The article analyzes the main minimum guarantees of the implementation of the principle of ensuring the right to defense and legal assistance to a person accused of committing a criminal offense, formulated in international legal acts and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The degree of implementation of the specified guarantees into domestic legislation has been clarified. The essence and significance of the defense counsel's participation in criminal proceedings on the basis of a plea agreement, which is a guarantee of ensuring not only the rights and legitimate interests of the suspect, the accused, but also the legality of the application of this procedure, and in general, the legality of the criminal proceedings themselves, the administration of justice, which involves making a fair decision. The specifics of providing legal assistance in this category of proceedings are outlined, which consist in clarifying by the defense counsel the voluntariness of the guilty plea, the will of the suspect, the accused to enter into such an agreement, the clarification of his procedural rights, the nature of each accusation, in respect of which he pleads guilty, the type of punishment and other measures that will be applied to him, and the legal consequences of concluding and approving a plea agreement. The need to explain all the consequences of concluding and approving an agreement (direct and indirect), which is a mandatory component of professional, qualified legal assistance, the provision of which requires the improvement of the current legislation, which consists in the normative consolidation of the lawyer's duty before concluding an agreement on recognition, is substantiated culpability to explain the indirect consequences of its approval by the court.

The article examines the peculiarities of the disclosing results of the use of special investigation techniques. The provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, relevant international documents, as well as precedent practice of the European Court of Human Rights on the given topic are analyzed in detail. Disclosing results of the use of special investigation techniques is an important condition for their use in evidence. Accordingly, the legislator established a procedure aimed at ensuring the realization of the right to a fair trial in its procedural aspect. This provides an opportunity for the parties to the future trial to know about the evidence of each of them and to prepare the legal position that will be defended by them in the adversarial procedure of the trial. In the course of scientific research, the procedure of the use of special investigation techniques is analyzed, which by its legal nature is complex, since the prerequisite for obtaining evidence in such a case is the prior permission of authorized subjects. At the same time, attention is focused on the fact that the negative consequences in practice when applying this legal institution arise due to the fact that the subjects of classification and declassification of information usually refer to bodies other than the prosecution. The work examines international standards for the use of special investigation techniques, among which the right to review the evidence obtained using such methods is highlighted, which is a component of the right to an adversarial trial as an element of the right to a fair trial. Based on a thorough study of international documents and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, it was found that the right to review the evidence of the opposing party is not absolute and may be limited. In particular, it is permissible to conceal evidence in order to protect the rights of other persons or important state interests. The relevant legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights on the issues of discovery of disclosing results of the use of special investigation techniques are analyzed. In the course of the research, it was found that additional guarantees of the right to a fair trial are the right to sufficient time and opportunities for the preparation of one's defense by the person accused of committing a crime. The national normative regulation and the main practice trends regarding the disclosing results of the use of special investigation techniques are studied. The evolution of the legal positions of the Supreme Court regarding the disclosing results of the use of special investigation techniques is analyzed.

The article deals with the issues of international standards for the use of special (secret) investigation techniques. The provisions of international documents (primarily the European Convention on Human Rights) are analyzed in detail, as well as the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on a given topic. Based on the analysis of these sources, it allowed to distinguish the following standards for the use of special (secret) investigation techniques: 1) the right to know about the evidence obtained through the use of special (secret) investigative techniques; 2) rules of admissibility of evidence obtained through the use of special (secret) investigative techniques; 3) prohibition of provocation during the use of special (secret) investigative techniques; 4) the right to call and cross-examine witnesses in connection with the use of special (secret) investigative techniques; 5) the quality of the law providing for the use of special (secret) investigative techniques; 6) the legality of the use of special (secret) investigative techniques; 7) the right to an effective remedy in connection with the use of special (secret) investigative techniques. In the course of scientific research, it turns out the content of standards for the use of special (secret) investigative techniques. It is established that the right to know about the evidence obtained through the use of special investigative techniques provides sufficient time and opportunity to prepare defense by a person charged with a criminal offence. It is noted that the rules of admissibility of evidence obtained through the use of special (secret) investigative techniques provide for the study of the fairness of the proceedings as a whole, as well as clarifying the question of whether the right to defense and importance of evidence is respected. International standards for the use of special (secret) investigative techniques are also proposed to include the prohibition of provocation, which provides for the separation of provocation itself and investigation of a crime mainly in a passive way. The right to call and cross-examine witnesses embodies the principle that before a guilty verdict, all evidence of the accused's guilt must be presented in his presence. It is substantiated that the standards defined in Article 8 of the Convention and the relevant practice of the European Court on Human Rights can be divided into two categories: the quality of the law providing for the use of special (secret) investigative techniques and the legality of the use of special (secret) investigative techniques. The last standard concerns the right to an effective remedy and provides for the availability of appropriate mechanisms when using special (secret) investigative techniques.

