Instituto de Estudios Políticos y Derecho Público "Dr. Humberto J. La Roche"
de la Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas de la Universidad del Zulia
Maracaibo, Venezuela
Esta publicación cientíca en formato digital es continuidad de la revista impresa
ISSN-Versión Impresa 0798-1406 / ISSN-Versión on line 2542-3185Depósito legal pp
197402ZU34
ppi 201502ZU4645
Vol.40 N° 72
Enero
Junio
2022
Recibido el 15/09/2021 Aceptado el 28/11/2021
ISSN 0798- 1406 ~ De pó si to le gal pp 198502ZU132
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas
La re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas, es una pu bli ca ción aus pi cia da por el Ins ti tu to
de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co “Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che” (IEPDP) de la Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas de la Uni ver si dad del Zu lia.
En tre sus ob je ti vos fi gu ran: con tri buir con el pro gre so cien tí fi co de las Cien cias
Hu ma nas y So cia les, a tra vés de la di vul ga ción de los re sul ta dos lo gra dos por sus in ves-
ti ga do res; es ti mu lar la in ves ti ga ción en es tas áreas del sa ber; y pro pi ciar la pre sen ta-
ción, dis cu sión y con fron ta ción de las ideas y avan ces cien tí fi cos con com pro mi so so cial.
Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas apa re ce dos ve ces al año y pu bli ca tra ba jos ori gi na les con
avan ces o re sul ta dos de in ves ti ga ción en las áreas de Cien cia Po lí ti ca y De re cho Pú bli-
co, los cua les son so me ti dos a la con si de ra ción de ár bi tros ca li fi ca dos.
ESTA PU BLI CA CIÓN APA RE CE RE SE ÑA DA, EN TRE OTROS ÍN DI CES, EN
:
Re vicyhLUZ, In ter na tio nal Po li ti cal Scien ce Abs tracts, Re vis ta In ter ame ri ca na de
Bi blio gra fía, en el Cen tro La ti no ame ri ca no para el De sa rrol lo (CLAD), en Bi blio-
gra fía So cio Eco nó mi ca de Ve ne zue la de RE DIN SE, In ter na tio nal Bi blio graphy of
Po li ti cal Scien ce, Re vencyt, His pa nic Ame ri can Pe rio di cals In dex/HAPI), Ul ri ch’s
Pe rio di cals Di rec tory, EBS CO. Se en cuen tra acre di ta da al Re gis tro de Pu bli ca cio-
nes Cien tí fi cas y Tec no ló gi cas Ve ne zo la nas del FO NA CIT, La tin dex.
Di rec to ra
L
OIRALITH
M. C
HIRINOS
P
ORTILLO
Co mi té Edi tor
Eduviges Morales Villalobos
Fabiola Tavares Duarte
Ma ría Eu ge nia Soto Hernández
Nila Leal González
Carmen Pérez Baralt
Co mi té Ase sor
Pedro Bracho Grand
J. M. Del ga do Ocan do
José Ce rra da
Ri car do Com bel las
An gel Lom bar di
Die ter Nohlen
Al fre do Ra mos Ji mé nez
Go ran Ther born
Frie drich Welsch
Asis ten tes Ad mi nis tra ti vos
Joan López Urdaneta y Nil da Ma rín
Re vis ta Cues tio nes Po lí ti cas. Av. Gua ji ra. Uni ver si dad del Zu lia. Nú cleo Hu ma nís ti co. Fa-
cul tad de Cien cias Ju rí di cas y Po lí ti cas. Ins ti tu to de Es tu dios Po lí ti cos y De re cho Pú bli co
“Dr. Hum ber to J. La Ro che”. Ma ra cai bo, Ve ne zue la. E- mail: cues tio nes po li ti cas@gmail.
com ~ loi chi ri nos por til lo@gmail.com. Te le fax: 58- 0261- 4127018.
Vol. 40, Nº 72 (2022), 330-352
IEPDP-Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas - LUZ
Organizational and procedural
aspects of obtaining testimony
during a court interrogation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.46398/cuestpol.4072.18
Mykola Turkot *
Alla Ponomarenko **
Ihor IIerusalymov ***
Serhiy Peretyatko ****
Oleksandr Shulha *****
Abstract
The article makes a meaningful analysis of the scientic works
and the rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, which
dene the concept of testimony as a procedural source of evidence
in criminal proceedings, its methods of obtaining, verifying,
and evaluating. The legislative regulations and procedural
procedure for the judicial interrogation of participants in criminal
proceedings have been studied. Attention is paid to certain innovations in
legislation that require scientic understanding, interpretation, and choice
of appropriate tactics by a defense attorney, prosecutor, and judge. The
methodological basis of the article is the complex application of general
methods and special methods of scientic knowledge in its relationship,
selected considering the purpose and objectives of the study, its object and
theme. By way of conclusion, the proposals and recommendations of an
organizational and tactical nature are based, aimed at improving police
practice to address the existing problems of obtaining, verifying, and
evaluating testimonies in the evidentiary process.
Keywords: criminal proceedings; evidence; testimony; judicial
interrogation; tactics.
* Candidate of legal sciences, Associate Professor, department prosecutor of Prosecutor General’s Oce,
Kyiv, Ukraine. ORСID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9457-8871
** Candidate of legal sciences, Senior Researcher, Leading Researcher in the Research Laboratory
of Problems of Legal and Organizational Support for the Ministry of State Research Institute of the
Ministry of Internal Aairs of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. ORСID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6271-
4485
*** Candidate of legal sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor at the Department of Law
European University, Kyiv, Ukraine. ORСID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3163-982X
**** Ph. D. student of the Department of Criminal Procedure and Criminology of the Faculty № 1 of the
Institute for Training Specialists for the National Police, Lviv State University of Internal Aairs,
of the Department for Supervision of Observance of Laws by the Fiscal Service of the Lviv Regional
Prosecutor's Oce, Lviv, Ukraine. ORСID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3941-4254
***** Philosophy Doctor, Chief forensic specialist in Мain Investigation Oce of the Nation Police of
Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine. ORСID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8404-3061
331
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
Aspectos organizativos y de procedimiento
de la obtención de testimonio durante un
interrogatorio judicial
Resumen
El artículo realiza un análisis signicativo de los trabajos cientícos
y las normas del Código de Procedimiento Penal de Ucrania, que
denen el concepto de testimonio como fuente procesal de prueba en los
procesos penales, sus métodos de obtención, vericación y evaluación.
Se ha estudiado la normativa legislativa y el procedimiento procesal del
interrogatorio judicial de los participantes en un proceso penal. Se presta
atención a ciertas innovaciones en la legislación que requieren comprensión
cientíca, interpretación y elección de tácticas apropiadas por parte de
un abogado defensor, scal y juez. La base metodológica del artículo es
la aplicación compleja de métodos generales y métodos especiales de
conocimiento cientíco en su relación, seleccionados teniendo en cuenta la
nalidad y objetivos del estudio, su objeto y tema. A modo de conclusión,
se fundamentan las propuestas y recomendaciones de carácter organizativo
y táctico, encaminadas a mejorar la práctica policial para abordar los
problemas existentes de obtención, vericación y evaluación de testimonios
en el proceso de prueba.
