Along with the difficulty in documenting and proving the pre-trial investigation into war crimes committed by the occupying country, a significant challenge for National Police investigators was the issue of promptly establishing (identifying) the person who died as a result of their commission. Identification of such persons is associated with generally accepted norms of morality, respect for national memory, heroism and respect for fallen patriots, but is not regulated by the current criminal procedure legislation as a separate procedure, and therefore causes a lot of discussion, misunderstanding of the sequence of investigative (search) actions and procedural decision-making. We have investigated a number of problematic issues related to rapid identification of a person, taking into account the changes in criminal procedure legislation which took place in October 2024. It is determined that the process of identification of a person who died as a result of a war crime is directly related to the documentation of the crime itself and may be one of the key ways to form an evidence base. The author outlines the main issues which should be taken into account when planning the sequence of investigative (search) actions during identification of a person, up to the adoption of a procedural decision in the form of a resolution on identification. The author emphasizes the need to fill in the unified DNA database - the Electronic Register of Genomic Information. The author outlines the problematic issues that may arise in the course of rapid identification of a person and suggests ways to solve them. It is emphasized that the amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine introduced by the Law of 09.10.2024 No. 4009-IX, expected by the investigative community, did not simplify, but even complicated the process of identification of unidentified corpses. There are contradictions between the new rules and the current, adapted provisions of criminal procedure law, as well as the definitions and powers of the subjects and parties to criminal proceedings, which require immediate resolution. An unclear distinction between the concepts of “specialist”, ‘criminalist’ and “expert”, as well as an ambiguous interpretation of their powers, may lead to significant procedural consequences that will affect the effectiveness of evidence in criminal proceedings. Therefore, we will try not only to consider the terminology and organizational issues, but also to propose a set of investigative (detective) actions adapted to the needs of practice, which are necessary for the prompt identification of the unidentified corpse of a person killed as a result of a war crime.
Kavierina et al. (2025) studied this question.