English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the conditions of formation of the rule of law, one of the biggest manifestations of the democratization of law enforcement activity in Ukraine is the legislative protection of human rights, the creation of guarantees of the rights and legitimate interests of the individual. In this regard, the legal status of participants in criminal proceedings becomes especially important. In addition, the important task of criminal procedural science is to identify and eliminate gaps in the legal regulation of criminal procedural relations. In this regard, studies are currently being conducted to identify legal issues in the field of law and recommendations are being prepared on this basis.It is known that every participant of criminal justice has its own legal status, enshrined in the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The procedural status of the victim, suspect, accused legislator and procedural scientist are given much attention, including the issues of securing their rights and legitimate interests. The procedural status of a witness in criminal proceedings requires, in our opinion, additional investigation, including through the prism of securing the rights and legitimate interests of the person in conducting pre-trial investigation and judicial proceedings in criminal proceedings. Research into the problems of the theory and practice of witness immunity is relevant, as various aspects of witness immunity are controversial among both theorists and practitioners. Of course, it is, first and foremost, important for witnesses to have additional opportunities for state defense.The purpose of the article is to address topical issues arising from the reform of criminal procedural legislation, which has created some difficulties in law enforcement practice, including the implementation of the rules governing the institution of immunity of witnesses. In particular, this is explained by contradictory, sometimes unsuccessfully formulated provisions of the legislation itself, which are not always consistent with the implementation of the tasks of judicial reform. In addition, the article raises the problem of witness immunity classification. The authors' different perspectives on the concepts and components of witness immunity are examined. Discussion questions of the classification of the immunity of witnesses are revealed and its classification is divided into categories and categories of testimony provided by witnesses.The result of the study is to provide valid proposals for improving the legal regulation of the institute of immunity of witnesses in criminal proceedings. Witness immunity is a set of rules that exempt certain groups of witnesses from the obligation to testify in criminal proceedings, as well as exempt a witness from testifying against themselves. In this regard, the immunity of the witness is divided into two types of imperative (absolute, unconditional) and dispositive (relative, conditional).

Testimonial immunity as an element of the principle of protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen in criminal proceedings