Review

One of the reasons for underusing the results of covert evidence-gathering in the criminal procedural averment is the absence of procedural decisions in the materials of criminal proceedings (adjudications of investigating judges that allow to conduct covert evidence-gathering; orders requested of investigators and prosecutors on conducting of covert evidence-gathering), on the basis of which covert evidence-gathering are conducted in the criminal proceedings.

The author of the article set an aim, according to the systemic analysis of scientific sources, provisions of the Ukrainian legislation currently in force and materials of the law-enforcement practice, to establish the consequences of non-disclosure of procedural decisions in the criminal procedural averment, serving the basis for carrying out of covert evidence-gathering, to substantiate and suggest viable solutions.

Conclusion is made that consequences of non-disclosure of procedural decisions, on the basis of which covert evidence-gathering are conducted, in the criminal procedural averment are the following: 1) an impossibility to use the results of covert evidence-gathering as evidence in criminal proceedings due to the lack of capacity to check and evaluate: the lawfulness and justification for conducting of covert evidence-gathering; the lawfulness of restrictions on rights and freedoms of individuals, subject to covert evidence-gathering; as well as protocols of covert evidence-gathering for compliance with the admissibility, appropriateness and credibility requirements; 2) filing claims by the defense to recognize an inadmissibility of evidence obtained as a result of covert evidence-gathering; 3) recognition of unlawfulness and unsoundness of procedural decisions, adopted on the basis of relevant covert evidence-gathering.

It is argued that, to ensure the efficiency of application of the results of covert evidence-gathering in criminal procedural averment, the criminal case files shall contain procedural decisions, serving the basis for carrying out covert evidence-gathering, as well as requests for carrying out covert evidence-gathering, from which the secrecy label has been removed by competent authorities in the prescribed manner. The secrecy label shall be removed simultaneously with the disclosure of the results of covert evidence-gathering, that are used as evidence in criminal proceedings, based on prosecutor`s decision, who acts in the capacity of prosecutor in the particular criminal proceedings in form of procedural control over pre-trial investigation, save when disclosure of relevant materials may impar the public interest of national security of Ukraine.

It is substantiated that protocols of covert evidence-gathering can be used in criminal procedural averment only in conjunction with the procedural decisions, serving the basis for carrying out these covert evidence-gathering. Otherwise, if criminal case files contain protocols of covert evidence-gathering with annexes, but procedural decisions, based on which such covert evidence-gathering have been carried out, are absent, the court shall recognize the results of such covert evidence-gathering and annexes to it as inadmissible evidence.

Keywords: covert evidence-gathering, procedural decisions, evidence, averment, results of covert evidence-gathering activities, disclosure.