Palabras clave: proceso penal; prueba; testimonio; interrogatorio
judicial; táctica.
Introduction
The main purpose of criminal procedural evidence is to obtain an investigator,
prosecutor, court complete and reliable knowledge about the event of a criminal
oense, the guilt of the accused in its commission, other circumstances relevant to
the proper resolution of criminal proceedings. Such knowledge is obtained in the
manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter - the
CPC of Ukraine), as dened in Part 2 of Art. 84 of this Code of Procedural Sources.
One of them is the testimony of participants in criminal proceedings, which are the
most common source of evidence. Based on them, the circumstances of the criminal
oense to be proved are established. Often such circumstances are established
solely on the basis of testimony, resulting in a court decision.
The change in the methodological paradigm, which occurs in connection with the
adoption of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, has signicantly aected
the legal regulation of obtaining and using in evidence the testimony of participants
in criminal proceedings (Shilo, 2015). At the same time, the procedure for obtaining
testimony in court dened in the CPC of Ukraine, as well as the peculiarities of using
332
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
testimony as evidence in evidence, are an important guarantee against abuse by
persons conducting criminal proceedings.
The success of obtaining and verifying evidence in criminal proceedings is
possible only when the tactics developed by criminology and based on the data of
psychology and the results of generalizations of forensic practice are used.
In forensic science, tactics for obtaining testimony are studied and developed
mainly for investigative (search) actions, which are carried out during the pre-
trial investigation. Similar techniques, although they can be used during judicial
interrogation, require, however, signicant renement and improvement, because
judicial interrogation is perhaps the most complex forensic action, which has
procedural, organizational, forensic, psychological and ethical aspects. Skillful
interrogation requires creative application not only of the law, but also of knowledge
in the eld of criminology, psychology, pedagogy, ethics, and life experience
(Maksymyshyn, 2016). The above necessitates the study of the legal nature of
testimony, legislative regulation of the procedure for obtaining and using it in
evidence in criminal proceedings.
Thus, the current issues are the development of not only general theoretical
(methodological), but also private-scientic provisions of forensic tactics as a
branch of forensics, which would raise to a higher level the tactical skills of persons
empowered to obtain testimony from participants in criminal proceedings.
1. Methodology of the study
The methodological basis of the scientic article is the dialectical-
materialist method of scientic knowledge of social and legal phenomena
and general scientic and special methods based on it.
Methods of logic (induction, deduction, analogy, analysis, synthesis, etc.)
were used in the study of regulations, materials of criminal proceedings,
concepts, points of view of the authors on certain issues included in the
subject of the scientic article, their generalization and formulation of
conclusions; descriptive-analytical - to interpret legal categories, formulate
denitions and clarify the conceptual and categorical apparatus; modeling -
during the formation of proposals and conclusions in the work; comparative
legal method - when comparing scientic research and concepts available
in legal science, the provisions of regulations.
The analysis of the norms of the current criminal procedural legislation
and the practice of its application, the interpretation of the provisions of
the relevant normative legal acts and materials of judicial practice was
carried out using formal-dogmatic and hermeneutic methods. The method
of theoretical and legal modeling allowed to substantiate the proposals
aimed at improving the theoretical and applied aspects of obtaining the
333
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
procedural order of testimony of participants in criminal proceedings. The
analysis and generalization of criminal proceedings was carried out with
the help of sociological and statistical methods.
2. Analysis of recent research
The problem of testimony, their collection, verication and verication of
the formation and use in criminal proceedings traditionally belongs to those
that attract the most attention of specialists. However, in the perspective
of the latest legislation of Ukraine, not many scientic works have been
devoted to their study so far. In particular, it is necessary to point out the
scientic achievements of such scientists as M. Turkot (Turkot, 2020), H.
Teteriatnyk (Teteriatnyk et al., 2021), P. Zinchenko (Zinchenko, 2011), V.
Goncharenko, V. Nor, M. Shumilo (Goncharenko et al., 2012), O. Dekhtyar
(Dehtyar, 2013), O. Shilo (Shilo, 2015), N. Maksymyshyn (Maksymyshyn,
2016), M. Pohoretsky (Pohoretsky, 2008), V. Shepitko (Shepitko, 2007),
I. Kohutych (Kohutych, 2009), V. Babunych (Babunych, 2011) and other
scientists.
The study of the current state of forensic support of judicial interrogation
in the criminal process of Ukraine led to the conclusion that the existing
system of tactics developed by forensic science, their content needs further
analysis, systematization and renement. There are still controversial
issues regarding the procedural possibilities of participants in criminal
proceedings to collect and verify testimony as sources of evidence, the legal
denition of judicial interrogation and delimitation of its types, the subject
composition of some of them, the admissibility and necessity of tactical
means and others.
The purpose of the article is to clarify the normative content of certain
provisions of the CPC of Ukraine, which dene the concept of testimony
in criminal proceedings as a procedural source of evidence, their types,
methods of obtaining, verication, and evaluation during the trial.
To achieve the goal of the study, the following main tasks are set: to
clarify the essence of the testimony as a source of evidence in criminal
proceedings; determine the legal nature and tasks of judicial interrogation
and its types; generalize scientic ideas about the concepts and features of
judicial interrogation; outline the range of subjects of judicial interrogation
and the specics of their participation in it; identify typical tactics of the
prosecutor-public prosecutor, defense counsel and judge in the preparation
and conduct of judicial interrogation.
334
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
3. Results and discussion
In accordance with Part 1 of Art. 95 of the CPC of Ukraine testimony as a
procedural source of evidence - is information provided orally or in writing
during the interrogation of suspects, accused, witnesses, victims, experts on
the circumstances known to them in criminal proceedings that are relevant
in these criminal proceedings (Criminal procedure code of Ukraine, 2012).
Signs of testimony as a procedural source of evidence, based on their
legal denition, are: 1) testimony - is information provided during the
interrogation (orally or in writing) (a sign relating to the procedural form of
testimony); 2) testimony may be given by a suspect, accused, witness, victim,
expert (a sign concerning the subject of their provision); 3) the connection
of the information that makes up the content of the testimony, with the
circumstances relevant to the criminal proceedings (a sign concerning
the content of the testimony). The absence of these features deprives the
information obtained of the value of testimony as a procedural source of
evidence in criminal proceedings (Shilo, 2015).
As indicated in paragraph 8 of the Letter of the Supreme Specialized
Court of Ukraine for Civil and Criminal Cases dated 05.10.2012 № 223-
1446 / 0 / 4-12 “On some issues of the procedure for judicial review in
court proceedings in the rst instance in accordance with the Criminal
procedural code of Ukraine”, the court, guided by the general principles
of criminal proceedings, before the direct examination of evidence must
ensure adversarial proceedings, equality of arms, freedom in presenting
their evidence and in proving before the court their persuasiveness, self-
defense and defense of their legal positions, exercise of other procedural
rights by them, in particular regarding the submission of a petition for
declaring evidence inadmissible, as well as information indicating their
obvious inadmissibility, etc.
