The necessity of providing criminalistics security of covert investigative (detective) actions are proved. The content of this security is given and its definition is determined. The main directions of criminalistics security of covert investigative (detective) actions are examined. It was determined that the criminalistics security of covert investigative (detective) actions is a system of measures for maximizing the effectiveness of these actions to realize the tasks of criminal proceedings. This system will include: the scientific study of the nature and practice of covert investigative (detective) actions to determine the ways of efficiency improvement; creation of practical recommendations to improve the tactics and techniques of covert investigative (detective) action, and techniques and lawful methods of its use based on general theoretical principles of criminalistics and operative investigation activity; testing and implementation of these recommendations into practice; professional preparation and further training of actors of cover investigative (detective) actions by forming their respective professional competences. Criminalistics security of covert investigative (detective) actions should have a two-tiered nature. The first level is a conducting certain covert investigative (detective) actions, the second level is a conducting complex of covert investigative (search) actions within a specific criminal proceedings. At each level the criminalistics security can be general and special (such regarding the use of covert investigative (detective) action to investigate specific crimes or aimed at obtaining information on certain categories of persons, as an example, minors, members of organized criminal groups, police, recidivists, etc.).

The aim of this publication is to shed light on the practical problems arising in the course of the preliminary inquiry and at-trial procedure in criminal proceedings when the question about agreement on reconciliation is being concluded or already concluded. An institute of agreements in criminal proceedings is the innovation of the current CCP that in its testing process encountered a number of obstacles. Firstly, it is the imperfect procedural rules regulating the procedure of concluding agreements in criminal proceedings and the features of the trial proceedings. Secondly, it is the absence in CCP a fixed participant of criminal proceedings with its own procedural status, that should not only come to an agreement on reconciliation formally, but should also exhaust the conflict situation that has arisen as a result of committing a criminal offense. Thirdly, in my opinion, creates an unprecedented situation in general, is a subjective approach to institute of agreements in criminal proceedings on the part of investigators, prosecutors, judges, and worst of all, a different interpretation of this situation by the competent judicial authorities. A great number of practicing lawyers indicated on imperfect procedural rules which set norms of the institute of agreements in criminal proceedings in their publications, particular, the author of this publication. To my mind, the analysis of practical problems done, existing of opposite views in competent courts, demonstrates the depth and extent of the current problems in understanding the institute of agreements in criminal proceedings, and we have only hope that, in these realities of the legal framework and the ambiguity of jurisprudence, modern investigators, prosecutors can effectively perform the tasks of criminal proceedings, as this article focuses only on a few of several dozen of gaps and conflicting aspects

The article is devoted to issues of using current criminal procedure law of Ukraine regulating the jurisdiction institute of criminal proceedings and providing scientific and reasonable propositions to solve them. It is proved that during the improvement of the current legislation of Ukraine should abandon the practice of fixing criminal procedural rules in other legislation, such as the provisions are clearly contrary to part 3 of the Art. 9 of the CPC of Ukraine and create conditions for disputes in criminal procedural activities.

The article deals with the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which determine the purpose, grounds and conditions of seizure of third parties property in criminal proceedings (this person should not be a bona fide purchaser of property; seizure of third parties property is possible in criminal proceedings carried out in relation to the commission of a intentional crime or sociallydangerous act that come within the definition of offense under the Special Part of the Criminal Code provide for the punishment of deprivation of liberty or a fine of three thousand tax-free minimum income of an individual, as well as under part one of the Article 150, the Article 154, parts two and three of the Article 159–1, part one of the Article 190, the Article 192, part one of the Articles 204, 209–1, 210, parts one and two of the Articles 212, 212–1, part one of the Articles 222, 229, 239–1, 239–2, part two of the Article 244, part one of the Articles 248, 249, parts one and two of the Article 300, part one of the Articles 301, 302, 310, 311, 313, 318, 319, 362, the Articles 363, part one of the Article 363–1, 364–1, 365–2 of the Criminal Code (part one of the Article 96–1 of the Criminal Code); acquisition of property by a third party free of charge or at a higher or lower market value and its awareness that such property meets any of the signs mentioned in paragraphs 1?4 of part one of the Article 96–2 of the Criminal Code; the above information about a third party should be established in the courts on the basis of sufficient evidence (paragraph 2 of part four of the Article 96–2 of the Criminal Code); according to part 5 of the Article 96–2 of the Criminal Code the special confiscation shall not apply to money, property and other assets mentioned in this article, which by law must be returned to the owner (rightful holder) or designed to damages caused by crime).

