On the issue of optimizing the order of use results of operational and investigative activities in judicial evidence in a criminal case

A new era has come in the state and legal development of Russia. A criminal law policy has been defined, the main provisions of which convince of the approval of such vectors of the development of criminal proceedings as ensuring the rights of the individual, protecting the individual from intrusion into the sphere of its interests by state bodies without significant reasons. These provisions make it necessary to develop new approaches to regulating the entire range of law-limiting means, which especially actualizes the problem of the corresponding development of operational investigative activities, the results of which can be considered as evidence and used during not only pre-trial proceedings, but also in judicial investigation.

Judicial evidence is the basis for establishing significant circumstances necessary for the resolution of a criminal case. The final court decision depends on the degree of reliability of the facts, the level of persuasiveness of their totality. One of the possible sources of information about significant circumstances are the results of operational investigative activities. Their use in evidence seems to be an important segment of criminal procedural activity, starting from the procedural ways of presenting them to the court, to evaluating the results of their research in the conditions of an adversarial judicial investigation. This whole procedural path is accompanied by numerous problems, one of which is the procedure for using the results of operational investigative activities in judicial evidence. Optimization of this procedure seems to be an important direction of modern criminal procedure science and a significant aspect of law enforcement.

The purpose of the study is to develop a new approach to solving the institutional problem of using the results of operational investigative activities in judicial evidence. The objectives of the study included: the formulation of a problematic situation in a new political and ideological context related to the definition of the procedure for using the results of operational investigative activities in judicial evidence; the definition of a theoretical and legal way to solve it; the development of specific author's proposals to change the procedure for using the results of operational investigative activities in judicial evidence.

The study was conducted on the basis of traditional methods: various types of analysis (structural-system, system-functional), generalization, formal-legal, comparative-legal.

The results of the study were the author's proposals aimed at optimizing the procedural form of using the results of operational investigative activities in the context of a judicial investigation, including a differentiated approach to the use of personal and material results of operational investigative measures in the judicial investigation, the formulation of legal standards for the presentation and research in the judicial investigation of the materials of operational records, interrogations of operatives, as well as classified witnesses charges that participated in the conduct of operational search activities.

1. Aleksandrov A.S. [Cross-examination in court as a means of forming testimony]. Dopustimost' pokazanii v ugolovnom protsesse: materialy Vserossiiskogo kruglogo stola = The admissibility of testimony in criminal proceedings: materials of the All-Russian Round table. Saint Petersburg: North-Western Branch of the Russian State University of Justice; 2021. (In Russ.)]

2. Balakshin V.S.[ The use of materials of administrative activities and the results of operational investigative measures in proving criminal cases]. Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal = Russian Law Journal. 2021;(4(139)):91–101. DOI: 10.34076/20713797_2021_4_91. (In Russ.)]

3. Grigor'ev V.N. [Some judgments about the results of operational investigative activities]. Sudebnaya vlast' i ugolovnyi protsess = Judicial power and criminal procedure. 2018;(2):48–52. (In Russ.)]

4. [The doctrinal model of the Criminal procedural evidentiary law of the Russian Federation and comments on it] / A.S. Alexandrov et al. Moscow: Yurlitinform; 2015. (In Russ.)]

5. Kuvychkov S.I. [On the issue of the use of electronic information in criminal procedural proof: theoretical and applied aspect]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoi akademii MVD Rossii = Legal Science and Practice: Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2015;(2(30)):76–81. (In Russ.)]

6. Levchenko O.V., Khaidarov A.A. [Judicial investigation as an institution of criminal procedural law]. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta MVD Rossii = Bulletin of the Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2018;(1):162–165. (In Russ.)]

7. Mikhailovskaya O.V. [The results of operational investigative activities in proving criminal cases]. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya = Russian Justice. 2019;(1):45–46. (In Russ.)]

8. Murav'ev K.V. [Optimization of the procedural form of application of the criminal law]. Moscow: Prospect; 2019. (In Russ.)]

9. Murav'ev M.V. [On the issue of the legal phenomenon of public operational search measures as an element of the formation of criminal procedural evidence]. Yuridicheskaya nauka i praktika: Vestnik Nizhegorodskoi akademii MVD Rossii = Legal Science and Practice: Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2021;(1(53)):241–245. DOI: 10.36511/2078-5356-2021-1-241-245. (In Russ.)]

10. Nazarov M.V. [Prospects for using the results of operational investigative activities in criminal proceedings]. Vestnik Vserossiiskogo instituta povysheniya kvalifikatsii sotrudnikov Ministerstva vnutrennikh del Rossiiskoi Federatsii = Bulletin of the All-Russian Institute for Advanced Training of Employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. 2021;(4(60)):107–111. (In Russ.)]

11. Polyakov M.P. [Ideological approach and criminal procedural conceptology as tools of cognition of the essence of domestic criminal proceedings]. Trudy Akademii upravleniya MVD Rossii = Proceedings of the Academy of Management of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2018;(1(45)):43–47. (In Russ.)]

12. Rossinskii S.B. [Judicial actions of a cognitive nature as objects of criminal procedural regulation]. Rossiiskii sud'ya = Russian judge. 2014;(10):36–41. (In Russ.)]

13. Rossinskii S.B. [The problem of using the results of operational investigative activities in the criminal process requires final resolution]. Lex Russica (Russkii zakon) = Lex Russica (Russian Law). 2018;(10):70–84. (In Russ.)]

14. Sementsov V.A. [Provocation of a crime in operational investigative activities]. Soyuz kriminalistov i kriminologov = Union of Criminologists and Criminologists. 2020;(4):45–53. DOI: 10.31085/2310-8681-2020-4-208-45-53. (In Russ.)]

15. Sementsov V.A. [Digital technologies in domestic criminal proceedings]. Yuridicheskii vestnik Kubanskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta = Legal Bulletin of the Kuban State University. 2022;(4):97–105. DOI: 10.31429/20785836-14-4-97-105. (In Russ.)] 16. Spirin A.V. [The use by the public prosecutor of the results of operational investigative activities]. Zakonnost' = Legality. 2018;(3(1001)):18–22. (In Russ.)]

16. Kholopov A.V. [Examination of material evidence in a judicial investigation with the help of technical means]. Kriminalist" = Criminologist. 2014;(1(14)):53–59. (In Russ.)]

17. Shadrin V.S. [Evidentiary activity of the public prosecutor]. Kriminalist" = Criminologist. 2013;(1(12)):24–31. (In Russ.)]