Review

Annotation. The article examines the problematic issues of the key features of the definition of evidence that constitutes a secret protected by law in criminal proceedings, admissibility, the determination of the empirical basis of the theoretical and legal regulation of certain categories of evidence and the criteria by which they can be considered admissible when making procedural decisions within the framework of criminal proceedings. It was revealed that there is no unified point of view among scientists regarding the essence of the categories of evidence and the admissibility of evidence that constitute a secret protected by law and must be subjected to a «special» investigation by all participants in criminal proceedings. At the same time, the adoption of legal and justified procedural decisions is possible only when they are based on verified and correctly assessed factual data obtained in accordance with and in the form specified by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. It has been proven that the admissibility of evidence is a procedural institution, the essence of which is violated in that the appropriate factual data must be obtained together with a source established by law, authorized for this subject of the criminal process and fixed in the manner specified in the criminal procedural law. It is noted that provisions regarding the admissibility of such categories of evidence as those that confirm a secret protected by law have existed in foreign legislation for many years and need to be implemented in domestic legislation. It is justified that the only subject to whose competence is subject the consideration of the completed issue of recognition of the admissibility of evidence should be the court that accepted the trial as part of the criminal proceedings. It is noted that the issue of admissibility of evidence requires further understanding, generalization of existing theoretical studies, development of scientific proposals for improvement of this institute in accordance with international standards. Key words: evidence, admissibility of evidence, secrecy, criminal proceedings, guarantees of secrecy. REFERENCES  LIST OF LEGAL DOCUMENTS LEGISLATION

1. Instruktsiia pro orhanizatsiiu provedennia nehlasnykh slidchykh (rozshukovykh) dii ta vykorystannia yikh rezultativ u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Instruction on the organization of secret investigative (search) actions and the use of their results in criminal proceedings] vid 16.11.2012 r. № 114/1042/516/1199/936/1687/5 data zvernennia 04.05.2022 [in Ukrainian].

CASES

1. Rishennia Konstytutsiinoho sudu Ukrainy u spravi za konstytutsiinym podanniam Sluzhby bezpeky Ukrainy shchodo ofitsiinoho tlumachennia polozhennia chastyny tretoi statti 62 Konstytutsii Ukrainy vid 20 zhovtnia 2011 roku № 12-rp/2011 [Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case on the constitutional submission of the Security Service of Ukraine regarding the official interpretation of the provisions of the third part of Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine dated October 20, 2011 № 12-рп/2011] data zvernennia 04.05.2022 [in Ukrainian].

BIBLIOGRAPHY ARTICLES

1. Starenkyi O S, Shchodo vyznachennia poniattia mezh dokazuvannia v kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Regarding the definition of the concept of limits of proof in criminal proceedings] (2014) 1 (9) Chasopys Natsionalnoho universytetu «Ostrozka akademiia». Seriia «Pravo» 1–12 [in Ukrainian].
2. Kuchynska O P, Systemnist pryntsypiv kryminalnoho provadzhennia yak vyznachalnyi faktor yikh efektyvnoho rehuliatornoho vplyvu na kryminalno-protsesualni vidnosyny [The systematic nature of the principles of criminal proceedings as a determining factor of their effective regulatory influence on criminal procedural relations] (2012) 1 Advokat 7–11 [in Ukrainian].
3. Pohoretskyi M A, Dokazy u kryminalnomu protsesi [Evidence in criminal proceedings] (2003) 2 Visnyk prokuratury 59–65 [in Ukrainian].
4. Pohoretskyi M A, Pro spivvidnoshennia dzherel faktychnykh danykh i dzherel dokaziv u kryminalnomu protsesi [About sources of factual data and sources of evidence in criminal proceedings] (2009) 1 Pravo Ukrainy 80–85 [in Ukrainian]. 7. Pohoretskyi M A, Shchodo poniattia «dokaz» za proektom novoho kryminalno-protsesualnoho kodeksu [Regarding the concept of «evidence» according to the draft of the new Criminal Procedure Code] (2009) 3 Visnyk prokuratury 94–101 [in Ukrainian].
5. Pohoretskyi M A, Teoriia dokaziv – metodolohichna osnova operatyvno-rozshukovoho dokumentuvannia orhanizovanoi zlochynnoi diialnosti [Theory of evidence – the methodological basis of operational investigative documentation of organized criminal activity] (2010) 22 Borotba z orhanizovanoiu zlochynnistiu i koruptsiieiu (teoriia i praktyka) 185–195 [in Ukrainian].
6. Pohoretskyi M, Dokazy u kryminalnomu protsesi: problemni pytannia [Evidence in the criminal process: problematic issues] (2011) 1 Chasopys Natsionalnoho universytetu «Ostrozka akademiia». Seriia «Pravo» 20 [in Ukrainian].
7. Pohoretskyi M A, Poniattia kryminalno-protsesualnykh harantii [Poniattia kryminalno-protsesualnykh harantii] (2014) 2 (10) Chasopys Natsionalnoho universytetu «Ostrozka akademiia». Seriia «Pravo» 10 data zvernennia 04.05.2022. [in Ukrainian].
8. Pohoretskyi M, Teoriia kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia: problemni pytannia [Theory of criminal procedural evidence: problematic issues] (2014) 10 Pravo Ukrainy 12–25 [in Ukrainian].
9. Pohoretskyi M A, Nova kontseptsiia kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia [New concept of criminal procedural evidence] (2015) 3 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy 63–79 [in Ukrainian].