official, abuse of authority by a military official
or official powers, negligent attitude to military
service, inaction of the military authorities,
violation of the rules of military duty, violation
of the rules of border service, violation of the
rules of handling weapons, as well as substances
and objects that pose an increased danger to the
environment, drinking alcoholic and low-alcohol
beverages or use of narcotic drugs, psychotropic
substances or their analogues (Law of Ukraine
No. 8073-X, 1984).
At the same time, administrative responsibility
has not been introduced for some actions. There
is no rule that would provide for responsibility
for curfew violations. Because of this, the police
draw up a report on the person who violated the
curfew according to Art. 185 of the Code of
Ukraine on administrative offenses. It provides
for liability for malicious disobedience to the
lawful order or demand of a police officer, a
member of a public formation for the protection
of public order and the state border, a military
serviceman). We believe that this practice is
inadmissible, because in fact it contradicts the
tasks of proceedings in cases of administrative
offenses, in particular, regarding the resolution of
each case in exact accordance with the law (Law
of Ukraine No. 8073-X, 1984). Also, there is no
separate rule that would establish a person's
responsibility for violating the special light
masking regime and other actions. In this regard,
it should be emphasized that there are no
provisions in the current legislation that would
provide for responsibility for individual actions
that may lead to negative consequences and,
under certain conditions, even to the death of
people. We believe that this practice should be
eradicated and requires the introduction of
appropriate mechanisms of legal regulation.
As for the changes in criminal procedural
legislation, they are more significant. Thus, it is
determined that the prosecutor is prohibited from
entrusting the implementation of a pre-trial
investigation of a criminal offense under the
jurisdiction of the National Anti-Corruption
Bureau of Ukraine to another pre-trial
investigation body. At the same time, this
provision was clarified by the wording: "except
for the cases of ordering a pre-trial investigation
under martial law". Also, the prosecutor is
prohibited from entrusting the implementation of
a pre-trial investigation of a criminal offense
committed by a people's deputy of Ukraine to
other pre-trial investigation bodies, except for the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and
the central apparatus of the State Bureau of
Investigation in accordance with their
jurisdiction, defined by the Criminal Procedure
Code of Ukraine (Law of Ukraine No. 4651-VI,
2012).
The next innovation that applies during martial
law is the possibility of entering into the Unified
Register of Pretrial Investigations decisions on
the initiation of criminal proceedings after a
certain period of time, in particular, at the first
opportunity. This is due to the impossibility of
access of the investigator, inquirer, and
prosecutor to the Unified Register of Pretrial
Investigations, which quite often happens in the
territories where active hostilities are taking
place.
The list of powers during martial law of the head
of the prosecutor's office at the request of the
prosecutor or an investigator agreed with the
prosecutor has been expanded. Among them, in
particular: making a decision on the pretext of a
person, temporary access to things and
documents, seizure of property, permission to
detain for the purpose of pretext, a request to
conduct a search in accordance with Part 3 of Art.
233 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine,
search, obtaining samples for examination,
conducting secret investigative (search) actions,
extending the period of pre-trial investigation, as
well as powers to choose preventive measures
(Law of Ukraine No. 4651-VI, 2012). This
happens in case of impossibility of execution of
such powers by the investigating judge.
As for preventive measures, the procedure for
selecting them as suspects is provided for in Art.
109-115, 121, 127, 146, 146-1, 147, 152, 153,
185, 186, 187, 189-191, 201, 258-258-5, 260-
263-1, 294, 348, 349, 365, 377-379, 402-444
Criminal Code of Ukraine (Law of Ukraine
No. 2341-III, 2001). The term of the preventive
measure should not exceed 30 days. In addition,
in exceptional cases, also in the commission of
other serious and especially serious crimes, if the
delay in choosing a preventive measure can lead
to the loss of traces of a criminal offense or the
escape of a person suspected of committing such
crimes. These powers are exercised taking into
account the requirements of Chapter 37 of the
Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (Law of
Ukraine No. 4651-VI, 2012), that is, the special
procedure for criminal proceedings.
The legislator established that in the case of the
objective impossibility of filing an indictment
with the court, the term of the pre-trial
investigation is suspended and subject to
renewal, if the grounds for suspension no longer
exist. In our opinion, the mechanism of appeal