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.

The article analyzes the standards of compliance with the principle of the presumption of innocence by a lawyer, which are put forward by the European Court of Human Rights (valid at all stages of criminal proceedings; violated if the statement of a public official (not only the court) in relation to a person accused of a crime reflects the opinion that the person is guilty if it has not been established in accordance with the law; whether a statement by a public official violates the presumption of innocence should be determined in the context of the specific circumstances in which such a statement was made; suggests that public officials working in the judiciary are required to demonstrate restraint in exercising their freedom of expression in all cases in which the authority and impartiality of the judiciary may be called into question; cannot prevent the relevant authorities from informing the public about the progress of criminal investigations; criminal case, but extends to judicial decisions taken after the prosecution has been terminated or after conviction; requires judges, in the performance of their tasks, to move away from the preconceived notion that the accused has committed the crime he is accused of) and typical cases of their violation in the national law enforcement practice.

The article analyzes the international standards for the creation and operation of joint investigative teams (created by mutual consent of the competent authorities of two or more Parties with a specific purpose, for a limited period in one of the Parties, where investigations are expected to be conducted; the composition of the group is determined in the agreement ; the head of the group is a representative of a competent body participating in a criminal investigation from the Party in whose territory the group operates; the group performs its actions in accordance with the legislation of the Party in whose territory it operates; the party in whose territory the group operates uses the necessary organizational measures to ensure its work; seconded members of the joint investigative team have the right to be present during investigative activities on the territory of the Party where the group works (the seconded members of the joint investigative team may be instructed by its leader in accordance with the legislation of the Party on the territory of which the team operates and to take certain investigative measures in cases where it was approved by the competent authorities of the Party in whose territory the group operates and the Party that is seconding); in cases where the joint investigative team needs the assistance of a Party that is not one of those that created the team or of a third state, the competent authorities of the state in whose territory the team operates may request assistance from the competent authorities of such another state in accordance with with relevant contracts or agreements).