CRIMINAL PROVOCATION AS A LIMIT OF PERMISSIBLE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY: LEGAL AND PRAXEOLOGICAL ASPECTS

Abstract

Introduction. Effective crime prevention and investigation are impossible without the use of modern mechanisms for detecting, suppressing, and documenting criminal offenses. In this regard, covert law enforcement activities aimed at obtaining evidentiary information are of particular importance, especially in relation to latent crimes characterized by a high degree of secrecy and concealment. At the same time, the increasing use of covert investigative (search) actions and other investigative measures raises the issue of ensuring compliance with the limits of permissible state interference in human rights and fundamental freedoms. One of the most challenging issues in this field is criminal provocation, as its establishment is directly related to the assessment of the legality of evidence-gathering methods, observance of the right to a fair trial, and determination of the permissible boundaries of law enforcement activity in documenting criminal conduct. Under these circumstances, the study of the legal and praxeological aspects of criminal provocation acquires not only theoretical significance but also considerable practical importance for the further development of criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practice.

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to provide a comprehensive analysis of the legal nature of criminal provocation, to examine the criteria for distinguishing it from lawful forms of law enforcement activity in light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, to determine the procedural consequences of establishing the fact of provocation, and to substantiate directions for improving criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practice in this area.

Materials and Methods. The normative basis of the study consists of the provisions of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine regulating covert investigative (search) actions and operational-search activities. The empirical basis includes the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the practice of the Criminal Cassation Court within the Supreme Court concerning the assessment of allegations of provocation and the admissibility of evidence obtained through covert activities.

The research is based on a combination of general scientific and special legal methods. The dialectical method was used to reveal the legal nature of criminal provocation and the patterns of its development. The formal legal method was applied to analyse the relevant legal provisions and identify shortcomings in their regulation. The systemic-structural method made it possible to determine the place of the institution of criminal provocation within the mechanism of proof and the system of guarantees of the right to a fair trial. The comparative legal method was employed to compare the provisions of national legislation with the standards developed in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. The method of generalisation was used to formulate proposals aimed at improving legislation and law enforcement practice.

Results. The article examines the concept of criminal provocation as a legal phenomenon and identifies its essential characteristics and criteria for distinguishing it from lawful law enforcement activity conducted in the course of covert investigative (search) actions and other forms of documenting criminal offenses. Particular attention is paid to the approaches developed by the European Court of Human Rights regarding the substantive and procedural aspects of criminal provocation and the specific features of their application in the practice of national courts. The article also analyses the procedure for examining allegations of provocation, the criteria for assessing the admissibility of evidence obtained as a result of covert activities, and the procedural consequences of establishing the fact of provocation in criminal proceedings.

Prospects for Further Research. The study substantiates the need for further development of doctrinal approaches to the understanding of criminal provocation in view of contemporary trends in the evolution of criminal procedural law. A promising area of research is the examination of not only direct inducement to commit an offense but also more sophisticated forms of influence exerted by law enforcement authorities on the formation of unlawful conduct. Further research should also focus on the legislative consolidation of provocation criteria, strengthening judicial oversight of covert investigative (search) actions, and the continued implementation of the standards developed by the European Court of Human Rights into national criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practice.