In the article light up basic directions scientific-pedagogical activity of S.I. Tikhenko, related to science of criminal law. The contribution of this scientist is determined to development of the indicated science on the basis of the archived sources

The author analyzed the correlation of concepts, some criminal law and criminal procedural aspects of derailment of the absence of a criminal offense, establishment of the absence of a corpus of criminal offense and derailment of sufficient evidences to prove the guilt of a person in court and exhaustion of the possibilities of their obtaining as a basis for terminating the criminal proceedings. Attention is drawn to certain inconsistencies of the provisions of the CPC as for the determination of the reasons for terminating the criminal proceedings and circumstances subject to proof in criminal proceedings.

Some terminological and substantial flaws of modern criminal law of Ukraine in the area of regulating the institute of release from punishment and its serving are reviewed in the article. Among others inconsistency between the name of the relevant Chapter of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and its contents is pointed out; indication by one term of different institutes by their substance and criminal law meaning. Within the institute of release from punishment and its serving it is proposed to clearly create four independent sub institutes (release from punishment; release from serving a part of punishment; substitution of punishment; postponement of executing punishment) considering the contents of which changes in the relevant Chapter of the Criminal Code of Ukraine have to take place. According to the proposed approach it is proposed to separate out two forms of criminal liability realization: 1) liberal or privileged (conviction + punishment + circumstantial/non circumstantial release from it or postponement of executing punishment) and 2) repressive (conviction + punishment + serving punishment + criminal record). Necessity of coordinating provisions of the Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the part of determining the order of passing guilty verdict without prescribing punishment is established. Such changes have to be built based on the approach about impossibility of release from punishment that is not prescribed. Changes to criminal and criminal procedure laws aimed at improving their provisions are developed and proposed.

The problem of one of the major issues of criminal policy – specification of the object of the crime under art. 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In the opinion of the authors, under the concept of justice should be understood exclusively activities of courts within their jurisdiction based on the rule of law, which provides everyone the right to a fair trial and respect for other rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine and international agreements, issued as binding by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Reported that the generic object offenses specified in Chapter XVIII of the Criminal Code, is public relations about terms (relations) that provide regulated by law and other legal acts of activity in the courts of justice; the inquiry, investigation, prosecution, institutions that enforce decisions; persons, providing for the court of inquiry, preliminary investigation complete, comprehensive and objective resolution of cases, protection of legitimate rights and interests of citizens, society and state in court proceedings, inquiry, pretrial investigation and enforcement, protection of persons and offices

?????????? ???????: ??????? ????????? ???????

The paper investigates the problem areas demanding undue advantage in the commission of bribery of an official legal entity of private law. Based on the analysis of scientific literature studied approaches to the concept and importance of soliciting undue advantage. It is reported that before the enactment of the Law of Ukraine on april 18, 2013 soliciting undue advantage recognized by one of the independent grounds mandatory exemption from criminal liability. This incentive rate given vymushenist behavior of the person who gave undue advantage, contributed to exposing the worst offenders – persons who received such benefits, applying psychological pressure. Also, it was believed that the motives that prompted the person to voluntarily declare the offering or giving it undue advantage could be different (fear of punishment, revenge, jealousy, dissatisfaction with the fact that the officer did not fulfill the promise, the desire to expose bribery, etc.). However, with the introduction of legislative changes under consideration the situation has changed, and it’s definitely not easy to assess. When deciding on the presence or absence of soliciting undue advantage of the situation with discretion official – the recipient of this requirement, the authors should be based on the fact that an act which threatens the commission in this case the officer of the legal entity of private law, can hardly be recognized in legal so that in the event of their officer formally gives specific legal rule. A number of proposals aimed at improving the criminal law and practice.

