The Ways of Leveling Errors in the Results of Operational Investigative Activities: The Use of the Institute of Exclusion of Inadmissible Evidence and Improvement of Current Legislation on the Example of Criminal Prosecution for Forgery of Vaccination Certificates from COVID-19, PCR Tests and QR Codes

The author of the study highlights an urgent socio-legal problem-the quality of the results of operational investigative activities used as a means of proof in numerous categories of criminal cases. This study examines, as an example, the practice of bringing to criminal responsibility for the forgery of vaccination certificates from COVID-19, PCR tests and QR codes using the tools provided for by the federal law «On Operational Investigative Activities» dated 12.08.1995 No. 144-FZ. The author offers a definition of operational investigative activities, as well as ways to «eradicate» the mistakes made in law enforcement through the use of the institution of recognizing evidence as inadmissible and improving existing legal norms. Based on the analysis of the legislation, the author concludes that the institution of inadmissible evidence is «dying out» due to the amorphous attitude towards it on the part of law enforcement officers. The author forms a «selection» of typical procedural violations, indicating the need to use the institute of inadmissible evidence, and suggests improving legislation in the field under study by expanding the list of grounds for the participation of a defender in criminal proceedings, providing for the procedural possibility of participation in operational search activities related to the real restriction of freedom and personal integrity of persons. The author advocates amendments to Part 2 of Article 60 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation by indicating categories of persons who cannot be understood during the ORM. In order to eliminate the tendency of artificial «reproduction» of crimes and the provocative nature of the actions of operational officers, the author suggests, in the case of several identical ORMs carried out by operational officers against the same persons (more than 2 times), the creation of special reporting conducted on the results of such ORMs and the subsequent termination of those episodes of crimes that do not We have identified new legally significant circumstances in the criminal case; at the legislative level, the author proposes to consolidate the need to appoint a forensic phonoscopic examination to give the operational-search event «wiretapping» legality in cases where the suspect/accused denies his involvement in the incriminated crimes or used the right provided for in Article 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. The scientific novelty and significance of the study lies in the fact that the author demonstrates the existing gaps and imperfections of legislation in the field under study by concrete examples; suggests specific forms of «reconstruction» of existing legal norms and advocates the active use by courts of the institute of inadmissible evidence in order to achieve real, rather than nominal, protection of human and civil rights and freedoms in criminal cases.

operational search activity, operational search activities, inadmissible evidence, crime, activity, ORM, ORD, forgery of vaccination passports, PCR tests, QR codes, covid, pandemic