Review

This article researches separate issues of qualification of crimes that trench on the procedural rights and interests of the suspect. It is substantiated that the norms which stipulate responsibility for trenching on the procedural rights and interests of the suspect, the accused, committed by the officials of law enforcement bodies or judges (the articles 371–375 of the Criminal Code) mmay be considered as the special ones with respect to the articles in the Section XVII of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (Service Crimes). In particular, all crimes under the articles 371–375 of the Criminal Code are special types of excess of power (the article 365 of the Criminal Code), artificial creation or falsification of evidence (the second paragraph of the article 372 of the Criminal Code) may be an appearance of forgery by an official (the article 366 of the Criminal Code). It is traditionally proposed to overcome the competition of general and special norms in favour of the latter. At the same time, attention is drawn that in some cases more severe sanctions exist in the general norms. But the problem is proposed to be solved by introducing legislative changes to sanctions of special norms, and not by qualifying a crime in the aggregate.

In particular, the problem situation should be solved by amending the sanctions of Part 3 of Art. 371, part 2 of Art. 374, part 2 of Art. 375 of the Criminal Code (at least, bringing them in line with the sanction of Part 3 of Article 365 of the Criminal Code). Attention is paid to the different contents of the notion «grave consequences» in general norms (currently only material damage) and in special norms (not only material damage, but also physical harm, injury to reputation of the law enforcement bodies or the court). It has been established that the commission of such actions as knowingly illegal detention, an act of arrest or arrest (Article 371 of the Criminal Code), violation of the right to protection (Article 374 of the Criminal Code), the decision by a judge (judges) of a knowingly unjust sentence, decision, decree or ruling (Art. 375 of the Criminal Code), combined with the infliction of both material and non-material damage, recognized as «grave consequences», shall be qualified only in accordance with Part 3 of Art. 373, or Part 2 of Art. 374, or Part 2 of Art. 375 QC. Additional qualification of the accomplished even after part 3 of Art. 365 of the Criminal Code (excess of authority or official authority that caused grave consequences) is not required.

The purpose of this article is to consider qualification of crimes that trench on the procedural rights and interests of the suspect, the accused in typical and special criminal law situations – in particular, where there is a competition of criminal law norms.

References

1. 1. Konstytutsiia Ukrainy [Constitution of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [the Law of Ukraine] vid 28.06.1996 r.
2. № 254k/96-VR. data zvernennia 01.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
3. Kryminalnyi kodeks Ukrainy [The Criminal Code of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [the Law of Ukraine] vid 05.04.2001 p. № 2341-II. data zvernennia 02.08.2018 (in Ukrainian).
4. Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy [The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine]: Zakon Ukrainy [the Law of Ukraine/ vid 13.04.2012p. № 4651-VI data zvernennia 01.12.2018 (in Ukrainian).
5. Postanova Plenumu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 26.12.2003 r. № 15 «Pro sudovu praktyku u spravakh pro perevyshchennia vlady abo sluzhbovykh povnovazhen» [Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of 26.12.2003 r. Number 15 «On judicial practice in cases of abuse of power or authority»](2010) (in Ukrainian).
6. Postanova Plenumu Verkhovnoho Sudu Ukrainy vid 4.06.2010 r. № 7 «Pro praktyku zastosuvannia sudamy kryminalnoho zakonodavstva pro povtornist, sukupnist i retsydyv zlochyniv ta yikh pravovi naslidky» [Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine of June 4, 2010, № 7 «On the Practice of the Application by the Courts of Criminal Legislation on the Repetition, Composition and Relapse of Crimes and Their Legal Implications»] (2010) (in Ukrainian).
7. Marin O, Kvalifikatsiia zlochyniv pry konkurentsii kryminalno-pravovykh norm [Qualification of crimes in the competition of criminal law] (Kyiv Atika 2003) (in Ukrainian).
8. Navrotskyi V, Osnovy kryminalno-pravovoi kvalifikatsii [Fundamentals of criminal law training] (Kyiv, Yurinkom Inter 2006) (in Ukrainian).
9. Andrushko P, Zlochyny u sferi sluzhbovoi diialnosti: navchalnyi posibnyk [Offenses in the field of official activity] (Kyiv, Yuryskonsultant 2006) (in Ukrainian).
10. Dudorov O, ta inshi, Kryminalne pravo (Osoblyva chastyna): pidruchnyk [Criminal Law (Special Section)] (Luhansk Elton-2 2012) 704 (in Ukrainian).
11. Dudorov O, ta inshi, Kryminalne pravo: navchalnyi posibnyk [Criminal Law: Textbook] (Kyiv Vaite 2014) 944 (in Ukrainian).
12. Yatsenko S, ta inshi, Naukovo-praktychnyi komentar do Kryminalnoho kodeksu Ukrainy [Scientific and practical commentary on the Criminal Code of Ukraine] (Kyiv, A.S.K 2005) 1120 (in Ukrainian).
13. Marin O, ’Prychyny vynyknennia ta isnuvannia konkurentsii kryminalno-pravovykh norm’ (2001) Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu 454–460 (in Ukrainian).
14. Vakulyk O, ’Kryminalno-pravova kharakterystyka prymushuvannia davaty pokazannia’ [Criminal legal description of compulsion to testify] (2011) 19 (in Ukrainian).
15. Zadoia K, ’Kryminalna vidpovidalnist za perevyshchennia vlady abo sluzhbovykh povnovazhen (st. 365 KK Ukrainy)’ [Criminal liability for excess power or authority (Art. 365 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine)] (2009) 230 (in Ukrainian).