The article analyzes the situation that has developed in modern science in connection with the competition of two theories explaining the formation of criminal procedural evidence. Analyzing advantages and disadvantages of these theories, the authors make a conclusion on reasonableness and value of the investigative approach of taking evidence. The principal argument in favor of this theory is the fact that gives a right explanation to the modern technology of criminal procedural proofs, established in the legislation of nowadays. And more importantly, this theory corresponds to the current state legal model of Russia as a sovereign, independent State. The leading positions of the analyzed theory are enumerated in the article. The investigator is the subject of the formation of evidence.Theinvestigative steps or other procedural activities carried out by the investigator in cooperation with other participants of the investigation are the way to form evidences. The content of investigative actions may be the results of searching activities. The process of forming evidence is completed at the stage of thepreliminary investigation. According to the authors’ opinion the drawing of the report of the investigative action is the final step of the formation of an usual investigative evidence. The authors of the article find possible reformation or disbanding of the investigative evidence as a result of influence of the arguments of the defense during the trial.

The article deals with issues related to human trafficking disguised as socially significant assisted reproductive technologies, in particular, surrogacy. The gaps in the modern Russian legislation regulating public relations in this area, creating opportunities for the implementation of criminal mechanisms for trafficking in infants, are analyzed.

The modern russian doctrine of criminal procedural evidence includes a ban on the use of the results of operational investigative activities in proving. It is based on the ideology of the investigator as a subject of proving objective truth. The investigator is authorized by means of investigative actions to turn the results of operational investigative activities into means of proving the truth. In the accusatory criminal procedure system, information and materials received by both parties are transformed into a means of proving the truth only after cross-checking. As the Italian experience shows, the transition from the investigative system to the accusatory criminal procedure system and the adversarial technology of proving the judicial truth is inevitable in the context of building a rule of law and democracy.