In theory significance of violations of procedural law determined mainly of the possible impact of the violations on the legality and justification of criminal procedural decisions, particular verdict. The justice seems to be more correct measure of materiality of violations committed when making a final procedural decision. Using justice as measurement allows to evaluate the materiality of violations not from the formal position, but from point of view of real influence on the character and content of the made decision. The unfairness of the decision creates a situation where the correction of judicial error distorts the essence of justice, destroys the balance constitutionally significant values. In such circumstances, the stability of the judgment is not so important value to preserve it while the harmful, caused for the rights and legitimate interests of the trial participators affected by unfair judgment. A similar measure of materiality applies violations of the European Court of Human Rights in its decisions demonstrate a balanced approach to the assessment of the nature committed violations of due process in terms of their possible impact on the overall fairness of the proceedings. Method «fairness of the proceeding taken as a whole» does not include investigation of the legality of any particular proceedings apart from other process steps. While even detection of serious violations of the right to a fair trial committed by the national courts did not always entail an overall assessment of trial and final decision as unfair in many cases. In many cases, with national judicial practice, the judges associated the materiality of violations not only with the legality and justification of criminal procedural, but also with justice. And such violations qualified as substantial, often relating to failure due process proceedings, including failure to respect the legitimate rights and interests of the proceedings. Its impossible to give a formal universal algorithm to determine the justice because it is situational in each case and carried on the empirical level (ad hoc). Subjective factors in decision making stipulate the fact that the standard of justice applied in two similar cases, does not necessarily lead to identical decisions.

The article deals with the problem in common law of the issue of compliance with international standards for the protection of rights and freedoms and the Constitution of Ukraine regarding the automatic extension during the preparatory court hearing of the measures to ensure the criminal proceedings, including preventive measures in respect of the accused without adopting a reasoned court decision. On the basis of the ECHR practice, a set of conditions for compulsory adoption and validity of court decisions on detention: a reference to the law by reason of use; relevance of applying legal basis for the specific circumstances of the proceedings; analysis of all arguments for and against detention, adducing relevant and sufficient reasons (evidence) to support the need of their use; consideration of the stage of criminal proceedings; analysis of exclusive cases only if there are the same risks that justify enduring detention within the whole course of the proceedings until the imposition of a sentence; the presence of analysis of the reasons why less severe preventive measures for the individual’s right to freedom cannot be applied to prevent the risks, which justify the necessity of detention. The legal consequence of the lack of judgment and proper motivation (argumentation), even in case of the circumstances of the case that indeed justify the enduring detention, leads to the compulsory conclusion for unsubstantiated court decision, and, therefore, to conclusion for a violation of stated right guaranteed by Article 5 of the Convention. Based on the analysis of the legal position of the European Court of Human Rights on the given issue, there was an approval of the position, specified in the constitutional petition of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on Human Rights V. Lutkovska, that the third sentence of Article 315 CCP, in particular as a preventive measure in the form of detention or house arrest is considered extended in the absence of the parties’ petitions to change or cancel such measure without obliging the court to decree with the court reasoned decision, and deprives the individual from adequate protection against arbitrary action that is inconsistent with the requirements of Article 8 and the second part 29 of the Constitution of Ukraine in their relationship. In addition, the article concludes that to understand the unconstitutionality of the third sentence of Article 315 CCP there can be a broader approach, given the impossibility of automatic renewal of the measures to ensure criminal proceedings, including any preventive measure, without a court decision during the preparatory proceedings

???????? ???????? ???? ?????????? ??????? ???????? ????????????? ?????????????? ??????? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????? «??? ??????????? ????????»

