Legal basis of confidential cooperation in the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

National Academy of Internal Affairs

Legal basis of confidential cooperation in the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine

Viktor Kateryniuk

Postgraduate Student

Kyiv

Abstract

legislation corruption bureau state

The relevance of this study is conditioned upon the fact that special legislation regulating investigative operations, combating organized crime, ensuring the security of people cooperating with law enforcement agencies, adopted in 1992-1994, does not meet the conditions of modern life (liberalization and digitalization of society; changes in the banking and financial sector; ease of crossing borders, etc.), and the challenges facing the law enforcement system (transnational crime; development of technologies that complicate the technical removal of information; use of cryptocurrencies and quasi-money, etc.). The main disadvantage of this legislation is the lack of regulation of confidential cooperation as the main tool for combating crime. The purpose of this study was to investigate the state of legal support for confidential cooperation using evidence from the activities of the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine; to identify gaps, contradictions, and conflicts; to identify ways to improve legislation. General scientific, logical, and general legal methods were used. The paper analysed the state of scientific research on the subject under study, systematized the current legislation of Ukraine, and compared its individual norms. The main study results are that the legal basis of confidential cooperation is considered for the first time as a system of legal norms of an intersectoral legal institution, not limited exclusively to the procedural aspect or scope of application. The present study is the first to investigate the functioning of the institution of confidential cooperation in the National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine. The paper stated that the absence of proper statutory regulation at the level of laws of Ukraine and the lack of systematization of existing norms, which creates risks of abuse, violation of citizens' rights and freedoms. It was noted that the gaps in the legislation are filled in by departmental regulations of the relevant law enforcement agencies with the appropriate classification of secrecy. The study covered the essence and purpose of confidential cooperation, the legal norms prescribed in various laws, the specifics of their application, the subject of their legal regulation, as well as analysed differences in the legal regulation of cooperation with confidants and whistle-blowers. The practical value of this study lies in the fact that its results can be used by practising lawyers, namely investigators, prosecutors, and barristers, for whom the institution of confidential cooperation is new considering the secret forms and methods of its functioning

Keywords: confidant; whistle-blower; informant; mentor; human intelligence

Анотація

Правова основа інституту конфіденційного співробітництва в Національному антикорупційному бюро України

Віктор Вікторович Катеринюк Аспірант Національна академія внутрішніх справ, м. Київ,

Актуальність теми зумовлена тим, що спеціальне законодавство, яке регулює оперативнорозшукову діяльність, боротьбу з організованою злочинністю, забезпечення безпеки осіб, які співпрацюють з правоохоронними органами, прийняте у 1992-1994 роках, не відповідає умовам сучасного життя (лібералізації та цифровізації суспільства; змінам у банківському та фінансовому секторі; легкості перетину кордонів тощо) та викликам, які стоять перед правоохоронною системою (транснаціональна злочинність; розвиток технологій, які ускладнюють технічне зняття інформації; використання криптовалют і квазігрошей тощо). Основним недоліком цього законодавства є неврегульованість конфіденційного співробітництва як основного інструменту боротьби зі злочинністю. Метою роботи є дослідження стану правового забезпечення конфіденційного співробітництва на прикладі діяльності Національного антикорупційного бюро України; виявлення прогалин, суперечностей і колізій; визначення шляхів удосконалення законодавства. Використано загальнонаукові, логічні та загальноправові методи. У роботі проаналізовано стан наукового дослідження теми, систематизовано чинне законодавство України, здійснено зіставлення його окремих норм. Основні результати дослідження полягають у тому, що правову основу конфіденційного співробітництва вперше розглянуто як систему правових норм міжгалузевого правового інституту, не обмежуючись виключно процесуальним аспектом чи сферою застосування. Уперше досліджено функціонування інституту конфіденційного співробітництва в Національному антикорупційному бюро України. Констатовано відсутність належного нормативно-правового регулювання на рівні законів України та несистематизованість наявних норм, що створює ризики зловживань, порушення прав і свобод громадян. Зауважено, що прогалини в законодавстві заповнені відомчими нормативними актами відповідних правоохоронних органів з відповідним грифом секретності. Розкрито сутність і призначення конфіденційного співробітництва, проаналізовано норми права, закріплені в різних законах, особливості їх застосування, предмет їх правового регулювання, а також відмінності в правовому регулюванні співпраці з конфідентами та викривачами. Практична цінність результатів дослідження полягає в тому, що їх можуть використовувати юристи-практики, зокрема слідчі, прокурори й адвокати, для яких інститут конфіденційного співробітництва є новим з огляду на таємні форми й методи його функціонування