In this regard, the court in determining the amount of evidence to be
examined and the procedure for their examination must consider the views
of the parties to the criminal proceedings on these issues and the possibility
of proper exercise of their procedural rights and procedural obligations. In
addition, determining the order of examination of evidence, the court must
proceed from the rules of Part 1 of Art. 349 of the CPC of Ukraine, which
stipulates that the evidence on the part of the prosecution is examined, rst
of all, and on the part of the defense - in the second.
Based on the content of Part 2 and 3 of Art. 95 of the CPC of Ukraine,
for the accused, the victim to testify during the trial is their right, and for
a witness, an expert - a duty. The obligation to ensure the presence of
prosecution witnesses during the trial in order to exercise the right of the
defense to be questioned before an independent and impartial court rests
with the prosecution (Part 3 of Article 23 of the CPC of Ukraine).
335
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
As some authors of the scientic and practical commentary to the
CPC of Ukraine note, “such an approach is a manifestation not only of
the principles of direct examination of testimony, but also the principles
of adversarial proceedings and the right of the accused to a fair trial”
(Goncharenko et al., 2012: 89). In particular, paragraph “e” of Part 3 of Art.
14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted on
December 16, 1966 by the UN General Assembly and ratied by the Decree
of the Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic № 2148-VIII of 19.10.1973 provides that everyone has the right to
consider any to prosecute witnesses who testify against him or to have the
right to have those witnesses questioned and to have the right to summon
and question his witnesses on the same terms as witnesses testifying against
him. (International covenant on civil and political rights, 1966).
A similar rule is enshrined in paragraph “d” of Part 3 of Article 6 of the
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
of 04.11.1950, ratied by the Law of Ukraine of 17.07.1997 № 475/97-VR,
which stipulates that everyone accused of committing a criminal oense
has the right to interrogate prosecution witnesses or demand, to interrogate
them, as well as to demand the summoning and interrogation of defense
witnesses on the same terms as prosecution witnesses (Convention for the
protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, 1950).
Forensics examines the interrogation in terms of tactics used during
its conduct, the place of interrogation in the methodology of investigation
in order to form evidence. In forensic psychology, interrogation is seen
as a process of specic communication between the interrogator and the
interrogated, studies the psychological phenomena associated with the
judicial (investigative) action, as well as the laws of the human psyche,
manifested in the interrogation. From the point of view of the criminal
process, interrogation is a process of obtaining and verifying testimony
regulated in detail by law (Pohoretsky, 2008).
The genre of interrogation is a complex genre with several participants,
each of whom strives for a certain goal. The greatest linguistic contribution
to the judicial interrogation is made by the representatives of the
prosecution and defense in the criminal process and, of course, by the
person being interrogated. The judge is considered the most eloquent
participant in this genre. Verbosity is initially characteristic of a judge in
adversarial proceedings. According to the English researcher K. Evans, who
characterizes the trial in England:
In the adversarial system ... the judge acts as an impartial person, watching the
lawyers play some kind of court tennis. If the lawyers know their case well, then,
in theory, the judge should sit through the whole process without saying almost
anything. In ancient times in England, a new judge was advised to take a sip of
holy water in his mouth at the beginning of the case and keep it there until the end
(Evans, 1995: 89).
336
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
The procedural procedure of judicial interrogation is regulated by the
norms of the CPC (Articles 224–226, 232, 351–354, 356, 490, 491, 567),
which regulate the general procedure and sequence of interrogation,
interrogation of witnesses, victims, suspects and accused, features of
interrogation of minors and minors, persons of dierent procedural status,
conducting interrogation by video conference, etc. Failure to comply with
the procedural rules of interrogation is a violation of the law and entails the
invalidity of the investigative or forensic action and the inadmissibility of
the testimony obtained as a source of evidence.
A characteristic feature of a court interrogation is that it is conducted
during the trial, and the interrogated person at this stage may be prompted
to testify not only by the prosecutor or the court, but also directly by the
accused, his defense counsel, victim and other participants in the trial.
Judicial interrogation as a way of gathering and verifying evidence has its
own norms and methods that can be characterized as a means of obtaining
evidence (procedural, tactical, psychological). As N. Maksymyshyn
rightly points out, judicial interrogation can be said as an independent
way of obtaining information about the circumstances of the event under
investigation, which is characterized by its specics of obtaining and
recording relevant information, which in criminal proceedings belongs
to the court (Maksymyshyn, 2016). Thus, judicial interrogation is an
independent way of both gathering and verifying evidence. By obliging the
investigator, the prosecutor, and, in part, the defense counsel and the court
to examine the evidence, the legislator suggests how they should carry out
this collection and verication.
From the standpoint of defense counsel and the court, judicial
interrogation is a way to obtain testimony from interrogated persons,
and for the public prosecutor, in addition, it is also a way to expose those
accused of committing a crime. For the victim of a crime, it is a form of
exercising the right to testify, le petitions and objections, complaints, that
is a way to protect their own interests, and so on. For the accused, judicial
interrogation is a form of exercising such rights as the right to testify, le
objections, petitions, complaints, that is a way of protection against the
accusation. In particular, participation in the interrogation allows them to
learn about the activities of the relevant ocials.
The above gives grounds to summarize that judicial interrogation as an
activity and independent investigative (search) action carried out during
the trial is a set of actions of the public prosecutor, defense attorney and
court, as well as other participants in the trial and the interrogated person
(witness, victim, accused, expert) in relation to: a) giving testimony and
receiving them (perception and clarication, if necessary - involvement of
an interpreter or specialist in the interrogation) by the person conducting
the judicial interrogation; b) asking questions to the interrogated in order to
337
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
encourage the addition of testimony, or expert opinion; c) the use of audio
recording, video recording during this investigative (search) action, etc.
V. Shepitko species judicial interrogation as a common procedural
action during court proceedings. We share his position that this is a complex
and multi-subject process of communication between the people involved.
Such communication is public and open. This is the process of information
exchange, the process of interaction, mutual perception of participants
(Shepitko, 2007). It has its own features, namely: 1) an expanded range of
participants in judicial interrogation; 2) complicated information exchange
between interrogation participants; 3) the special role of the judge as a
regulator of information exchange; 4) repeatability of reported readings
(replay); 5) adversarial nature of judicial interrogation; 6) the complexity
of reexive management of participants in judicial interrogation; 7)
publicity, openness: the interrogation is conducted not by one person,
but by a number of participants in the process; 8) those who interrogate,
as a rule, got acquainted with the testimony given earlier in the pre-trial
investigation, etc. (Shepitko, 2007).
Judicial interrogation consists of several main stages, at least the free
story of the interrogated and the respondent’s answers to the questions of the
prosecutor, victim, civil plainti, civil defendant and their representatives,
defense counsel, accused, judges (judges) (Shepitko, 2007). We consider
such order quite correct as the free story promotes full reproduction of
circumstances, allows to state certain information completely. When the
interrogated is not free to report all the circumstances of the case known to
him (minor or juvenile witness, victim, accused), the judicial interrogation
takes place only in the form of questions and answers.