On the basis of scientific analysis of current legislation and the literature revealed shortcomings official definition of evidence and proof in criminal proceedings. In particular, states that although the presence of different types of proceedings led to his own definition of evidence, but in each of them are recognized as «evidence», the contents of which have certain list, information. The analysis of attributive and functional approach to the definition of «information» is justified that the information does not exist by itself, but its appearance is only possible as a result of interaction between subject and object of knowledge, because knowledge of the subject which receives the actual data. However, as knowledge in criminal proceedings is in the form of evidence in the course of which operate not just the actual data (information), and the evidence is therefore the concept of «establishment of evidence» and «procedural proof» and «sources of evidence» and «procedural sources of evidence» should not be confused, as if the sources of evidence can be any object, the source of evidence procedure stipulated by law. And drawn attention to the fact that the definition of evidence formulated in Part .1, Art. 84 CPC and whereby they have «evidence obtained in the present Code on the grounds of which the investigator, the prosecutor, the investigating judge and the court determines whether or not the facts and circumstances relevant to the criminal proceedings and to be proved» is debatable, because, first, the proof is not just the establishment of evidence, and the establishment of data, their procedure for establishing and operating them in order to justify the circumstances that are the subject of proof, and, secondly, its literal interpretation leads to the conclusion that the defense and the victim are not the subjects of evidence that contradicts this general principles of criminal proceedings as «competition and freedom to petition their court their evidence and to prove in court their credibility». Based on evidence clarifying the nature, purpose and content of proof, and systematic analysis of the norms of the CPC and expressed views on this matter scientists made proposals to improve their definitions

Criminal procedural activities of the initial stage of pre-trial investigation, which begins with untying the information about a criminal offense into the Unified Register of Pre-judicial Investigations, are considered. It is noted that for a long time pre-trial investigation was preceded by the verification of statements and messages on crimes which were carried out in the period specified in law by available means. An adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine cancelled or minimized such activities. This caused in a significant increase of the burden on investigators and a decline of the effectiveness of their work. A significant number of registered crimes remained unsolved, the rights and interests of persons who suffered from damages from the crime do not resume. It is noted that the requirement of part 1 of Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of entering data into the Register not later than 24 hours after the statement or message does not apply to all originating in another part of the body of the National Police, but only those that point to signs of a criminal offense. This requires from the investigator, the Prosecutor, the authorized official to determine the essence of information contained in the statements and messages for making a lawful and reasonable procedural decision. Currently, the activity on the acceptance and registration of statements and reports on offences is regulated by executive instructions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Since this activity is associated with the adoption and consideration of an information on offences to resolve it in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The decision about the beginning of the pre-trial investigation can be made only under fixed in the law reasons and relevant grounds (data, indicating the signs of a criminal offense). The only form of this procedure should be the decision of the investigator, and its removal by the investigator requires untying the information into the Register.

The article reviews legal regulation of simplified criminal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and laws of foreign countries. Misdemeanours were introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine that was passed on April 13, 2012. Defining the most appropriate forms of simplified criminal procedure is to some extent complicated by the absence of legal definition of a misdemeanour. The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine foresees certain peculiarities of the procedure for misdemeanours, such as shorter period of investigation (usually, not exceeding one month), prohibition of some preventive measures (house arrest, bail, detention) to persons suspected of a criminal offense, and simplified court proceedings (without participation of parties and examination of evidence). Some peculiarities of appeal are also stipulated by the Code. The simplified criminal procedure for misdemeanours is established by many countries including but not limited to the UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, the US, and France. Despite varying approaches to simplification of court proceeding, several common procedural characteristics of misdemeanours shall be distinguished based on the analysis of the European legislation.