Ключові слова: конфідент; викривач; інформатор; наставник; агентурна розвідка

Introduction

Corruption has been one of the fundamental issues of Ukrainian society, despite Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine. Centralization and monopolization of power, censorship in the media, concealment of data on state funds and expenditures, secret and non-competitive state purchases, reduction of financial control over representatives of state authorities and local self-government, etc. create a favourable environment for corruption. The same circumstances reduce the effectiveness of public methods of work of law enforcement agencies, including the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine, in combating corruption, which is already hidden (latent) in nature. In this regard, more attention should be paid to covert methods, the main of which is the undercover method or human Intelligence, which in law enforcement activities is usually called confidential cooperation.

Confidential cooperation is a relationship that is established and maintained by employees authorized to carry out investigative operations and/or pre-trial investigation (mentors or handlers) with physically capable individuals (confidants) to assist these individuals in the performance of the tasks assigned to them by these bodies, on a paid or free basis and based on confidentiality and voluntariness (Kateryniuk, 2021).

The definition of the terms “confidant” and “confidential cooperation” in the legislative acts of foreign countries is similar. The author of this study examines the UK practices in regulating confidential cooperation. According to § 26 (8) of the UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000¹ “a person is a confidant (covert human intelligence source, CHIS) if: a) they establish or maintain a personal or other relationship with a person for the covert purpose of facilitating the doing of anything falling within paragraph (b) or (c) b) they covertly use such a relationship to obtain information or to provide access to any information to another person; or c) they covertly disclose information obtained by the use of such a relationship, or as a consequence of the existence of such a relationship”. (Kateryniuk, 2021).

Section 29(5a) of the UK Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act of 2000² implicitly defines a handler as an officer who is given dual responsibility by the police service for managing the day-to-day activities of CHIS (sources) and for CHIS's security and welfare (Henry, 2022).

The principal issue, according to the author, which both scientists and practitioners face when investigating the legal basis of confidential cooperation is the lack of systematization of legislation regulating confidential cooperation. There is no special law that would govern these legal relations. None of the regulations defines the concept of confidential cooperation, subjects, and content of legal relations. Separate legal norms are found in the Law of Ukraine “On Investigative Operations”³ and in the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine ⁴, but in most cases, during scientific research and in law enforcement activities, scientists are forced to resort to the analogy of right and the analogy of law, which regulate cooperation and ensuring the security of individuals assisting in the detection, prevention, investigation, and solution of crimes.

The importance and universality of the tool of cooperation between law enforcement officers and citizens in the fight against crime is also confirmed by international practices, namely the practices of Western European countries, the United States of America, and Canada, which were investigated by D.I. Nykyforchuk, V.V. Matviichuk and A.V. Savchenko (2004), as well as Ye.Ye. Hrechyn and I.I. Musiienko (2015). The main differences are related to the approach to legal support of confidential cooperation (in laws, sub-legislative acts, codes of practice); subjects authorized for confidential cooperation; persons with whom it is allowed to establish relevant relations; the limits of such cooperation; the procedure for registration of involving a person in cooperation, as well as the use of its results. The study and use of international practices began in the 2000s and continues today.

Foreign practices indicate that the cooperation of law enforcement officers with citizens is the most effective source of information in the fight against crime. For instance, in France, Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America, over 85-90% of serious crimes are solved through cooperation with the population (Kozachenko, 2018). In addition, O.I. Kozachenko (2018), comparing the international and national practices of legal regulation of ensuring the security of confidants and confidential cooperation in general, gives arguments for the effectiveness of the institution of confidential cooperation in countering crime and connects it with the ability of states to really provide a prominent level of legal, social, and physical protection of confidants.

To develop a model of legislative regulation of confidential cooperation, which is the purpose of this study, it was necessary to analyse the current state of legal support, identify gaps, conflicts, and contradictions, investigate analogous studies, as well as consider the international practices of rationing this type of activity of law enforcement agencies.

