REVIEW OF A PERSON IN UKRAINIAN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: A SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND PROBLEMS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT

Abstract

Introduction. In modern criminal proceedings, review of a person is one of the most controversial investigative actions, as it combines the need to obtain evidentiary information with direct interference in a person’s privacy. The absence of clear normative distinctions between review of a person, inspection, search, and forensic expertise creates risks of arbitrary application of procedures, which in turn affects the admissibility of evidence and the consistency of judicial practice. The purpose of this article is to conduct a systemic analysis of the nature, structure, and legal regulation of review of a person, to identify key problems of law enforcement, and to formulate approaches to assessing procedural defects. The methodological basis includes dialectical, systemic-activity, formal-legal, and comparative legal methods.

Summary of the main results of the study. It is argued that review of a person should be regarded as a controlled procedure consisting of specific elements: subjects of conduct (investigator, prosecutor, specialist), the object (a person’s body and clothing), procedural conditions (factual and legal grounds), and the result (a protocol with annexes). Analysis of Supreme Court practice revealed inconsistency in the qualification of procedural violations, ranging from overlapping procedures (review–inspection–search) to defects in a person’s status or procedural documentation. A three-level classification of violations is proposed: a) absolute defects (serious violations of rights and freedoms that always result in inadmissibility of evidence); b) conditionally admissible defects (procedural shortcomings requiring assessment of their impact on the parties’ rights); c) technical defects (minor formal errors that do not undermine the reliability of results). It is established that judicial practice is generally oriented toward evaluating the actual impact of procedural deviations on the guarantees of a fair trial, which is consistent with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Conclusions. Review of a person in criminal proceedings should not be seen as a purely technical act, but as a complex process in which any defect may affect the evaluation of evidence. Resolving inconsistencies in practice requires clear normative differentiation of procedures, unification of methodological guidelines, the use of modern recording tools (including video recording), and the development of a doctrine distinguishing between essential violations and technical errors. This approach will ensure a proper balance between the effectiveness of pre-trial investigation and the protection of individual rights.