Review

The article is devoted to analyzing the problems of implementing the rule of law principle during investigative (search) actions and covert investigative (search) actions as the most intensive forms of procedural interference by the state with human rights at the pre-trial investigation stage. It is sub-stantiated that the «cognitive» nature of these actions is objectively associated with risks of restricting the inviolability of a home or other possessions, private and family life, the secrecy of correspondence and communications, liberty and personal integrity, as well as property rights, which necessitates stronger judicial control and higher standards for reasoning procedural decisions. It is emphasized that the rule of law in this area should be understood as a practical criterion for assessing the per-missible limits of procedural coercion, requiring legal certainty, foreseeability, and the absence of arbitrariness both in legislative regulation and in individual procedural decisions within конкрет proceedings. The criteria for the lawfulness of interference with human rights during evidentiary activities are defined through the cumulative requirements of legality, a legitimate aim, and necessity in a democratic society, while proportionality is characterized as the substantive core of the rule of law, subject to verification by a three-part test of suitability, necessity, and reasonableness. It is proven that the search/inspection of a home or other possessions is a «peak» form of interference with privacy and the property sphere and therefore requires clear specification of the limits and предмет of interference, genuine assessment of alternatives, and prevention of the formalization of judicial control – especially in «urgent» cases, where the risk of an expansive interpretation of the grounds for entry can transform an exception into a rule. It is stressed that effective judicial control should focus not only on the formal verification of the existence of grounds, but also on assessing their factual persuasiveness and the proportionality of the expected result to the burden of interference. It is shown that body examination as an action directed at the human body requires a strict boundary of permissible coercion and unconditional priority of the absolute guarantees of human dig-nity, as well as additional procedural safeguards to minimize the risks of substituting procedures and violating the admissibility of evidence. Attention is drawn to the need to improve guarantees of legal assistance during compulsory body examination and to develop judicial control over the most sensi-tive interferences with the bodily and private spheres. It is argued that covert investigative (search) actions constitute the most vulnerable area due to the combination of the intensity of interference with secrecy and a lack of awareness, which complicates the restoration of violated rights and requires higher demands for procedural certainty, a mechanism for notifying a person about restrictions of their rights, and disclosure of materials to the defense, taking into account the permissible limits of secrecy and compensatory safeguards. The article formulates directions for improving procedural form and judicial control aimed at minimizing arbitrary interference, strengthening the verifiability of procedural decisions, and enhancing the reliability of evidentiary activities under contemporary chal-lenges of criminal justice.