Russia’s full-scale war against Ukraine has caused changes in the everyday life of Ukrainians, as well as in the functioning of state bodies and institutions. This has led to relevant amendments and additions to a number of legal acts, including criminal procedure legislation. The rules governing pre-trial investigation and court proceedings under martial law have also been amended. However, the analysis of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine shows that some of the innovations are generally positive, but certain aspects of legal regulation may raise doubts and concerns, and are quite controversial and controversial. Under the new rules of pre-trial investigation, investigators and prosecutors can reduce the role of defence counsel, and are allowed not to involve them in all stages of the process or to do so via audio and video conferencing. However, this practice may limit the ability of defence counsel to perform their duties, as they will not be able to be at the scene and will not be able to effectively defend their client at all stages of the investigation. Under the proposed amendments, the prosecutor will receive powers that previously belonged only to the investigating judge, if circumstances make it impossible for the latter to perform his or her duties. However, the law does not provide a clear list of such situations, so the prosecutor will decide whether the investigating judge can perform his or her functions. This leads to a lack of judicial control over the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms and puts the defence at a disadvantageIn addition, such amendments directly violate Article 124 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which prohibits the delegation of court functions and their appropriation by other bodies or officials. The investigator and prosecutor may obtain evidence of a person's guilt, which may contradict his or her rights and freedoms. Nevertheless, the court has no right to disregard such evidence, which may lead to possible abuse by the investigator and prosecutor, which may result in human rights violations and unfair sentences. The heads of the prosecutor's office and pre-trial investigation bodies are entitled to seize the property of suspects or accused persons without a trial. However, if the criminal proceedings are subsequently closed or the person is found not guilty, the law does not require the return of such property or compensation for its value. This can lead to mass deprivation of property without the possibility of return. In this context, there is a need to eliminate legislative conflicts for effective and unambiguous practical implementation of legislative provisions for the purpose of investigating criminal proceedings under martial law.

No abstract

Визначено основних владних суб’єктів, які діють під час проведення слідчих (розшукових) дій на стадії досудового розслідування. Акцентовано на тому, що закріплена чинним Кримінальним процесуальним кодексом України форма вітчизняного кримінального процесу, побудованого на підставі конституційних принципів змагальності та рівності сторін кримінального провадження, обумовила необхідність відмежувати таке поняття, як «суб’єкти проведення слідчих (розшукових) дій, що обмежують недоторканність житла чи іншого володіння особи», від загального поняття «учасники слідчих (розшукових) дій» з метою недопущення будь-яких порушень конституційних прав усіх учасників кримінальної процесуальної діяльності з боку владних суб’єктів кримінального провадження.

The author of the article identifies the main directions of reforming the criminal procedural legislation on investigative (search) actions that restrict the inviolability of housing or other personal possession. In particular, the author emphasizes that it is necessary to offer: clarification of the content of the concept of "housing" and "other personal possession" stated in Part 2 of the Art. 233 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine; clear definition of the interpretation of the terms of "search of housing or other personal possession" and "inspection of housing or other personal possession" contained in Part 1 of the Art. 234 and Part 2 of the Art. 237 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine; clarification of the provisions of Part 2 of the Art. 237 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine on the grounds for inspection of housing or other personal possession; providing the possibility of conducting search of a vehicle, where the detainee was, in accordance with Part 3 of the Art. 208 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine; definitions in the Articles 234, 236, 237, 240 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine of the interrogator as a subject of search, inspection and investigative experiment. It is emphasized that perspective areas for the development of criminal procedural legislation to regulate investigative (search) actions that restrict the inviolability of housing or other personal possession is to solve the problem of attracting free legal aid for a person who has no procedural status, but investigators continue investigative (search) actions against that person; determination of the procedural status of witnesses who are involved into investigative (search) actions; determination of the mechanism of addressing of the property’s owner with the petition to return the seized property during carrying out investigative (search) actions restricting inviolability of housing or other personal possession. It is emphasized that the elimination of the above gaps in the criminal procedural legislation, in order to ensure the functioning of an effective mechanism to ensure respect for constitutional human and civil rights and freedoms during pre-trial investigation and court proceedings, is the primary and main task for reforming criminal procedural legislation regarding investigative (search) actions that restrict the inviolability of housing or other personal possession.