Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The article discusses the issue of «audio and video control of a parson» article260 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter – CPC)) investigators of the pre-trial investigation body, operative units. Inadequate supervision by the prosecutor of the observance of the observance of the rights and freedoms of a person during the conduct of such an undercover investigative (search) action leads to the recognition by the court of evidence in criminal proceedings as inadmissible and causes the loss of factual data establishing the circumstances of the event of a criminal offense, namely: time, place, method and other circumstances of committing a criminal offense that are subject to proof in criminal proceedings in accordance with Part 1 of Article 91 of the CPC. The practice of clandestine investigative (search) actions (hereinafter referrend to as CI(S)A) in domestic legislation is relatively new. They are carried are carried out with the entry into force of Criminal Procedure Code in 2012, which includes chapter 21 «undercover investigative (search) action». CI(S)A in comparison with investigative search actions (hereinafter referred to as ІSA) are much more restrictive in relation to individuals, because they are carried out without their knowledge, and the procedural and legal norms that ensure audio and video monitoring are not perfect, and therefore in practice arise questions regarding their interpretation and application. From judicial practice, the From judicial practice, there are of examples of the recognition as inadmissible evidence of factual data about informal communication of a person with operatives, the prosecutor during the audio and video monitoring of a person by the CI(S)A, the wrong choice of the CI(S)A, which consists in conducting audio and video control of the place with the scope of the decision of the investigating judge of the appeals court on permission to conduct audio and video surveillance of the person, inconsistency of the content of the protocol of the CI(S)D with the nature of the procedural action, non-compliance with the requirements for drawing up protocols, which are defined in Part 3 of Art. 104 of the CPC, which leads to the loss of evidentiary information on the results of the CI(S)A.
N. V. Titova (Mon,) studied this question.