Background. This article is devoted to the relevant issue of the creation of appropriate normative regulation of criminal prosecution of prisoners of war who were captured during the armed conflict in Ukraine and their exchange. Despite the positive dynamics of destabilisation processes taking place all over the world, and in some places connected with the outbreak of military conflicts of an international nature, insufficient attention is paid to the issue of legitimising the process of exchange of prisoners of war in national legal systems. Methods: The problem is complicated by the need to coordinate national legal mechanisms with the norms of international humanitarian and human rights laws, which cannot be competitive, but instead should have an integrative effect on national legal systems. Relying on the norms of international humanitarian law, the author concludes that prisoners of war, as legal participants in an armed conflict, due to the immunity (privilege) of the combatant, do not bear individual responsibility for the initiation of an aggressive war or participation in it and must be repatriated after its end, with the exception of cases where they committed so-called ‘general criminal’ crimes or violated the laws and customs of war. Moreover, the author’s position is illustrated by a concrete practical example of the first sentence of the Ukrainian court against a combatant. Given that until July 2022, the Ukrainian criminal procedural law lacked a proper mechanism aimed at the exchange of prisoners of war, it is quite logical to direct the legal policy of the state to the development of the relevant procedural legislation. Results: Considering the significant dangerous challenges that Ukraine has faced, and the amendment of the legislation, the author refer to the analysis of the factors that determined the special normative regulation of the procedural order of prisoners of war; analyse the criminal procedural status of the suspect-prisoner of war; and point to the differentiation of the procedural orders of such an exchange, the key criterion for the division of which is the procedural status of the person. Using the example of the first sentence in Ukraine to a Russian prisoner of war and relying on the norms of international humanitarian and national law, the author illustrate the specifics of the criminal liability of combatants. Evaluating the procedure of exchange of prisoners of war and criminal proceedings in absentia which were positively introduced in the legislation of Ukraine, it was concluded that the exchange is not an act of forgiveness, but an opportunity to return Ukrainian citizens, which is of the utmost importance in the hierarchy of values for the state.

No abstract

The urgency of the article stated in the article is due to the need to revise traditional scientific views on certain peculiarities of criminal procedural evidence in connection with the expansion of the adversarial nature of domestic criminal proceedings. The purpose of the paper is to determine the essence of the category ‘burden of proof’ and justify the necessity of introducing it into scientific and law enforcement circulation. The main approach to the study of this problem was to carry out a critical analysis of the norms of the current criminal procedural legislation that regulates the requirements regarding the burden of proof and the views expressed on their proper understanding and application. The publication expresses the view that the distinction between such legal categories as ‘burden of proof’ and ‘burden of proof’ is proposed, the definition of the concept of ‘burden of proof’ is proposed and the rules for burden sharing between parties of criminal proceedings are analyzed. The material of the article represents both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further research into the essence of the concept of ‘burden of proof’, as well as for proper understanding and enforcement of criminal procedural law enforcement activities.

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.

Current issues of reparation for damages caused to Ukraine by  Russia armed aggression: a full-scale war, unprecedented (compared  to the Second World War and the rest of the wars of the 21st century)  in scope, cruel in essence, genocidal in purpose, devastating in means  and consequences are considered. One of  consequences of war and  war crimes committed by Russian aggressors starting from February  24, 2022, is massive destruction and damage to housing and other  property of Ukrainian citizens. Within framework of initiated  criminal proceedings, damages are compensated by filing a civil  lawsuit. However, specifics of the grounds of such a lawsuit cause the  occurrence of certain risks for the victim, as well as problems with  law enforcement and the exercise of their powers by investigators and  prosecutors. In particular, difficulties may lie in the impossibility of  inspecting the scene of the incident, which will ultimately negatively  affect the determination of the amount of damage caused (calculation  of the material equivalent of the damage). Determining the amount  of damage caused as a result of the destruction or destruction of  housing is also problematic, as it often requires the appointment of  an expert opinion, while the scale of the destruction within the state  makes it impossible to conduct such an expert opinion in a reasonable  time. Attention is focused on the issues of establishing the person who  should be responsible for the claim, or the civil defendant. Possibility  of overcoming the jurisdictional immunity of Russia as a defendant  in the declared civil lawsuits was also considered. Conducted  research made it possible to formulate proposals on mechanism of  compensation for the damage caused, as well as on improvement of  current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine.