Law Journal of the National Academy of Internal Affairs

The purpose of the article is to analyse the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine with regard to the concept of servicing a written notice of suspicion as an integral part of notifying a person of suspicion in order to define current theoretical and practical problems of the legislation, as well as to propose the ways to solve them. Methodology. In view of the said aim, specificity of the object and subject of the research, the methodological tool has been chosen. During the research, a system of methods of scientific cognition has been applied: the formal logic (abstraction, analogy, deduction, induction, synthesis) – to study the content of the matter under consideration; the systematic analysis – to outline directions of improvement of criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine; the theoretical approach – in the process of study of scientific, educational and methodological literature. The scientific novelty consists in the systematic analysis of the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, as well as determination of theoretical and practical problems, which, if not solved, may lead to non-compliance of the procedural activity of the prosecution when serving a written notice of suspicion, as an integral part of notifying a person of suspicion, with the objectives of criminal proceeding and the warrantees set out by the international treaties. Based on the results of the research, the following conclusions have been drawn: 1) «service of a notice of suspicion» includes a number of procedural actions that have to be consistently performed by an investigator or prosecutor and which are conveniently divided into certain stages. However, there is a separate category of persons, for whom the procedural form of their notification of suspicion has certain particularities, i.e. additional (if to compare with Chapter 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine) warrantees provided for by the state shall be introduced; 2) acknowledgment of receipt by a person of a written notice of suspicion or familiarization with its content in another way may be considered proper provided that: a) there is a personʼs signature on a written notice of suspicion, put on the day of notice drafting; b) there is a personʼs signature certifying receipt of a written notice of suspicion, including on a postal notification; c) there is a video recording confirming service of a written notice of suspicion to a person; d) there is any other information confirming that the person has been notified in writing of suspicion or familiarized with its content; e) a written notice of suspicion was sent to a personʼs e-mail in the case provided for by Part 2 of Article 136 of the CPC of Ukraine; 3) the person who has not been served with the initial written notice of suspicion, irrespective of duly servicing of the written notice of the new suspicion or change of the previously notified suspicion, shall not be deemed a suspect; 4) the law does not explicitly stipulate that a written notice of suspicion must be served exclusively by the persons who drafted it, however, the notice shall be served only by the person authorized by the procedural law or by an entity appointed by procedural means.