Interregional Academy of Personnel Management, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Department of Advocacy Proficiency and International Legal Practice, Academy of Advocacy of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Department of Private Law, Faculty of International Relations and Law, Nakhchivan State University, Nakhchivan, Azerbaijan Republic.
Department of Criminal Procedure, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine.
Department of Criminal Procedure, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Kharkiv, Ukraine.
The role of advocacy in the investigation of crimes against life and health remains insufficiently explored in legal scholarship, particularly in the context of its impact on evidentiary integrity and procedural fairness. This study addresses this gap by conducting a comparative analysis of civil law, common law, and hybrid legal systems, examining how advocacy influences investigative processes and legal outcomes. Using a mixed-methods approach that integrates qualitative legal analysis, comparative jurisprudence, and statistical evaluation, this research highlights jurisdictional differences and identifies best practices in legal representation during criminal investigations. The findings reveal that advocacy significantly contributes to safeguarding procedural rights, ensuring transparency, and enhancing the effectiveness of investigations. However, ethical dilemmas concerning evidence gathering and confidentiality pose ongoing challenges. The research analyzed 50 cases involving intentional murder, attempted murder, and grievous bodily harm across six jurisdictions, supplemented by interviews with practicing lawyers, prosecutors, and law enforcement officers. Statistical data revealed substantial variation in legal participation: common law systems demonstrated consistently high involvement of defense counsel, civil law systems showed delayed engagement, and hybrid systems exhibited transitional models influenced by international obligations. Survey responses confirmed that advice on procedural rights, cross-border cooperation, and the use of digital evidence platforms represent the most critical domains of advocacy in practice. Regression analysis further demonstrated that legal traditions, case complexity, and international human rights standards are decisive factors shaping the intensity and quality of legal participation. The discussion situates these results within the context of previous scholarship, revealing convergences with existing studies on technological evidence, cultural determinants of crime, and international cooperation, while also highlighting gaps in current legal frameworks. Ethical concerns, particularly breaches of confidentiality and prosecutorial pressure on lawyers, are identified as systemic risks that weaken the effectiveness of legal defense. This study’s insights provide a foundation for refining legal frameworks and promoting more effective cross-jurisdictional standards in international criminal law. By emphasizing both theoretical and practical dimensions, the findings contribute to ongoing debates on human rights protection, procedural fairness, and the modernization of criminal justice, making a strong case for early and meaningful participation of legal counsel in investigations as a constitutional imperative.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2025 The Authors