Today, the combined chamber of the Criminal Court of Cassation as part of the Supreme Court is trying to solve the problem of the appellate court’s initiative in the examination of evidence, since the approaches of individual court chambers, namely the First and Third ones, differ. The purpose of this study was to identify those cases when the appellate authority is entitled to investigate the evidence proactively, without encroaching on the components of the principle prescribed in Article 22 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. The formal-logical method helped generalize that the content and form of such a review must comply with the principles of criminal proceedings, including equality before the law and the court, as well as competition between the parties (it has been proven that their absence may indicate a violation of both constitutional and convention rights), freedom in presenting their evidence to the court and in proving their persuasiveness before the court. The results of the deductive method helped formulate the following theses: the legislator, understanding the equality of procedural rights not as their uniformity, normalizes it in the Criminal Procedural Code as equality in terms of the possibilities of exercising the granted rights; the legislator also determines such equality of rights from the functions that a certain participant in criminal proceedings is endowed with. The combination of prosecution, defence, and justice in one guise contradicts the adversarial nature of the judicial procedure. The study revealed that the passivity of the parties forces the court to choose its activity within the limits of the function of justice defined for it, and its initiative is aimed at examining the evidence to make a legal, well-founded, and fair decision. It is proved that these features of judicial proceedings are a priori inherent in the appeal review, along with its inherent features, including the determination of the amount of evidence to be examined, as well as compliance with the limits of judicial review, which are normalized by Article 404 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. It was found that the initiative of the court of appeal to examine evidence and their further investigation in this court is permissible in situations where such evidence became known after the adoption of the appealed court decision. Compliance with this rule will protect the court from possible violations of the requirements of Article 22 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, and scientific developments in this area are designed, among other things, to pave the way for the unity of judicial practice through doctrinal recommendations.
In present-day Ukraine, there is no unanimous answer to the question of the essence and consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive immunity under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 either in the national criminal procedural legislation, or in the theory of criminal procedure, or among judges, investigators, prosecutors. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to try to attempt to formulate individual approaches to address this issue. The relevance of the subject under study is conditioned upon its theoretical and practical components. The former is that there this area is heavily understudied, and judicial practice, among other things, requires a certain scientific basis to formulate individual positions in their unity. The dilemma proposed in the title of this study was also addressed by members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Supreme Court, who were approached by judges of the Grand Chamber for scientific opinions, emphasising the urgency and necessity of feedback from practitioners. To formulate the individual approaches serving the purpose of this study, the authors employed such general and special research methods as dialectical, induction and deduction, Aristotelian, system-structural, sampling method, comparison, and legal forecasting. Notwithstanding the fact that the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6, adopted by its plenary session in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol No. 6 to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, is “procedural”, it was proven that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has the authority to conduct proceedings on the application of such a person to review the judgment precisely in exceptional circumstances. It is emphasised that the ECHR decision should be considered as one that does not aim at the final assessment of criminal proceedings, so it cannot be equated with the decision of an international judicial institution, which would state Ukraine's violation of international obligations in court and the order of its execution will differ. The authors also address the fact that the consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 are critical. After all, such a decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the “bell” for Ukraine, which, among other things, may hint at the probability that the Court will identify the facts of human rights violations
In judicial practice, there are situations when, as of the day of the decision of the appellate court, the statute of limitations for bringing the accused to criminal responsibility has expired, and the defense does not take the initiative to release the person from criminal liability. Accordingly, the court in no way responds to the existence of this circumstance and does not decide on the application (non-application) of the grounds contained in paragraph 1 of Part 2 of Article. 284 of the CPC, or another, to make a procedural decision to close the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the aim is to try to answer the question of which of the procedural decisions, under the described conditions and circumstances, should be made by the court: to close the criminal proceedings in connection with the release of a person from criminal liability or a person should be released in the court of cassation from punishment? Due to the applied formal-logical method and systematic analysis, it was found that Part 2 of Art. 284 of the CPC concerns cases of closing criminal proceedings exclusively by the court. It was stated that in paragraph 1 of this part of the article, among the grounds for closing the criminal proceedings, the legislator provides and “...in connection with the release of a person from criminal liability.” At the same time, it has been proven that the right of a person to be released from criminal liability, if there are grounds for it, judges often do not depend on their own duty to explain to a person such a right so that he can use it. It is established that the responsibilities enshrined in Art. 285 of the CPC apply not only to courts of first instance, but also to appellate instances. Research methods such as sampling, system-structure, induction and deduction have been used to argue that in circumstances where a court conviction has entered into force, a person should be exempt from the court of cassation, this is stated in Part 5 of Art. 74 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, on the grounds provided for in Art. 49 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. At the same time, it is proved that the court has hindered the adoption of such a procedural decision by the approach that the legislator laid down in the construction of paragraph 1, part 2 of Art. 284, art. 440 of the CCP.
