ANALYSIS OF JUDICIAL PRACTICE TO GENERALIZE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATIONAL PROCUREMENT AS A FORM OF CONTROL OVER THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME

Abstract

Based on the analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and Ukrainian courts considering criminal proceedings, the article summarizes the requirements for conducting operational procurement as a form of control over the commission of a crime, their procedural formalization and use as evidence in criminal proceedings. The author highlights the typical mistakes made by law enforcement officers in conducting operational procurement and its procedural formalization, which leads to violation of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, recognition of their results as inadmissible evidence by courts, and, as a result, acquittals. In particular, incitement of a person to commit a crime; procedural violations of the procedure for obtaining evidence; failure to reflect in the criminal proceedings information on the origin of the funds used to control the commission of a crime; absence of a prosecutor's decision to control the commission of a crime in the case file; the protocol for marking banknotes was drawn up by an unauthorized person (an operative without a corresponding order from the investigator); evidence of the The above violations negatively affect the results of operational developments and lead to wasted time, resources and state budget funds. The author provides positions on the rules for evaluating electronic evidence when considering criminal proceedings in court. The author summarizes the requirements for control over the commission of a crime in the form of an operational purchase, its procedural formalization and use as evidence in criminal proceedings.