Перспективи доповнення Кримінального процесуального кодексу України положеннями щодо використання поліграфа

Abstract

Здійснено системний аналіз проекту доповнення кримінального процесуального законодавства України положеннями щодо використання поліграфа. Зауважено на недоліки та колізії, які можуть виникати у практиці досудового розслідування під час використання поліграфа згідно із запропонованими змінами. Висловлено позицію щодо окремих аспектів правового регулювання використання поліграфів у кримінальному провадженні в Україні. The article is devoted to the system analysis of amendments to the criminal procedure law of Ukraine by the regulations concerning polygraph using. In general they positively assessed the initiative of preparing the bill of the Law of Ukraine «On amending the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine by the regulations on the polygraph (lie detector) using» № 3611 as for 10.12.2015 and submitting it to the Supreme Council of Ukraine as an additional step forward on the way to the optimization of legal regulation of polygraphologic technologies using to realise the objectives of the criminal proceedings in Ukraine. The attention has been paid to the shortcomings and conflicts that may arise in the practice of pre-trial investigation during the polygraph using according to the proposed changes, and the position on certain aspects of legal regulation of polygraph using in criminal proceedings in Ukraine has been expressed. It seems more appropriate to define a polygraph test as one of the kinds of forensic examinations (psychophysiological examination) and in case of contributing the amendment to the criminal procedure law as a separate special article, it would be art. 242-1 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (we consider sufficient the grounds of carrying out examinations based on a general rule – the appeal of the part of the criminal proceedings or the commission of the investigator to the judge; to the court). The results of psychophysiological examination (if such a concept will be introduced in the CPC of Ukraine), which have been set out in the corresponding conclusion, should have the same meaning of the source of evidence as the conclusions of the other experts, should not have any prerogative over other sources of evidence and should be evaluated by the court only in conjunction with other evidences, so we should not underline their orientation meaning, because, after all, many diagnostic and situational expert researches have the same meaning, but they are considered by the court as full sources of evidence.