FEATURES OF THE STATE'S POSITIVE OBLIGATION TO ENSURE EFFECTIVE PRE-JUDICIAL INVESTIGATION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES IN WHICH A MILITARY ACQUIRES THE STATUS OF A VICTIM OR ACCUSED
Abstract
Purpose. The article emphasizes the need to improve the current legislation to ensure the positive right of the state to conduct an effective investigation of criminal offenses committed by military personnel against military personnel in accordance with international standards, taking into account all features, in particular, the military and post-war conditions. Attention was also drawn to the absence of norms in the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine that would regulate issues of pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses committed by military personnel acting extra-territorially as part of international missions (UN, EU or individual states). Methods. The topicality of the topic is substantiated by statistical indicators of the General Prosecutor's Office regarding the number of servicemen who were notified of suspicion in 11 months (statistical method). On the basis of a comparison of the legislation of the EU member states, suggestions are made regarding organizational and legislative measures to increase the effectiveness of detection and investigation of criminal offenses (comparative method). The analysis of the practice of the ECtHR provides grounds for awareness of the problem of crime prevention in the field of military service, and the decisions of the ECtHR against Ukraine clearly demonstrate the gaps in the organization of investigative (search) actions, the involvement of judicial experts to conduct expertise, shortcomings in the conduct of expert research, etc. In the preparation of the article, the educational materials of the Council of Europe course on this issue, which the author took, were used. Results. Based on the analysis of the practice of the ECtHR, gaps in the activities of law enforcement agencies during the investigation of crimes in the field of military service were pointed out. It was established that in order to ensure the independence and effectiveness of the investigation and prevention, in particular, of torture and inhumane treatment, special bodies operate in the EU countries. The Council of Europe recommends that accessible and objective complaint mechanisms (close to victims but independent of their command) be established in the armed forces. Yes, the French Ministry of Defense has a special unit to which any person (civilian or military, female or male) who has become a victim or witness of sexual harassment, sexual violence or gender-based discrimination in the armed forces can contact. There are several formal complaint mechanisms within the Bulgarian armed forces: the military police and the Ministry of Defense have hotlines staffed by experts. Informal complaints (for example, about sexual harassment, discrimination, domestic violence, etc.) by military personnel can be directed to the Association of Women in the Armed Forces of Bulgaria. The association provides consultations and psychological support, as well as monitors the process of consideration of an official complaint and the progress of a pre-trial investigation. There is a Center for Human Rights and Integrity under the Ministry of Defense of Armenia, which aims to improve relations between the military and society. The center receives complaints and ensures the functioning of the "hot" telephone line. Conclusions. Taking into account the practice of the ECHR and as a response to the challenges caused by the increase in the number of military personnel, in order to prevent the commission of criminal offenses against military personnel, it is advisable to implement the positive experience of the EU countries regarding the formation of independent bodies that are authorized to receive statements (notifications) about committed offenses (within the structure of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine or the creation of military police). Include in the powers of these bodies the function of monitoring the consideration of official applications, providing legal, psychological and other assistance. Regarding the responsibility of military personnel acting as part of an international mission for criminal offenses committed on the territory of the host state, it is advisable to provide a separate section in the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, in which the procedure for pre-trial investigation should be regulated in accordance with international standards.
References
2. Єдиний звіт про осіб, які вчинили кримінальні правопорушення за січень-листопад 2023 року. https://gp.gov.ua/ua/posts/pro-osib-yaki-vchinili-kriminalni-pravoporushennya-2
3. Закон України «Про військовий обов’язок і військову службу» від 25.03.1992 № 2232-XII . https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2232-12#Text
4. CASE OF CHEMBER v. RUSSIA (Application no. 7188/03). JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 3 July 2008. FINAL 01/12/2008. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-87354%22]}
5. CASE OF PEREVEDENTSEVY v. RUSSIA. (Application no. 39583/05). JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 24 April 2014. FINAL 13/10/2014. https://help.elearning.ext.coe.int/pluginfile.php/692893/mod_scorm/content/5/story_content/external_files/CASE%20OF%20PEREVEDENTSEVY%20v.%20RUSSIA.pdf
6. Abdullah Yilmaz v. Turkey, № 21899/02, від 17/06/2008. file:///C:/Users/Admin/Downloads/CASE%20OF%20YILMAZ%20v.%20TURKEY.pdf
7. CASE OF MOSENDZ v. UKRAINE (Application no. 52013/08) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 17 January 2013. FINAL 17/04/2013. https://help.elearning.ext.coe.int/pluginfile.php/692893/mod_scorm/content/5/story_content/external_files/CASE%20OF%20MOSENDZ%20v.%20UKRAINE.pdf
8. CASE OF SILIH v. SLOVENIA (Application no. 71463/01) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 9 April 2009. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-92142%22]}
9. Resolution CM/ResDH(2020)35 Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Sašo Gorgiev against North Macedonia. (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 5 March 2020 at the 1369th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-202183%22]}
10. Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)99/ Execution of the judgment of the European. Court of Human Rights Abdurrahman Kılınç and others against Turkey. (Application No. 40145/98, judgment of 7 June 2005, final on 7 September 2005). https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-81570%22]}
11. Beker v. Turkey, 24/03/2009. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-91841%22]}
12. Mansuroğlu v. Turkey, no. 43443/98, 26/02/2008. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-85251%22]}