Abstract
<jats:p>This article examines the role of the inspection and seizure of correspondence within the framework of criminal procedure as stages of a comprehensive covert investigative (detective) measure – the seizure of correspondence and the inspection and seizure of correspondence (Articles 261 and 262 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine). It is noted that the seizure of correspondence, its inspection and seizure constitute a procedural action belonging to the group of covert investigative (search) measures, which, in turn, are a type of procedural action known as investigative (search) measures. The multi-level nature of the characteristics of this covert investigative (search) measure is emphasised: 1) generic characteristics common to all procedural measures; 2) specific characteristics inherent in investigative (search) measures; 3) sub-specific (group) characteristics possessed by covert investigative (search) measures; 4) specific characteristics that characterise exclusively this covert investigative (search) action and allow it to be distinguished from other types of covert investigative (search) actions. Its content and the specific procedural order of its implementation are classified as specific characteristics. It is determined that the complexity of this covert investigative (search) measure is characterised by the fact that the inspection and seizure of correspondence are impossible without first placing it under seizure. Similarly, the seizure of correspondence is meaningless as a means of obtaining evidence without its subsequent inspection and seizure. It is noted that this covert investigative (search) measure consists of mandatory and optional elements (stages). In particular, in view of the provisions of Part 2 of Article 262 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the seizure of correspondence, unlike its seizure and inspection, does not always take place during the implementation of the procedural measure. The legislator notes that this occurs provided that items (in particular substances) or documents of significance to the pre-trial investigation are found in the correspondence, which is logical. In such cases, the investigator may refrain from seizing the correspondence and instead limit themselves to copying it or obtaining samples thereof. It is concluded that the seizure and examination of correspondence are mandatory (always carried out), whilst its removal is not mandatory (carried out where necessary).</jats:p>