Search

The article examines the praxeological aspect of the variability of proving domestic violence. The authors used a graphical method to visualize examples of variability in the combination of forms of violence, the use of sources of evidence, compliance with and violation of the non bis in idem principle, and the status of a child during domestic violence. It is concluded that domestic violence always consists of at least three episodes of violence, which may consist of physical, psychological, economic violence, or a combination of two or three of these forms at the same time. Based on the practice of the Supreme Court, it has been established that domestic violence is proved by various pieces of evidence. The preliminary facts of domestic violence may be reflected in various sources of evidence, including documents (administrative protocol, court order, restraining order, criminal proceedings, etc.) It is noted that the initiation of criminal proceedings on the fact of domestic violence under Article 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine does not have to be preceded by two cases of bringing a person to administrative liability under parts of Article 173-2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. In cases where there are no previous appeals to law enforcement agencies or courts, audio and video recordings, screenshots and other evidence may be used to prove the systematic nature of domestic violence, which must meet the requirements of the CPC of Ukraine for evidence. The authors emphasize that simultaneously bringing a person to administrative and criminal liability for the same episode of domestic violence is a violation of the non bis in idem principle. Therefore, a person may be held criminally liable under Art. 126-1 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine if there is one (the last) or more episodes of violence for which the person has not previously been held administratively liable. The commission by a person of criminal offenses provided for in parts of the articles (articles) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and domestic violence is not a violation of the non bis in idem principle. It is noted that a child who has witnessed domestic violence is always a victim of this offense. The draft law on harmonization of the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine with the Istanbul Convention on the involvement of a child as a victim from the moment of entering information into the URPTI was approved, as a child who witnessed domestic violence suffers moral damage. A child who witnessed domestic violence and is not related to the persons between whom the domestic violence occurred is not a victim of domestic violence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

У процесі дослідження доведено, що лише реалізація суддею своїх дискреційних повноважень щодо об’єднання кримінальних проваджень в одне провадження (відповідно до вимог статті 334 КПК України) є єдиною винятковою ситуацією, яка передбачає за відсутності обвинувального вироку суду в «першому кримінальному провадженні», який для правомірності кваліфікації за ознакою повторності повинен набути законної сили, застосування при кваліфікації дій обвинуваченого в «наступному кримінальному провадженні» такої кваліфікуючої ознаки, як «повторність». В іншому ж разі варто вести мову про порушення такої конституційної засади кримінального провадження, як презумпція невинуватості та забезпечення доведеності вини, якщо дії особи кваліфіковано за кваліфікуючою ознакою «повторно» без попередньої реалізації дискреційних повноважень судді щодо об’єднання кримінальних проваджень в одне провадження (відповідно до вимог статті 334 КПК України) або без постановлення обвинувального вироку в «першому провадженні».

Criminal proceedings upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances should be conducted under such principles as res judicata, non bis in idem, with due regard for the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine and the Supreme Court. Ongoing updates to criminal procedure laws with regard to the represented extraordinary form of judicial proceedings for revision of court decisions give rise to the need for respective theoretical comprehension. The article is aimed at providing a general theoretical description of the legal nature of the proceedings upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances in criminal process from the perspective of the European human rights standards. This article is one of the first general theoretical research papers focused on the updated criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine regulating the judicial proceedings upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances which describes certain essential features of these proceedings using modern methods of cognition, with due regard for the latest achievements in the science of criminal process and also from the perspective of the European standards. Judicial proceedings upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances are classified as extraordinary because the review of court decisions requires adherence to the principle of res judicata. With a view to complying with the principle of res judicata, it seems reasonable that the right to apply for the review of a court decision, which is adopted by a court of any instance and becomes fully binding and effective, upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances should be granted only to the parties of the criminal proceedings and to the victim, his/her counsel and legal representative, and a representative of the legal entity which the proceedings affect. The civil claimant, his/her counsel and legal representative, and civil defendant and his counsel should be entitled to file the said application only with regard to the civil claim. It is noted that due process of law should be established by law of criminal procedure. This may be regarded as available if there are laws of appropriate quality and relevant case law (international and national), and provided that the imperfections of laws with inappropriate quality are, so to say, adjusted by high-quality case law. And, visa versa, due process of law should be regarded as unavailable if there are no laws of appropriate quality and relevant case law or when provisions of laws of appropriate quality are not supported by the unity and consistency of case law. For the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court as a body intended to ensure uniform administration of law by courts, the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine should establish due process of law for reviewing of final court decisions which are adopted during pre-trial investigation and enter into force in the course of the proceedings. To mitigate the risk of non-observance of the principle non bis in idem, the legislator should incorporate into this process a number of restrictions relating not only to the scope of circumstances but also to the scope of requirements to the application for review of a court decision upon discovery of new or exceptional circumstances etc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Law of Ukraine is the property of Editorial Board of Journal "Law of Ukraine" and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)