The article reviews legal regulation of simplified criminal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and laws of foreign countries. Misdemeanours were introduced by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine that was passed on April 13, 2012. Defining the most appropriate forms of simplified criminal procedure is to some extent complicated by the absence of legal definition of a misdemeanour. The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine foresees certain peculiarities of the procedure for misdemeanours, such as shorter period of investigation (usually, not exceeding one month), prohibition of some preventive measures (house arrest, bail, detention) to persons suspected of a criminal offense, and simplified court proceedings (without participation of parties and examination of evidence). Some peculiarities of appeal are also stipulated by the Code. The simplified criminal procedure for misdemeanours is established by many countries including but not limited to the UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, the US, and France. Despite varying approaches to simplification of court proceeding, several common procedural characteristics of misdemeanours shall be distinguished based on the analysis of the European legislation.

The article is based on the analysis of the scientific sources, the ?riminal procedural legislation of Ukraine. It defines the concept of investigative (search) action as a means of obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings against minors. It is noted that under the ?riminal procedure law had come in force witch was using before the ?riminal procedure law of Ukraine 2012 came in force, the law defined a set of tools to obtain information about the crime witch was called «investigative actions». Without explaining its meaning and essence, the term is used in several articles of the ?riminal procedure law of Ukraine 1960, particularly Art. 114, that regulate the powers of the investigator, p. 128–1 «Participation of the Specialist during the investigation» and others. However, neither art. 66 of the ?riminal procedure law of Ukraine 1960, which regulate the methods of collection and presentation of evidence nor other Articles of the criminal procedure law do not contain the notions about investigation. Therefore, the criminal procedure law did not contain a definition of «investigation», additionally except explaining its nature and list. Attention is focused on the fact that the current ?riminal procedure law of Ukraine establishes in Part. 1 Art. 223 of the ?riminal procedure law of Ukraine legal definition of investigative (search) action – ?action for obtaining (collecting) evidence or verification of received evidence in the criminal proceedings, at the same time it is imperfect and it does not meet the needs of legal practice, including during the pre-trial investigation of criminal proceedings against minors. Having considered all above mentioned, the investigative (search) action, as a tool of the obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings against minors – ?is the measures witch are consisted of a set of search and cognitive and identity techniques, witch are conducted by person whom is special authorized by criminal procedure law in a order for each this kind of subjects to identify and consolidate the evidence and information about their sources for obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings against minors

This article contains a list and a specific destination to investigate crimes in international student exchange sphere of actions which the legislator classified as «interference in private communication». Some criminal offenses that are classified as «crimes in international student exchange sphere» are determined; the nature of the interference in private communication and each of the acts that constitute its meaning are examined; the features of using them to investigate such categories of crimes are determined. On the basis of the practice of interference in private communication to investigate crimes in international student exchange sphere the ways of improving the legal regulation and organization of covert investigative (search) actions are determined. Determined that the effective use of interference in private communication for the investigation of crimes in international student exchange sphere their regulatory definition should be as clear and unambiguous. In this case, the names of covert investigative (search) actions in departmental instructions should meet the full volume name, formulated by the legislator in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: audio, video monitoring of an individual; arrest, inspection and seizure of correspondence; collecting information from transport telecommunication networks; collecting information from electronic information systems. Separation of the specific covert investigative (search) actions into subspecies should be consistent with the norms of these laws. At the same time, the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine are subject to adjustment in the part names. In particular, audio, video monitoring of an individual it is advisable to distinguish between control publicly accessible and publicly inaccessible places (not place and person, as is done in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine)

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

This article deals with some situations envisaged by the Criminal Code, when the action of the criminal law in space and between persons are combined. The contents of these situations depends on the legal status of persons and forms of international cooperation of the criminal proceedings. It is noted that the content of the legal status of persons associated with the existing situation of such persons, their rights and duties, and its volume is determined by specific types of people (as subjects of legal status) who are in the state (citizens of Ukraine, foreigners, stateless persons, staff of diplomatic missions and consular offices, those for which questions of extradition to a foreign country (extradition), etc.). The amount of legal status can apply to: 1) all persons residing in the state, that have general and called «common»; 2) some of these people in specifically defined situations; in which case it is called a «special»; 3) individuals in exceptional situations where it is a kind of deviations from the general and special legal status and called «exceptional.» Depending on how the combined content (volume) of the legal status of persons with specific forms of international cooperation in criminal proceedings, are allocated general, special and exceptional rules. It is substantiated that Article 10 of the Criminal Code noted criminal consequences for the persons associated only with such forms of international cooperation, as delivery of a foreign state for criminal prosecution and committal for trial, transfer of criminal proceedings and execution of foreign judgment in Ukraine court or international judicial institutions.

