Features of interrogation of confidents: gaps in regulatory and legal regulation and analysis of foreign experience

This article analyzes the practices of foreign jurisdictions regarding the examination of informants and undercover agents, specifically the admissibility of testimony provided by law enforcement officers in lieu of direct testimony from confidential sources. The relevance of this topic stems from the lack of a secure legal mechanism in Ukraine that would allow for the examination of confidential informants in court under fictitious identities. In this regard, the legal frameworks of the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Slovenia, Greece, and Cyprus are examined, where police officers’ testimonies concerning information obtained from confidential informants are recognized as admissible evidence, and where courts are granted discretion not to summon covert witnesses for direct examination. The author highlights the absence of a comparable mechanism in Ukrainian legislation and the existence of legal provisions that currently preclude its application. The study examines the procedure currently in use in Ukraine for examining individuals who cooperate confidentially with law enforcement under fictitious identities, emphasizing the practical challenges and legal inconsistencies encountered in such proceedings. The research methodology is grounded in general scientific methods of synthesis, induction, comparison, theoretical cognition, and hypothetical reasoning. The article proposes legislative amendments that would allow for the examination of law enforcement officers instead of individuals from whom they obtained confidential information or who were involved in the conduct of covert investigative (detective) actions. The author also advocates for the establishment of a mechanism whereby confidential informants may testify under their real identities only with their informed consent. In the absence of such consent, testimony should be permitted solely under fictitious identifiers, and only where such testimony constitutes the sole source of evidence in a criminal proceeding.

confidential cooperation, informant, examination of individuals engaged in confidential cooperation, law enforcement officers