The article is devoted to the study of judicial control as a fundamental instrument for ensuring proper evidence in the Ukrainian criminal process. The author emphasizes that judicial control, as exercised by the investigating judge, is not merely a procedural safeguard but also a constitutional mechanism for ensuring respect for human rights and freedoms during the collection, verification, and evaluation of evidence. The article outlines doctrinal and legal approaches to understanding the concept of judicial control and its place in the system of principles of criminal procedure, such as the rule of law, adversarial proceedings, and the presumption of innocence. Special attention is paid to the challenges posed by the legal regime of martial law. Under conditions of armed aggression, the expansion of powers of security authorities, and the increasing threats to fundamental rights, there is a growing risk that judicial control may be reduced to formal approval of investigative actions. The article analyzes the authorization of investigative and covert investigative (search) actions, the judicial review of the admissibility, relevance, and reliability of evidence, and the preservation of procedural balance between the prosecution and the defence even under critical circumstances. The study examines the provisions of current Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, legal positions of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court of Ukraine, as well as the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the inadmissibility of evidence obtained in violation of human rights. The author argues that meaningful and effective judicial control at the pre-trial stage—even under conditions of limited time, objective risks, and security-related pressure—remains a vital safeguard of fair trial. A number of systemic problems are identified, including superficial examination of motions, excessive caseloads for investigating judges, and insufficient reasoning in judicial rulings. The article proposes doctrinal and procedural improvements to the implementation of judicial control under martial law, including strengthening the independence of investigating judges, ensuring the mandatory motivation of decisions, and enhancing procedural guarantees. The article is addressed to scholars, practitioners, legislators, and all those involved in adapting Ukraine’s criminal justice system to the challenges of armed conflict in line with European standards.
Mykola Pohoretskyi (Sun,) studied this question.