У статті розглянуто положення процесуального законодавства щодо поводження
з таким доказом, як відеозапис, зроблено висновок про неможливість віднесення відеозапису до речових доказів і документів, а також запропоновано надати відеозапису статусу окремого джерела доказів.
Provisions of procedural legislation on giving definition to evidence and a videotape as one of its types are considered in the article. A videotape can refer both to physical evidence and documents pursuant to the provisions of procedural codes. But the author disagrees with these provisions. She mentions that procedural code defines the document as a material object which is specially created to keep information and can be used as a proof of facts or circumstances during criminalproceeding. But the legislator formed such definition of the document without analyzing a semantic meaning of this word. A document is interpreted in the definition dictionary as 1) an official paper that proves some legal fact, certificates something, serves as an evidence of something. It is everything what confirms something. Commercial paper. 2) a certificate which tests the person; 3) a written essay, commendation etc. which proves something important or historical; 4) a paper which is created &to be filled in. In this regard the author makes a conclusion that a document is a paper and a videotape can not be considered as a paper.
Physical evidence is items of the physical world which contain information on circumstances important for the &case. Some procedural codes say that physical evidence
includes magnetic, electronic and other data storage devices which contain audiovisual information on circumstances having the meaning for the case. In such a way a videotape can be the type of &physical evidence. But a videotape does not correspond to the definition of a physical videotape which is contained in procedural codes. Magnetic, electronic and other data storage devices are items containing information which can be helpful to esta&blish important circumstances. This information can be obtained from the content of these items through special equipment. This process differs from the process of examining physical or written evidence when their material from is examined. In this r&egard the author makes a conclusion that the legislator referring a videotape to physical evidence or documents does not want to take into account transformations in the world including progress in science and technology. In turn it tries to explain &new facts with old definitions.
The author does not accept this position and proposes to give a videotape the status of an independent type of evidence. The author proves that this step will assist judges to have a more serious attitude to this type& of evidence and take it into account during the trial. In this regard the author offers to amend procedural legislation in force with a provision that factual circumstances can be established by audio- and videotapes and allocate in separate section& procedure for handling with this evidence.
The author analyzes procedure of using videotape in a non-judicial process. She considers provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offences and makes a conclusion that this law does not regulate& handling with videotapes during procedures on administrative offences which are conducted by the representatives of public administration agencies. Thus propositions on amending procedural judicial legislation can be used in a non-judicial process. &The author also proposes to amend the draft law on Administrative Procedural Code of Ukraine with provisions concerning videotape.