The decision (adoption) of a lawful, reasonable, motivated and fair court
decision (sentence or court decision of a sentence) depends on the skillful
conduct of interrogations in court. It is in this, among other things, it is
justied to see the most relevant meaning and task of judicial interrogation.
It is extremely important to establish psychological contact, which
includes information about the study of the interrogated person, which is
contained in the materials of criminal proceedings, testimony of witnesses
and victims, characteristics obtained as a result of operational and
investigative activities. Analysis of this information allows you to create a
preliminary psychological and social image of the person to be interrogated.
During the establishment of psychological contact during the
interrogation, the prosecutor-prosecutor, defense lawyer, judge, etc. get
a direct impression of the identity of the interrogated, should create a
favorable atmosphere that will encourage the interrogated to communicate.
Achieving such an atmosphere is quite dicult, because the participants in
the interrogation are dierent people - young, frank and vice versa, polite,
338
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
and “cheeky”, sociable and non-contact, as well as people who do not want
to communicate due to various emotional or other states and intentions
(Maksymyshyn, 2016).
During the interrogation of a conscientious person who intends to give
truthful testimony, psychological confrontation does not arise and the
interrogation is mostly without problems. However, in the interrogation
of persons who not only do not want to establish an objective reality in
the case, but also oppose it, psychological confrontation becomes the most
important component of the interrogation, which signicantly complicates
the achievement of its objectives. This is especially true for interrogations
conducted by the public prosecutor or defense attorneys in the context of
interrogations of prosecution witnesses and victims. Of course, both the
prosecutor and the lawyer should try to overcome this barrier by using the
possibilities of psychological inuence on the interrogated. Such inuence
has the form of emotional and logical character.
In our opinion, the evidentiary value of judicial interrogation consists
of an informational and argumentative component. The process of
interrogation, that is the actions of interrogators to establish questions, the
reaction of the interrogated, his answers, other accompanying moments
of the situation in court, aects the formation of the judge’s belief in the
quality of testimony. In case of doubt, the chairman himself has the right to
take measures to eliminate them by asking questions.
In conditions of competitive competition, every piece of evidence,
including testimony, must be examined from two sides on all points that
are of substantive interest to establish the disputed circumstances of
the criminal proceedings. The specicity of the examination of personal
evidence is that it examines not only the content of the testimony, but also
the ability of the person to provide the court with reliable information about
the circumstances of the criminal oense.
Interrogation is also a way for a party to realize its procedural function,
its procedural interest. But on the basis of the results of the interrogations
of the parties on the comparative analysis of the testimony obtained at
the relevant stage of the interrogation, the judge can make a reasonable
conclusion as to whether this person can be trusted and considered evidence
of his testimony. This comparison of testimony received by dierent parties
from the same interrogated person reveals the strength of the evidence or,
conversely, its inability to convince someone and prove something.
The parties must be active in conducting interrogations, but the
presiding judge has the right to monitor compliance with the rules by
interrogators and testimonies, to create optimal conditions for clarifying
the true content of the information obtained about the circumstances of
the criminal oense. Testimony, as a source of evidence, is the result of the
339
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
formation of the judge’s inner conviction in the accuracy of the information
communicated to the interrogated. If we consider reliable information as
a fact, then only the judge’s opinion can be an indicator of reliability. The
judge will believe the witness’s report during the interrogation - and from
his testimony an evidentiary fact is formed, he doubts - the testimony will
be rejected and there will be no evidentiary fact.
Judges in the adversarial process, as well as the professional
representatives of the prosecution and defense, have a regulatory role.
This role is to create a business environment for litigation, to dene and
regulate communication, to eliminate sharply conicting relationships, and
to reduce excessive emotional arousal among participants. All this is not
inherent, in fact, for judicial interrogation. We share the position of those
who believe that a judge in the interrogation process, as well as during all
judicial evidence in general, should keep the initiative (Kohutych, 2009).
In providing this initiative, the functions of psychology, among other
things, are related to the three processes that determine the scope and level of
the actual cognitive knowledge during the court interrogation. In particular,
they include a) diagnosis of the respondent (type of temperament, character,
psychological state, level of intelligence, social status, predisposition to
alcoholism); b) a system of psychological techniques that contribute to
obtaining information; c) evaluation of information obtained during the
interrogation from the standpoint of its reliability and probative value
(Konovalova and Shepitko, 2008).
We consider it possible to allow certain forms of administrative activity
of a judge in relation to judicial interrogations. First of all, he cannot remain
passive in determining the subject and limits of the interrogation. He has
the right to control the attitude to the case of both questions and answers, to
terminate the protracted interrogation, which does not bring any concrete
results. On the other hand, the presiding judge, without contradicting the
prohibition to perform the function of a party to the prosecution, has the
right to take measures to ll the gaps in the evidence base of a particular
criminal proceeding and to use interrogation for this purpose.
Activity in this direction is quite justied when it comes to obtaining
evidence in favor of the accused or to verify reasonable doubts about his
guilt. The presiding judge, restoring the fairness of the trial, has the right
to participate in interrogations to remove obstacles to a comprehensive and
objective consideration of the case, including to correct minor violations
of criminal procedure or other legislation during the pre-trial proceedings.
In general, it can be summarized that the presiding judge is responsible
for the proper organization of the fact-nding process from the evidence
presented and obtained by the parties during the trial. Due to the direct
perception of the course of judicial interrogations, behavior to the
340
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
participants of the interrogated process, and even more so by asking
questions to the interrogated, removal of incorrect questions that do not
belong to the case, the presiding judge participates in the interrogation and
evidence in criminal proceedings.
The analysis of the CPC of Ukraine leads to the conclusion that
depending on the procedural position of the interrogated in court there are
interrogations of: a) the accused; b) the victim; c) a witness; d) interrogation
of the expert. To clarify certain features of this investigative (search) action,
we consider it appropriate to clarify the procedural and tactical aspects of
obtaining and verifying the testimony of a witness, accused and victim in
criminal proceedings.
At present, we consider it indisputable that the eectiveness of any kind
of judicial interrogation depends not only on compliance with the rules of
criminal procedure legislation, but also on the use of tactics developed by
forensic science. That is why its tactical content plays a signicant role in
the execution of judicial interrogation.
The procedure for questioning witnesses in court is quite clearly
regulated. In particular, in Art. 352 of the CPC of Ukraine states that a
witness is a natural person who knows or may be aware of the circumstances
to be proved during criminal proceedings, and who is summoned to testify
(Part 1 of Article 65 of the CPC of Ukraine).
In the list of witnesses, which is formed at the request of the prosecution
and defense (such witnesses are referred to as prosecution or defense
witnesses) may also be listed in accordance with para. 4 h 7 Article 140 of
the CPC of Ukraine are understood as witnesses of a certain investigative
(search) action and persons who conducted covert investigative (search)
actions or were involved in their conduct (Part 2 of Article 256 of the CPC
of Ukraine). At the same time, the persons dened in Part 2 of Art. 65 of the
CPC, except as provided in Part 3 of Article 352 of the CPC of Ukraine, that
is when the persons dened in paragraphs. 1-5 part 2 of this article were
released from the obligation to maintain professional secrecy by the person
who entrusted it, in the specied last amount and in writing.