Paper analyses the problems of combating corruption in Ukraine as one of the most important government tasks. Existing forms of corruption and the probable risks of the emergence of its new forms are determined by a wide range of objective and subjective reasons that are specific for the conditions of radical political and socio-economic changes in society and the state. The author notes that a central place in the national mechanism for combating corruption belongs to law enforcement agencies. In order to counter corruption the state creates relevant central government agencies with a special status and law enforcement agencies to combat corruption. However, these bodies face a number of problems associated with the lack of quality legislative framework, systematic approaches to the activities of anti-corruption and their interaction with civil society in this area are not developed, there is no conceptual vision of organizational and legal support of combating corruption. It is noted that the issue of combating corruption is actual given to the significant public attention to this activity, as well as to the high level of distrust to government entities and high latent corruption of officials. The main purpose of the anti-corruption reform is a significant reduction of corruption in Ukraine, reduction of the losses of the state budget and business through corrupt activities, and the improvement of Ukraine’s positions in international rankings that assess the level of corruption. The author emphasizes that the reduction of corruption preconditions, increasement of social cost of public service and increasement of the risk of committing a corrupt act is the basis of anti-corruption policy

The paper reviewed the evolution of legislation on the release from (serving) punishment (Parole) in Canada, emphasizing the separate story of Canada Parole in the Common Law Family Countries. The key stages of the parole development, role of government institutions, essential features of the old and modern system of Parole in Canada described and systemized for further study. The key features of the Canadian Parole Laws identified. Preliminary comparative assessment of the areas of possible improvements of the Ukrainian release of punishment legal procedures to meet the best practice and humanitarian principals provided. The paper takes the approach from based on key aspects of Parole development in Canada: public safety; transparency and openness; fair rules. The certain core features of each aspects identified. The paper reads the consequent stages of the Parole development with a tendency to rehabilitation and correction focus rather than punitive. In a summary paper puts in place the preliminary recommendations on the streams of the further study towards development of the advanced models of the Parole in Ukraine. The possible options for the Parole legislation improving are listed. The Parole Board of Canada staffing also discussed and the merit base approach suggested. The primary focus is on the Parole decision-making procedures and respective rules, which should ensure the protection the offenders’, victim’s and public safety interest, maintaining the certain balance responding to public expectations and needs.

The article is devoted to typical investigative situations of the first phase of an investigation of murder if the limits of necessary defense are exceeding. During the investigation of murder if the limits of necessary defense are exceeding there are four typical investigative situations conducive to investigation. For each situation the author defined the task for investigators and given the proposition. 1) When the criminal proceedings initiated in connection with the notification of murder if the limits of necessary defense are exceeding in terms of evidence, the offender is arrested, the identity of victims is known, the motive of crime are found; 2) Criminal proceedings initiated in connection with the notification of premeditated murder if the limits of necessary defense are exceeding, the identity of victim is known, the identity of offender is known, but he does not apprehend; 3) Where the criminal proceedings initiated in connection with the detection of the troupe with signs of a violent death, the identity of victim is known, the identity of the offender does not apprehend; 4) The criminal proceedings initiated in connection with the detection of the corpse of an unknown person, the the offender does not apprehend and there are nothing information about him

On the basis of analyses of criminalistics literature and current legislation, the author has offered its own point of view on role and value of criminalistics (forensic) equipment in advocacy. In the article the author defines following features of technical and forensic equipment using by attorneys in theirs’s professional activity: it has alternative character. In positions of current legislation of Ukraine there is no norm that would fasten the duty of advocate independently to apply facilities of criminalistics technique in criminal realizations. At the same time the article ? 42 in the Code of criminal procedure of Ukraine avouches for advocates a right to apply with inhibition of requirements of law technical equipment during realization of judicial actions in that he participates. Thus, an advocate on the discretion decides a question about a necessity to use techno-criminalistics facilities in his professional activity;

