SMITIYENKO Zinaida,
Candidate of Law, Professor, Department of general legal disciplines of Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics
KOBYLYNS’KA Irina,
Postgraduate of the Department of Public International Law of Kyiv National University of Trade and Economics
DETENTION OF A SUSPECT IN DIPLOMATIC MISSIONS OF UKRAINE
Background. Detention of a person suspected of a criminal offense on the territory of diplomatic missions, consular offices of Ukraine is rather complicated procedural activity and is unexplored by scientists and practitioners. It’s regulated by several branches of law: criminal procedure, criminal and international law.
The aim of the article is to identify drawbacks of legal regulation to effect a lawful arrest of a person who has committed a criminal offense on the territory of diplomatic missions and consular offices of Ukraine; clarify the differences of the legal terminology used in Chapter 41 of Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the applicable international instruments; develop recommendations to address them.
Materials and methods. Different methods of scientific knowledge have been used in the work: system structural, comparative legal, logical legal, logical semantic, generalization method and others. Chief among them is the general dialectical method of cognition of objective reality phenomena. Logical semantic method has been used to study and deepen research concepts. Formal legal method has been used in the study of regulations governing the detention of a suspect in diplomatic missions, consular offices of Ukraine, comparative legal – to compare legal concepts, definitions of domestic and international law, generalization method has been used to express the main results of work.
Results. The detention of a suspect in the premises of diplomatic missions and consular offices of Ukraine has its own characteristics related to the legal regulations, detention time, people authorized for detention, special status of suspects, order of arrest and bringing a detainee to government units in Ukraine etc.
Conclusion. Taking into account the severity of the committed criminal offenses one should not just use the right of detention as a preventative measure, but provide in the criminal proceedings the possibility to use others, including not isolating precautions. Perhaps it’s justified to introduce such preventive measures as taking the suspect under surveillance of the head of the diplomatic mission or consular office of Ukraine banning (or not) this person to leave the premises of the diplomatic mission or consular office of Ukraine.
FREE FULL TEXT (PDF)