INTERROGATION OF A SUSPECT DURING THE INVESTIGATION OF SEXUAL CRIMINAL OFFENSES

Abstract

The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the procedural and tactical aspects of questioning a suspect during the investigation of sexual criminal offenses. In particular, attention is drawn to the fact that in a number of scientific publications it is recommended to use the factor of suddenness during the questioning of the suspect. Such recommendations are subject to criticism based on the analysis of the provisions of the updated criminal procedural legislation. It is emphasized that the actions to create and use during the questioning of the suspect an atmosphere of his disorientation in the use of the suspect’s rights provided by the law are a violation of the law. It is noted that the existence of recommendations regarding the use of the factor of suddenness during the questioning of a suspect is a consequence of an uncritical perception of the developments of forensic tactics of the Soviet period. It is noted that the violation of the suspect’s rights to defense in this aspect is the basis for declaring the received evidence inadmissible in court. It is noted that the specifics of questioning a suspect during the investigation of sexual criminal offenses are determined by the circumstances that need to be established, as well as the personality of the suspect and the nature of his relationship with the victim. Such features are determined based on the analysis of two classification groups of sexual criminal offenses: 1) committed with the use of physical violence or the threat of its use in the absence of a social connection of acquaintance; 2) committed using the state of acquaintance (official, friendly relations, etc.). It is concluded that the peculiarities of questioning a suspect in criminal proceedings about sexual criminal offenses are conditioned by his attitude to the key circumstances outlined in the notification of suspicion: the nature of the committed acts of a sexual nature in relation to the victim; time, place of their commission; the absence of the victim’s voluntary consent to their commission, as well as other significant circumstances known at the time of notification of suspicion. The article’s position is reinforced by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which has repeatedly found violations of the right to a fair trial where confessions or statements obtained during a suspect’s interrogation without access to a defense counsel were used as evidence. Differentiated tactical recommendations for questioning a suspect are proposed for each of the two classification groups of sexual criminal offenses, replacing the criticized “suddenness factor” with a psychological contact strategy built on explaining to the suspect the protective function of his testimony.