The order of questioning of witnesses is determined at the request of
a party to the criminal proceedings, in the absence of such a request - at
the discretion of the court in accordance with the decision of the latter,
determined to determine the amount of evidence to be examined. After
that, the presiding judge warns the witness of criminal liability for refusing
to testify (Article 385 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine), except when such
refusal in accordance with applicable law is the right of this person, and
knowingly false testimony (Article 384 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).
Each witness is questioned separately, except as provided in Part 14 of Art.
352 of the CPC of Ukraine, when two or more already interrogated persons
341
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
are interrogated simultaneously to nd out the reasons for dierences in
their testimony (Criminal procedure code of Ukraine, 2012).
It is worth noting that the interrogation of a witness in court is signicantly
dierent from the interrogation during the pre-trial investigation on the
following grounds:
• The interrogation of a person (accused, victim, witness, expert)
in court is signicantly more distant in time from the event of a
criminal oense than the interrogation of a person during the pre-
trial investigation.
• Judicial interrogation is public, while the testimony of a witness to
the investigator (prosecutor) may take place alone.
• As a rule, this type of interrogation for a person is shorter than
during the pre-trial investigation.
• The parties may not use a signicant number of tactical techniques
during the court interrogation (in particular, in court it is not
possible to present the document and oer to comment on its content
immediately after the answer of the accused, witness, victim; the
party may not immediately appoint a simultaneous interrogation
with his participation, the prosecutor or defense counsel have no
right to wait until the person is psychologically adjusted to testify,
etc.).
• Judicial interrogation provides for a mandatory dialogue format of
communication between the party with the victim, witness, expert,
while during the pre-trial investigation testimony may initially be
given in the form of a free story.
• Testimony, even provided in accordance with Art. 225 of the CPC of
Ukraine, are not always sucient for the court.
The stated features may equally apply to the interrogation of those
witnesses who are witnesses of a criminal oense or other circumstances
relevant to the criminal proceedings.
It is clear that there is hardly a witness who is able to testify about all
the circumstances to be proved in criminal proceedings. At the same time,
the value of eyewitness testimony as a source of evidence is beyond doubt.
During the interrogation, the opposite situation may occur, when thanks to
the witness the circumstances in favor of the accused will be claried, which
will lead to a change in the legal qualication of the act, reduction of the
accusation, closure of criminal proceedings, etc.
In addition, the witness eyewitness during the interrogation may
provide not only information relating to the subject of evidence, but also
342
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
information on other circumstances referred to in Art. 96 of the Criminal
Procedure Code of Ukraine. These circumstances are: a) the ability to
perceive the facts in respect of which in criminal proceedings another
witness (victim, expert) testied; b) in relation to other circumstances that
may be relevant for assessing the reliability of the testimony of a witness. In
this case, the witness is obliged to answer questions aimed at determining
the veracity of his testimony.
Thus, when dening witnesses whose testimony is a source of evidence
in criminal proceedings, we mean: witnesses - eyewitnesses of a criminal
oense; eyewitness witnesses of other circumstances that may be relevant
for the assessment of evidence for their aliation, admissibility, reliability
and suciency to make an appropriate procedural decision; witnesses who
testify from other people’s words.
The choice of tactics of interrogation of a witness in court is determined
by a number of specic factors inherent only in judicial interrogation: 1) it
is the public nature of judicial interrogation of a witness, lack of “intimacy”
of the situation, and the entire courtroom, which has a special psychological
impact on the witness; 2) a certain formality of judicial interrogation, due
to strict regulation of the trial; 3) a signicant gap in time from the event
of a criminal oense to the process of direct receipt of testimony, which
complicates the reproduction of previously perceived; 4) special nature,
as the mechanism of reproduction of testimony by witnesses during
the judicial interrogation includes not only personal memories of the
witness, but also his and the experience of communication with individual
authorized participants in criminal proceedings; 5) the interrogation of a
witness in court is not so much of a verication nature as during the pre-
trial investigation, but of a verication and identication test.
According to O. Bedrizov, these factors cause a signicant narrowing
of the set of tactics used. For example, it is dicult to apply in court those
techniques that focus on investigative (search) actions carried out in the
absence of outsiders. The signicance of the suddenness factor is also lost,
as witnesses know in connection with which they give the testimony they
usually gave during the pre-trial investigation (Bedrizov, 2018).
The tactics of questioning a witness in court should be based on his
personality, attitude and involvement in the case. We consider the following
tactics of interrogation of witnesses in court to be the most eective: 1)
timely demonstration of visual evidence in criminal proceedings (material
evidence, expert opinions containing photographs and diagrams, plans-
schemes drawn up by the interrogated themselves, etc.). Of course, the
use of this technique will facilitate the perception of information provided
by a witness in court; 2) increase or decrease of the pace of speech during
the interrogation, periodic return of the person interrogating to the
initial question; 3) The application of techniques developed in Western
343
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
criminology, based on the so-called “loop principle” (for example, “looping”
in American criminology), which consists in the repeated mention of the
same facts in each question (Osterburg et al., 2011), R. 14).
The prosecutor’s eorts should be aimed at creating an environment
that ensures that witnesses receive reliable information about the facts
and events being investigated in court. The most common tactical
recommendations for a defense attorney to question witnesses in court are:
each question must have a purpose; it is not advisable to ask about obvious
or well-established circumstances; each question should be based on a
reasonable calculation, and so on.
According to the CPC of Ukraine, the interrogation of a witness is
initiated by the party on whose initiative he was summoned, that is the
prosecution witness-prosecutor, and the defense witness-defense counsel,
the accused. The court, at the moment, does not conduct the interrogation,
but only monitors the observance of the rules of its conduct by the parties
in order to avoid wasting time, protect witnesses from insults and ensure
the necessary order of the court session. The court should not interfere in
the interrogation of the parties, that is the judge can only remove issues
that do not relate to the essence of the criminal proceedings at the protest
of the party.
In case of ambiguity in the testimony of a witness regarding the
presence or absence of specic circumstances, the court may require the
witness, the victim to give an unambiguous answer to the question - “yes”
or “no” (Part 10 of Article 352), but the presiding judge and judges may in
accordance with parts 11 and 13 of Art. 352 of the CPC of Ukraine, only after
the witness is asked questions by the victim, civil plainti, civil defendant,
their representatives and legal representatives or in the examination of
other evidence.
It should be noted that in Art. 352 of the CPC of Ukraine does not specify
anything about the proposal of the presiding witness or the victim to freely
testify, this provision applies only to the interrogation of the accused, as in
Part 1 of Art. 351 of the CPC of Ukraine, the legislator explicitly states that
the interrogation of the accused begins with the proposal of the presiding
judge to testify in criminal proceedings, after which the accused is rst
interrogated by the prosecutor and then by the defense counsel.
