This article investigates the mechanism for the implementation of criminal responsibility (MICR) in Ukraine, focusing on its theoretical foundations rooted in the scholarly works of the eminent legal scholar V. Stashis. He made a significant contribution to the development of the current Criminal Code (CC) of Ukraine. V. Stashis insisted on the necessity of basing the legislative definition of a crime not only on a formal criterion, but also on a material criterion – the social dangerousness of the act. He consistently championed the humanisation and effectiveness of criminal justice. The scientific developments by V. Stashis laid the foundation for shaping the system of penalties in the current CC.

The article addresses criminal responsibility as one of the most contentious issues and analyses its evolution in the drafts of the new CC of Ukraine, where it is treated as a set of criminal law instruments (punishment, criminal record/conviction, probation, etc.).

The MICR is defined as a system of interconnected elements that ensures the embodiment of the legislator’s will and the mandates of criminal law norms. Its model encompasses four blocks: 1) the legislative platform (norm creation, legal fact); 2) legal relations (arising in connection with the commission of a criminal offense); 3) criminal law means of influence; 4) individual criminal law regulation. The necessity for individual legal regulation (individualisation) is underscored as a complement to the normative framework, serving to account for the specific characteristics of a case, which is realised through the qualification of the criminal offense and depends on its corpus delicti (elements of the crime).

The implementation of legal norms is the realisation of their requirements in social relations, which constitute the sole channel for the implementation of criminal responsibility. The philosophical aspect of the implementation of law is discussed as a conflict of values (“the ought” and “the existing”), which necessitates a compromise and the adaptation of legal dogma to the value systems of society.

The system of means of response to a criminal delict is divided into: 1) principal means of influence: punishment, criminal record/conviction, security measures, types of encouragement; 2) supplementary means of influence: compulsory medical measures, special confiscation, measures of influence on legal entities.

The conclusions stress the need for a reappraisal of law-implementation processes in criminal law and the establishment of a modern concept for the implementation of criminal responsibility.

Bibliography

Journal articles

1. Mytrofanov I, ‘Poniattia indyvidualnoho kryminalno-pravovoho rehuliuvannia’ [2010] 4 Forum prava 629–636 (in Ukrainian).

2. Mytrofanov I, ‘Predmet indyvidualnoho pravovoho rehuliuvannia v kryminalnomu pravi’ [2011] 1 Forum prava 670–680 (in Ukrainian).

3. Mytrofanov I, ‘Tsinnosti ta haluzeva yurysprudentsiia’ [2025] 90(5) Naukovyi visnyk Uzhhorodskoho natsionalnoho universytetu. Seriia: Pravo 322–327 (in Ukrainian). подружніми, колишнім подружжям чи іншими особами, які спільно проживали (проживають) однією сім’єю. Загроза вчинення таких діянь також є підставою, незалежно від того, чи проживає кривдник разом із постраждалою особою (Про запобігання та протидію домашньому насильству: Закон Украї- ни від 7 грудня 2017 р. № 2229-VIII (дата звернення 11.10.2025)).