On the Classification of Investigative Actions and the Specifics of their Conducting in the Criminal Process

Introduction: the article presents a comprehensive analysis of the concept, system, and classification of investigative actions in the criminal procedure of the Russian Federation. The purpose of the research is to clarify legal definitions, identify regulatory conflicts, and propose models for unifying the procedural form that ensures the completeness, admissibility, and verifiability of evidence. Based on formal legal, systemic, comparative, and logical-structural methods, the author compares the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, law-enforcement practice, and doctrinal positions of scholars, noting discrepancies between statutory regulation and the practical needs of pre-trial investigation. The study substantiates the necessity of a systemic classification of investigative actions according to purpose, object of influence, subject of execution, level of intrusiveness, and evidentiary significance. Particular attention is given to the digital transformation of evidence gathering, including remote forms of obtaining information, audiovisual recording of investigative actions, and the use of specialized technical means. Scientific novelty lies in clarifying the content of the category “investigative action” and proposing to include in its system procedures possessing independent evidentiary value – the interrogation of a specialist and the interrogation of a witness-attesting person as structurally formalized variants of interrogation with established procedural guarantees.The practical value of the results consists in developing criteria for classifying procedures as investigative actions, improving documentation algorithms, and proposing amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code aimed at unifying qualification, minimizing evidentiary risks, and increasing the effectiveness of pre-trial proceedings.The empirical basis is an analysis of regulatory sources, judicial decisions of higher courts, and the practices of preliminary investigation bodies, which allowed us to identify common qualification errors and regulatory gaps. It is proposed to establish universal requirements for digital recording, standardize protocols, clarify the list of investigative actions, and develop methodological recommendations for investigators, inquiries, and courts. The expected result is improved quality of evidence and the predictability of judicial practice.