The legislator does not provide for the use of the terms “direct” and
“cross-examination” in relation to the interrogation of the accused. As V.
Babunych rightly emphasizes, during the interrogation the witness gives his
testimony not in the form of a consistent story, but in the form of answers
to the parties’ questions. Each of the parties interrogates the witnesses
presented by him (direct interrogation, main interrogation), remaining
within the circumstances that he wishes to prove by the testimony of this
344
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
witness; after the main interrogation, the opposite or cross-examination
begins, during which it is allowed to ask leading questions (Babunych,
2011).
The answers of the prosecution witness during the direct interrogation
must disclose all the circumstances that are subject to proof in the
implementation of the legal position of the prosecution, and the defense
witness - the legal position of the defense. If the party does not ask the right
question, the information will remain undisclosed and not established,
because from now on the court does not have to ensure the completeness
of the trial and as a result the court will not be able to refer to information
that was not voiced by a witness. It is noteworthy that perhaps the most
common mistake in the direct interrogation of a witness is the use of leading
questions, which are the exclusive prerogative of cross-examination.
In this regard, V. Babunych rightly points out that the interrogation,
which is conducted according to special rules, and which should be limited
to the circumstances claried during the direct interrogation or concerning
the reliability of testimony and can be conducted only by participants who
have the right to initiate judicial interrogation, and whose interest diers
from the interest of the person who conducted the direct interrogation
(Babunych, 2011).
Dened in Art. 23 of the CPC of Ukraine, the principle of direct
examination of testimony, things and documents prohibits the recognition
of evidence of information contained in the testimony of a person (accused,
victim, witness, expert), and was not submitted by the parties in court.
According to the content of this procedural norm: the testimony of the
participants in the criminal proceedings is received orally by the court; the
information contained in the testimony, which was not the subject of direct
investigation by the court, may not be recognized as evidence, except in
cases provided by the CPC of Ukraine.
The court may accept as evidence the testimony of persons who do not
give them directly at the hearing, only in cases provided by the CPC of
Ukraine. In this case, the prosecution is obliged to ensure the presence of
prosecution witnesses during the trial in order to exercise the right of the
defense to be questioned before an independent and impartial tribunal. This
requirement follows from the provisions of subparagraph “d” of paragraph
3 of Art. 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 (European Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and
paragraph 5 of Part 2 of Art. 87 of the CPC of Ukraine (Inadmissibility of
evidence obtained as a result of signicant violation of human rights and
freedoms). Part 2 of Art. 17 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine
(Criminal procedural code of Ukraine, 2012).
345
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
The concept of “beyond reasonable doubt” was interpreted in the
judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Korobov
v. Ukraine of 21 July 2011 № 39598/03. According to the content of this
interpretation, there may be some doubt about each piece of evidence
during its evaluation, but if this doubt is within reason, a conviction may
be reached. The situation itself “beyond a reasonable doubt” arises when
assessing the evidence that the existence of doubt is not consistent with the
standard of proof (Judgment of the European court of human rights in the
case of “Korobov v against Ukraine”).
In the cases of John Murray v. The United Kingdom (№ 18731/91, 8
February 1996), Falk v. Netherlands (№ 66273/01, 19 October 2004),
Capo v. Belgium (№ 42914/98, of 13 January 2005) (McBride, 2010:
272-274) The European Court of Human Rights has pointed out that
shifting the burden of proof in one way or another to the defense violates
the presumption of innocence. In Zhukovsky v. Ukraine (№ 31240/03, 3
March 2011) the applicant was convicted of a particularly serious crime on
the basis of the testimony of witnesses, none of whom were present during
the criminal proceedings in Ukraine. The court did not hear the testimony
of these witnesses directly, and the accused did not have the opportunity to
cross-examine them (Judgment of the European court of human rights in
the case “Zhukovsky v. Ukraine”).
That is, in case of restriction of the rights of a suspect, accused to
interrogate a witness of the opposing party or violation of his right to cross-
examination, the court decision will most likely be overturned by a higher
court on the grounds of signicant violation of criminal procedure law.
It should be noted that the main purpose of cross-examination is, inter
alia, to discredit the witness of the opposing party by demonstrating the
complete failure of his testimony, to prove by leading questions that the
witness either gives false testimony or is honestly wrong.
However, the main problem of such an interrogation is that it is dicult
to prepare for it in advance because leading questions must be formulated
“on the spot” and asked immediately after the direct interrogation. This is
a complex analytical work, in which everything depends on the mastery of
interrogation tactics, professionalism, even the acting skills of the person
conducting it. Therefore, to get the desired answer, it is necessary to ask
the right questions and, if necessary, to conduct a certain check of the
previously voiced testimony (Maksymyshyn, 2016).
Occasionally, we highlight the signs of cross-examination: it is a type
of judicial interrogation; the testimony obtained during such interrogation
has signs of proof; conducted after a direct interrogation and may relate to
the reliability of the testimony; may be conducted only by the participants
in the proceedings whose personal or procedural interest diers from the
346
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
interest of the person who conducted the direct interrogation; carried out for
the purpose of verication obtained during investigative (search) actions,
rst of all, direct interrogation of information, disclosure of contradictions
in testimony, detection of errors and knowingly untruths, clarication or
detailing of testimony previously obtained in court; conducted with the
participation of one person - the interrogated and at least one interrogated;
prompts are allowed during the event.
Execution of any kind of judicial interrogation is accompanied by an
active combination of tactical actions of defense and prosecution on the
one hand, and appropriate actions of a judge to resolve a criminal case on
the other. By interacting with each other, these main participants in the
proceedings contribute to the performance of its tasks in accordance with
their procedural position. And they do it, and using tactics tested by forensic
science, based on knowledge of psychology and jurisprudence, in order to
obtain from the interviewees complete, truthful and convincing testimony
(Maksymyshyn, 2016). At the same time, it should be emphasized that the
actions of each of the participants are dierent from each other.
The actions of a defense attorney are characterized by the fact that
they focus on the proper preparation and real judicial clarication of
the circumstances that justify or mitigate the punishment of his client.
Defense counsel is trying to use tactics to refute the prosecution’s evidence.
Defense tactics facilitate a comprehensive examination of the evidence by
articulating their arguments regarding the relevant criminal case in order
to convince the court of the correctness of their position.
The tactics of the prosecutor of the public prosecutor, in turn, also
follow from the procedural tasks solved by him, namely: to eectively
investigate the evidence provided by the pre-trial investigation, to check
them, substantiating the admissibility, reliability and suciency; seek to
create conditions for a comprehensive, objective and complete examination
of the evidence, not to ignore and respond to any attempts to illegally
inuence witnesses and other participants in the trial; timely detect and
tactically competently neutralize false refutation, falsication, substitution
of evidence; ll in the gaps and errors of the investigation in court; to
counteract the attempts of the accused to avoid reasonable responsibility.
Thus, these tasks convince that the tactics of the public prosecutor during
the interrogation in court is to prepare for future court interrogation and
clarify during its conduct the circumstances of the case by using appropriate
tactics and other means.
