The article is devoted to the procedural determination of explanations of persons and peculiarities of obtaining explanations of persons in the investigation of criminal offenses. Changes to Part 8. Art. 95, part 3 Art. 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter – CPC) and new Art. 298-1 CPC are analyzed. It is stated that the
explanations selected in this category of the case can be considered as evidence even if they were received before the data entered in the EDDR and can be selected by all the subjects listed in item 19 of Art. 3 CPC, including defender and operational units. It is possible to select explanations from the persons listed in item 25 of Art. 3 of the CPC of Ukraine, as participants in criminal proceedings. Two discussion questions are raised.
The first is how the provisions of Part 1 of Art. 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine correlates with the rights and duties of participants in criminal proceedings. Having analyzed the content of item 8 of Art. 95 of the CPC, we state that the explanation can be obtained only with the consent of the person. Thus, the Constitution of Ukraine states that a person may refuse to give explanations in relation to himself, family members, close relatives, but nothing is written about the obligation to give explanations in other cases.
Part 2 of Art. 66 of the CPC does not oblige a witness to give explanations and establishes responsibility (, Art. 67 of the CPC, Art. 385 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine for refusing to give testimony, but no explanations, paragraph 4 of Part 3 of Article 72-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure obliges the representative of the probation authority to give explanations in court, paragraph 9 of Part 1of Article 56 of the CPC provides the victim with the right to give explanations. From July 1, 2020, problems in law enforcement may arise regarding the explanation given by witnesses in the event that they did not give consent to receive them. This will be relevant in the case of obtaining explanations from witnesses in the case who do not wish to give an explanation at all, and not only in cases where it concerns the witness’s person or persons close to him. In fact, they are not responsible for these actions before the law. The number of such persons may be considerable. Therefore, it is necessary to establish at the legislative level the responsibility for refusing to give a witness an explanation. But, it is quite clear that, before questioning such persons, they need to clarify the requirements of Art. 63 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The second, in which procedural form it is necessary to issue explanations. From 1 July 2020, practitioners must have effective means of fixing explanations, since, without the proper procedural form, information about the facts contained in the explanations cannot be recognized as credible evidence. The possibility of applying Articles 103, 104 of the CPC of Ukraine by analogy is established.
Namely, that the results of a procedural action – a survey – should be recorded in the protocol of the corresponding action. We conclude on the need for additional procedural regulation of this issue.
Keywords: evidence, sources of evidence, explanations of persons, fixation, a criminal offense.
Pemalsuan Surat dalam Arti Formil dan Materil Beserta Akibat Hukumnya