Procedural activity being implemented prior to the making entries on the criminal infraction into the Unified Register of Prejudicial Inquiries is designed not to state grounds prior to the start of inquiry, but «events advancing» to substantiate the facts of a criminal infraction by means of prejudicial inquiry since before its registration. Such «advancing» is conditioned by emergency circumstances. Since to establish grounds prior to the start of prejudicial inquiry by means of material resources of research it is prohibited by the law, so these grounds shall be «looked for» exceptionally in the primary sources on the actions, but not on the «criminal infraction». Statement of availability of grounds prior to the start of prejudicial inquiry shall immediately involve performance of legal proceedings. The research being implemented within this paper, allows to make such conclusions: 1) check of primary sources of data is performed only by logical (non-material) means of research; 2) grounds for start of prejudicial inquiry are a minimal necessity of cumulative evidence of criminal infraction and features of set of elements of criminal infraction in the action on which the information came; 3) provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code shall «be involved» when there are grounds for prejudicial inquiry; 4) it is reasonable to exclude from the procedural law a prohibition to perform procedural actions prior to making entries on criminal infraction into the Unified Register of Prejudicial Inquiries.

Conducting issuing entity (extradition) in criminal proceedings concerning crimes of international character is made in compliance with international treaties and national laws of the State but also has features as crimes of international character traditionally regarded as «extradition». By virtue of article examines some aspects of the issuance of the person (extradition) under the given conditions. Ascertained positive changes in the new legislation regarding extradition Institute and associated with the rights and freedoms of a person against whom a decision is taken (art. 581 CPC of Ukraine), the decision on extradition arrest by the court (art. 584 CPC of Ukraine), etc. Special attention in the criminal proceedings concerning crimes of international nature paid to temporary surrender of the person (art. 579 CPC of Ukraine), is its comparative analysis with the issuance of the person (extradition). Summarized that the issuance of the person (extradition) during criminal proceedings concerning crimes of international character involves not only the fact of the issue, but also a set of proceedings and organizational measures designed to prevent a person attempts to evade the pre-trial investigation, continue to engage in criminal activity, preservation sources of evidence-based information, verification of circumstances that would prevent the issue, the rights and freedoms of the person to be extradited and others. Now delineated activity requires complex maintenance, including forensic.

This article covers study of categories «incrimination» and «prosecution on behalf of a state» in the context of new Code of criminal proceedings of Ukraine. Correlation of categories «incrimination» and «criminal prosecution» has been considered. Author’s position on understanding of the criminal prosecution in the narrow sense is being defined. It is noted that the prosecution as criminal procedural function must be defined in a narrow sense, namely as the activity that aims to expose a particular person with a criminal offense and bring it to criminal liability or the use of other measures of criminal law influence; prosecution is always personalized activities carried out on a particular person who has the status of, for example, the suspect and the accused. Prosecution as a form of criminal prosecution begins with the approval or assembly guilty act prosecutor. In the charge to implement forms of prosecution include: suspicion; regarding the identity of the criminal proceedings against the application of compulsory medical measures; of juvenile proceedings concerning the application of compulsory measures of educational nature.

The article investigates the modern understanding of the standards of advocacy. The author argues that without effective functioning of strong and independent legal profession existence of a democratic state and civil society is impossible. Special attention is paid to the standards of advocacy in the provision of the free of charge legal aid in criminal proceedings. Determined that advocacy settled numerous professional standards of the level of theoretical and practical training, compliance counsel to morality and professional ethics

This paper examines the norms Code of Ukraine, which define the concept of testimony in criminal proceedings as evidence of procedural sources, types, ways to check and assess the features. Attention is paid to those innovations legislation requiring scientific understanding and interpretation. It is noted that the law does not distinguish between certain types of readings depending on the procedural status of the entity from which they are derived, because of the same legal nature of this source of evidence. Of particular note, the author gives hearsay evidence. Use as evidence in a criminal trial testimony hearsay exception to the general rule regarding personal perception of the facts by the person giving the testimony, because in this case the possible distortion of information received in any doubt as to its authenticity, the influence of the subjective factor, which reduces its credibility. It is noted that the methodological paradigm shift that occurs in connection with the adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, has shaped the legal regulation of the use in proving evidence