It is worth pointing out certain features of the court’s tactics in conducting
this (investigative. However, it is carried out taking into account the tactical
lines of the prosecutor and defense counsel. This process is complex and
multifaceted. “Court tactics absorb (Vorobiev, 1998) The tactical line of
the court is aimed at solving the problems of criminal proceedings, taking
347
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
into account the views of the parties. expressing his opinion in another way
provided by law.
The tactics of the court are determined by the fact that the trial is a
continuous work of the constant composition of the court. This circumstance
leaves its mark on the content of his work. Evidence is available. However,
they must be examined individually, while not losing sight of their totality,
that is bearing in mind the entire system of evidence in their combination,
and even in terms of questions from the parties and other participants in
the proceedings.
Depending on the purpose of judicial interrogation, a number of typical
situations are distinguished: conict-free; conicting with minor rivalry;
conict with signicant rivalry (Baev, 2003). The nature of the situation
largely depends on the procedural position of the respondent.
Practice shows that the most eective tactic is to use the contradictions
identied during the analysis of the information available in the testimony of
the interrogated and other evidence. Usually, this looks like a concentration
of the interviewee’s attention on the existing contradictions in his testimony
with the case materials. The psychological essence of this technique is not
to present evidence, but to use the identied contradictions.
In our opinion, for the successful completion of the interrogation, it
is necessary to follow the plan in the following sequence: a summary of
the testimony of a particular person in the pre-trial investigation; a list of
circumstances that need to be investigated in this criminal proceeding;
questions to be asked to the interrogated; tactics that should be used for
the best conduct of the interrogation as a whole, and additional techniques
in case the interrogator does not receive the “necessary” answers to the
questions; aspect of the order of evidence. If the interrogation is carried out
for several episodes, the scope of the plan will usually be increased, but the
structure will remain unchanged.
The use of tactics of judicial interrogation is due to a number of factors:
1) the attitude of the accused to the accusation formulated in the indictment,
2) the presence or absence of a conict situation, 3) the level of activity of
the parties to the adversarial process, etc. If during the interrogation in the
judge (court) there are doubts about the veracity of the testimony of the
accused, then he has not only the opportunity but also the obligation to
psychologically inuence him to obtain true testimony. The main thing is
that this inuence does not go beyond the law and morality.
In general, it should be noted that the success of the application of tactics
of judicial interrogation is dicult to predict in advance, as it depends on
many factors, especially the characteristics of the interrogated person: his
intellectual, emotional, cultural levels and life experience.
348
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
The general tactics of interrogation of the accused by the presiding
judge are similar to those for interrogation performed by a prosecutor or
a lawyer. In particular, if the accused gives confessions, it is advisable to
use tactics that ensure a full, comprehensive and impartial clarication of
all the circumstances of the case. The establishment of this information
is necessary in order to verify the testimony of the accused with other
evidence: we must not forget about the possibility of self-incrimination, as
a result of pressure on the accused by certain persons during the pre-trial
investigation and an attempt to help accomplices. During the interrogation
by a court of an accused who does not plead guilty, it is necessary to detail,
clarify his testimony and compare them with other relevant evidence in the
case in order to draw a denite conclusion about the guilt or innocence
of the interrogated. The probative value of the facts with which the
defendant’s answers during the interrogation are compared should not be
overestimated.
The testimony of the victim in court is important for evidence in various
categories of criminal cases. Quite often they are the only direct proof of
the guilt of the accused. Given the fact that the victim is criminally liable
for giving knowingly false testimony under Art. 384 of the Criminal Code,
his interrogation begins with the delivery of the court administrator of the
relevant memo on his rights and responsibilities, and the chairman nds
out whether he understands his rights and responsibilities under Articles
56, 57 of the CPC of Ukraine, and if necessary, explains them (Article 345
of the CPC of Ukraine). Then, in accordance with the procedure established
by Art. 353 and parts 2, 3, 5-14 of Article 352 of the CPC of Ukraine, the
chairman invites the victim to tell everything he knows in the case. After
that he is interrogated by a prosecutor, defense counsel, accused, judge
(Сriminal procedural code of Ukraine, 2012).
In assessing the testimony of the victim, who, along with the accused, is
also interested in the outcome of the case, the court must be balanced and
critical. Such interest is natural, as the victim is a person who has suered
moral, physical or property damage as a crime (Article 55 of the CPC of
Ukraine) (Сriminal procedural code of Ukraine, 2012).
The victim interrogated according to the rules of interrogation of
witnesses (Article 353 of the CPC of Ukraine). In the vast majority of cases,
the victim interrogated before witnesses are questioned. In addition, the
victim as a participant in criminal proceedings not removed from the
courtroom. His testimony is not only a source of evidence, but also a means
of protecting his interests.
The legislation provides an opportunity for the victim to take an active
part in the judicial investigation. Thus, after nding out from the accused
whether they have admitted their guilt or not, the court hears the opinion of
the victim about the procedure for examining the evidence. The provisions
349
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
of the CPC of Ukraine dene an important provision on equal rights of the
victim in court proceedings with the accused, defense counsel, civil plainti,
civil defendant and their representatives regarding the presentation of
evidence, participation in the investigation and petition.
By analogy with the judicial interrogation of the accused, during the
interrogation of the victims it is important to establish whether there are any
contradictions between their testimonies, which were reported during the
pre-trial investigation and in court. If they exist, the court, using specifying,
clarifying, control and additional questions, establishes the causes of these
contradictions and eliminates them.
It should be borne in mind that not every contradiction is signicant
and indicates a change in the victims’ positions compared to the pre-trial
investigation. Often such contradictions are only imaginary (they seem so).
In case of revealing signicant contradictions in the testimony, the court
has the right to announce the testimony that was given to the victim during
the pre-trial investigation. We would like to emphasize once again that it is
expedient to do this only after a detailed and comprehensive interrogation
of such a victim and establishing the causes of contradictions.
Thus, during the interrogation, the actions of the court are aimed not
only at gathering evidence, but also at their verication and evaluation,
because in this procedural action such elements of the evidentiary process
are inseparable from each other. The court, hearing the testimony of the
victim, witness, accused, compares them with the already available set of
evidence, checks them in terms of authenticity and relevance, but, as already
noted, the court is not bound by the evidence provided by the parties.
The scope of the article does not provide an opportunity to explore all
the procedural and organizational-tactical aspects of judicial interrogation.
First of all, we are talking about the interrogation of juvenile victims, the
interrogation of an expert in court, the interrogation by video conference.
Conclusions
Summarizing the above, it should be noted that judicial interrogation is
a process of formulating and investigating in court the procedural source of
evidence - testimony, and forming on this basis the internal conviction of the
court (judges) on the event under investigation in court, its circumstances
and other issues relevant to correct resolution of criminal proceedings.
The interrogation should be considered not only as an investigative
(search) action, as one of the ways provided by law to collect, verify and
evaluate evidence, but from dierent angles: as an institution of criminal
procedural law and forensic category; as one of the powers of the public
350
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
prosecutor, defense counsel and court; as one of the forms of exercising
criminal procedural functions in court proceedings; as one of the ways
provided by law and developed by criminology to expose persons guilty
of a crime; as a procedural way of forming testimony; as a way to protect
the accused from prosecution; as a way to protect their own rights and
legitimate interests of victims of crime and witnesses.
