Review

The article presents the analysis of Ukrainian legislation and practice of the ECHR regarding the possible use in evidence of material obtained as a result of provocation crimes committed by law enforcement officials on proposed additions to the legislation aimed at its improvement.

Under provocation (incitement) of the person for the offence committed by the law enforcement agencies should understand the active actions of officials of law enforcement Agency or other person that was involved in carrying out of operatively-search actions or covert investigative (search) actions, beyond its lawful actions during pre-trial investigation of criminal proceedings, using the fact that the person who provoke (incite) for committing the crime is unaware of the conduct in respect of the appropriate prescribed by law, measures affects her so to induce a person to commit a criminal offence, which otherwise would not be committed, and having no other purpose than as a further proof of the face, creating evidence of her guilt and criminal responsibility.

With the aim of improving criminal procedural legislation regarding the use of evidence obtained as a result of provocation of the crime offered by article 87 of the code of criminal procedure be supplemented with a provision that the court must admit evidence inadmissible in case it is received as a result of provocation of a crime, article 91 of the code of criminal procedure be supplemented with a provision that in criminal proceedings subject to proof of absence of provocation of crime, and art. 368 code of criminal procedure be supplemented with a provision that in passing sentence, the court must decide the question of whether there was a provocation of the crime if the suspect (defendant) will argue about the existence of provocation (incitement) to commit a crime.

Keywords: provocation (incitement) to commit a crime by law enforcement, the admissibility of evidence.