Review

The article presents a comprehensive analysis of the observance of human rights during the imple-mentation of covert investigative (search) actions (CISA) in the context of ensuring Ukraine’s national security. It examines the specifics of applying CISA in criminal proceedings concerning crimes against the foundations of national security, such as high treason, espionage, terrorist activity, and collaboration. Particular attention is paid to the legal and ethical aspects of using provocative methods in law enforce-ment activities, the limits of their admissibility, and potential risks of violating citizens’ constitutional rights. The paper analyzes international approaches to the regulation of crime provocation, including the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and legislative approaches in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany. A comparative legal analysis of the norms defining the admissibility of undercover operations has been conducted, identifying common features and differences in human rights protection standards during the use of covert investigative techniques. The author substantiates the need to establish clear mechanisms for controlling the activities of operational units, strengthening judicial oversight and prosecutorial supervision, and introducing effective instruments of public monitoring. It is emphasized that achieving a balance between nation-al security needs and human rights guarantees is a key condition for the democratic nature of the criminal process and the effectiveness of state policy in combating crimes against national security. The purpose of the article is to examine the legal nature and limits of admissibility of crime provocation in the criminal procedure of Ukraine, taking into account international experience and human rights protection standards. The author analyzes Articles 271 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and 370 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, which define the legal boundaries of controlled operations and establish liability for provocation of bribery. The study considers the practice of nation-al courts and the ECHR decisions (in particular, Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal and Ramanuskas v. Lithuania), which establish criteria for distinguishing lawful operational actions from impermissible in-ducement to commit a crime. The article highlights the application of provocative methods in combat-ing crimes against the foundations of national security, including treason, espionage, and terrorism. It reviews the experience of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany, where provocation may be permissible only to identify individuals with an actual predisposition to commit serious crimes, provided there is strict judicial oversight. It is concluded that, in light of modern threats to Ukraine’s territorial integrity, it is advisable to legislatively define the limits of controlled operational measures involving provocative elements, ensuring compliance with human rights, strengthening judicial and prosecutorial control, and estab-lishing mechanisms of public oversight over operational units. The outlined proposals aim to create a balance between the effectiveness of investigations and the protection of individual legal guarantees in the sphere of national security.