This article explores the author vision of the constitutional principles of criminal justice. Author believes that the constitutional principles of justice is a system of fundamental, basic ideas that express the nature and content of the court in the exercise of justice, whose goal is justice. Author proposes a three-tier system consisting of general legal, interbranch and specific principles of criminal proceedings. The general legal principles include principles that are relevant to all rights in the state (including for criminal proceedings). The courts can use norms of the Constitution as directly applicable, to justify its conclusions. These principles include the following constitutional provisions: the supreme of law, legality, justice only by the court, the presumption of innocence, the prohibition of double attract liable for the same offense, protection of rights and freedoms is the main obligation of the state (ch. 2, Art. 3); The Constitution of Ukraine has the highest legal force (Part. 1, Art. 8), international treaties are part of domestic law Ukraine (Part. 1, Art. 9); no one can be forced to do somethi ng that is not required by law (ch. 1, Art. 19); human rights and freedoms are inalienable and inviolable (ch. 2, Art. 21) and others. In addition, almost all of Chapter II of the Constitution of Ukraine the rights, freedoms of man and citizen actually is a constitutional basis for the use of the courts, including in criminal proceedings as directly applicable.

The article analyzes the need to develop new approaches to the organization and tactics of crime investigation, including using social networks. The article notes that despite the excessive interest in social networks simple users and scientists, there is still no comprehensive study on the theoretical foundation and practice of using social networks in the detection and investigation of crimes. Attention is noted that the rapid spread of social networks as a form of Internet communication in society led to the need to develop a common approach to the understanding of this concept.

The article is devoted to the problem of the quality of criminal procedural decisions (?PD). Depending on the degree, that CPD fulfill with the corresponding normative prescriptions (high quality standards) it should be allocated to such level of quality CPR: good-quality; sufficiently high quality; satisfactory quality; partly poor quality; quite poor quality. The fairness seems as more correct criterion of substantial violations made while making the final CPD. The fairness is complex estimated concept that integrates the overall meaningful quality of CPD. This requires a balanced approach to the estimating of committed violations from the angle of their possible impact on the overall fairness of the final decision on the case (method «fairness of the proceeding taken as a whole»). Estimating of CPD quality by certain procedural participators on different stages and choosing appropriate responses in case of any quality defects should be given from the angle their harmful for the rights and legitimate interests of the trial participators and the other tasks of the criminal proceedings. Violations of corresponding normative prescriptions are significant in a case of making certain harm or a threat of harm for the rights and legitimate interests of participators, including due legal procedure, other tasks of the proceedings, particularly an effective investigation or trial. Enough flexible is minimum limit of CPD fulfill with the corresponding illegal standards, without which it is impossible to admit due legal quality of the act. It is noted that current criminal procedural legislation does not provide exhaustive criteria for the implementation of the CPD check perfect in terms of its legal definition quality, the latter should be the subject of further research of science.

This article is devoted to the review and analysis of the role of the court, the investigating judge during a preventive measure in the form of detention. In this regard, reviewed legislation, jurisprudence on these issues and explored obligations investigating judge on Human Rights concerning the enforcement of human persons in custody. The article draws attention to the fact that the modern judicial control in the mechanism of human rights during a preventive measure in the form of detention as in PDAs of Ukraine as a whole, based solely on the most progressive provisions set out by the international community, and therefore is an extremely powerful tool in ensuring the principles of criminal proceedings such as the rule of law. Investigating judge in criminal proceedings is the guarantor of the observance and protection of rights, freedoms and interests of suspects and accused persons and is an objective and independent, impartial figure, which takes independent decisions. The author analyzes the practice of criminal proceedings, where used a preventive measure of detention, and concludes on the necessary changes to improve the role of the court as the guarantor of rights and freedoms during a preventive measure in the form of detention. In the scientific article distinguishes the duties of the investigating judge on Human Rights concerning the enforcement of human persons rights in custody. Also the author specifies that the court may be a full guarantee of the rights and freedoms during a preventive measure in the form of detention only on compliance with conditions of social, moral and volitional terms.

