The aim of the article is to analyze the problematic aspects of finding evidence inadmissible in criminal proceedings, as well as to formulate, according to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (CCP of Ukraine) and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), proposals for elimination of existing shortcomings on the issue raised. In the article used general scientific and special methods that enable to obtain scientifically sound conclusions and proposals. In particular, scientific methods, such as dialectical, comparative-legal, system-structural, modelling, abstraction, generalization and logical, are applied. The problematic issues of the procedure for finding evidence inadmissible in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine are studied. The significant violations and shortcomings in collecting evidence by the pre-trial investigation bodies are under focus. The authors clarify grounds for the inadmissibility of evidence and the types of inadmissible evidence. The analysis of investigative practice and case-law enables to conclude that a violation in taking one piece of evidence in criminal proceedings may lead to finding a number of other pieces of evidence inadmissible (the doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree). The authors argue that the court should be proactive in resolving the issue of inadmissibility of evidence either on its own motion or on the motion by parties to criminal proceedings. The utilization of the case law of the ECHR in national law application activities are analyzed from legal perspective. The study establishes that ratio decidendi of the ECHR with regard to finding evidence inadmissible is that the issue of its inadmissibility is subject to regulation at the level of national law. The assessment of inadmissibility of evidence is the responsibility of national courts, and the ECHR is obliged to ensure that the means of taking evidence are fair.
Ó ñòàòò³ âèçíà÷åíî äåÿê³ îñîáëèâîñò³ ïðîöåñóàëüíîãî ïîðÿäêó îñêàðaeåííÿ ð³øåíü, ä³é ÷è áåçä³ÿëüíîñò³ ñë³ä÷îãî, ïðîêóðîðà ï³ä ÷àñ äîñóäîâîãî ðîçñë³äóâàííÿ. Àêöåíòîâàíî óâàãó íà òîìó, ùî â Êðèì³íàëüíîìó ïðîöåñóàëüíîìó êîäåêñ³ Óêðà¿íè íå âèçíà÷åíî ïîâíîâàaeåííÿ ïðåäñòàâíèêà îñîáè, ÿêà ïîäàëà ñêàðãó íà ð³øåííÿ, 䳿 ÷è áåçä³ÿëüí³ñòü ñë³ä÷îãî òà ïðîêóðîðà ï³ä ÷àñ äîñóäîâîãî ðîçñë³äóâàííÿ. Äîñèòü ïðîáëåìíèì º ïèòàííÿ äîòðèìàííÿ ñòðîê³â ÿê ïîäàííÿ, òàê ³ ðîçãëÿäó ñêàðã ó ñóä³ íà ð³øåííÿ, 䳿 ÷è áåçä³ÿëüí³ñòü ñë³ä÷îãî ÷è ïðîêóðîðà. Ó çâ'ÿçêó ç ÷èì çàïðîïîíîâàíî íèçêó çì³í òà äîïîâíåíü äî Êðèì³íàëüíîãî ïðîöåñóàëüíîãî êîäåêñó Óêðà¿íè. Êëþ÷îâ³ ñëîâà: îñêàðaeåííÿ ð³øåíü, áåçä³ÿëüí³ñòü ñë³ä÷îãî, áåçä³ÿëüí³ñòü ïðîêóðîðà, ó÷àñíèêè êðèì³íàëüíîãî ïðîâàäaeåííÿ, ñêàðãà, äîñóäîâå ðîçñë³äóâàííÿ. ijºâ³ñòü ìåõàí³çìó îñêàðaeåííÿ ð³øåíü, ä³é ÷è áåçä³ÿëüíîñò³ ñë³ä÷îãî àáî ïðîêóðîðà ï³ä ÷àñ äîñóäîâîãî ðîçñë³äóâàííÿ ïðÿìî çàëåaeèòü â³ä äîòðèìàííÿ ñóá'ºêòàìè êðèì³íàëüíîãî ïðîâàäaeåííÿ ïðîöåñóàëüíîãî ïîðÿäêó îñêàðaeåííÿ ð³øåíü, ä³é ÷è áåçä³ÿëüíîñò³ ñë³ä÷îãî àáî ïðîêóðîðà. Ó ³íøîìó ðàç³ ïîäàíà îñîáîþ ñêàðãà áóäå ïîâåðíóòà. À â ðàç³, ÿêùî ñêàðãà ïîäàíà íà ð³øåííÿ, ä³þ ÷è áåçä³ÿëüí³ñòü ñë³ä÷îãî àáî ïðîêóðîðà, ùî íå ï³äëÿãຠîñêàðaeåííþ, ñë³ä÷èé ñóääÿ, ñóä óõâàëþº ð³øåííÿ ïðî â³äìîâó ó â³äêðèòò³ ïðîâàäaeåííÿ. Âíàñë³äîê ÷îãî êîï³ÿ óõâàëè ïðî â³äìîâó ó â³äêðèòò³ ïðîâàäaeåííÿ íåâ³äêëàäíî íàäñèëàºòüñÿ îñîá³, ÿêà ïîäàëà ñêàðãó, ðàçîì ³ç ñêàðãîþ òà âñ³ìà äîäàíèìè äî íå¿ ìàòåð³àëàìè (÷. 4 ³ 5 ñò. 304 Êðèì³íàëüíîãî ïðîöåñóàëüíîãî êîäåêñó Óêðà¿íè (äàë³-ÊÏÊ Óêðà¿íè). Ïîðÿäîê îñêàðaeåííÿ ð³øåíü, ä³é ÷è áåçä³ÿëüíîñò³ ñë³ä÷îãî, ïðîêóðîðà ï³ä ÷àñ äîñóäîâîãî ðîçñë³äóâàííÿ äîñë³äaeóâàëè Ä.
A person, his/her life and health are recognised in the National Basic Law as the highest social value. Every person shall have the inalienable right to life and protection of human life shall be the duty of the State. In addition, everyone shall have the right to have his/her dignity respected. Accordingly, no one shall be subjected to torture, cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment that violates his/her dignity [1]. The absolute prohibition of torture is a peremptory rule of international law and, according to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR), it «reflects one of the fundamental values of a democratic society» [2].However, despite the current level of human development and the tendency of humane solutions to conflicts, the eradication of torture is one of the most pressing issues today. According to the annual report of the Commissioner of the Verkhovna Rada for Human Rights on the state of observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of person and citizen in Ukraine for 2019, the results of the monitoring visits to the vast majority of
Objective: The aim of the article is to analyze the various legal and theoretical provisions related to the determination of legal content of the concept of finding evidence inadmissible due to substantial violation of human rights and freedoms. Method: The authors use general scientific and special methods that enable to obtain scientifically sound conclusions and proposals. In particular, scientific methods, such as dialectical, comparative-legal, system-structural, generalization and logical, are applied. Results: The problematic issues of the procedure for finding evidence inadmissible due to substantial violation of human rights and freedoms in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine are studied. Some essential violations in collecting evidence by the prosecution are under focus. The ECHR’s case-law with regard to procedure for finding evidence inadmissible is analyzed. The implementation of the doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree" and specificity of its application to direct and derivative evidence by domestic courts and the case law of the ECHR is considered. Conclusions: The authors argue that the investigator is required to comply with the procedure for investigative actions prescribed by the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine in order to ensure human rights and freedoms. The analysis of the application of provisions of the CPC of Ukraine and the ECHR’s case law regarding the issue raised enables to formulate sound conclusions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.