Forensic Foundations for the Implementation of the Defence Function in Criminal Proceedings under Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine

The article examines the forensic foundations for the implementation of the defence function in criminal proceedings under Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, with an emphasis on the pre-trial stage as a key phase in the formation of the evidentiary base and in determining the limits of interference with individual rights. It is substantiated that in cases of state treason, which are characterised by heightened public sensitivity and institutional asymmetry between the parties, genuine adversariality cannot be ensured through the formal proclamation of procedural principles and requires effective mechanisms for the defence’s access to evidence, the verifiability of proof, and effective judicial control. It is shown that the defence function in this category of proceedings should be regarded as an independent procedural activity aimed at the active formation of an alternative evidentiary position and the critical examination of the prosecution’s evidentiary framework. Defence counsel is substantiated as a subject of proof whose activity encompasses the analysis of the procedural origin of evidence, the restoration of its context, and the initiation of judicial control in order to verify the legality, substantiation, and proportionality of interference with individual rights. Special attention is paid to judicial control as the institutional basis for the implementation of the defence function and as a guarantee of fair and admissible proof. The article analyses the specific features of the evidentiary base in criminal proceedings under Article 111 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which is formed through a combination of procedural, operational, and digital sources, as well as the significance of the standard of “reasonable suspicion” as a procedural filter at the pre-trial stage. It is demonstrated that the effectiveness of the defence in state treason cases is determined by the ability to apply forensic mechanisms to ensure genuine adversariality, procedural equality of the parties, and the verifiability of proof as a prerequisite for a fair outcome.