The different types of the material world objects cooperation during which the memory mappings are created in the environment accompany the commission of the crime. The important part of these memory mappings is conserved on the human memory. Its identification search permits the have the information about the marks and characteristics of the objects making it. Before the modern forms this method of the objects identification was improved, organizationally formed and the legislatively studied by the investigative (search) activities – the submission for identification (art. art. 228, 229, 230 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine).

?????? ??????? ????????? ????, ?????????, ????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ???????????? (?? 75-????? ??? ??? ??????????)

?????? ??????? ????????? ????, ?????????, ????????? ???????????? ???????? ???????? ???? ??????? ?????????? ???????? ????????? (?? 85-????? ??? ??? ??????????)

On the basis of differentiation categories «goal» and «objective» proposed revised approaches to the definition of objectives, tasks and factual and procedural grounds simultaneous interrogation of two or more persons are interrogated and made proposals for amendments according to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine. In particular, drawn attention to the fact that a mixed approach to the definition of the aforementioned concepts are caused primarily traditional identification in the legal literature general categories of «goal» and «objective», which leads to the fact that instead of goal investigative action defined it’s task, or one of them. However, as you know, the goal is always ahead imaginary end result of specific activities and objectives, that is what should be done to achieve this goal. Not accidentally tasks solved during any investigative action usually few and they can be both procedural and tactical sense. This approach also makes it possible to distinguish between strategy and tactics of specific activities, which in this case is the simultaneous interrogation of two or more persons are interrogated. On the other hand, the definition of the purpose of investigative action and directs it to determine the actual reason. But as scientists and practitioners need a clear definition and demarcation of actual and procedural grounds as this and other investigative actions usually do not pay enough attention, which could cause questions about their legitimacy. In view of this author proposed to determine the actual reason simultaneous interrogation of two or more persons are interrogated and lists of it’s procedural grounds. It is noted that the investigator, the prosecutor has the right to conduct a simultaneous examination of two or more persons are interrogated in indications where there are significant differences regarding the circumstances that are the subject of proof to establish additional evidence regarding the true course of these circumstances.

The article deals with issues legality of using the provocation during covert investigations of domestic and foreign law enforcement agencies. In historical retrospective examines the genesis of the concept and essence of provocation, criminal liability for the commission of the criminal legislation of Ukraine. It is concluded that provocation is using since ancient times in political and military afairs. However, scientifc development of provocation as a crime, appropriateness and legality of its using in combating crime most productive began only in the middle of the XIX century. At frst the questions about the legality of using the provocation during covert investigations were fxed in departmental normative legal acts of the police and gendarmerie, which is strictly forbidden to use it to incite people to commit crimes. In the early days of Soviet power provocation`s methods widely used in operative, investigative and counterintelligence activities. In the frsts criminal codes of most union republics criminal responsibility for provocation was assigned, but later it was canceled. An important infuence on the development of national legislation and enforcement activities to use provocations during covert investigations of law enforcement has the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. ECHR clearly delineates the limits which is permitted during the law enforcement agencies covert investigation. Taking this into account during the preparation and conduct of control measures for crimes it`s prohibited provoke (incite) the person to commit the crime with the purpose of further exposure by helping the person to commit the crime, she or he would have never done, no matter how quick operative worker or investigator is not helped. Obtained in this way documents and things can not be used in criminal proceedings

An article analyzes the correlation between pre-trial investigation and operative and search activities in a new paradigm of criminal prosecution. In particular, attention is drawn to the fact that the practical implementation of the investigative units of the institute of secret investigative (search) actions have led to fundamental transformation in the work of investigators. It was determined that the legislative changes have led to the development of scientific debates about the place and role of operative and search activities during pre-trial investigation. Special attention is paid to the shortcomings of legal regulation and lack of statutory limits upon completion of operative and search activities. The article analyzes some norms of the legislation, a literal interpretation of which suggests that the beginning of pre-trial investigation is not a legal basis for the cessation of operative and search activities. Implementation of it is possible after the start of pre-trial investigation. As well, attention is drawn to the fact that, in accordance with the norms of the normative legal acts, which detail the legislation, the powers of the employees of operational units during the pre-trial investigation is much wider than it is enshrined in the procedural legislation. The necessity of depriving the investigator of the authority for the establishment of a confidential cooperation with citizens in the framework of pre-trial investigation is proved. It was noted the need to expand the statutory powers of operational units during the pre-trial investigation, including during the execution of the instructions of the investigator to conduct secret investigative (search) actions. Possible models for the further development of operative and search legislation and for the implementation of some of its provisions into the structure of the procedural law are defined.

