Problems of Normative Regulation of Investigative (Search) Actions Aimed at Verifying and Specifying Information Obtained During the Pre-Judicial Investigation

Abstract

The article raises questions related to the definition of the system of investigative (search) actions relevant to modern law enforcement practice and the doctrine of the criminal procedure. Namely, for a long time the 1960 CPC in art. 194 provided for an investigative action such as reconstructing situation and circumstances of a certain event. The lack of legal certainty of this article logically led to a discussion about its legal content, which led scholars to form an opinion regarding the coverage of its normative content by two independent investigative actions – an investigative experiment and verification of testimony on the site. However, such a conclusion was only a doctrinal approach. The legal content of art. 194 of the 1960 CPC of Ukraine remained not clearly defined, which led to a lack of unity in approaches to its understanding until the very adoption in 2012 of the new CPC of Ukraine. Such a defect in the norm of criminal procedural law did not meet the requirements of the rule-making technique, and even less the needs of law enforcement practice. With the adoption of the 2012 CPC and enshrined in art. 240 as a separate investigative (search) activity of an investigative experiment, the discussion regarding the necessity of adopting an additional investigative activity such as verification of testimony on the site has appeared. The aim of the article is to interpret the Art. 240 of the 2012 Criminal Procedure Code to understand its legal content for clarifying the essence of such an investigative action as an "investigative experiment", to establish the types of experimental actions, to distinguish them from similar investigative actions, to resolve the issue of the feasibility of enshrining in the current Criminal Procedure Code such an investigative action as checking testimony on the scene. In this article, the authors express an opinion about the inexpediency of transferring this Soviet-era debate, which has been going for almost 50 years, to the modern times. The author's position is determined by the conceptual provisions laid down in the 2012 CPC, the essence of which is that testimony is information provided during an interrogation. The CPC of 2012 contains a procedural mechanism by which an investigator, inquirer, and prosecutor can verify previously submitted statements. Such proper legal procedure is an interrogation, which, in accordance with the requirements of the CPC, can be conducted both at the place of the pre-trial investigation and at another place, which determines the inexpediency of unnecessary legislative duplication.