UDC 343. 1

DOI 10.37749/2308-9639-2025-2(265)-3

A. S. Chistyakova, Candidate of Law, Attorney

ORCID: 0009-0008-9495-8143

DUE LEGAL PROCEDURE FOR AN INTERNATIONAL WANTED NOTICE 

When clarifying/proving the fact that a person is on the international wanted list, two alternative legal positions are actually formed: 1) the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine impose on the prosecutor/investigator the obligation to provide evidence to confirm the announcement, and not the fact that the suspect is on the international wanted list; 2) to confirm the fact that a person is on the international wanted list, it is necessary to provide supporting Interpol documents, which certify/confirm the fact that the person is on the international wanted list. 

According to the first legal position, in fact, the final results of the pre-trial investigation body’s activities, which are aimed at declaring a person on the international wanted list, are replaced by intermediate ones. In addition, this approach does not take into account situations when, according to the results of Interpol’s verification of the conformity of the documents submitted by the pre-trial investigation body, it turns out that they, for example, do not meet the minimum criteria for publishing red notices, and there are no grounds for applying international wanted mechanisms in relation to the person. Due to the lack of unity of judicial practice in this matter, it is considered relevant to clarify what components of the proper legal procedure for declaring a person on the international wanted list.

Thus, the proper legal procedure for placing a person on the international wanted list includes, among other things, taking measures to establish the location of the person to be placed on the wanted list, properly summoning the person to be placed on the wanted list, and properly notifying the person about such a summoning to be placed on the wanted list.

A systematic analysis of Articles 111, 135, 278, 541, 542 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine shows that in situations where a person is in a country with which Ukraine has diplomatic relations and where international legal assistance is possible and is carried out, any notifications to such a person must be carried out in accordance with the procedure for international legal assistance.

At the same time, the proper legal procedure for declaring an international wanted person is causally related to compliance with the procedure for notifying a person of suspicion. Since the presence of the status of a suspect in a person who is planned to be declared wanted (international / interstate / carried out on the territory of Ukraine) is a legal basis for declaring a wanted person. Therefore, if a person has not acquired the status of a suspect as a result of improper notification of suspicion, such a person cannot be declared wanted in any way, including an international wanted person. 

Ignoring by the courts the facts of the violation by the pre-trial investigation body of the proper procedure for declaring a person on the international wanted list and replacing the final results of the pre-trial investigation body’s activities, which are aimed at declaring a person on the international wanted list, with intermediate ones, leads to a situation where procedures are applied to a person as if he were on the international wanted list, although there are no grounds for applying the mechanisms of the international wanted list to the person. The lack of judicial control of the proper procedural status leads to a situation where the wanted list is applied to a person who has not acquired the status of a suspect.

Is this practice a violation of the due legal procedure for placing an international wanted person on the wanted list? Obviously, it is.

Keywords: due process, international wanted suspect, Interpol, report of suspicion, defense, pre-trial investigation, lawyer, criminal proceedings, in absentia , prosecutor, wanted notice.

                            LIST OF REFERENCES

  1. Resolution of the Supreme Court of March 2021, case No. 522/11807/18, proceedings No. 51-4687 km 20 Access mode: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/95439636.
  2. Case of Sanader v. Croatia (Application No. 66408/12): judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 12 Feb. 2015, final judgment of 06 Jul. 2015. European Court of Human Rights : [website]. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-151039%22]}.
  3. Case of MTB v. Turkey (Application No. 47081/06): judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 12 June 2018, final judgment of 12 September 2018. European Court of Human Rights : [website]. URL: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/rus#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-183536%22]}.
  4. Decision of the investigating judge of the High Anti-Corruption Court dated 22.12. 2020 in case No. 991/9956/20, proceedings No. 1-кс/991/10203/20.   Unified State Register of Court Decisions : [site]. URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/93821235.
  5. Dunaeva A. V. The activities of the investigator in the search for the suspect: dissertation…. candidate of legal sciences: 12.00.09 / A. V. Dunaeva; National Acad. of Internal Affairs. K., 2013. P. 149.
  6. Stepanov O. S. Search for a suspect under the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Legal Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs. No. 2. Pp. 216–219.
  7. Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine dated March 19, 2015 in case No. 5-1кс15. URL: http://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/43555549.
  8. Resolution of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court dated July 28, 2020 in case No. 991/5453/20, URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/90719293.
  9. Resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ukraine dated January 3, 2020 in case No. 991/3010/19, proceedings 1-кс/991/3625/19, URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/86760831.
  10. Resolution of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ukraine dated 01/14/2025 in case No. 991/14216/24, proceedings 1-кс/991/14316/24, URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/124529288.
  11. Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ukraine dated 08/28/2024 in case No. 991/7888/24, proceedings 1-кс/991/7925/24, URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/121409319.
  12. Decision of the Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Ukraine dated 02.10.2019 in case No. 760/25064/19, proceedings No. 11-сс/4911/16/19, URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/84756215.
  13. Resolution of the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court dated January 30, 2020 in case No. 760/11359/16-к, proceedings 1-кп/991/117/19 , URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/87392462.
  14. Decision of the Desnyanskyi District Court of Kyiv dated 02/26/2024 in case No. 754/2744/24 URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/117558021.
  15. Decision of the Pecherskyi District Court of Kyiv dated June 21, 2019 in case No. 757/31623/19-к, URL: https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/83026675.