In this article norms of international legal documents were analysed (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as well as the Commonwealth of independent States Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms), which relate to regulation of rights for freedom and personal immunity. The author refers to the practice of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the application of such restrictive measures as detention. This article adduces the data that as of 11 april 2013 the ECHR held 81 decisions in cases against Ukraine under article 5 of the Convention, in which 157 of violations were established. This article also defines novel norms of the Criminal Procedural Code 2012, which may be deemed as procedural guarantees that secure rights for freedom and personal immunity. It also indicates that number of deficiencies of the preceding legislation, that were leading to the recognition of the violation of article 5 of the Convention, were amended with the enactment of the new Criminal Procedural Code. Thus, sec. 1 art. 183 CPC recognises the detention as an exceptional restrictive measure, which is applied exclusively in case, when a prosecutor fails to prove, that none of more lenient restrictive measures will be able to prevent risks defined in sec. 1 art. 177 CPC. According to the general rule, detention as a restrictive measure is not applicable, except for the cases provided in sec. 2 art. 183 CPC.

Essence and types of criminal procedural coercion. Suggestions regarding the classification of measures to ensure the criminal proceedings and precautionary measures under the new Code of Ukraine. On the basis of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States the features of the application of criminal procedural coercion. Indicated that a significant problem for practitioners election procedure was neizolyatsiynyh precautions which are quite lengthy and time-consuming because of the need to request approval of the investigating prosecutor and investigating judge decision. According to the author, investigator unloading system should enable the investigator to choose the suspect personal commitment and personal security of the imposition of appropriate procedural obligations. To summarize the article, the author notes that the new Code of Ukraine provides for a range of measures of procedural coercion that can be applied to the suspect to ensure the effectiveness of the criminal proceedings. Thus, taking into account international bodies preliminary investigation and the courts in each case, careful approach to the selection of measures to ensure the criminal proceedings for the rigorous and strict observance of the rights and interests of both the injured party and the defense

This paper addresses the problem of implementing prevention activities during the preliminary investigation within the CPC of Ukraine. The results of a survey of employees investigative police departments on specific deficiencies specified activities within the CPC of Ukraine in 1961 and invited them to view the content of articles that are necessary to implement prevention activities in the current Code of Ukraine. It is noted that given the deficiencies implementation of preventive activities within the CPC of Ukraine, 1961, supplement authors are offering new PDA Ukraine’s position, under which the prosecution has established that the presence of the causes and circumstances of the criminal offense has the right to submit to the appropriate authority, public organization or official representation to address these circumstances. According to the authors that submit proposals to be right but not the duty of the prosecution. Specified reduces facts making formal submissions, which allows submissions from established reliably causes and conditions of committing a criminal offense. At the same time it is necessary to provide for the obligation of the prosecution to establish the circumstances specified to enhance prevention activities, but the presentation is sent only if the actual installation of these causes and conditions.

The content and procedural order interaction investigative and operational units when declaring a wanted suspect. Identified contentious issues of joint activities of these entities. Expressed proposals for improving organizational aspects of this interaction. It is noted that in the work to search for the suspect to be wider use of the Institute of confidential cooperation. One of the objectives of using covert aid workers is to establish accommodations wanted criminals and persons missing. According to the author, law enforcement bodies have taken additional measures to ensure proper cooperation of investigators from operational and technical operating units and operational service during the investigation of suspects who fail to pre-trial investigation. In criminal proceedings, in which the suspect (accused) announced a search in the grounds referred to the CPC of Ukraine shall be provided giving orders to conduct covert investigative (search) action to locate the suspect (accused).