The article deals with the ethical and legal issues of decision- making by the investigating judge and the court on the forced feeding of a convict and a person in custody. It is noted that given that the court decision on forced feeding of convicts or persons in custody is related to medical intervention, its adoption and implementation is not only in the realm of law, but also of legal and medical ethics. The article attempts to simultaneously highlight and analyze international ethical, medical and legal norms and principles, as well as the legal positions of the ECtHR on the issue of forced feeding of a convicted person or a person in custody. The criteria for compliance of forced feeding with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms were analyzed, namely: establishing the medical necessity of the forced feeding procedure, compliance with procedural guarantees and the method of carrying out the procedure should not exceed the standard of the minimum level of cruelty established in the practice of the Court. It was concluded that international medical associations recognize the forced feeding of a person who directly and deliberately refused food as unjustified with certain exceptions: for example, if the patient is no longer able to make decisions on his own and, at the same time, has not left any instructions for this case. Given the fact that Ukraine belongs to the list of states in which forced feeding of a person whose freedom is restricted is allowed at the legislative level, it is necessary to develop and approve the procedure for carrying out forced feeding in the event that the petition is granted by the court. An analysis of domestic judicial practice on the issue of force-feeding a convict or a person in custody was carried out. It was concluded that the vast majority of relevant petitions (submissions) are satisfied by the courts. At the same time, as a rule, courts in such decisions do not assess the necessity of forced feeding in accordance with the criteria of the European Court of Human Rights, but limit themselves to indicating that, according to the practice of the Court, such feeding is not considered treatment that degrades human dignity. Attention is drawn to the fact that the current legislation of Ukraine defines the procedural procedure for forced feeding exclusively in relation to the convicted. If a suspect or accused in custody refuses to eat for a long time, which, in turn, creates an obvious threat to his life, then in this case there is no legal mechanism for applying forced feeding to him.

Problem setting. One of the basic human rights, enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine, is the right to inviolability of housing or other possession. The Basic Law stipulates that no penetration into a home or other possession of a person, inspection or search in them is allowed differently than according to a motivated court decision. This provision means that the state is authorized to reasonably restrict the above law. However, according to law enforcement practice, such restriction of the right to inviolability of housing or other possession is not always reasonable and there is an unequal and improper application of regulatory provisions regulating the procedure for carrying out this investigative (investigative) action. This, in turn, requires a comprehensive analysis of problematic issues that arise during the search and a unified approach to their solution. The object of research is legal relations arising during a search of housing or other possession of a person. The subject of the study are regulations that regulate the grounds, conditions and procedural procedure for conducting a search of housing or other possession of a person. Analysis of recent researches and publications. In the scientific literature, certain aspects of the search of housing or other possession were the subject of scientific research of such scientists as: V. Goncharenko, I. Hlovyuk, V. Zaborovsky, V. Noor, O. Kaplina, O. Komarnytska, O. Shvykova, M. Shumylo etc. Target of research is to study problematic issues arising during the search of housing or other possession of a person and to develop on its basis proposals for improving the current criminal procedural legislation. The scientific novelty of the research is to express proposals for improving the current criminal procedural legislation, which relate to the procedural procedure for the search of housing or other possession of a person, the announcement of a break in its conduct and the peculiarities of fixing its results. Article’s main body. The scientific research is devoted to the analysis of the grounds, conditions and procedural procedure for conducting a search in a dwelling or other possession of a person, guarantees of protection of the rights and freedoms of a person during this investigative (search) action, features of fixing the course of conducting a search of a home or other possession of a person. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Based on the analysis, we conclude that it is appropriate to apply to the decision of the Supreme Court of 02.09.2020. № 591/4742/16-k, which states that the protocol of the search of housing is unacceptable evidence, if it does not contain information about the employees of the operational units involved in it, the sequence of all actions during the search and packaging of seized items, as well as if during the search at the time of detection of equipment intended for the manufacture of narcotic drugs (subject of crime), were not present understood, invited investigators after the discovery of such equipment.