Extradition in the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine: compliance with the European standards

The importance of legal regulation of extradition in the system of legal aid in criminal proceedings is determined both by the national interests of states and the interests of international cooperation in combating transnational and international crimes. The objective of this paper was to get the answer to the main question of this research - Did the provisions of the law on extradition in Ukraine meet international standards? A set of general and special scientific, and philosophical methods of scientific research were used while preparing this article, to clarify the approaches to the extradition procedure of different countries and in practice. The results of the research suggested that the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine in the sphere of extradition generally meets European standards. Although, there are some gaps in the national legal regulation of extradition that may adversely affect the observance of the rights and freedoms of persons to whom it is applied

Obrona konieczna jako okoliczność wyłączająca bezprawność w prawie karnym Ukrainy

The institution of self-defence comprises both provisions of the General Part (art. 36 and 37:self defence and imaginary self defence) and the Special Part (art. 118 and 124: intentional killing,causing grievous bodily harm as a result of exceeding the borders of self defence or using excessivemeasures necessary to catch the perpetrator) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.There are diverse opinions in Ukrainian jurisprudence concerning the problem of how selfdefenceand other circumstances eliminate the illegality of a forbidden act. The aim of this paper isto present the main attitudes to these problems. The approach considering self-defence in the lightof legality is the most popular view. There is also an approach according to which one distinguishesthe prerequisites for self-defence and the elements of such self-defence taking into account elementssuch as: the subject – the aim – the objective side – the subjective control. The socially harmfulattack which justifies the use of self-defence should be analysed using both of these approaches.The features of a legitimate self-defence are: the subject – a private person; the aim – to causeinjuries to the attacker (the direct aim) in order to repel or stop the attack (the indirect aim) in orderto defend legally protected rights and interests of a person, interests of the society or the state (thefinal aim); the object – the attacker, his rights and interests; the objective side – actions casually connectedwith the causing of harm to the attacker, commensurable with the harmfulness of the attackand the state of the defence; subjective control – proper realisation by the subject of the prerequisitesand features of the defence and the will to cause commensurable harm to the attacker.Two types of exceeding the borders of self-defence are distinguished in the paper: exceedingthe borders of acceptable harm and exceeding the borders of adequate harm. Criminal responsibilityfor exceeding the borders of self-defence arises only in cases clearly provided for in art. 118 and 124of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The sanctions in these articles are much more lenient than in thecase of corresponding offences not committed while exceeding of the borders of self-defence (art.115, 119 and 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polski

Obrona konieczna jako okoliczność wyłączająca bezprawność w prawie karnym Ukrainy

The institution of self-defence comprises both provisions of the General Part (art. 36 and 37:self defence and imaginary self defence) and the Special Part (art. 118 and 124: intentional killing,causing grievous bodily harm as a result of exceeding the borders of self defence or using excessivemeasures necessary to catch the perpetrator) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.There are diverse opinions in Ukrainian jurisprudence concerning the problem of how selfdefenceand other circumstances eliminate the illegality of a forbidden act. The aim of this paper isto present the main attitudes to these problems. The approach considering self-defence in the lightof legality is the most popular view. There is also an approach according to which one distinguishesthe prerequisites for self-defence and the elements of such self-defence taking into account elementssuch as: the subject – the aim – the objective side – the subjective control. The socially harmfulattack which justifies the use of self-defence should be analysed using both of these approaches.The features of a legitimate self-defence are: the subject – a private person; the aim – to causeinjuries to the attacker (the direct aim) in order to repel or stop the attack (the indirect aim) in orderto defend legally protected rights and interests of a person, interests of the society or the state (thefinal aim); the object – the attacker, his rights and interests; the objective side – actions casually connectedwith the causing of harm to the attacker, commensurable with the harmfulness of the attackand the state of the defence; subjective control – proper realisation by the subject of the prerequisitesand features of the defence and the will to cause commensurable harm to the attacker.Two types of exceeding the borders of self-defence are distinguished in the paper: exceedingthe borders of acceptable harm and exceeding the borders of adequate harm. Criminal responsibilityfor exceeding the borders of self-defence arises only in cases clearly provided for in art. 118 and 124of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The sanctions in these articles are much more lenient than in thecase of corresponding offences not committed while exceeding of the borders of self-defence (art.115, 119 and 121 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine).Artykuł nie zawiera abstraktu w języku polski

The criminal responsibility for defamation of knowingly innocent

The scientific article analyzes the acute discussion in law enforcement practice and procedural science of the problem of the possibility of criminal prosecution of a suspect, accused of defaming a knowingly innocent person in the commission of a crime. The theoretical basis of the article are scientific works on criminal law and criminal procedural law (both domestic researchers and foreign experts). A set of general scientific, special scientific and philosophical methods of scientific knowledge has been used while preparing the scientific article, in particular dialectical, historical, comparative, dogmatic (formal-logical), system-structural analysis, modeling. It is substantiated in the article that the behavior of the suspect, accused, which is manifested in slandering of a knowingly innocent person, does not constitute the right to freedom from self-disclosure. It is also proved that both freedom from self-disclosure and the right to defense in criminal proceedings must have certain limits, in particular, it is rights and interests of other subjects protected by criminal law. We  stated that the suspect or accused should be liable for misleading the court and pre-trial investigation bodies even if such deception was used to protect against the suspicion (or accusation), to avoid criminal liability