The paper conducted a systematic analysis of the rules governing procedural order investigative (seach) action. The scientific-practical advice on legal application of the provisions governing the procedural order investigative (seach) actions that cause issues in the practitioners. The author states that the term «possession» in the legal literature used in two ways: 1) the possession of an independent legal institution; 2) tenure as one of the powers of ownership. It seems that the use of the text of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine concepts of «home» and «other property» in the same phrase when it comes to getting approval investigating judge to penetrate them, has solved the problem that existed before the adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code and should not lead to difficulties in their interpretation and subsequent application. order to search among others is locating wanted persons. Moreover, investigators and prosecutors often interpreted this provision literally, that in my opinion, is incorrect. When the person sought in terms of examining the article should be understood not only suspects on wanted lists in which the order of art. 281 CPC, but also people who disappeared under any circumstances and wanted by law enforcement agencies.

The article deals with the problematic aspects of the criminal proceeding start on the facts of illegal gambling. The article deals with the peculiarities of the beginning of criminal proceeding in case of detection by investigator or prosecutor information that suggest about illegal gambling, and in the case of application (message) about committing therein gambling. Applications for committing this crime are often served by «nominal» organizer of gambling, gambling workers and ordinary citizens who accidentally found evidence of gambling. Sometimes these claims are presented by players or members of their families. Self-identifying information about a crime by investigator or prosecutor is in the result of their direct action (in the case of the investigation other crimes by them), in the result of search operations or from other sources (media, post on the Internet, ads, etc).

The article defined the essence of the terms «direct» and «cross examination of witnesses and victims. It is noted that during the trial examination of witnesses have not used the free form of presentation is indicated, but the answers to the questions, and offer a free presentation about the presiding evidence applies only questioning the accused. Prosecutors and defense counsel in the trial of criminal proceedings to ensure performance of their judicial functions of prosecution and defense special attention should be paid to the observance of procedural order, the correct strategy and tactics of direct and cross-examination of witnesses and victims, as in the wider use of elements of competition under the new Code of Ukraine are more likely to receive from the person being questioned necessary information to verify the legal positions of the parties. It is noted that the court does not conduct questioning, but only monitors compliance with the rules of its implementation by the parties. The judge may, in protest parties take matters which do not concern the merits of the criminal proceedings and in case of ambiguity in the testimony of a witness, victim regarding the presence or absence of particular circumstances, to require the witness to a clear answer to the question – «yes» or «no», but ask your questions and the presiding judge can only after the witness put the question victim, civil plaintiff, civil defendant, their representatives and legal representatives or other evidence in the study. The problem of participation of the accused (defendant) in the «direct» and «cross the interrogation of witnesses and victims under the provisions of international conventions and European Court of Human Rights and is a conclusion that the defendant, as it relates to the defense shall have the right, even in the presence of counsel, to take part in the questioning of witnesses and victims.

Based on the scientific analysis of the literature, the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine 1960 and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine 2012, the article examines the theoretical and practical problem issues initial phase of preliminary investigation, also invited the author’s vision of their solution. The author considers occasion and basis for the start of pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses. Under the occasion for the start of pre-trial investigation is proposed to understand – the ?riminal procedure law act volitional actions of authorized addressed the subjects of criminal proceedings, or an act authorized entity aimed at the realization of its powers, that is legal fact, which resulted in criminal proceedings authorized entity receives information about the circumstances that may indicate a criminal offense, which is the basis for the formation of his inner convictions for making such information to the unified register of pre-trial investigations and the need for early pre-trial investigation. It was determined that the reason for the start of pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses: a) a statement of the circumstances that may indicate a criminal offense; b) notice of circumstances that may indicate a criminal offense; c) identify independent investigator or prosecutor from any source of circumstances that may indicate a criminal offense. It is noted that the basis for the beginning of pre-trial proceedings, there are circumstances that may indicate a criminal offense.

