Informing a person of a suspicion is of crucial importance for criminal proceedings in general as well as for a person who acquires the status of a suspect. Analysis of norms of Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine indicates the lack of accurate and explicit position of a legislator concerning the procedure of acquisition of the status of a suspect by a person who does not show up when summoned to service a notice of suspicion.

The aim of this research is a complex analysis of criminal procedure law, scientific approaches and law enforcement practice of acquisition of the status of a suspect by people who cannot be personally serviced a notice of suspicion.

In Part 1 article 278 of Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine it is stated that if it is impossible to service a notice of suspicion on the day of its issue, it is done in the way provided for servicing notices. Literal interpretation of this norm allows to assert that if it is impossible to service a written notice of suspicion, it is done according to the rules of summoning in criminal proceedings (by sending via post, e-mail, serving it to a grown-up family member against receipt etc.). Informing of a suspicion according to the procedure provided for summoning does not allow to meet the requirements of criminal procedure law completely (in particular when it comes to informing the person of their rights and their explanation) and does not comply with the rule of law whose element is a requirement to identify the moment of acquisition of the status of suspicion by a person. The procedure of “informing a person about a suspicion by default” is obligatory for a special pre-trial investigation when criminal proceedings are carried out without the suspect being present. The person can acquire the status of a suspect without being served such a procedural document only if it impossible to locate the person. Necessity of informing of a suspicion in absentia is determined by the need to put out a BOLO on the person, which is impossible to do without granting them the status of a suspect.

Transition from general to special (in absentia) procedure of acquisition of the status of a suspect can only take place in exceptional situations if there are serious grounds for that caused by competition of public and personal interests in criminal proceedings. Impossibility of personal serving a notice of suspicion is determined by absence of the person at their address and lack of information of their whereabouts and by failing to come after being summoned because of being abroad or on the temporary occupied territories of Ukraine.

Bibliography

Journal articles

1. Kaplina O, ‘Povidomlennia pro pidozru: protystoiannya pravovikh pozytsii storin obvynuvachennia ta zakhystu’ (2017) 12 Pravo Ukrainy 74–81 (in Ukrainian).

Newspaper articles

2. Hlynska N, Loboyko L, Shylo O, ‘Povidomlennya pro pidozru: pravomirnist zastosuvannia poriadku, peredbachenoho KPK dlia vruchennia povidomlen’ [2017] 45 (1166) Yurydychnyi visnyk Ukrainy (in Ukrainian).

Websites

3. Sukhov U, ‘Povidomlennia pro pidozru osobi: analiz okremykh aspektiv pozytsiyi Velykoii Palaty Verkhovnoho Sudu shchodo spetsialnykh subiektiv’ (SudebnoYurydycheskaya hazeta) <https://sud.ua/ru/news/blog/172318-povidomlennya-propidozruosobi-analiz-okremikh-aspektiv-pozitsiyi-velikoyi-palati-verkhovnogo-suduschodospetsialnikh-subyektiv> (accessed: 13.09.2021) (in Ukrainian).