Literature Review

The Ukrainian practices of using citizens' assistance in the fight against crime indicate that despite significant achievements in science, the rapid development of information technologies, this type of activity is still the main means of preventing and detecting crimes, and in some cases - their investigation (Gribov & Kozachenko, 2019). M.L. Hribov and O.I. Kozachenko (2019) reveal some “secrets of success” of using confidential cooperation in developed Western democracies, which consist in the wide opportunities of authorized bodies to motivate people to cooperate, including those from the criminal environment, as well as in real opportunities to ensure their security. Furthermore, the said researchers investigate the approaches to the legal support of confidential cooperation, specifically at the level of laws and departmental regulations. The researchers propose to regulate the rights, obligations, and legal guarantees of confidants at the legislative level, including those related to exemption from criminal liability and punishment.

K.V. Antonov also addressed the issues of statutory regulation of the use of confidential cooperation (Antonov, 2020). Antonov continued the discussion between practitioners and scientists about the expediency of authorizing confidential cooperation between an investigator who does not have an unspoken apparatus, since this is not one of the priorities of their activities. The researcher notes that criminal procedural activities are generally public, and issues of prevention, detection, and solving of crimes are included in the subject of investigative operations, which are covert.

V.M. Davydiuk investigated the issue of the legal grounds for ensuring the security of confidential cooperation. Davydiuk emphasizes that the risks taken by the confidant can be considered justified only if safety measures are observed, reliable regulatory provision of relevant guarantees and proper organization of operational and investigative measures, covert investigative (detective) operations and various combinations (Davydiuk, 2019).

In addition, the scientific community does not stop discussing the place and role of confidential cooperation in criminal proceedings. The position expressed by, among others, D.B. Serheieva, prevails, who does not include confidential cooperation in the list of separate covert investigative (detective) operations, but considers it as a security measure for their implementation (Serheieva, 2016).

This discussion is also supported by D.V. Talalai and S.M. Saltykov, who generally agree with D.B. Serheieva. However, these researchers provide arguments in favour of a certain similarity of confidential cooperation, if not with covert investigative (detective) operations, then with investigative and procedural actions. They address the common ultimate purpose - the search and recording of evidence, as well as the main difference - the lack of regulation of the procedural consolidation of the course and results of confidential cooperation (Saltykov and Talalay, 2020).

Continuing the research on the topic of procedural aspects of confidential cooperation, it must be noted that during the use of this institution within the framework of the criminal procedure, sufficient empirical material was developed, which was analysed by N.V. Nelevda, who investigated the issue of forms of registration of confidential cooperation (Nelevda, 2021). The author concluded that the current legislation does not clearly define the agreement on confidential cooperation, its terms and conditions, and procedure for execution.

The same subject was covered by Ya.O. Talyzina, who focused on the features of the procedural execution of involving a person in confidential cooperation in criminal proceedings (Talyzina, 2020). Talyzina concluded that from a criminal-procedural standpoint, confidential cooperation is formalized by the written consent of the confidant, the resolution of the investigator on the involvement of the confidant in confidential cooperation, and the protocol/memorandum, which clarifies the rights, duties, and responsibilities of the confidant.

These publications indicate that most researchers investigate certain theoretical and practical aspects of confidential cooperation, while there are no scientific studies in the public domain that accumulate and systematize the norms of national legislation on confidential cooperation and the involvement of citizens in the detection, prevention, investigation, and solving of crimes. This is precisely the gap that the present paper intends to fill.

Among other things, a special feature of scientific research abroad is that confidential cooperation is also actively investigated as a tool for interaction of law enforcement officers with detainees, prisoners, prisoners, etc. As an example, we should cite the binary classification of informants proposed by S.M. Kleinman (2006), according to which the assigned source shares the purpose of his or her supervisor and maintains a cooperative relationship with them, while the detainee is more likely to perceive their interrogator as an enemy and will often try to withhold known information. In terms of the physical environment, S.M. Kleinman notes that the source being interviewed voluntarily communicates with their supervisor and can leave at any time. However, the detained source is in a detention centre, and their physical condition is under the control of the investigator. Thus, a secret source can be considered to exist in one of four possible categories (combinations) depending on the physical situation: prisoner or not, and access to information: active (actively received information, according to the given instruction) or passive (passively received target information without expecting that it will later have to be disclosed to the investigator).