The article discusses particular complex questions regards preventive measure as detention; statutory appeal of the investigating judge decision; extension of the time of holding in custody and features of calculating terms of the investigating judge decision concerning the application of the preventive measure as detention; the necessity of settlement the detention terms during a trial. On the basis of current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine and practice grounded proposals aimed at improvement of preventive measure in the form of detention during the preliminary investigation of the criminal offense and the trial. Substantiated the author’s position regarding the interpretation of certain provisions of the legislation governing the use of restraint in the form of detention, continued its terms and the relevant decisions of the appeal investigating judge European standards ensuring the human right to liberty and security. Formulated in article proposals for normalization the term of the preventive measure of detention during the court proceedings aimed at harmonizing current legislation of Ukraine with European standards ensuring the human right to liberty and security. It is noted that at the same time during their stay in custody since the adoption of the sentence and the return of criminal proceedings with the Court of Appeal regulatory undefined, but actually it is equal to 1 to 4–5 months, during which the accused detained without a decision on continuing detention by CPC established procedure as appellate judges do not decide whether to continue or deny the extension of detention of the convicted person.

This article examines some problems of the enforcing of reasonable term during the preparatory proceedings. The author examines the factors that abuse reasonable term such as the returning of the guilty act to the prosecutor, the deposition of the preparatory court session by the judge and violation of the terms of appointment of the trial. It`s noted that judges should be aware of personal responsibility for the management of statutory deadlines for the quality of cases, to prevent facts delay, take all necessary measures for the strict observance of procedural terms. The author stresses that the terms of the case can`t be considered reasonable if they are violated by judges employment in another process, the appointment of court with large intervals, delaying the transfer of cases from one court to another, the deposition of the case due to its inadequate preparation for trial etc. In case of violation of the right of the accused to trial within a reasonable term attorneys should use international judicial institutions for the protection of principal. It is noted that in the case of deposits appointment proceedings at the stage of preparatory proceedings for any reason (ruling on the return of the indictment, the deposition of the preparatory court hearing), the lawyer should apply for cancellation or change the preventive measure on grounds no proof of the prosecution presence procedural conditions (risks) that would have determined the continued application of preventive measures. In the case of arbitrary, systematic delays preparatory court hearing, infringement of the principles of continuity of the preparatory court hearing and / or violation of terms of appointment proceedings should declare the application for refusal on grounds of bias.

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. Lectures with reference SI Quietly year of training with personal archive S. A. Tararuhina only six, namely transcript lecture to students of the 3-rd year law faculty at KSU March 12, 1946 and dedicated to the issue of criminal responsibility for certain crimes against life and health of individuals; Two lectures on criminal responsibility for crimes against the Soviet Defense and Read respectively in 1954 and 1955 respectively. The first of these lectures from the top of the first leaf red pencil S. I. Tikhenko stated: «Lecture in 1954 on the same subject is my text 1955» and on the first page of the second lecture, top, red pencil reads: «1955 (corrected) public lecture»; typewritten version of «open lectures», dedicated to the issue of criminal responsibility for war crimes and read in December 1957 (the first typewritten sheet in pencil on top reads: «public lecture XII. 1957»); Review materials of a lecture delivered in January 1956, part-time students and dedicated criminal responsibility for crimes in the sphere of employment and for economic crimes; two versions of lectures on «Criminal legal protection of socialist property», dated 1964 year (on the first page of S. I. Tikhenko indicates that one option «rule» and the second – «not rule»).