Based on the analysis of the relevant provisions of the applicable national legislation contained in scientific sources viewpoints of scholars and practitioners, the article researched covert aspects of secret investigative proceedings (investigation) action. Established that secret investigative (search) action singled out in the relevant type of investigative (search) acts just on the basis of the fact of secrecy and methods for their implementation. In terms of cognitive methods, secret methods used during their execution, undercover investigators (search) action is different from the secret of similar search operations. Under the same mode of conduct, which is unofficial, secret not only to interested in solving criminal proceedings or the results of investigative entities, but also from employees in the units, pre-trial investigation, etc., which do not participate in their implementation. Speaking of nehlasnist, privacy methods of covert investigative (search) action set that can not be disclosed as the type and nature of covert methods of obtaining information about a crime, information constituting a state secret, and the fact that the use in the course of covert investigative (search) actions of the scientific methods of knowledge (observation, interviews, etc.), which themselves are not secret. Introduction of a secret investigative (search) action in criminal proceedings Ukraine needs further improvement of national legislation, including in the area of health information, with limited access

The author examines the grounds and the mode of application of the rule of law. Defines the criminal justice system. Risks that arise in today’s business environment reform in criminal justice, you can call the desire to «cover is not covered», «make unfulfilled» resort to the incorrect definition of the object or the subject of reform, and that is fatal – ymenuvaty methods of systemic reform, system – structural or structural – functional, not following the requirements of their application. In other words, logic has always corrected and saturated with specific historical material. General historical material (facts, documents, memos) helps to identify the nature of processes and phenomena only in unity with the logical methods of cognition, including commenting on these events, system-structural comparison. Emphasis on the possibility of Ukraine’s accession to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

The questions about differences between various types of public-law delicts are discussed. These issues are important in the context of the reform of material and procedural criminal law, launched in 2012, the adoption of the new Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, in which the concepts of «criminal offense» and «criminal misdemeanor» first appeared in the Ukrainian legislation. Criminal offenses differ from misdemeanors by different objects and different degrees of encroachment. But that is not the only difference. Recently, the difference between them was caused by drifting of the criminal offenses towards the private law. The difference between the criminal offense and criminal misdemeanor lies in their different severity, which is determined mainly by the degree (hooliganism – minor hooliganism), and sometimes by nature (disclosure of a state secret – the disclosure of a professional secret). The difference between the criminal misdemeanor and administrative offence is that the core (i.?e. the character) of administrative offence is encroachment upon only one possible object – a system of government (administration) in various spheres of life (education, healthcare, manufacturing, trade, environment etc.). Administrative offence as a kind of behavior, is different from an administrative infraction by its typicality and the fact that the legislator has provided direct sanctions for such behavior, which are used by administrative body with the purpose of prevention; in all other cases, the fact of an administrative infraction is established by the court, whose role primarily lies in resolving of administrative and legal conflict by forcing the offender to change his/her behavior and eliminate its negative effects.

Actuality of research supervision of the execution of orders to conduct covert investigative (detective) actions during looting and robbery investigation. The list of undercover investigators (search) actions that can be carried out to investigate the looting and robbery. The role of the prosecutor during covert investigations lootings and robberies. Defined object and means of prosecutorial control over the covert investigation (search) actions during the investigation of looting and robberies. The subject of supervision of the activities of the units of execution of orders to conduct covert investigation (search) action in investigating looting and robbery are: availability of formal grounds provided by law for such actions; compliance by the law orders and content restrictions on these activities in time, space and facilities for the range, and the application of means at the same time. The means of supervision of the activities of the units of execution of orders to conduct covert investigative (detective) action is to study the documents required for a comprehensive study of its subject (the investigating judge rulings, orders, reports of covert investigative (detective) actions and annexes).

