nowadays, forensics as a science needs to develop new tactics, methods and recommendations, as well as forensic equipment and software, based on modern computer technologies and the method of forensic computer modeling, including the use of AI elements, to make crime investigation more effective. This becomes particularly important during the pre-trial investigation stage, closely connected to the development of new forensic equipment and methods. In this regard, the issues of using criminalistic computer modeling in crime investigation demand special attention. The results of this research lead the authors to believe that the possibility of applying criminalistic computer modeling opens new prospects for using it in forensics, including the criminalistic methodology, which will increase the effectiveness of crime investigation and optimize the work of the investigator.