The disadvantages of the anti-corruption “infrastructure” can be used in the interests of the client, - A. Trigub

In the absence of a professional and systematic approach to the preparation of legislative changes, the desire to improve the justice system and law enforcement often ends with the emergence of new legal problems in related industries, including in the criminal process.

The associate partner of Skliarenko, Sydorenko and Partners Andriy Trigub drew attention to this during a press conference in UNIAN dedicated to the actual problems of the criminal process. The event took place on the eve of the annual forum of the Association of Lawyers of Ukraine on Criminal Law and Procedure.

Therefore, according to A. Trigub, the implementation of the adversarial principle of the defense and prosecution parties in practice remains a difficult task, in particular, due to the lack of judicial personnel and the workload of investigative judges, which is a direct consequence of the judicial reform.

To illustrate this thesis, he cited an example from his own practice, when in a criminal proceeding the investigator’s initiative to conduct a computer-technical examination was satisfied by the court within three days. However, the request of the defense counsel to conduct the same examination with other questions was considered by the same judge for more than three months. “Therefore, we see an obvious imbalance in the priority of consideration of the petitions of the prosecution and the defense,” the expert summed up.

The anti-corruption “infrastructure” created in Ukraine, according to A. Trigub, can also hardly be considered successful. Indeed, in particular, it allows for duplication of powers of law enforcement agencies and conflicts of jurisdiction, does not always solve the problems that were initially covered by the plans of the reformers.

At the same time, not all identified deficiencies in practice have an exclusively negative coloration. Some of them can and should be used in the interests of the client. The lawyer recalled that the State Bureau of Investigation was registered in the Pechersky district of Kiev, but geographically located in the Shevchenkovsky district of the capital. “Which investigating judges, considering the provisions of the Ukrainian Legal Code, should consider procedural documents related to the activities of the State Bureau of Investigation,” the lawyer asks. - It is known that the department likes to appeal to the Pechersk district court more. But complaints about procedural decisions and various petitions are de facto considered by both district courts. And this practice is still supported by the court of appeal. ”

Defenders are actively using this today. “In the case when it is difficult to register a statement of a crime under investigation by the State Security Bureau (for some reason, investigators do not want to do this), we complain to both courts,” A. Trigub said. “And which judge will be the first to consider the issue, then we will carry the corresponding determination for execution.”

Recall, the next Forum of the Association of Lawyers of Ukraine on Criminal Law and Procedure will be held in Kiev on December 6. Associate partner of “Skliarenko, Sydorenko and Partners” Andriy Trigub is the head of the Committee of the Association of Lawyers of Ukraine on criminal law and process.