The unipolarity of the study of confidential cooperation in the context of interaction with detainees, prisoners, and captives has led to a lack of research-to-practice studies on the use of confidential cooperation in criminal intelligence and criminal justice, which prompts scientists to actively fill these gaps (Moffett, 2022).

A common feature of Ukrainian and foreign studies is that they are primarily related to practical aspects of confidential cooperation. One of them is high-quality training of practitioners. Along with the special value of the information obtained from the informant, Pamela Henry, Nikki Rajakaruna, Charl Crous and John Buckley (2020) note the risks of confidential cooperation, which may consist of social and personal harm to a person if their identity becomes known; the risk for the authorized employee (handler) regarding manipulation, misconduct/corruption, and personal safety; and the risk to the public body of organizational corruption and legal/regulatory responsibility to ensure the security of the confidant and handler.

Clive Harfield draws attention to the same risks. In his studies, he investigates legal regulation (2009), organization and management (2010), moral principles of confidential cooperation (2012), and also distinguishes such types of confidants as informants and infiltrated confidants (2009). On the one hand, confidants infiltrated into the criminal environment are the most valuable, and on the other hand, they carry the greatest risks both for the authorized person (handler) who cooperates with them and for the state body. Clive Harfield emphasizes that confidential cooperation relations should not only be sufficiently regulated at the legislative level, but also comply with moral and ethical principles, so that society trusts the activities of the relevant law enforcement agencies (2012). According to Harfield, confidential cooperation is most fully and consistently investigated.

Materials and Methods

During the preparation of this paper, several general scientific and general logical methods were used: description, analogy and comparison, analysis and synthesis, systematization; as well as general legal methods: logical legal, formal legal, and comparative legal.

During the study, the norms of the current legislation regulating investigative operations, confidential cooperation, and protection of individuals who assist law enforcement agencies in detecting, preventing, investigating, and solving crimes were described and compared; both differences and identical approaches to the statutory regulation of these relations were established. Using the analogy method, the authors of this study selected legal norms that are not included in the system of norms of special legislation but can be applied to regulate confidential cooperation relations.

The main methods used in this study were methods of analysis and synthesis, which consisted, respectively, in separating legislative acts into separate legal norms to investigate them and combine them into a single whole. To combine the norms of law into a logical structure, the systematization method was used.

The use of the comparative legal method consisted in comparing different legal institutions and categories both within the framework of Ukrainian legislation, and considering the UK practices in regulating confidential cooperation, to determine their differences and common features. The formal legal method was used to cognize particular legal institutions, legal norms, establish their meaning, define concepts and terminology, classify and interpret individual legal norms, determine the structure and construction of individual legal norms and regulations. The logical legal method was used to explain the subject of legal regulation of individual legal norms and legislative acts, systematize and classify legal norms, and combine them into a single logical structure. Using this method, gaps were identified, the practices of overcoming them were investigated, and proposals for improving Ukrainian legislation were proposed.

In the preparation of this paper, the provisions of the following regulations were used:-the Constitution of Ukraine¹; Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms²; Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine³; Criminal Code of Ukraine⁴, Laws of Ukraine “On Investigative Operations”⁵; “On the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine⁶; “On the Legal Principles of Combating Organized Crime”⁷; “On Ensuring the Safety of Individuals Involved in Criminal Proceedings”⁸; “On Prevention of Corruption”⁹; sub-legislative acts and departmental regulations, draft regulations. This study also covered modern scientific sources with the results of research on legal regulation, usage practices and features of registration of confidential cooperation both in Ukraine and abroad.

Results and Discussion

The legal basis of confidential cooperation before the development of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine¹⁰ in the 2012 edition was mostly investigated separately as part of investigative operations.

However, since its adoption and in connection with the inclusion in its text of “Chapter 21. Covert investigative (detective) operations”, where the investigators were first given the right to use confidential cooperation, this type of activity has also been considered as part of criminal procedural activity. Confidential cooperation is also investigated as a type of activity of individual law enforcement agencies. This can be explained by the fact that the lack of proper legislative support leads to a different understanding of the essence, role, and place of the institution of confidential cooperation in the legal system, and in this regard to different approaches to its research. Insufficient attention has also been paid to the general legal principles of confidential cooperation.

