This article is dedicated to the constitutional restrictions on human rights and freedoms within the genesis and development of liberal democracy. The article argues that European countries implement the provisions of the ECHR in various ways regarding the application of restrictions of rights and freedoms in their own national legal systems in order to support: 1) the state and public security or economic well-being of the country; 2) the prevention of riots or crimes; 3) health or morals or for the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of others; 4) the protection of national security or territorial integrity; 5) protecting the reputation of others; 6) the prevention of disclosure of confidential information; 7) maintaining the authority and impartiality of judicial authorities. The research defines a common feature of all constitutional restrictions of human rights and freedoms within the European countries’ application, taking into account the objective circumstances necessary in a democratic society. The authors underline that under no circumstances should the restrictions distort the essence of human rights and freedoms that fall under such derogations. The article underlines that the restrictions on human rights and freedoms are a necessary component of the legal system of any state and modern society. Such restrictions should be of a legal nature and should be imposed only in accordance with the general interest – national security, law and order, the protection of moral norms, and the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons when the right of another person in a legitimate balance prevails. The emergence of challenges to human rights does not negate their effectiveness, and they continue to operate, which testifies to their effectiveness and guarantees the inviolability of the rule of law principle when resolving specific cases on human rights restrictions.

Одним із факторів забезпечення успішності реалізації органами публічного управління прав, свобод та обов'язків особи є існування адміністративно-процедурного законодавства, основою якого є закон про адміністративну процедуру. Оскільки органами публічного управління реалізується велика кількість адміністративних процедур, чільне місце відводиться їх принципам. Серед достатньо широкого кола принципів адміністративної процедури передбачені такі принципи: ефективності, розумного строку та оперативності, завдяки яким процедура може бути здійснена швидко, без зволікань і додаткових витрат ресурсів.

The article examines at what stage the International Criminal Court views trafficking in human beings as a crime against humanity.In particular, Article 7 of the Rome Statute has the characteristics of crimes against humanity, and there is an accepted provision,cited with reference to the definition of “Trafficking in Human Beings”, which is considered a crime against humanity.However, trafficking in human beings is not yet formally enshrined in the Rome Statute, which is the basis for its further upda -ting. Trafficking in human beings is now often qualified as a “modern form of slavery” by international organizations, politicians, andscholars. The consequences of this crime are extremely serious in destroying the stabilization of the international political situation inthe world. Researchers believe that the number of victims far outweighs the number of identified victims. Worldwide, statistics annuallyshow 800,000 to 2.5 million trafficked people worldwide. This criminal activity affects almost all countries in the world and the profitsgenerated from this criminal business are $ 7 billion to $ 10 billion a year.The case for extending the scope of the Rome Statute to the crime of trafficking in human beings has not yet been elaborated.The cruelty that occurs during trafficking in human beings by criminal groups is as horrific as other crimes covered by the Rome Statute,but is not within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Such trafficking may also go beyond the definition of slavery asa crime against humanity, especially given the statutory threshold of public policy.This article seeks to examine at what stage the International Criminal Court views trafficking in human beings as a crime againsthumanity. It will also address the inclusion of the crime of human trafficking as a discrete international crime within the Rome Statutein response to this loophole. As a result, the inclusion of the crime of human trafficking as a discrete international crime within theRome Statute was analyzed.

The article emphasizes that the crime of aggression is considered the most serious crime against peace since the Nuremberg Tribunal,which is recognized by both domestic and Western doctrine. Amendments to the Rome Statute in 2010 defined signs of aggressionas an international crime and clarified the rules for exercising the jurisdiction of the International criminal court. Optimistic expectationsfor establishing effective jurisdiction of the court over this international crime have been dashed. As a result, it is concluded thateffective international criminal prosecution of the crime of aggression is possible only if the norms of the Rome Charter that cause themost negative reaction from the leading States are reviewed.It should be noted that in respect of a state that is not a party to the Rome Statute, the Court will not exercise its jurisdiction overthe crime of aggression committed by nationals of that state or on its territory.The International criminal court should serve as a symbol of international justice, which makes just decisions related to violationsof international law. As for the procedure for implementing the proceedings of the International criminal court, it is worth noting thatsuch a procedure for executing the decision of the ISS is double. The dual procedure for the enforcement of decisions of the InternationalCriminal Court is the Foundation of the Rome Charter and represents a new system in the history of public international law inthe field of international responsibility.Thus, it is possible to see that although at first glance the long process of formulating and adopting a unified definition of thecrime of aggression at the international level to succeed, thorough the consideration allows you to comprehend the profound incompletenessof this process. Features of the crime of aggression provided for in the draft edits the Rome Statute, as well as the amendmentmechanism itself, illustrate the real lack of a mechanism for holding individuals internationally responsible for its Commission, as wellas the rather disappointing prospect of positive changes in the near future.Despite the conflicts that arise between the norms of national criminal law and the provisions of the ISS Charter, the procedureitself is an effective legal instrument aimed at maintaining international peace and security. The joint work of the International CriminalCourt and the UN Security Council makes it possible to try cases of international crimes and take effective measures to counter suchcrimes. As a key component of the International criminal justice system, the International criminal Court is one of the most significantinstitutions of international criminal law, which is constantly developing and to a certain extent affects the patterns in the developmentof mechanisms for the investigation of international crimes and the protection of human rights at the international and national levels.