The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in 2012 allows the possibility of proceeding by reconciliation agreement or by plea agreement. The parties of this agreements could regulate imposition of punishment and defendant’s relief from serving the punishment on parole. This questions is relating to the substantive, not procedural criminal law. During the Plenary Assembly of High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases was adopted resolution «On the practice of criminal proceedings on the basis of agreements». The provisions of this resolution which deal with questions of substantive criminal law are insufficient and incorrect at the both – conceptual and particular levels.

The article is devoted to the study and research of such element of criminalistic characteristic of fraud committed on the Internet, as a criminal personality. Indicate fraud committed on the Internet more often, but the study of individual Internet fraudster given enough attention, which undoubtedly makes it difficult to investigate these crimes. In view of the priority research in criminology is to develop scientific statements about the offender as part of criminological characteristics of fraud committed over the Internet. It is noted that since personality is formed during the activity, the person of the offender – a person’s identity, not individual has committed an offense and the system of criminal acts, that criminal activities. The study features a rogue person demonstrates his ability to work on the Internet and narrowly focused, as do things with computers to commit fraud may be limited circle of people. Personal characteristics portrait of internet fraud is active life, non-standard thinking and behavior, care, attention. On the basis of the analysis of views, expressed in scientific literature, and provisions of the Criminal and Criminal Procedural codes of Ukraine, the authors made an attempt to identify criminalistic signs of internet-fraudsters and classificate the types of theirs criminal personality. Taking into consideration that essence of a criminal personality of internet-fraudsters was not developed by scientists, authors worked out their criminalistic signs and based on them typical portrait. The authors have paid a considerable attention to investigation of connections of criminal personality with other elements of criminalistic characteristic of fraud committed on the Internet. Authors came to a conclusion that criminal personality of internet-fraudsters as a basic element of its criminalistic characteristic is closely related with such other elements as subject of criminal abuse, modus operandi, typical traces.

The article is based on a systematic analysis of scientific and legal sources and materials forensic practice, focuses on the fact that more than 85% of serious and very serious crimes are reveale because of using secret means of the pre-trial investigation and the results recognized by the courts as judicial evidences in the most western countries. Analysis of three-year national practice of covert investigative (detective) actions in the criminal process of Ukraine found that only 5% of the results are recognized as evidences in Court. The results of covert investigative (detective) actions should be used for organizational and tactical software pre-trial investigations, including those not subject to declassify and legalization and can not be excuses and reasons for legal proceedings and procedural arguments and those of them are not yet fixed material form. Substantiated that the using results of covert investigative (search) actions helps create conditions to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of proceedings, namely the definition of the most appropriate time and place of the relevant proceedings; choosing the most appropriate tactics and foresight methods, means and forms of their implementation; use the surprise factor; tactical minimize the degree of risks; modeling the behavior of proceedings; definition in an organized group of persons exposed to contact with the investigator; determine the degree of awareness of people who oppose the investigation, plans and intentions of the investigator in the investigation of the available evidence on the sources of information; prompt counter criminal procedural, tactical and organizational measures; taking into account possible counteraction to investigation by a third persons, the methods and forms of its manifestation and so on.

In this article certain aspects of the lodging of evidences, facts to proof and some connected issues of enforcing measures to ensure criminal proceedings at preparatory proceedings are examined. It was defined that the enforcing measures to ensure criminal proceedings has another judicial essence in comparison with another matters which are examined at preparatory proceedings. It’s pointed out that the evidential activity in examination of appropriate applications has specific peculiarities. The necessity of lodging evidences by the parties of criminal proceedings to support their attitude regarding the certain measure of restraint is outlined. The peculiarities of the facts to proof in applying measures to ensure criminal proceedings at preparatory proceedings were found out. It was emphasized that court is able to take into account some additional retrospective actual circumstances making a decision to enforce certain measure of restraint such as: the behavior of accused person at pre-trial proceedings, information about unlawful influence on victims, the facts related to the cooperation in detection of criminal offence, the compensation of damage caused to the victim, the infringement of obligations connected with the previous measure of restraint. The points of view of the scientists who emphasize the necessity of automatic abolition of the current measures to ensure at the preparatory proceedings are supported. It was concluded about the necessity of creation the separate order of applying measures to ensure criminal proceedings at preparatory judicial proceedings. Author’s edition of art. 315–1 of CPC of Ukraine was proposed.

