Review

Considering the centuries-old national and foreign experience of investigation and detection of crimes, an adoption of lawful and justified judgments by the courts is safeguarded only by an application of adequate, effective, secret tools of obtaining evidence, which, pursuant to the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine currently in force, are covert evidence-gathering activities. Despite the fact, that almost 85% of grave offences and especially serious crimes in the world are detected by means of application of covert evidence-gathering tools; whereas the results of most covert evidence-gathering activities are considered admissible judicial evidence by the courts of Western countries, the analysis of more than five years of national practice of the application of covert evidence-gathering activities has shown a markedly different picture. Only 5% of the results of application of covert evidence-gathering activities were considered an evidence by national courts. It foregrounds the scientific research in this field, not only due to the lack of application of covert evidence-gathering actions for obtaining evidence, but to develop other possibilities of the application of results of covert evidence-gathering actions in the criminal procedural averment.

The author of the article has set an aim to determine directions of using the results of covert evidence-gathering activities in the criminal procedural averment.

It is established that an equivocal understanding by the law enforcement authorities of the term and essence of evidence and averment directly affects an efficiency of application of the results of covert evidence-gathering activities in the criminal procedural averment.

The conclusion is made that the results of covert evidence-gathering activities are used in the criminal procedural averment for: 1) obtaining of some kinds of evidence, a justification with evidence of legal positions by the parties in criminal proceedings, for making a decision by the competent authorities in criminal proceedings; 2) for carrying out procedural activities considered as instruments for obtaining evidence (the results of the covert evidence-gathering activities may be a justification ground for conducting evidence-gathering activities, inter alia, covert ones); 3) a tactical-organizational support of the procedural activities in criminal proceedings.

It is argued that an application of the results of covert evidence-gathering activities facilitates the efficiency of procedural activities in the criminal proceedings, namely: the most suitable time and place determination for carrying out a specific procedural activity; the choice of the most appropriate tactical methods and precognition of means and forms of their realization; use of austerity factors; minimization of tactical risks level; modelling of the behavior of the participants in criminal proceedings; determination in the organized group persons, prone to contacts with an investigator; determination of the degree of awareness of people, that resist an investigation, about plans and intentions of an investigator, about evidence available in the investigation, about sources of information; application of effective procedural, tactical and organizational methods against counteracting criminals; considering a risk of possible counteracting an investigation by thirds parties, methods and forms of its manifestation etc.

