Review

The article provides a comprehensive analysis of the use of the polygraph in criminal proceedings, primarily within the structure of interrogation tactics involving witnesses, victims, and suspects. It examines international standards and foreign case law (Frye, Daubert, Scheffer, Béland, and European court positions), which demonstrate that the polygraph is not admissible as independent evidence due to insufficient scientific validity. Nevertheless, it may serve as an auxiliary orientational tool at the pre-trial stage. Particular attention is paid to the approach of the European Court of Human Rights, which emphasises the necessity of voluntariness, the prohibition of coercion, and the preservation of the individual’s autonomous will. The article outlines the psychophysiological and psychological foundations of polygraph functioning. The polygraph does not record «truth» or «deception» but physiological responses reflecting emotional tension influenced by fear, anxiety, PTSD, cultural factors, or medical conditions. The risks of false positives and false negatives are highlighted, along with the importance of psychological screening, especially in relation to traumatised victims. A forensic model for integrating the polygraph into interrogation tactics is substantiated using the «pre-test – test – post-test» structure, which ensures methodological and procedural safety. The article identifies fundamental differences in the use of the polygraph depending on the procedural status of the person: for witnesses – to identify sensitive areas and avoid suggestion; for victims – only in exceptional, psychologically controlled situations; for suspects – exclusively under conditions of full voluntariness, with guaranteed access to defence counsel and strict adherence to the nemo tenetur principle. Judicial approaches to evaluating polygraph materials are analysed. Such materials may be taken into account only together with other evidence and strictly as orientational data. A specialist’s report must rely on the formula «presence / absence of significant reactions,» with clearly defined in-terpretive limits. The article proposes directions for improving legislation and organisational-methodical practices, including defining the legal status of the polygraph, standardising methodologies, and developing departmental instructions. Future research perspectives include the creation of special protocols for interviewing traumatised victims, empirical assessment of the polygraph’s effectiveness as a tactical tool, and exploring its integration into digital evidence frameworks and the work of justice system institutions during wartime.