Pre-trial Investigation Research Articles

Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30 April 2024 in the “EncroChat case” (case No. C-670/22): does this judgment really legitimise Forum Shopping in criminal proceedings, and how will it impact Lithuanian criminal proceedings?

The article analyses the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 30 April 2024 in case No. C-670/22 (EncroChat) and its implications for Lithuanian criminal proceedings. According to this judgment, only a senior prosecutor can issue a European Investigation Order to obtain evidence already in the possession of the competent authorities of the executing state during a pre-trial investigation in Lithuania, and only the court hearing the criminal case can issue a European Investigation Order when the criminal case is in the hands of a court. The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania does not provide a legal basis for the prosecuting authorities to secretly intercept the content of all communications of the users of mobile telephones, which are fully encrypted by means of a special software and a modified device, and it is therefore questionable whether (i.) the transfer of the data obtained in this way to Lithuania as an extraditing state meets the substantive legal conditions arising from Article 162 of the CPC, which, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, defines the legitimacy of the use of the information obtained in another criminal proceeding, and whether (ii.) the data obtained by the receiving state by means of such a measure can be used in the criminal proceedings of Lithuania as an issuing state as evidence in an incriminating sense. If the executing State does not disclose the nature and essential technical characteristics of the means used to intercept the full content of the users’ communications by means of mobile telephones, which, by means of special software and a modified device, provide a fully encrypted connection, the defendants in general are deprived of an effective opportunity to know and present their position on these incriminating facts; therefore, such evidence is inadmissible in Lithuania’s criminal proceedings as an extraditing state.

Peculiarities of law enforcement system functioning in the context of digitalization

The relevance of the topic under study in this article is due to the fact that for the purpose of balanced and sustainable development of society, the law enforcement system must also adapt to the conditions of digitalization. This should be done by maximizing the introduction of advanced digital technologies, including artificial intelligence, into the daily activities of law enforcement agencies. It is noted that the processes of digitalization have accelerated significantly in the context of the coronavirus pandemic, which has led to the introduction of a wide range of restrictions, in particular, quarantine, curfews, restrictions on business and public authorities in the provision of public services, the mechanisms for the implementation of which have emerged in the light of digital technologies. The authors analyzed the essence of the functioning of the law enforcement system in conditions of digitalization, such as: development of the family institution; aggravation of the problem of preventing and countering domestic violence in the conditions of martial law; rethinking the meaning of pretrial investigation and criminal intelligence (analysis) in the context of crime transformation. Peculiarities of digitization of modern anti-corruption tools, the fundamental importance of international partnership in the field of law enforcement in the conditions of digitalization are also considered.

Proving by the defense the absence of a necessity to extend the pre-trial investigation

Proving by the defense the absence of a necessity to extend the pre-trial investigation

Prosecution by the prosecutor of the implementation of the principles of legality during the suspension of the pre-trial investigation

Prosecution by the prosecutor of the implementation of the principles of legality during the suspension of the pre-trial investigation

Intentional killing as a result of violation of of the laws and customs of war in the context of ill-treatment of prisoners of war