In terms of the state of scientific development of the topic concerning the use of confidential cooperation in pre-trial investigation, the results of research by O.O. Podobnyi & R.O. Belskyi (2021) should be noted, which state that so far in criminal procedural and forensic studies, the main ways of solving modern issues of the institution of covert investigative (detective) operations have been proposed at the level of doctoral theses and a fairly large number of individual scientific publications. The researchers continue that these studies did not reveal the main problematic aspects of the current theoretical and practical use of confidential cooperation in pre-trial investigations.

Thus, the proposed study is designed to cover not onlythetheoretical aspectsofconfidentialcooperation, but also the possibility of using legal tools in practice.

The principle of confidentiality and the importance of keeping the informant's personal data secret at the same level as the legal guarantees of a confidant for committing crimes during the performance of a special task to prevent or disclose the criminally illegal activities of an organized group or criminal organization, i.e., under control and undercover, are important elements of the institution of confidential cooperation, which are investigated by American and European scientists, as noted by J.E. Ross (2008) in his comparative study.

These relations arise in connection with the law enforcement activities of state law enforcement agencies and are associated with the risk of violation of the constitutional rights and interests of confidants, authorized employees, persons in respect of whom confidential cooperation is carried out, and others.

Therefore, such activities of law enforcement agencies and the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine should be legally and statutorily regulated and have a proper legal basis.

Notably, numerous attempts to adopt the Laws of Ukraine “On Investigative Operations”¹ and “On Legal Bases of Combating Organized Crime” Draft Law No. 1229 “On Investigative Operations”. (2019, September). Retrieved from https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/Card/946. Draft Law No. 7043 “On Amendments to the Law of Ukraine on Legal Bases of Combating Organized Crime”. (2022, February). Retrieved from https://itd.rada.gov.ua/billInfo/Bills/Card/38967. in the new wording, which propose to regulate the institution of confidential cooperation, are currently failing. Therewith, in the strategy for Combating Organized Crime, approved by the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine by Order No. 1126-p dated 16.09.2020Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 1126-p. “On Strategy for the Fight Against Organized Crime”. (2020, September). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text., a special place is occupied by the issues of regulatory support for confidential cooperation, protection, and encouragement of confidants.

The study of regulatory support for confidential cooperation in the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (the National Bureau) should begin with finding out its place among the authorities, status, and tasks.

The status of the National Bureau is determined by Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine”Law of Ukraine No. 1698-VII “On the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine”. (2014, October). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada. gov.ua/laws/show/1698-18#Text. (the Law of Ukraine “On NABU”), according to which “the National Bureau is a central body of executive power with a special status, which is entrusted with warning, detection, termination, investigation, and solving of corruption offences falling within its jurisdiction, as well as prevention of new ones”. The main task is “combating corruption and other criminal offences committed by high-ranking officials authorized to perform the functions of the state or local self-government, which pose a threat to national security”.

This norm is important from a theoretical and practical standpoint, as it specifies the particular tasks facing the National Bureau, and for the performance of which the authorized employees of the National Bureau establish confidential cooperation with citizens.

Investigative operations are an independent and strategic type of activity of the National Bureau, which often precedes pre-trial investigation and continues after bringing a person to criminal responsibility and is also aimed at constantly creating opportunities to obtain, record, and implement operationally significant information for effective crime prevention.

After the beginning of the pre-trial investigation, the investigative operations of detectives of the National Bureau do not essentially stop, but continue in the form of conducting procedural, investigative and covert investigative (detective) operations, including in the form of confidential cooperation. Such activities of detectives of the National Bureau in the regulations of the National Bureau are called covert activities, i.e., covert, not subject to disclosure. Thus, investigative operations and pre-trial investigation are inextricably linked, as they are carried out by detectives who are authorized to carry out both types of operations. Detectives carry out covert operations in compliance with the principles of conspiracy to obtain factual data about the illegal actions of individuals and groups (gathering evidence), as well as establishing other information essential for criminal proceedings. In this regard, confidential cooperation should be considered in an indissoluble connection with both investigative operations and pre-trial investigation.

According to Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On NABU”, the legal basis of the National Bureau's activity is the Constitution of Ukraine, international treaties of Ukraine, this and other laws of Ukraine.

