Search

There is no instance in a given society that can successfully opeate and function without respecting existing standards and principles set in place in ensuring the respect of fundamental human right and dignity. The notion and acceptable rule is that, Crime commission is an unavoidable singularity in any given and documented society functioning under the umbrella of established rules and regulations. Cameroon and Ukraine has engaged huge steps in establishing credible laws, all in the preservation and protection of fundamental human right of those presumed of crime commission. This article articulates and establishes that,the only way the rule of law can be respected during the investigative stage, will only when those responsible for investigation respects the due process of the law in the course of its investigation so that their act should not contravene the right of the suspect or accused in question. It provides that when issues of investigation are carried out by Ukraine and Cameroon police, gross violations of the criminal process are always experienced, and this greatly affects the objective of criminal law being that of protecting the right and dignity of everyone irrespective of the status quo acquired during the criminal proceedings.the results of this gross violation of the accuesed rights and status during the investigative stage will affect the rationale and objective of the criminal law system which is to ensure that all criminal process should respect human standard and dignity. The reason for this is that, during the investigative process and procedure, the law enforcement ofiicers must be able in detaching their various duties assigned with due diligent and respect of the various criminal standards of investigation. To ensure that this is done, there is that need of those enforcing the jucial process and trial should that all evidences, searches, seizures, recording done by the investigative police officials should be done in accordance of the free will of the presumed criminal.

Respetar y proteger a todas las partes ha sido siempre el objetivo de todo proceso penal, buscando que se haga justicia en todas las fases del juicio. Esta protección es de mayor importancia al tratarse de víctimas que han sufrido daños como consecuencia de delitos. Por esta razón, tanto la India como Ucrania han dado una protección especial a los derechos de las víctimas a lo largo del proceso penal. Este artículo tiene como objetivo analizar el papel y el grado de protección que ofrecen estos códigos de procedimiento penal respecto de los derechos de las víctimas. A pesar de los ordenamientos establecidos, la condición de la víctima sigue siendo cuestionable, afectando considerablemente la credibilidad de los códigos de procedimiento penal de estos países. Para determinar si realmente garantizan el respeto de los derechos de las víctimas, se utilizó una metodología comparativa, con el fin de establecer las expectativas de los dos sistemas de derecho penal en esta materia. Los resultados sugieren que, aunque los códigos de procedimiento penal de ambos países cuentan con disposiciones relevantes para proteger los derechos de las víctimas; en la realidad, sus sistemas procesales penales siguen adoleciendo de problemas en este aspecto. En consecuencia, es necesario revisar estos códigos para garantizar el respeto de los derechos de las partes, especialmente los de las víctimas. Respecting and protecting all parties have always been the objective of every criminal proceeding, aiming to achieve justice at every stage of the criminal trial. This protection becomes of utmost importance when dealing with victims who have suffered injuries because of crime. For this reason, both India and Ukraine have given special protection to victims’ rights throughout the criminal process. This paper aims to analyze the role and degree of protection offered by these criminal procedure codes in respecting the rights of victims. Despite all the procedures put in place, the condition of the victim is still questionable, which has considerably affected the credibility of these countries’ criminal procedure codes. To determine whether they really ensure the respect of victims’ rights, a comparative methodology was used to establish the expectations of the two criminal law systems in this matter. The findings suggest that even though the criminal procedure codes of both countries have relevant provisions to protect the victims’ rights, their criminal procedure systems are still marred with issues regarding this aspect. Consequently, there is a need to revisit these codes to ensure that the rights of parties, especially those of the victims, are respected.

Objective: The aim of the article is to analyze the various legal and theoretical provisions related to the determination of legal content of the concept of finding evidence inadmissible due to substantial violation of human rights and freedoms. Method: The authors use general scientific and special methods that enable to obtain scientifically sound conclusions and proposals. In particular, scientific methods, such as dialectical, comparative-legal, system-structural, generalization and logical, are applied. Results: The problematic issues of the procedure for finding evidence inadmissible due to substantial violation of human rights and freedoms in the criminal proceedings of Ukraine are studied. Some essential violations in collecting evidence by the prosecution are under focus. The ECHR’s case-law with regard to procedure for finding evidence inadmissible is analyzed. The implementation of the doctrine of "fruit of the poisonous tree" and specificity of its application to direct and derivative evidence by domestic courts and the case law of the ECHR is considered. Conclusions: The authors argue that the investigator is required to comply with the procedure for investigative actions prescribed by the provisions of the CPC of Ukraine in order to ensure human rights and freedoms. The analysis of the application of provisions of the CPC of Ukraine and the ECHR’s case law regarding the issue raised enables to formulate sound conclusions. Resumen Objetivo: El objetivo del artículo es analizar las distintas disposiciones legales y teóricas relacionadas con la determinación del contenido legal del concepto de declarar inadmisible la prueba por violación sustancial de los derechos humanos y las libertades. Método: Los autores utilizan métodos científicos generales y especiales que permiten obtener conclusiones y propuestas científicamente sólidas. En particular, se aplican métodos científicos, tales como dialéctico, comparativo-legal, sistema-estructural, generalización y lógico. Resultados: Se estudian las cuestiones problemáticas del procedimiento para declarar inadmisible la prueba debido a una violación sustancial de los derechos humanos y las libertades en el proceso penal de Ucrania. Se están enfocando algunas violaciones esenciales en la recolección de pruebas por parte de la fiscalía. Se analiza la jurisprudencia del TEDH en materia de procedimiento para declarar inadmisible la prueba. Se considera la implementación de la doctrina del “fruto del árbol venenoso” y la especificidad de su aplicación a la prueba directa y derivada por los tribunales nacionales y la jurisprudencia del CEDH. Conclusiones: Los autores argumentan que el investigador está obligado a cumplir con el procedimiento para las acciones de investigación prescrito por las disposiciones del CPC de Ucrania con el fin de garantizar los derechos humanos y las libertades. El análisis de la aplicación de las disposiciones del CPC de Ucrania y la jurisprudencia del CEDH con respecto a la cuestión planteada permite formular conclusiones sólidas.

Crime commission is an unavoidable singularity in any given and documented society functioning under the umbrella of established rules and regulations. Cameroon and Ukraine have engaged huge steps in establishing credible laws, all in the preservation and protection of fundamental human rights of those presumed of crime commission.This article establishes that, it is the responsibility and role of the investigative police in carrying out investigation and respects the due process of the law in the course of its investigation so that their act should not contravene the right of the suspect or accused in question.