The creative impetus for conducting scientific research on the topic of the study was a rather underdeveloped layer of activity of pre-trial investigation bodies in documenting a certain category of war crimes. At present, we are talking about violations of the laws and customs of war in the context of studying one of the forms of the objective side of a criminal offense - cruel treatment of prisoners of war combined with premeditated murder. Considering the difficult situation with the release of Azovstal’s defenders into “honorable captivity,” a decision that was made at a high state level and lasted from May 16 to 21, 2022, it should be noted that all expectations regarding the implementation of the humanitarian component in accordance with the norms of International Humanitarian Law have not been met. So far, we have received completely different consequences of the desired rescue of the military, who were actually trapped in an enemy trap. Thus, on the night of July 29, 2022, in the former Volnovakha Penal Colony No. 120, located in the village of Molodizhne of the Olenivka Village Council of the Donetsk region (temporarily occupied territory), Russian occupation forces committed a terrorist act, which, according to official data, killed 53 and wounded more than 130 prisoners of war from among the defenders of Azovstal. According to the Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets, “This is a public execution of officially confirmed, verified Ukrainian prisoners of war who were taken prisoner. According to the Geneva Convention, they were confirmed through the verification procedure by the International Committee of the Red Cross. They were representatives of one military unit of the National Guard of Ukraine...” Unfortunately, due to the complicated and actually suspended exchange of prisoners of war by the occupation authorities, cases of murder (extrajudicial executions) and torture of our military in captivity have become more frequent. Therefore, one of the main tasks of pre-trial investigation bodies should be to tactically correctly and timely document a war crime that is rather complex in its design – violation of the laws and customs of war in the form of ill-treatment of prisoners of war, if it is combined with intentional murder. The timely and correct qualification of such an act should help improve the tactics and methods of investigation by addressing the practical challenges that arise during the pre-trial investigation. First and foremost, it is necessary to ensure clear interaction between several law enforcement agencies (the National Police of Ukraine and the Security Service of Ukraine), whose activities overlap in the plane of jurisdiction. Law enforcement agencies should not only continue each other’s work, but also initiate pre-trial investigations with a clear understanding of the basic algorithm of coordinated actions to prevent loss of evidence with the possibility of further use of the collected evidence in the International Criminal Court. Judicial practice on this issue is currently being formed, but despite this, it is necessary to create and develop a unified algorithm of actions that should be based on the exclusive legality of the evidence obtained. The scientific research conducted in this under-researched area, reinforced by practical experience, will contribute to a deeper understanding of the issues of peculiarities of criminal law qualification and tactics of certain procedural actions during pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings on the facts of violation of the laws and customs of war, if they are combined with premeditated murder, where the form of the objective side is cruel treatment of prisoners of war. The provisions proposed in this article are intended to be recommendatory for synergy in the work of specialists of pre-trial investigation units and the prosecutor’s office in formulating an algorithm for proving the above facts.

The relationship of advocate investigation and evidence in criminal proceedings

The article examines the institution of a lawyer’s investigation in criminal proceedings, as well as the activity of a defense attorney in collecting evidence within the framework of criminal proceedings, which should be regulated as fully and qualitatively as possible (as far as possible) in order to implement such principles of criminal proceedings as the presumption of innocence, ensuring the suspect’s right for the defense, competition of the parties, and these principles should apply not only at the stage of the trial, but also at the stage of the pre-trial investigation. Attention is drawn to the fact that currently, in practice, in the absence of legislative regulation of the procedure for the inclusion of information collected by the defense counsel in the materials of criminal proceedings, the defense counsel has to make a reasoned request to officials who are conducting criminal proceedings. It is noted that evidentiary information collected by the defense attorney on his own without involving the materials of the criminal proceedings cannot be used in the process of proving and substantiating the position of the defense in the criminal proceedings, i.e. become evidence in the full sense of the word. In this regard, it is proposed to make changes to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the procedure for the inclusion of information collected by the defense attorney in the materials of criminal proceedings, including the procedure for providing it by the defense attorney and the procedure for receiving it from the defense attorney by the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor, and court, specifying that no the right, and the duty of persons conducting pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings to attach evidentiary information to the materials of criminal proceedings. It is pointed out the need for regulatory regulation of the specified legal relations in view of the importance of the development of the institution of evidence collection by the subjects of criminal proceedings, including the defense attorney; since his activity in this field is necessary for the practical implementation of the principle of adversarial criminal proceedings, equality of the parties, as well as for objective pre-trial investigation and trial of each specific criminal proceeding.