Identified areas of investigative and standard errors associated with the investigation of illicit trafficking of toxic or potent substances and drugs. Suggestions for improving standards CP? Ukraine Indicated that the majority of cases the reason for entering information about the facts of criminal offenses related to illicit production, manufacture, purchase, transportation, transfer, possession for sale or sale of poisonous or potent substances or toxic or potent drugs in the Unified Register of pre-trial Investigation reports are the available workers (85% of cases), as well as appeals of citizens identify facts storage or transport of these substances without proper documents (in 15% of cases). Thus, according to the authors, the investigation of criminal proceedings on the illegal traffic of toxic or potent substances or toxic or potent drugs still many problems, eliminating them as possible by changing the legal basis for the order of documenting and investigating crimes of this category, and the practice of pre-trial investigation towards the most complete, comprehensive and unbiased establish all the circumstances of the crime, and only if there is legitimate and justified adoption of the decision procedure

Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in 2012 allows the possibility of summary proceeding. This procedure should be applied in cases of misdemeanors. This legislative novel is an attempt of the legislator to provide fast and effective criminal proceeding. With the introduction of summary pro-ceeding legislator was guided by European law. However, it is significantly different from the criminal procedural law of Ukraine. In particular, the latter features are as follows: a) the mandatory consent of the suspect and the victim to review the indictment act in summary proceeding; b) lack of authority of the court to refuse consideration of the indictment act in summary proceeding; c) the possibility of under summary proceeding of certain procedural acts that are typical for a «normal» proceedings. Everything listed above significantly complicates the application of the law on summary proceeding. Criminal Procedure Law of Ukraine requires at least the following changes: a) request to review the indictment act in summary proceeding must submit a proposal for the sanction which should be selected for accused; b) the consent of the victim shall not be a condition for consideration of the indictment act in summary proceeding; c) the court shall have the right to refuse tequest to review the indictment act in summary proceeding; d) summary proceeding shall exclude call of the trial participants to the court hearinf; e) the court shall impose a sentence declared in the request to review the indictment act in summary proceeding

This article reveals the basic procedural functions carried out by subjects of criminal procedure during the pretrial investigation. It is proved that the pretrial stage of the criminal process does not have an adversarial principle. Proposed exception investigator of the number of participants that relate to the prosecution and giving investigator of investigation function. Defined theoretical model of the functional structure of the pretrial investigation. It is noted that the investigator in the criminal proceedings should serve as an investigation, which is an objective investigation of the circumstances that are the subject of proof in criminal proceedings. It does not have to be representative of the prosecution as acting like a court, independent actors. According to the author, the functional structure of the preliminary investigation presented the following main functions: investigation; prosecution (prosecution); protection; judicial review. It is noted that the prospects for further scientific research in this direction, we see improvement in the functional structure of the pre-trial investigation; detailed analysis of the nature and content of each of the procedural functions in the light of new legislation; ensuring the balance of rights and obligations of participants pre-trial investigation, which have opposite procedural interests.

In the article on the basis of studying of scientific literature and practice the essence and concept of the use of special knowledge have been analyzed. Publications, which made the beginning of this concept research, have being indicated. The author has described the existing in science point of views on understanding of concept of the special knowledge, has pointed out their defects and undertook an attempt to give the determination to this concept. Separate attention in the article is payed to the forms of application of the special knowledge during investigation of crimes. It is determined that to this date the single systematization of forms of application of the special knowledge does not exist. Although in science the validity of selection among the forms of application of the special knowledge such as, judicial and unjudicial, is contested, to the opinion of the author, such systematization deserves on existence

The article examines the procedural and forensic features of organization and tactics of the investigation actions, covert investigation actions and other procedural measures during the preliminary investigation to obtain undue advantage officer. Investigation obtaining undue advantage officer has a specificity that is the immediate application of complex procedural means for gathering evidence and using expertise. Each criminal proceedings in which to document criminal activity using previously identified (labeled) tools should be osviduvannya and (or) a search of the person (while in custody or under the search of a dwelling or other property).

