PROCEDURAL SPECIFICS OF REMOTE CRIMINAL CASE PROCEEDINGS: ISSUES OF LEGAL APPLICATION

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the procedural specifics of remote criminal case proceedings in Ukraine, particularly under martial law, focusing on legal, technical, and organizational challenges related to the use of videoconferencing in criminal justice.

Methods: The study employs a combination of legal-dogmatic analysis, dialectical and systemic approaches, formal-logical interpretation, historical-legal method, comparative legal analysis with international experience, sociological examination of judicial practice, and legal modeling. These methods enabled the identification of regulatory gaps and the development of proposals to improve legislation and judicial procedures.

Results: The findings show that, before martial law, Ukrainian legislation strictly limited remote hearings outside court premises. After the outbreak of war, the Council of Judges and the Supreme Court allowed remote participation using personal devices—later incorporated into the Criminal Procedure Code. The study identifies key challenges: participant authentication, ensuring awareness of procedural rights, risks of external influence on witnesses and defendants, difficulties in maintaining attorney-client confidentiality, limited access to evidence during remote hearings, and technical disruptions. Nonetheless, videoconferencing plays a crucial role in maintaining judicial continuity, reducing delays, enhancing participant safety, and improving access to justice.

Conclusion: Remote criminal proceedings have significant potential to ensure timely adjudication and maintain access to justice during wartime. However, their effective implementation requires improvements: standardized authentication procedures, confidentiality safeguards, mechanisms ensuring equality of arms, robust technical infrastructure, and uniform regulatory frameworks. The study emphasizes the need for coherent legislative and judicial guidelines to balance procedural efficiency with fundamental guarantees of fair trial.