Introduction: The use of modern advances in medicine to investigate crimes has caused a number of problems that require scientific reflection. In particular, today there are quite acute questions: medical intervention without the person’s consent; forced sampling of human biological materials; clinical methods, the use of which in the biological samples taking will not be regarded as violation of international standards of human rights protection; the correlation of the need for the formation of DNA profile databases and the right of the person to non-disclosure of medical information. The aim: The aim of this work is to identify and analyze the key points of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as the ECHR) regarding the peculiarities of retention and use of human biological material samples in the investigation of crimes, and the retention of such materials after the completion of the investigation and trial. Materials and methods: In the preparation of the article, scientific works, the provisions of international normative acts regulating the use of human biological materials as well as the practice of the ECHR concerning the use of human biological materials in the investigation of crimes were used (8 decisions were analyzed in which the ECHR concerned the use of biological samples or related issues). In the research process to achieve the goal, a complex of general scientific and special methods of cognition was used, in particular, the comparative legal method, the system and structural method, the method of generalization, the method of analysis and synthesis, etc. Review: The positions of the ECHR concerning the following were distinguished and generalized: a) the criteria for the permissibility of compulsory medical intervention for taking of human biological material within the framework of the crime investigation; b) the possibilities of spreading the right not to incriminate oneself on the compulsory taking of human biological materials samples; c) the retention features of cell samples and DNA information in the context of respect for the right to non-interference in the person’s private life. Conclusions: Obtaining and using the human material for the investigation of crimes are not a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter – the Convention), subject to the requirements stated in the practice of the ECHR.

The strategy of integration development of Ukraine envisages, in particular, the implementation of international standards of justice in the legal system of Ukraine. The article explores the essence of such a legal category as ‘the standard of criminal procedural proof’. The rules of evidence in the Anglo-Saxon and continental legal systems in the context of this issue are analyzed, as well as domestic criminal procedural legislation on the peculiarities of assessment of evidence in various criminal proceedings and at various stages. Conclusions are made on the existence of objective evidence of standards in the Anglo-Saxon family of law (‘beyond reasonable doubt’ and ‘probability balance’) and the subjective standard of proof in the countries of the continental system of law (‘on the basis of internal conviction’). The opinion on the lawfulness and expediency of the allocation of certain objective standards of proof and in domestic criminal proceedings is expressed.

The aim: The purpose of this paper is to identify and characterize the standards for assessing the health status of a person who is likely to have been mistreated during detention or custody. Materials and methods: The provisions of international regulations, as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - ECHR, Court) were studied in the preparation of the paper. A set of general scientific and special methods of cognition was used, in particular, the comparative-legal method, the system-structural method, the generalization method, the method of analysis and synthesis, and others. Conclusions: Medical examinations and forensic examinations of persons detained or incarcerated and alleging torture or mistreatment are appropriate provided that they comply with European standards set out in the case law of the ECHR and the recommendations of international organizations, which whereas will ensure the effectiveness of formal investigations of such facts.

Ensuring the unity of judicial practice is the implementation of the legal certainty principle, which is considered as the part of the rule of law, ensures the predictability of court decisions. At the theoretical level, the issues of the unity of judicial practice are mostly the subject of research in the context of judicial reform and the judiciary, but comprehensive research on this issue in the field of modern criminal justice is almost absent. The purpose of the study is to establish a system of legal means to ensure the unity of judicial practice. The methodological basis of the study was based on general and special methods, namely: dialectical, systematic, formal-legal and logical methods. The authors provide a brief overview of the theoretical provisions that determine the socio-legal value of the unity of law enforcement practice. The concept of "unity of judicial practice" in the field of criminal proceedings is analyzed and it was emphasized the usage of the approach of understanding the unity of judicial practice as a synonym of equal (adjustment) application of procedural and material norms in homogeneous categories of court decisions, which are adopted in the course of criminal proceedings. It is established that the limit of permitted differences in the application of the law is quite flexible and informal. It is established that the quality of the law cannot be assessed in isolation from the practice of its application. The authors also emphasize the instrumental role of judicial practice in the general mechanism of ensuring uniformity of law enforcement. A position was expressed on the role of explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court in the general mechanism of ensuring the unity of judicial practice. It is established that the system of legal means to ensure the unity of application of the law in the field of criminal proceedings consists of a set of interrelated elements. The results of the study can be used in further scientific development of the problem of ensuring the unity of judicial practice, scientific substantiation of proposals aimed to improve the current legislation of Ukraine, which regulates the issues that have become the subject of this research

Criminal procedure standards of preventing secondary victimization are examined through the prism of European documents of advisory nature that contain a number of regulations that establish minimum standards of the rights of victims and the duties of the state to protect them. The authors prove a vital role that criminal procedure legislation plays in the general mechanism of preventing such a negative phenomenon as secondary victimization of a crime victim. Taking into consideration the etymological characteristics of the concept of «standard», the authors formulate a definition of standards for preventing secondary victimization of crime victims and determine their system. It consists of an aggregate of interconnected elements: the state’s compensation to a victim for damage caused by the crime; provision of access to justice for victims and the use of criminal proceedings that are unburdensome for the victims; provision of an opportunity for the victim to actively participate in criminal proceedings; provision of legal, psychological, medical and social help to the victim; guarantee of a right to safety for the victim and their family members; a system of extra guarantees of the rights and interests of vulnerable victims. The article also highlights key discrepancies between Ukrainian legislation and some of the above-mentioned standards and presents ideas on eliminating them. Specifically, the authors pay attention to the necessity of creating a Foundation for the protection of the rights of crime victims, whose main purpose would be the compensation of damages to the victims. As for the use of unburdensome criminal procedures, it is suggested that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine should include a norm that states that the involvement of a victim in investigation activities that infringe on their rights and lawful interests should be kept to a minimum and should only be carried out when it is necessary for criminal proceedings. It is noted that normative regulation of the time frame for criminal proceedings at their specific stages should be regulated. Besides, there is a necessity for statutory determination of a general prohibition to disclose information on victims of certain types of crimes that would make it possible to identify the victim, etc.