The article is devoted to the problem issues of the evaluation of the admissibility of evidence obtained from conducting covert investigative (search) actions, particularly as regards the grounds, methods and legitimacy restriction of rights and freedoms of an individual, against whom an undeclared activities are carried out. The author examines the peculiarities of the legal nature of such acts and reveals the issues that arise in practice in recognizing evidence of the results of covert investigative (search) actions. The article focuses on problem issues of the application of the CPC code of Ukraine, in particular, Chapter 21, which defines the system and procedures of covert investigative (search) actions.

According to the practice of law enforcement agencies there are a significant number of fugitives that had never been found by the police. One of the reasons for that is a low efficiency of law enforcement agencies. The paper analyzes reasons and ways of solving this problem. Nowadays investigators see the search of fugitives hiding from pre-trial investigation and court as their secondary activity, which is usually caused by two factors: a heavy workload and poor management. Analysis of the law enforcement practice indicates that after a suspect is added to a wanted list all criminal proceedings «stop», the actions of an investigator, in most cases, are limited to drawing up to instructions to the operational units which, according to the investigator should do all the work. O. Kerevych says that usually an investigator gives ineffective orders to the operational unit which answers with a formal reply without any enthusiasm to actually find a fugitive and solve a crime. Adding to that, there is also a problem of a poor information exchange between all law enforcement agencies on a local, nationwide and international level. In 90% of cases of finding fugitives investigators do not carry out special measures to get an additional information about the wanted person (while they are able use investigative actions, requests for information from companies, institutions, organizations, individuals, information analysis of social networks, analysis of information resources of law enforcement, etc.).The author believes that legislation can deal with problems indicated above, and offers the necessary changes to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.

Current issues of investigation of separate kinds of crimes are a question about forms, types and tools of interaction of the investigator in criminal proceedings. The interaction of different actors in the field of combating crime generally and in criminal proceedings in particular, is carried out in the relevant forms. These forms are modes of cooperation, ensuring coherence of activities, specific means of communication between the interacting entities, the complex of methods and techniques, a system of connections and relations of the interacting entities, the systems subject methods, methods of performing professional functions in the implementation of its powers during pre-trial investigation. The identification, study and analysis of forms of interaction of the investigator with relevant actors in criminal proceedings is not only of theoretical but also of practical importance, since knowledge of its typology allows you to find the most effective way an individual interaction (interaction) in specific conditions, for specific subjects, the performance of specific tasks at different hierarchical levels of the system, and the like. So, legal (procedural) form has the following specific form of interaction of the investigator with relevant actors in criminal proceedings, primarily with operational units and other investigators: a) the transfer of the investigator’s materials and identified by operative-search actions the crime to solve the issue of opening of criminal proceedings; b) undertaking by the investigator of the procedural actions at the same time the implementation of the operational divisions coordinated covert investigative (search) action (hereinafter ISA); ?) carrying out of operatively-search actions in the already open criminal proceedings, which do not have the person who committed the crime

The article investigates legal backgrounds of the protection of property rights in the seized property in criminal proceedings. The author argues that on practice often meets the cases of different interpretation of common legal rules for the imposition of arrest on property which creates different application of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Special attention is paid to guarantees of protection of property rights in case of the imposition of arrest on property in criminal proceedings according to new amendments of the Criminal Procedure Code which were adopted by the Parliament of Ukraine. The author stresses that the government determines and guarantees the inviolability of property rights in the criminal process but sometimes. Moreover, in the article is underlined that despite the constant amendments to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, statistical information indicates that up to now there are procedural defects of legal definition and understanding seizure procedures, which in practice makes it difficult to use and full regulatory support and guaranteeing property rights.

