Whether the possibilities of interrogation as a form of shaping evidence in criminal proceedings have been exhausted?

The article analyzes the formation of the institution of interrogation as an investigative action, which is a procedural way of obtaining information from an interrogated person about the circumstances of a criminal offense. The process of legislative development is highlighted, by which the investigator’s relationship with the person being interrogated are controlled. The kind of regulation also depends on latter’s procedural status (witness, victim, suspect, accused). It is noted, that now created reliable legal safeguards to protect the rights and interests of the interrogator, appropriate scientific recommendations for the use of tactical interrogation techniques to obtain complete and objective testimony as sources of evidence have been developed. Recently, problematic issues like relation of interrogation and procedural interview, which scientists and practitioners have been paying a certain amount of attention to, were discussed. Attention is drawn to the lack of unanimity in the definition of the procedural interview. The inadmissibility of calling such an interview a procedural action is emphasized, since it is not enshrined in the current CPL of Ukraine as a procedural action. It has been proven that the structure of the procedural interview, which is proposed by certain authors, fully coincides with the structure of interrogation as an investigative action. The expediency of the study of foreign experience in detection and investigation of crimes, its comparison with the current practice of law enforcement agencies of Ukraine and, in the board of actual expediency, the introduction into the activities of investigative and operational units of law enforcement agencies is stated.