The article deals with criminal procedure law and criminalistics as an independent branches of science which are series of criminal sciences and established that they are closely interrelated, highlighted their integrative relationships. Determined that the relationship is manifested in the study of certain objects of knowledge, but in different ways. Analysis of the history and development of scientific knowledge about the nature and subject matter of criminalistics provides grounds for its determination as a science of a system of principles and techniques of knowledge of the mechanism of criminal activities and activities of investigation and solution of crimes. Its subject is a definite pattern, manifested in these activities, and determine the relationship with other legal forensic science that studies crime and suggest measures to combat it. Communication of criminalistics with rules of law (criminal, criminal procedure, and others) makes it legal science, which is one of criminal science. Scientific statements and recommendations are implemented in forensic law enforcement and court functions with the help of certain subjects, giving ground of allocation of a special kind of activity – forensic activities. Relation of criminalistics and criminal procedure determined that these two sciences have a common object of study, which serves to investigate the activities of crime. Criminalistics takes a subordinate function – its recommendations are based on the procedural provisions and in fact aimed on implementing the procedural requirements. Criminal procedure defines the status of the science of participants of criminal proceedings, order the investigation and consequently limits the use of tactics, scientific and technical tools guidelines. On the other hand, forensic statements and recommendations are formulated that repeatedly were reproduced in the articles of the criminal procedure law, turning to his prescriptions. The author proposed the idea of an independent legal regulation of forensic activities through the creation of «special part» of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine

The problem aspects of intercommunication of civil society and state are in – process investigated in the questions of organization of department judicial. The legal forms of influence of civil society are analysed on providing of the impartial rule – making. Seen, that independent department – judicial this first of all display and achievement of civil society, where a court comes forward not as making the systems of state administration, and is an independent and impartial mediator between civil society and state.

Using the results of the study current legislation of Ukraine, literary sources, the Prosecutor and investigative practice the article proves the author’s view on the features of prosecutorial oversight of the legality of decisions of operative-search activity. According to the author, exercising supervision over the legality of decisions on suspension and resumption of OSA, prosecutors should also be taken into account quantitative and qualitative characteristics of defendants whose activities are studied or documented by the case. Official figures show that about half of the operational-search cases studied prosecution of supervisory concern facts organized crimes. The set of considerations set out in article displays a separate block of contemporary issues in the field of public prosecutions hordes. The proposed provisions for system operational-search solutions that covered the subject of public prosecutions, as well as violations committed during their acceptance is not unconditional and are discussion. According to the author, fruitful discussion in the circle of interested researchers and practitioners organs, operational and investigative units.

Based on the analysis of scientific sources and the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the article the content and features of coercion in criminal proceedings. The author definition of coercion in criminal proceedings. Under duress in criminal proceedings, according to the authors, it is understood state-controlled system of arms interim nature, which is used in criminal proceedings investigators, prosecutors and judges to participants in criminal proceedings in the presence of this reason and manner provided in the Code of Ukraine, with in order to eliminate actual and possible obstacles to the tasks of criminal proceedings. The consequences of the use of coercion in criminal proceedings is the imposition on the person-offender penalties physical, moral, psychological and material nature

The article highlights the issue of implementation details of the presumption of innocence in the light of the European Court of Human Rights. The list of international legal acts that define the position that a person accused of a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is established by law in order. Such acts are: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights. It is noted that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe also gained such standards, recognizing that a number of key elements of justice full protection of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights serves entitled “considered innocent until guilt is not installed in accordance with the law” . Based on a systematic analysis of the European Court of Human Rights, the author of the article the incidents of violation of the presumption of innocence. These cases are: 1) commenting employees of public authorities and the media of criminal proceedings against a person’s guilt in a criminal offense long before trial criminal proceedings and in accordance with the court’s judgment of conviction; 2) during the implementation of some measures to ensure the criminal proceedings; 3) remand the suspect, accused at trial criminal proceedings in the «cage»

???? ???????? ? ????? ????????????? ?????

???????? ???????-?????????? ???????? «???????????? ????????? ? ????????????? ???????????. ??????. ???’???????»

????????? ????????? ??????? ? ????????????? ?????????????? ?????

???????-???????? ???????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????? ???????

??? ?????????? ???????-????????? ??????????? «??????????? ???????»

????????? ???? ?????????? – ???????? ????????? ?????????? ??????? ????? ? ?????????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? «??? ?????????? ? ??????????? ??????????»