Coercion in the process of mandatory appointment of forensic experts in criminal proceedings in the context of human rights protection

: 167-177

Huzela M. "Coercion in the process of mandatory appointment of forensic experts in criminal proceedings in the context of human rights protection"

Lviv Polytechnic National University, Institute of Jurisprudence and Psychology

The article deals with the problematic issues of the use of coercion in the mandatory appointment of forensic experts in criminal proceedings in the context of human rights protection. Forensic examination is one of the means of ensuring the activities of law enforcement agencies and courts in order to obtain evidentiary information. These bodies are endowed with certain powers by the state regarding the possibility of restricting the rights and freedoms of citizens in cases established by criminal procedure law. The ultimate goal of justice in general is to affirm and ensure human rights and freedoms as the realization of the main duty of the state. Restrictions on individual rights and freedoms and coercion are certainly an evil that runs counter to human interests, however, in some cases it is impossible to do without such restrictions and coercion. The problem of the relationship between obligation and coercion in criminal proceedings is most clearly manifested in the forensic examination of a person. The issue of the obligation to conduct examinations, the objects of which may be living people, is closely related to obtaining the consent of the person to conduct the examination. It is procedurally expedient and lawful to conduct an examination without the consent of the victim or witness if the obligation to conduct such an examination is established by law, and its conclusions affect the correctness of the decision in the case. In the process of appointing examinations, the objects of which are living persons, the primary attention should be paid to compliance with the developed and approved legal provisions that ensure the validity of the intrusion into the sphere of personal rights, freedoms and interests of citizens. Such norms should be applied only in exceptional cases, in the manner and within the limits established by law and conditioned by the need to perform the tasks of criminal proceedings.

1. Kryminalnyi protsesualnyi kodeks Ukrainy [Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine] (2012). URL: http://www.rada/ 2. Honcharenko V. H., Kurdiukov V. V., Lehkykh K. V. (2007). Spetsialni znannia: henezys, predmet, rivni, formy vykorystannia v dokazuvanni [Special knowledge: genesis, subject, levels, forms of use in proof]. Visnyk Akademii advokatury Ukrainy. Vyp. No. 2(9). P. 22–34. 3. Iehorov V. V., Iehorova T. M. (2003). Neosudnist: yurydychni kryterii i psykhiatrychni pidstavy [Insanity: legal criteria and psychiatric grounds]. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky. Vyp. 3. Kharkiv: Pravo. P. 520–526. 4. Ekspertyzy u sudovii praktytsi [Examinations in judicial practice] (2004). Za zah. red. V. H. Honcharenka. K.: Yurinkom Inter. 388 p. 5. Yvanov L. N. Orhanyzatsyonno-pravovыe y metodycheskye problemы эkspertyzы lychnosty v uholovnom sudoproyzvodstve [Organizational, legal and methodological problems of personal examination in criminal proceedings]. URL: 6. Yvanova T. V., Kholopova E. N. (2003). Obespechenye prav y svobod cheloveka pry naznachenyy y proyzvodstve sudebno-psykholohycheskykh эkspertyz v uholovnom protsesse [Ensuring human rights and freedoms in the appointment and production of forensic psychological examinations in the criminal process].. Teoryia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky. Vyp. 3. Kharkiv: Pravo. P. 527–533. 7. Kokorev L. D., Kuznetsov N. P. (1995). Uholovnыi protsess: dokazatelstva y dokazыvanye [Criminal process: evidence and proof]. Voronezh. 272 p. 8. Kolesnyk V. A. (2000). Sudova psykhiatriia: Kurs lektsii [Forensic psychiatry: Course of lectures]. K.: Yurinkom Inter. 128 p. 9. Kornukov V. M. (1978). Merы protsessualnoho prynuzhdenyia v uholovnom sudoproyzvodstve [Measures of procedural coercion in criminal proceedings]. Saratov. 140 p. 10. Lavrynovych O. V. (2004). Sudova ekspertyza yak element realizatsii konstytutsiinykh prav hromadian [Forensic examination as an element of realization of constitutional rights of citizens]. Teoriia ta praktyka sudovoi ekspertyzy i kryminalistyky: zbirnyk naukovo-praktychnykh materialiv. Vyp. 4. Kharkiv: Pravo. P. 5–8. 11. Mokhonko A. R. (1997). O rabote sudebno-psykhyatrycheskykh эkspertnыkh komyssyi v 1996 h. [On the work of forensic psychiatric expert commissions in 1996]. Rossyiskyi psykhyatrycheskyi zhurnal. No. 3. P. 50–57. 12. Petrukhyn Y. L. (1989). Lychnaia zhyzn: predelы vmeshatelstva [Personal life: limits of intervention]. M.: Yuryd. lyt. 192 p. 13. Sudebnaia psykhyatryia: ucheb. posob. [Forensic psychiatry: textbook] (2006). [pod red. Z. O. Heorhadze]. 2-e yzd. pererab. y dop. M.: YuNYTY-DANA, Zakon y Pravo, 224 p. 14. Sutiahyn K. Y. (2007). Osnovanyia y protsessualnыi poriadok yskliuchenyia nedopustymыkh dokazatelstv v khode dosudebnoho proyzvodstva po uholovnomu delu [Grounds and procedural procedure for excluding inadmissible evidence in the course of pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case]: avtoref. dys... kand. yuryd. nauk. SPb. 23 p.