On the basis of the analysis of the current provisions of the criminal procedure law of Ukraine material practices and surveys of practical workers, author of the article considers the problematic issues of realization the criminal procedural guarantees of the defender as a subject of proving at carrying covert investigation (search) action. It is noted that the decision conduct of the secret investigation (search) actions should take no investigator or prosecutor. This obligation should be entrusted to investigating judge. Substantiated that declassify be only those materials that have been received on the results of the secret investigation (search) actions (minutes of the secret investigation (search) actions and the relevant their annexes), while the decision on which conducted of the secret investigation (search) actions (resolution investigator, prosecutor of the secret investigation (search) actions, decision investigating judge for permission of the secret investigation (search) actions) are not subject to declassify. It should be noted that the existence of this legislative gap leads to the fact that the defenders denied the opportunity verify and assess the legality and validity of the secret investigation (search) actions, the legitimacy of limiting the rights and freedoms of their clients during of the secret investigation (search) actions and protocols of the secret investigation (search) actions – as admissible and proper evidences in pre-trial investigation.

A crisis in the field of observance of human rights in Ukraine does not answer the international law obligation taken the state and is incompatible with the proper level of legal development. National strategy in the field of human rights foresees creation of the effective system of defense of right on freedom and bodily security. Bringing to conformity of procedure of detention and holding of person under a guard with international standards, strengthening of efficiency of judicial control must become investigation of it after the grounds of imprisonment; establishment of level of defense of rights for personality, detained for a feasance administrative offence, more not low, than it is foreseen in criminal judicial. Consequently the article is sanctified to International by the standards of providing of human rights in the field of criminal procedure, that is subject to application during realization of function of judicial control. Such standards are general principles and practice their providing set by Convention on the protection of human rights and basic freedoms 1950 year, and also made decision on her basis European Court on Human Rights. In the light of such standards judicial control is the obligatory judicial guarantee of providing on the pre-trial stages of criminal production of rights, freedoms and interests of persons that is suspected or accused of feasance of criminal offence. Author analyzed the Article 5 Convention that envisages a right on freedom and bodily security. During the limit of right on freedom and bodily security come forward the standards of observance of rights and freedoms of man: legality of imprisonment; validity (presence of the grounded suspicion and risks of illegal judicial conduct); knowledge is about the grounds of imprisonment; a right is on a judicial trial in order of control function of court; a right is on a compensation as a result of unlegality of imprisonment. In particular, a concept to «legality» acquires in practice the European ?ourt of Human Rights. A national law in force is taken into account only as a starting point, text and/or application of which Court checks up in the light of more wide criteria of «legality», already produced practice of application of Convention

The article is devoted to the actual problem of practice and theory of criminal proceedings – the possibility to ask the leading questions at the interrogation on pre-trial investigation. The leading questions are the type of questions, that contains the answer, a part of the answer or a hint to the answer. Based on the analysis of scientific works of Ukrainian and foreign scientists, previous legislation of Ukraine and the legislation of foreign states, as Lithuania, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Russian Federation, Belarus, the author makes a conclusion, that exclusion of prohibition to ask the leading questions at the interrogation on pre-trial investigation in CPC of Ukraine 2012 year was unjustified. Comparison of scientific positions can lead to the conclusion that such type of questions always considered as inadmissible and amoral. There are not any explanations, why such necessary rule of previous legislation and opinions of scientists were ignored. That is why, in the current criminal procedure legislation, the exclusion of the prohibition to ask the leading questions at the interrogation on pre-trial investigation should be understood as a legal omission. Unfortunately, this legal omission can lead to the probability of rights violations at the interrogation. That is why the author gives proposition to the CPC of Ukraine which forbid to ask the leading questions at the interrogation on pre-trial investigation. Also the author gives a recommendation to use method of historical interpretation at interrogation. According to this method, officials of law-enforcement bodies should clarify the meaning of the legal rule according to the social conditions and history of its appearing in the legislation. This recommendation can help to prevent asking of leading questions according to current CPC of Ukraine

????????? ????????? ???????, ?????????? ???????????? ????????????? ??????? ????? ????????