Problematic aspects of attorney’s participation in pre-trial investigation under martial law

According to Article 59 of the Constitution of Ukraine, everyone has the right to legal aid. In cases provided for by law, this assistance is provided free of charge. Everyone is free to choose a defender of their rights. The Bar operates in Ukraine to ensure the right to defense against accusations and to provide legal assistance in resolving cases in courts and other state bodies. These provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine are duplicated in Article 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. According to this provision, a suspect, accused, acquitted, or convicted person has the right to defense, which consists in providing him or her with the opportunity to provide oral or written explanations regarding the suspicion or accusation, the right to collect and submit evidence, to participate personally in criminal proceedings, to use legal assistance of a defense counsel, and to exercise other procedural rights provided for by the CPC of Ukraine. Thus, the direct duty of law enforcement agencies is to protect the legitimate rights and freedoms of a person regardless of his or her gender, nationality, language, citizenship, age, social origin, political beliefs, etc. At the same time, the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a suspect, accused, defendant, acquitted person, a person in respect of whom compulsory medical or educational measures are to be applied or the issue of their application in criminal proceedings is being decided, a person in respect of whom extradition to a foreign state is being considered, as well as a person being brought to administrative responsibility during the consideration of an administrative offense case is carried out by an advocate. This is, in particular, stated in the Law of Ukraine «On the Bar and Practice of Law» № 5076-VI of July 05, 2012. Taking into account the above provisions, it is important to identify and analyze the problematic aspects of the participation of an attorney-at-law in pre-trial investigation in accordance with the current legislation of Ukraine in the context of the introduction of martial law in Ukraine (Decree of the President of Ukraine «On the Introduction of Martial Law in Ukraine» approved by the Law of Ukraine of February 24, 2022 № 2102-IX).

Ensuring the reasonableness of criminal proceedings’ terms

It is indicated that the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine dated April 13, 2012 for the first time at the legislative level established such a principle of criminal proceedings as the reasonableness of terms. Yes, in accordance with Article 28 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine during criminal proceedings, each procedural action or procedural decision must be performed or made within a reasonable time. The article is devoted to the analysis of criminal proceedings’ principle “reasonable terms”. During criminal proceedings, each procedural action or procedural decision must be performed or adopted within a reasonable terms. Terms that are objectively necessary for the execution of procedural actions and the adoption of procedural decisions are considered reasonable. Reasonable terms cannot exceed the terms of execution of individual procedural actions or adoption of individual procedural decisions provided for by the CPC of Ukraine. The pre-trial investigation is carried out within a reasonable terms by the prosecutor, the investigating judge (with regard to the time frame for consideration of issues falling within his competence), and the court conducts the court proceedings. The criteria for determining the reasonableness of criminal proceedings terms are: 1) the complexity of criminal proceedings, which is determined taking into account the number of suspects, accused persons and criminal offenses in respect of which the proceedings are being carried out, the volume and specifics of procedural actions necessary for conducting a pre-trial investigation, etc.; 2) behavior of participants in criminal proceedings; 3) the manner in which investigators, prosecutors, and courts exercise their powers. Criminal proceedings against a person in custody, a minor or a criminal offense committed against a minor must be carried out immediately and considered in court as a matter of priority. It is important to ensure the reasonableness of criminal proceedings terms to study this principle not only in science, but also in judicial practice, in particular, the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. Adhering to the reasonableness of the terms of criminal proceedings will contribute to the exercise of a person’s right to judicial protection, will ensure an effective and prompt investigation and trial, and thus will ensure the fulfillment of criminal proceedings’ tasks.

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 the legal interests of a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings

In the science of the criminal process, there is no unified vision of the essence of a person’s legitimate interests and guarantees of their provision at the stage of pre-trial investigation. Ensuring a legitimate interest at the stage of pre-trial criminal proceedings is not supported by the performance of duties by other participants. An effective guarantee of the realization of a person’s legitimate interests in pre-trial criminal proceedings should be the real possibility of going to court to challenge the decisions, actions or inaction of law enforcement agencies. The presence of such a legal possibility should stimulate law enforcement agencies to take active actions aimed at satisfying legitimate interests. The criminal procedural law must provide for a mechanism to protect the legal interests of a person, both those that directly follow from the criminal procedural norms and those that are not provided for by the criminal procedural law, but are consistent with the spirit and principles of criminal justice. It can be argued that the legitimate interests of a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings are general legal and not prohibited aspirations of a person. Ensuring the legal interests of a person at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process should be ensured by a general obligation (general obligation) to take active actions by state bodies aimed at ensuring legal interests. The guarantee of the realization of the legal interests of a person in pre-trial criminal proceedings is the legal regulation in the criminal procedural law of the procedure for judicial appeal of decisions, actions or inaction of law enforcement bodies (including pre-trial investigation bodies) that prevent the realization of general legal aspirations of a person at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings. The need for regulatory regulation of the procedure for judicial protection of legitimate interests is determined by their legal nature, which provides for regularities in the actions of the participants of criminal proceedings of an undefined nature.

Ensuring that the prosecutor implements the principle of legality during the notification of suspicion

The article establishes that in criminal proceedings granting a person the procedural status of a suspect in committing a criminal offense is an important decision that requires the validity of the suspicion and control over the legality of its adoption. The problematic issues of ensuring the implementation of the principle of legality by the prosecutor during the notification of suspicion have been studied. It has been established that the prosecutor’s provision of legality during the notification of suspicion consists in: strict observance of the procedure established by law; ensuring the legal subject conducting the criminal process and reporting the suspicion; in getting to know the rights of the participants in the proceedings and ensuring their realization of these rights; as well as compliance with legal requirements regarding procedural terms. It was established that criminal prosecution before the decision to notify a person of suspicion is a direct violation of the implementation of the principle of legality, since the person has not acquired the criminal procedural status of a participant, which he actually is at the time of the proceedings, not in form, but in essence, according to the criminal procedural law. It was noted that a person who has not acquired the legal status of a participant in criminal proceedings cannot exercise his «legal» rights, in particular the fundamental right to defense. Attention is drawn to the fact that a general violation of the principle of the legality of criminal proceedings, with the acquisition of relevant grounds and notification to the person of suspicion, the criminal process must comply with another procedure established by law, which is manifested in a clear outline of the legal position of the defense party in criminal proceedings, counting of established procedural terms, etc. It was concluded that the prosecutor, who is the procedural head in a specific criminal proceeding, can supervise the observance of laws during the notification of suspicion, in the form of: a preliminary prosecutor’s counter, by approving the notification of suspicion, revision of previous procedural decisions of the investigator, inquirer, checking at the same time, the validity of the notification of suspicion; personal making of legal decisions at the pre-trial investigation, in particular in the form of notification of suspicion personally by the prosecutor. It was proposed and argued that it would be appropriate to set the time limit for preparation for the defense after notification of suspicion at least 14 days before the completion of the pre-trial investigation in one of the forms provided for by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.

Correlation of the concept of «judicial control» with the concepts of «justice» and «judicial protection» in the criminal procedure of Ukraine

In the article, the author notes that the introduction of modern approaches to the legal regulation of the judicial control mechanism into the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine of 2012 was one of the right ways to realize the right to a fair trial. It is noted that judicial control, along with other mechanisms of criminal procedure, also ensures the implementation of the rule of law, a qualitatively new approach to understanding the rights and freedoms of a person in criminal proceedings, and a humanistic approach to criminal proceedings. The author also notes that both practitioners and scholars have repeatedly addressed the issues of the concept of judicial control, its features, and correlation with other categories and concepts. And the research by comparing the concept of «judicial control» with the concepts of «justice» and «judicial defense» will make it possible to establish new features of judicial control in criminal proceedings in Ukraine. That is why the author set as the purpose of the study to establish the correlation between the concept of «judicial control» and the concepts of «justice» and «judicial defense» in the criminal procedure of Ukraine. The article analyzes the works of Ukrainian scholars who reveal both the above concepts and their correlation, and also uses the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. The study concludes that judicial protection is an effective mechanism for guaranteeing rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings, and judicial control is a way of judicial protection. In the author’s opinion, it should be borne in mind that such control is exercised not only during the pre-trial investigation, but also during the judicial stages of criminal proceedings. The author concludes that justice and judicial control are separate functions in criminal proceedings. Their differences are related to the stages of criminal proceedings and their purpose and form of implementation. The subjective composition of the realization of justice and judicial control is not always different. Thus, in the case provided for in Part 3 of Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, a judge will exercise judicial control over non-appealable rulings of the investigating judge, as well as justice in the same criminal proceedings.