ПРИТЯГНЕННЯ ДО ВІДПОВІДАЛЬНОСТІ ЗА ВЧИНЕНІ МІЖНАРОДНІ ЗЛОЧИНИ В УКРАЇНІ: НОВІ КРОКИ У РОЗСЛІДУВАННІ МІЖНАРОДНОГО КРИМІНАЛЬНОГО СУДУ (ПРОДОВЖЕННЯ ОГЛЯДУ) 4 Басиста Ірина Володимирівна докторка юридичних наук, професорка, професорка кафедр адміністративного права та процесу; кримінального процесу та криміналістики Львівського державного університету внутрішніх справ (м. Львів)4 Розпочато на шпальтах збірника Українська кримінальна юстиція в умовах війни : матеріали VIII (XXI) Львівського форуму кримінальної юстиції (м. Львів, 9-11 червня 2022 року) / упорядник І. Б. Газдайка-Василишин. Львів : ЛьвДУВС, 2022. https://www.lvduvs.edu.ua/uk/library/materialynaukovykh-konferentsii.html (Басиста І. В. Притягнення до відповідальності за вчинення воєнних злочинів, геноциду, агресії та злочинів проти людяності С. 17-44). Продовжено у розділі «Захист прав дітей та забезпечення їх безпеки за умов воєнних злочинів, геноциду, агресії та злочинів проти людяності» колективної монографії «Juvenile policy as a component of supporting Ukraine's national security and defense» (dedicated to the 53rd anniversary of the UN General Assembly adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child and the 56th anniversary of the
У цій публікації поставлено за мету переконати опонентів в тому, що здійснюючи функцію процесуального керівництва, прокурор, серед іншого, вправі брати й особисту участь у розслідуванні, бо ж є відповідальним за його результати. І коли наявна ситуація можливої втрати доказів, знищення їх джерел тощо через зволікання у часі, то очевидною і логічною є ініціатива прокурора, котра має своїм результатом особисте провадження ним відповідних процесуальних дій у межах наданих йому повноважень. Для досягнення задекларованої мети та отримання належних результатів використано таку сукупність методів: формально-логічний, аналізу та синтезу, вибірку, порівняльно-правовий, прогнозування. Результатами такої діяльності є: 1) з’ясовано, що дати ґрунтовну відповідь на задекларовану у її назві дилему можливо лише за умови врахування тих законодавчих положень, судових позицій та тлумачень, а також авторських роздумів і концептуальних розумінь, які дозволяють сформулювати переконання у тому, що цілком закономірно та логічно, що прокурор, котрий є процесуальним керівником за КПК України, має широкі повноваження щодо проведення окремих процесуальних дій у кримінальному провадженні та всього розслідування в цілому; 2) констатовано, що внесення відомостей до ЄРДР дозволяє прокурору здійснювати свою процесуальну діяльність в межах першої стадії кримінального провадження – досудового розслідування; 3) доведено, що проводячи всі дії, передбачені частиною 2 статті 36 КПК України, та здійснюючи інші повноваження, визначені для нього КПК України, прокурор, незалежно від місця прокуратури в системі прокуратури України чи адміністративної посади, яку прокурор обіймає у прокуратурі, реалізуючи процесуальне керівництво досудовим розслідуванням, апріорі не виходить за межі наданих йому повноважень. Висновки: зазначена процесуальна діяльність прокурора водночас служить виконанню завдань кримінального провадження і переслідує мету – створення передумов для встановлення істини. Проводячи певні процесуальні дії після внесення відомостей до ЄРДР, у випадках, коли для них прокурор є належним суб’єктом, вести мову про певні хиби у сформованій ним доказовій базі, лише за ознакою неналежного суб’єкта, не доводиться.
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.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2025 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.