And according to the provisions of Article 3 of the Law of Ukraine “On Investigative Operations”¹ (the Law of Ukraine “On IO”), the legal basis of investigative operations is the Constitution of Ukraine, this Law, the Criminal and Criminal Procedural Codes of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine “On NABU”, on ensuring the safety of persons involved in criminal proceedings, on state protection of court employees and law enforcement agencies and other laws of Ukraine.

Considering the above, the sources of law that form the legal basis of the institution of confidential cooperation in the National Bureau should be classified, considering their legal force, as follows:

1) The Constitution of UkraineLaw of Ukraine No. 2135-XII “On Investigative Operations”. (1992, February). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/2135-12#Text.;

2) Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental FreedomsConstitution of Ukraine: Law of Ukraine No. 254k/96-BP. (1996, June). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254K/96вр#Text.;

3) Criminal Procedural Code of UkraineConvention of the Council of Europe. (1950, November). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004#Text. (the CPCU);

4) Criminal Code of UkraineCriminal Procedural Code of Ukraine No. 4651-VI. (2012, April). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17#Text. Criminal Code of Ukraine No. 2341-III. (2001, April). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14#Text. (the CCU);

5) The Law of Ukraine “On Investigative Operations”Law of Ukraine No. 2135-XII “On Investigative Operations”. (1992, February). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/2135-12#Text.;

6) The Law of Ukraine “On National Anti-corruption Bureau of Ukraine”Law of Ukraine No. 1698-VII “On the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine”. (2014, October). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada. gov.ua/laws/show/1698-18#Text.;

7) Law of Ukraine “On Legal Bases for Combating Organized Crime”Law of Ukraine No. 3341-XII “On the Legal Foundations of Combating Organized Crime”. (1993, June). Retrieved from https://zakon. rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3341-12#Text.;

8) Law of Ukraine “On Ensuring the Safety of Persons Involved in Criminal Proceedings”Law of Ukraine No. 3782-XII “On Ensuring the Safety of Persons Participating in Criminal Proceedings”. (1993, December). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3782-12#Text.;

9) Law of Ukraine “On Prevention of Corruption”Law of Ukraine No. 1700-VII “On Prevention of Corruption”. (2014, October). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/ show/1700-18#Text. Instructions on the organization of covert investigative (detective) operations and the use of their results in criminal proceedings, approved by the Order of the Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine, the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, the Security Service of Ukraine, the Administration of the State Border Service of Ukraine, the Ministry of Finance of Ukraine, the Ministry of Justice of Ukraine No. 114/1042/516/1199/936/1687/5. (2012, November). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/v0114900-12/ page#Text.;

10) Instructions on the organization of covert investigative (detective) operations and the use of their results in criminal proceedings¹¹;

11) Other sub-legislative and departmental regulations.

The present study investigates these sources of law alternately in an indissoluble connection with each other.

When conducting confidential cooperation, the employees of the National Bureau are primarily guided by the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine, namely: the fundamental principle according to which a human, their life and health, honour and dignity, inviolability and security are recognized as the highest social value in Ukraine, and their observance is the main duty of the state (Article 3); the principle of the rule of law (Article S); the principle of freedom and the inadmissibility of coercion, which includes the inadmissibility of coercion to enter into a relationship of confidential cooperation in general and to perform certain tasks (which is also manifested in the right of the confidant to withdraw from the relationship of confidential cooperation unilaterally), as well as the duty of employees National Bureau to act only on the basis, within the limits of authority and according to the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine (Article 19); principles of equality and inviolability of human rights (Article 21). This also includes the provisions of Articles 27-34, 55-57, 60, which guarantee a human's inalienable rights: to life; on respect for human dignity, which cannot be violated or limited; as well as freedom, personal integrity and housing integrity; prohibition of interference in family and personal life; for free movement and choice of place of residence; on freedom of thought and speech; on the secrecy of private communication, which can be violated and limited only in exceptional cases prescribed by the Constitution and Laws of Ukraine; for legal protection and compensation for damage caused by the state; the right to know one's rights and obligations, not to carry out an obviously criminal order.

These rules of law, which oblige authorized employees of the National Bureau to respect and not violate the constitutional rights and guarantees of a human and a citizen, apply not only to these employees, but also to confidants, and should be explained to them to prevent the excess of the performer and other offences, as well as to ensure legal guarantees for the security of the confidant themselves.

Comparable legal norms are prescribed in Articles 2-14 of Chapter I of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms1.