Presentation for identification in criminal proceedings on sexual criminal offenses

The article is devoted to the problematic issue of presenting a person for identification in criminal proceedings on sexual criminal offenses. The essence of this method of obtaining evidence is the identification of the culprit, which provides direct evidence of the commission of certain actions or non-involvement in them. Compared to other types of identification, in particular by material traces, the presentation of a person for identification has significant features. The article emphasizes that one of the factors that determines the specificity of this investigative (search) action is its focus on using in evidence the image of a certain object that has been preserved in a person’s memory in connection with his perception of a certain event. Images in human memory have a complex psychophysiological mechanism of formation, the course of which is influenced by both objective and subjective factors. Objective factors are external conditions of perception: distance, lighting and other factors of the situation. Subjective factors are individual characteristics of a person that affect the perception, memorization and reproduction of a perceived event: the age of a person, the state of the senses, concentration of attention. Thus, both groups of factors must be taken into account when making a decision by the pre­trial investigation body regarding the presentation of a person for identification. Another factor in presenting a person for identification, which is analyzed in the article, is its detailed legal regulation. It is claimed that the detailed description of the rules and procedures for presenting a person for identification is due to the legislator’s awareness of the complexity of the psychophysiological mechanism of the formation of images in a person’s memory and their reproduction during criminal proceedings. Strict adherence to procedural regulations is a safeguard against mistakes when presenting a person for identification. The article analyzes the definition of the essence of the presentation of a person for identification, set out in scientific articles, training manuals and textbooks after the entry into force of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in 2012. It was concluded that some of them contain inaccurate and sometimes erroneous statements. Thus, the proposition that the purpose of presentation for recognition can be not only the identification of the presented object, but also the establishment of its similarity with the object that was perceived by the person is recognized as erroneous. This perception occurs under circumstances subject to proof. It is claimed that this expansion of the task of presentation for identification of a person contradicts the normative prescriptions of the current criminal procedural law. An analysis of these prescriptions was carried out with the critical use of examples from judicial practice. It is noted that the cited violations of legal norms are related to the uncritical perception of outdated provisions and recommendations aimed at obtaining evidence of prosecution for anything. Their perception and inert practical application by the authorized subjects of the pre-trial investigation and judges creates grounds for a well-founded challenge to the results of presentation for recognition by the defense.