The subject of proof in the criminal process of Ukraine

The article claims that the process of proving is the main content of criminal procedural activity. It is thanks to this process that the tasks of criminal procedure are fulfilled and the objective truth is established in criminal justice. The subject of proof in criminal proceedings is one of the key categories related to the process of proving. Establishing all the circumstances that characterize such a subject contribute to a full pre-trial investigation and trial. A conclusion has been formulated, according to which evidence in a criminal procedure should be understood as the activity of the subjects of criminal justice in relation to the collection, verification and evaluation of evidence and their procedural sources, as well as the formulation of a certain thesis (accusatory or exculpatory) on this basis and the submission of arguments in support of it. This activity is retrospective in nature. The purpose of cognition in criminal proceedings is to establish a certain set of circumstances of a criminal offense, which have been called “the subject of proof in a criminal procedure.” The list of such circumstances is defined in Art. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CCP) of Ukraine. The subject of proof in a criminal proceeding is the list of circumstances provided for by the Criminal Procedure Law of Ukraine, which must be established in each criminal proceeding and ensure the adoption of a corresponding procedural decision. The list of circumstances to be ascertained in criminal proceedings regarding criminal offenses committed by minors should be considered as a supplementary, clarifying subject of proof in relation to the general subject of proof. Circumstances to be established during criminal proceedings regarding the application of coercive measures of an breeding nature in relation to minors who have not reached the age of criminal responsibility, and regarding the use of coercive measures of a medical nature constitute a separate, independent subject of proof in a criminal process, determined by the characteristics of a person who has committed a socially-dangerous act, and the specifics of the criminal procedural form.

Initiation of forensic examinations by the defence counsel: topical issues of forensic support

The article is devoted to the consideration of topical issues of initiation of forensic examinations by the defence counsel, as well as forensic support of this activity. The relevance of the topic is due to the fact that the initiation of forensic examinations by the defence counsel is an important aspect of the criminal process which affects not only the formation of the evidence base for the prosecution, but also for the defence, which can establish the circumstances that justify or mitigate the responsibility of the defendant. The article focuses on the fact that the defence counsel may obtain an expert opinion in three ways at the stage of pre-trial investigation: 1) defence counsel’s independent request to an expert or an expert institution to conduct an expert examination; 2) defence counsel’s initiation of a forensic examination by an investigating judge; 3) defence counsel’s initiation of a forensic examination by an investigator, coroner, or prosecutor. It is noted that the organisational activities of a defence counsel who plans to initiate a forensic examination before an investigator, coroner, or prosecutor include three stages: preparatory, working, and final. The author analyses all three stages of organisational activities of a defence counsel who plans to initiate a forensic examination, both from the criminal procedural and forensic sides. The author emphasises that when filing a relevant motion, a defence counsel should always clearly understand what specific purpose is being pursued and what result is desirable from the defence perspective. The author comes to the conclusion that forensic support for the defence counsel’s initiation of forensic examinations to the investigator, coroner, prosecutor is provided in the process of: preparation, submission of a petition, and familiarisation with the results of the examination.

