Novelisation of proving in criminal proceedings involving juvenile victims and witnesses

The article analyses the provisions of the Procedure for Implementation of the Pilot Project for the Implementation of International Standards for Child-Friendly Justice in Practice, which formulated 100 standards relating to proceedings involving minors. The author classifies these standards in terms of their correlation with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Particular attention is paid to a child­friendly environment, as well as to interrogation, examination and collection of biological samples, and participation of a psychologist in procedural actions. The author considers video recording during investigative (detective) actions with the participation of a minor (victim, suspect) with his/her consent. The author analyses the conduct of examinations with the participation of a child, in particular, the possibilities of limiting the child’s participation in this research, except in situations of necessity, as provided for in the Procedure for Implementing the Pilot Project for the Implementation of International Standards for Child-Friendly Justice in Practice. It is concluded that the provisions of the Procedure are: 1) detailing the general rights of the victim in criminal proceedings in the context of the best interests of the child and 2) prescribing actions that are not mandatory in the CPC of Ukraine, but are in line with international child rights standards. Despite the undoubted progressive nature of the procedure for ensuring the best interests of the child, there are provisions that may cause different interpretations and applications. In particular, the provision of Standard 26 does not correlate with Part 2 and Part 7 of Article 55 of the CPC of Ukraine; it is not defined in what status a psychologist should be questioned; the form of the psychologist’s recommendations needs to be clarified. The application of the high standard of «reliable information and obvious grounds» for the appointment of a psychiatric examination may lead to the non-appointment of an examination if the mental illness or mental retardation is not obvious and the information about it is undoubted. In addition, the provision of Standard 38 needs to be clarified, as its wording suggests that in case of voluntary action, the participation of a legal representative is not required, and such an interpretation contradicts Article 227 of the CPC of Ukraine.