The article deals with the features of committing illegal gambling by organized criminal groups. It is defined the structure and features of composition of organized criminal groups (OCG), that are created to commit illegal gambling. The authors have identified factors, which contribute to the complexity of investigation of this crime and suggested ways to improve its investigation. ?rganized criminal groups, which is created to commit therein gambling usually are: the owner of gambling – Head OCG; a person who is a personal assistant to the owner of gambling and on behalf provides instructions and forms the group; the person who conducts official and unofficial accounts, submit reports and manages all financial matters – «CFO»; persons who are nominee directors of companies partners who lease gaming equipment, facilities for gambling, etc., but do not carry out gambling. To increase the efficiency of detection and investigation of gambling that committed by OCG, Ukraine should take a number of measures, including: eliminate corruption in law enforcement; develop guidelines to investigate gambling, committed by OCG; establish active cooperation of law enforcement bodies with the media and the public to formation of public negative attitude to gambling; legalize and strictly regulate gambling by allowing only some of the casino gambling and by prohibiting games on slot machines and sports betting. Establish criminal responsibility for the organization and conduct of prohibited gambling. Create a single electronic system of adoption rates with the possibility of continuous control of public authorities. Create a single register of gaming equipment and mandatory labelling of each of its units (assigning a unique code) and equipping gaming equipment with GPS navigation

The article investigates general theoretical and praxeological understanding of human rights. The paper studies basic scientific approaches to the interpretation of the term «human rights»: naturally legal and positivist conception. The authors emphasized the special role of the Institute of Human Rights in the process of reforming the system of criminal legal proceedings. The article states that violation of human rights becomes the norm for modern legal genesis of Ukraine. The negative effects of this trend are increasingly affecting the livelihoods of everyone. This fact makes destructive impact on relations between individuals and legal entities with the authorities. Particularly acute the problem of human rights violations presents within the implementation of criminal legal proceedings. This negative trend directly indicates the presence of theoretical and praxeological problems in defense and protection of inalienable human rights as a whole in Ukraine and in the course of criminal proceedings in particular. To the large extent the root cause of human rights violations within the criminal proceedings are significant gaps and conflicts of domestic criminal procedural law. However, a prerequisite for effective regulatory reform should be scientific and analytical conceptual research of general understanding of the institution of human rights, which will make it possible to work out effective ways to reform the regulatory consolidation of the mechanism of implementation and protection of human rights in criminal proceedings. After analyzing the concepts, scientific approaches and interpretations of human rights, some thoughts of great figures of the past and present, the authors believe that the concept of «human rights» should be considered as the general theoretical and in the praxeological sense. Thus, human rights in general theoretical sense – ?is the direction of human life, which is derived from human nature and that people use to meet their vital needs, especially for implementation, protection and defense of their freedoms and interests. These rights are recognized by all constitutional states and cannot be separated from a person

The article considers one of the types of corruption risks of the judicial system of Ukraine, namely the availability of discretionary powers of judges, that is, the ability to act on their own, which creates the conditions for the commission of corruption offenses. Particular attention is paid to the grounds and limits of the use of judicial discretion in criminal proceedings, ways to overcome this problem and to improve the norms of the current legislation. The author established that for whatever reason, judicial discretion may arise, the decision must always be lawful, justified and motivated. It is defined that the judicial discretion will perform a positive role and will correspond to the democratic principles of judicial proceedings, when it will be limited not only by the law (the norms of the Constitution, but also procedural legislation, which establish guarantees for the protection of human rights), but also by explanation (interpretation) of these norms by competent authority (acts of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, decrees of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Ukraine, explanations and letters of higher courts, ministries, etc.), the justification for the chosen court decision by the totality of the evidence in the case (the facts of the case), the purpose and objectives of the proceedings, interests of society and the state, the requirements of justice, validity and comprehensive, complete and objective investigation of the circumstances of criminal proceedings, and by judicial practice.

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

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

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