The scientific-practical Law Journal
“Almanac of Law” Volume 14 (2023), 514 - 520 p.
DOI: 10.33663/2524-017X-2023-14-514-520
Teslenko I. O. Some aspects of the implementation of doctrines of admissibility of evidence in the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine.
The author of the article researched the provisions of the current criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and the modern practice of the courts of Ukraine regarding the application of the doctrines of “fruit of the poisoned tree” and “inevitable detection”. It has been proven that at the present time, the verification of evidence for its admissibility is the most important guarantee of the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of the participants in criminal proceedings and the adoption of a legal and fair decision in a criminal case on the merits, it is enshrined in Part 3 of Art. 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular: “the accusation cannot be based on evidence obtained illegally and on assumptions, and all doubts regarding the proven guilt of a person must be interpreted in his favor.” It was determined that in the national criminal procedural legislation the above-mentioned doctrine is actually enshrined in Part 1 of Art. 87 of the Criminal Procedure Code, in particular: “evidence obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine, international treaties, the consent of which is binding by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, as well as any other evidence obtained thanks to information are inadmissible , obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms.” The essence of the “fruits of the poisoned tree” doctrine was studied. It is emphasized that the specified doctrine and its application are not categorical, international experience contains certain exceptions to it, which are no longer focused on violations of the procedure as such, but on the consequences and impact of these violations on causing damage to individual rights or on the credibility of relevant evidence, raising doubts about their authenticity, general ensuring the justice of the judicial process, etc. As its exception, the provisions of the doctrine of “inevitable discovery” are given and analyzed. Attention is drawn to the fact that the presence of the specified doctrine as an exception to the rules provides an opportunity to maintain a balance between the interests of the accused and the interests of society, to observe more fully his rights and freedoms, and also contributes to a comprehensive consideration of the case by the court aimed at establishing the truth and preventing release guilty persons from responsibility, ensuring the inevitability of punishment. It was concluded that the application of both the doctrine of “fruits of the poisoned tree” and doctrines and concepts that are an exception to it give flexibility to the criminal process in the matter of recognizing evidence as admissible, which ensures the justice of the judicial process for both parties and a certain balance between the public interests of society and the individual, which is criminally liable, its rights and freedoms.
Key words: decision of the European Court of Human Rights, courts of Ukraine, the doctrine of “fruit of the poisoned tree”, the doctrine of “inevitable detection”.
References
1. Konstitutia Ukraini: Zakon Ukraini vid 28.06.1996 ¹ 254ê/96-ÂÐ / Verkhovna Rada Ukraini. URL: https:// zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254ê/96-âð#Text (data zvernennia: 11.04.2023).
2. Kriminalniy procecualniy kodeks Ukraini: Zakon Ukraini vid 13.04.2012 ¹ 4651-VI / Verkhovna Rada Ukraini. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text (data zvernennia: 12.04.2023).
3. Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States - 251 U.S. 385, 40 S. Ct. 182 (1920). URL: https://www.lexisnexis. com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-silverthorne-lumber-co-v-united-states (data zvernennia: 12.04.2023).
4. Nardone v. United States, 308 U.S. 338 (1939). URL: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/308/338/ (data zvernennia: 12.04.2023).
5. Case of Gäfgen v. Germany (Application no. 22978/05). URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/Eng#{%22item id%22:[%22001-99015%22 (äàòà çâåðíåííÿ: 12.04.2023)
6. Sprava «Nechipirchul i Yonkalo proty Ukraini» (Zayava ¹ 42310/04) ) vid 21 kvitnya 2011 // Baza danyh «Zakonodavstvo Ukraini». URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_683#Text (data zvernennia: 12.04.2023).
7. Sprava «Shabelnik proty Ukraini» (Zayava N16404/03) â³ä 19 lutogo 2009 // Baza danyh «Zakonodavstvo Ukraini». URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/974_457#Text (data zvernennia: 12.04.2023).
8. Postanova Velykoi Palaty Verkhovnogo Sudu u spravi ¹ 1-07/07 (Provadgennya ¹ 13-36çâî19) vid 13 lystopada 2019. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/85869105 (data zvernennia 11.04.2023).
9. Pro sudoustryi i status suddiv: Zakon Ukraini vid 02.06.2016 ð. ¹ 1402-VIII / Verkhovna Rada Ukraini. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1402-19?find=1&text=%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%B E%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B8#w1_1 (data zvernennia: 11.04.2023).
10. Decision U. S. Supreme Court in case of Nix v. Williams (1984) 467 U. S. 431. URL: https://supreme.justia. com/cases/federal/us/467/431/ (data zvernennia: 13.04.2023).
11. Sprava «Svetina proty Slovenii» (Çàÿâà ¹38059/13) vid 22 travnya 2018 ð. URL: https://protocol.ua/ua/ svetina_proti_slovenii_(zayava_38059_13_vid_22_travnya_2018r_)/ (data zvernennia: 11.04.2023).
12. Postanova Verkhovnogo Sudu u spravi ¹ 737/641/17 (provadgennya ¹ 51-6562êì18) vid 26 veresnya 2022. URL: http://iplex.com.ua/doc.php?regnum=106598651&red=1000035374ac2a21755735f98a74c7c1cc 03d4&d=5 (data zvernennia: 11.04.2023).
<< Back