Direct examination of the testimony during the judicial interrogation
allows the court both to fully clarify the circumstances of the criminal
proceedings and to prevent the distortion of factual data relevant to a
particular criminal proceeding during their receipt and recording. If the
testimony was not the subject of direct investigation by the court (except as
provided by criminal procedure law), the information contained therein in
view of Part 2 of Article 23 of the CPC of Ukraine cannot be recognized as
evidence and used in court decisions.
The tactics of interrogation in court is a complex concept, as it is a
coordinated combination of tactics of judicial interrogation of the public
prosecutor, defense counsel and the court, because they provide the purpose
and objectives of criminal proceedings based on their responsibilities.
Thus, the tactics of judicial interrogation is a part of judicial tactics as a set
of theoretical provisions and recommendations developed on their basis
on the most rational tactics, methods and means of eective preparation
and conduct in court by the public prosecutor, defense attorney and judge
(court) of interrogation.
A high level of knowledge of the psychology of perception of events
by individual participants in criminal proceedings and the component
of the judicial situation, as well as skillful psychological inuence on the
interrogated person will facilitate the eective participation of authorized
subjects in judicial interrogation and, in turn, establish the circumstances
to be proved, to resolve the issue of the need for other investigative (search)
actions in the framework of the trial.
Consideration by the court, prosecutor, defense counsel, and other
participants in the court proceedings of the organizational and tactical
recommendations we have received will help to purposefully prepare for
the interrogation of the accused, victim, witness, expert, directly conduct
this investigative (search) action, select the most appropriate tactics in each
situation.
Bibliographic References
BABUNYCH, Vladimir. 2011. “The essence and signicance of cross-
examination. Procedural features of cross-examination in criminal cases
351
CUESTIONES POLÍTICAS
Vol. 40 Nº 72 (2022): 330-352
in court” In: Bulletin of Ivan Franko Lviv National University. The series
is legal. No. 53, pp. 322 - 328.
BAEV, Oleg. 2003. Tactics of investigative actions. “Exam”, Moscow, Russia.
BEDRIZOV, Alexey. 2018. “Tactical recommendations for the judicial
examination of witnesses in criminal cases” In: Proceedings of Tula State
University. No. 2, pp. 32-37.
CONVENTION ON THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS of 04.11.1950, ratied by the Law of
Ukraine of 17.07.1997 № 475/97-VR. Available online. In: http://zakon2.
rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004. Consultation date: 26/10/2021.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF UKRAINE. 2012. On April 13. Available
online. In: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17. Consultation
date: 26/10/2021.
DEHTYAR, Oksana. 2013. “Implementation of the principle of immediacy
of the examination of testimony ... Implementation of the principle of
immediacy of the examination of testimony, things and documents
during the trial of a criminal case by the court of rst instance” In: Our
right. No. 7, pp. 136-142.
EVANS, Keith. 1995. Advocacy in Court. A Beginner’s Guide. 1995. Oxford
University Press. Oxford, UK.
GONCHARENKO, Vladlen; NOR, Vasil; SHUMILO, Mykola. 2012. Criminal
Procedure Code of Ukraine. Scientic and practical commentary.
Justinian. Kyiv, Ukraine.
INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS. 1996.
Adopted on December 16, 1966, by the UN General Assembly and ratied
by Decree of the Presidium of the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian SSR
№ 2148-VIII of October 19, 1973. Available online. In: http://zakon1.
rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_043. Consultation date: 26/10/2021.
KOHUTYCH, Ivan. 2009. The use of knowledge and tools of forensic tactics
and methods in criminal proceedings in court. Monograph. Triada plus.
Lviv, Ukraine.
KONOVALOVA, Valeria; SHEPITKO, Valeriy. 2008. Legal Psychology:
Textbook. Second edition. Right. Kharkiv, Ukraine.
KOROBOV v. UKRAINE: judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(application № 39598/03). Available online. In: http://zakon2.rada.
gov.ua/laws/show/974_790. Consultation date: 20/10/2021.
352
Mykola Turkot, Alla Ponomarenko, Ihor IIerusalymov, Serhiy Peretyatko y Oleksandr Shulha
Organizational and procedural aspects of obtaining testimony during a court interrogation
MAKSYMYSHYN, Natalia. 2016. Judicial interrogation: procedural and
forensic investigation. Lviv, Ukraine.
McBRIDE, Jeremy. 2010. European Convention on Human Rights and
Criminal Procedure. KIS, PP. 272–274. Kyiv, Ukraine.
ON SOME ISSUES OF PROCEDURE FOR TRIAL IN THE PROCEEDINGS AT
FIRST INSTANCE UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF
UKRAINE: Letter of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine for Civil and
Criminal Cases of 05.10.2012 p. № 223-1446 / 0 / 4-12 Available online.
In: http: // zakon4.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v1446740-12. Consultation
date: 26/10/2021.
OSTERBURG, James; WARD, Richard; MILLER, Larry. 2010. Criminal
Investigation: A Method for Reconstructing the Past, Sixth Edition.
Routledge, England.
POHORETSKY, Mykola. 2008. “Investigative actions: concepts and
classication” In: Scientic Bulletin of the Kyiv National University of
Internal Aairs: scientic-theoretical journal. No. 1, pp. 142148.
SHEPITKO, Valery. 2007. Forensic tactics: system – structural analysis:
monograph. Kharkiv, Ukraine.
SHILO, Oksana. 2015. “General characteristics of testimony as a procedural
source of evidence in criminal proceedings” In: Bulletin of criminal
proceedings. No. 1, pp. 151 156.
TETERIATNYK, Hanna; RYZHYY, Oleksii; FEDOROVA, Anna; VYKHODETS,
Yurii; MARKO, Vitalii. 2021. “Activities of the court to investigate the
circumstances of criminal proceedings and their assessment under the
laws of Ukraine” In: Cuestiones Políticas. Vol. 39, No. 70, pp. 195-211.
TURKOT, Mykola. 2020. Judicial interrogation: scientic and practical manual.
The third edition, re-edited and supplemented by Turkot M. and others.
Norm of Law, Ukraine. Kyiv, Ukraine.
VOROBIEV, George. 1998. Tactics and psychological features of judicial actions.
Textbook. Krasnodar, Russia.
ZHUKOVSKY v. UKRAINE: Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
(application № 31240/03). Available online. In: http://zakon5.rada.gov.
ua/laws/show/974_714 Consultation date: 26/10/2021.
ZINCHENKO, Pavel. 2011. Tactics of interrogation by the public prosecutor.
Moscow, Russia.
www.luz.edu.ve
www.serbi.luz.edu.ve
www.produccioncienticaluz.org
Esta revista fue editada en formato digital y publicada
en enero de 2022, por el Fondo Editorial Serbiluz,
Universidad del Zulia. Maracaibo-Venezuela
Vol.40 Nº 72