References

1. 1. Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy: Zakon Ukrainy vid 13.04.2012 № 4651-VI [Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine: The Law of Ukraine] data zvernennia 18.04.2018 (in Ukranian).
2. Bahrii M V, Lutsyk V V, Protsesualni aspekty nehlasnoho otrymannia informatsii: vitchyznianyi ta zarubizhnyi dosvid [Procedural aspects of the tacit reception of information: domestic and foreign experience] (Kharkiv, Pravo 2017) 376 (in Ukranian).
3. Kudinov S S, Shekhavtsov R M, Drozdov O M, ta in, Nehlasni slidchi (rozshukovi) dii ta vykorystannia rezultativ operatyvno-rozshukovoi diialnosti u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Indirect Investigative (Investigative) Actions and Use of Results of Operative-Investigative Activity in Criminal Proceedings] (Oberih 2013) 344 (in Ukranian).
4. Loboiko L M, Reformuvannia kryminalno-protsesualnoho zakonodavstva v Ukraini (2006–2011 roky) [Reform of criminal procedural legislation in Ukraine (2006–2011)] (Istyna 2012) 131 (in Ukranian).
5. Loskutov T O, Predmet rehuliuvannia kryminalnoho protsesualnoho prava [The subject of the regulation of criminal procedural law] (Iuryd. svit 2016) 62 (in Ukranian).
6. Pohoretskyi M A, Funktsionalne pryznachennia operatyvno-rozshukovoi diialnosti u kryminalnomu protsesi [Functional Purpose of Operative-Investigative Activity in the Criminal Process] (Arsis, LTD2007) 279 (in Ukranian).
7. Starenkyi O S, Kryminalni protsesualni harantii zakhysnyka yak subiekta dokazuvannia u dosudovomu rozsliduvanni: teoriia ta praktyka [Criminal procedural guarantees of a defender as a subject of evidence in a pre-trial investigation: theory and practice] (Alerta 2016) 336 (in Ukranian).
8. Vapniarchuk V V, Shchodo poniattia dokaziv u kryminalnomu provadzhenni [Concerning the concept of evidence in criminal proceedings] (2015) 32(2) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu 114–117 (in Ukranian).
9. Hribov M L, Zabezpechennia subiektamy operatyvno-rozshukovoi diialnosti dokazuvannia u kryminalnomu protsesi [Ensuring of the subjects of operative-search activity of proof in a criminal proceeding] (2015) 2 Biuleten Ministerstva yustytsii Ukrainy 101–109 (in Ukranian).
10. Hmyrko V, Kryminalno-sudovi dokazy: yurydychne poniattia chy definitsiia? [Criminal Proof: Legal Notion or Definition?] (2014) 10 Pravo Ukrainy 26–35 (in Ukranian).
11. Hmyrko V, Lehalne vyznachennia «zahalnoho» poniattia dokaziv: chy zberihaty u novomu KPK [The legal definition of the «general» notion of evidence: whether to keep in the new CCP] (2003) 11 Pravo Ukrainy 104–105 (in Ukranian).
12. Lukianchykov Ye, Nehlasni slidchi (rozshukovi) dii – zasoby protsesualnoho dokazuvannia [Involuntary investigations (investigative) actions are means of procedural proof] (2014) 10 Pravo Ukrainy 106–115 (in Ukranian).
13. Pohoretskyi M A, Vprovadzhennia instytutu nehlasnykh (rozshukovykh) slidchykh dii v pravozastosovnu praktyku [Implementation of the Institute of Involuntary (Investigative) Investigative Actions in the Practice of Law Enforcement] (2012) 2(28) Borotba z orhanizovanoiu zlochynnistiu i koruptsiieiu (teoriia i praktyka) 56–63 (in Ukranian).
14. Pohoretskyi M A, Nehlasni slidchi (rozshukovi) dii: problemy provadzhennia ta vykorystannia rezultativ u dokazuvanni [Involuntary Investigative (Investigating) Actions: Issues of Proceeding and Using Results in Evidence] (2013) 1 Yurydychnyi chasopys Natsionalnoi akademii vnutrishnikh sprav 270–277 (in Ukranian).
15. Starenkyi O, Tsutskiridze M, Vykorystannia nehlasnykh slidchykh (rozshukovykh) dii yak zasobiv dokazuvannia v kryminalnomu provadzhenni na dosudovomu rozsliduvanni [Use of secret investigative (search) actions as means of proof in criminal proceedings at pre-trial investigation] (2015) 1 Pravo Ukrainy 152–161 (in Ukranian).
16. Pohoretskyi M A, ’Nova kontseptsiia kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia [New concept of criminal procedural proof] (2015) 3 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy 63–79 (in Ukranian).
17. Pohoretskyi M A, ’Dokazy u kryminalnomu protsesi: problemni pytannia [Evidence in the criminal process: problematic issues] (2011) 1(3) Chasopys Natsionalnoho universytetu «Ostrozka akademiia» data zvernennia 20.04.2018 (in Ukranian).
18. Pohoretskyi M, ’Teoriia kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia: problemni pytannia [The theory of criminal procedural proof: problematic issues] (2014) 10 Pravo Ukrainy 12–25 (in Ukranian).
19. Pohoretskyi M, ’Materialy operatyvno-rozshukovoi diialnosti i kryminalno-protsesualni dokazy: poniattia ta spivvidnoshennia [Materials of operational-search activity and criminal-procedural evidence: the concept and relationship] (2011) 1 Visnyk Nats. akad. prokuratury Ukrainy 45–51 (in Ukranian).
20. Serhieieva D B, ’Vykorystannia rezultativ nehlasnykh slidchykh (rozshukovykh) dii dlia otrymannia okremykh vydiv dokaziv u kryminalnomu provadzhenni: problemni pytannia [Use of the results of tacit investigation (search) actions to obtain certain types of evidence in a criminal proceeding: problematic issues] (2017) 12 Pravo Ukrainy 49–61 (in Ukranian).
21. Shumylo M Ye, ’Poniattia «dokazy» u Kryminalnomu protsesualnomu kodeksi Ukrainy: sproba krytychnoho pereosmyslennia ideolohii normatyvnoi modeli [The concept of «evidence» in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: an attempt to critically rethink the ideology of a normative model] (2013) 2(150) Visnyk Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy 40–48 (in Ukranian).
22. Serhieieva D B, ’Suchasna naukova kontseptsiia kryminalnoho protsesualnoho dokazuvannia Aktualni pytannia derzhavotvorennia v Ukraini: materialy Mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii [Contemporary Scientific Concept of Criminal Procedural Evidence ’Actual Issues of State Creation in Ukraine] (VPTs «Kyivskyi universytet» 2017) 293–295 (in Ukranian).