Relationship Between the Cognitive Process and the Clarity of Circumstances of Committing a Criminal Offense During the Pre-Trial Investigation

Relationship Between the Cognitive Process and the Clarity of Circumstances of Committing a Criminal Offense During the Pre-Trial Investigation

Issues of legality of procedural actions and adoption of procedural decisions in suspended criminal proceedings

The purpose of this article is to analyze the current provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the part that regulates the grounds for stopping criminal proceedings, appealing the decision on such a stopping, as well as researching the grounds and criteria for taking procedural actions in stopped criminal proceedings. This research was carried out on the basis of the study and analysis of the works of Ukrainian scientists, materials of law enforcement activities, in particular, court decisions regarding the specified issue, as well as direct (empirical) experience in the field of criminal proceedings. In particular, general scientific (analysis, synthesis, comparison), special-legal (comparative-legal, formal-legal, concrete-legal) systemic and functional methods were used as a methodology of scientific knowledge. During the study was investigated the issue of stopping and resuming the pre-trial investigation. The concepts of "procedural actions" and "procedural decisions" were analyzed, the current criminal procedural norms regulating the order of stopping the pre-trial investigation were evaluated, legislative gaps were identified that jeopardize the effectiveness of the criminal process and proposed ways of improving the content and construction of such norms. As a result of the research, a detailed analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine regarding the suspension of pre-trial investigation was carried out. Practical problematic aspects were identified, recommendations were presented and practical mechanisms for making changes to the norms of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine were proposed.

Problems of protecting the rights of a person whose actions are under pre-trial investigation before being notified of suspicion

Problems of protecting the rights of a person whose actions are under pre-trial investigation before being notified of suspicion

Special pre-trial investigation (in absentia): analysis of individual issues regarding the decision-making process

Special pre-trial investigation (in absentia): analysis of individual issues regarding the decision-making process

Principles of Specific Expertise Use in Investigation of Crimes Against Foundations of National Security of Ukraine

During investigation of crimes against foundations of national security of Ukraine today, latest achievements of science and technology are quite actively used, therefore there is a need for a more rational organization of the procedure of proof and drawing the attention of scientists to the issues of specific expertise use at the stage of pre-trial investigation. The purpose of this article is to determine the general principles of specific expertise use at the stage of pre-trial investigation of crimes against foundations of national security of Ukraine. Methodological background: general scientific and special scientific methods of cognition. Principles of specific expertise use during investigation of criminal offenses are considered and characterized. In particular, it is determined that specific expertise is used during investigation of crimes against foundations of national security of Ukraine based on the following principles: independence of person who has special knowledge; legality; rule of law; research complexity; competitiveness; objectivity; comprehensiveness and completeness of specific expertise use; non-disclosure by a person who uses specific expertise while conducting investigative (search) actions, pre-trial investigation data and operational information; observance of constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens involved in pre-trial investigation procedure; compliance by person with specific expertise, specific expertise use exclusively within the limits of his competence.

Role of entomological evidence in criminal investigations

Domestic and foreign literary sources on the use of necrotic fauna in forensics are analyzed. The purpose of this article is to emphasize the importance of necrotic fauna research for practical forensics and highlight the influence of necrotic entomophiles on the time of death of a living object (depending on its species and environmental conditions) which biological and general scientific methods are applied for. A comparative analysis of the activity of necrotic fauna representatives is given. The need to use necrofauna in the systematic work of forensic biologists has been updated. The main application of forensic entomology as a branch of applied entomology is the study of the faunal complex of necrobiont arthropods on a discovered corpse to meet the needs of the investigation and the court. Entomological knowledge makes it possible to successfully perform classification, identification and diagnostic tasks that appear in forensic expert practice. Since the processes of corpse decay and the types of necrotic insects on it differ depending on the type of corpse and the type of biogeocenosis where this corpse was located, each of these features affects further forensic investigations. Obtained entomological data are a reliable source of information for finding out objective truth during pre-trial investigation and subsequent legal proceedings. At the same time, determining the time of death by cadaveric fauna can have only auxiliary value, since the appearance and development of insects is very variable. Prospects for further research are formulated, including improvement of entomological research methods (in particular, in different environmental conditions), the need for development of forensic biology as an integral component of forensic science is proven.