The study is devoted to the issue of legal mechanism of attaining the objectives of criminal procedure on preservation of victims’ rights, freedoms and legitimate interests and prevention of secondary victimization in pre-trial proceedings (initiation of criminal proceedings and pre-trial investigation). This mechanism is composed of the procedure of legal entitlement of a harmed person with procedural status of victim, which provides the opportunity to participate sub actively in criminal process and to take advantages from corresponding legal guarantees in the process; the procedure for providing victims with a written acknowledgement of their formal complaint by criminal justice system officials that ensures that victim’s claim on the assumption that he or she has suffered some sort of harm as a direct result of criminal offense had been committed, is considered as true and simultaneously is examined by providing pre-trial investigation; ensuring that victims have been provided with the opportunity to receive preservation and protection of their violated procedural rights, in particular by providing access to challenge in court in pre-trial investigation processdecisions, actions or actions of investigator, inquirer, prosecutor or investigating judge. The author states that the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine prescribe that entitling of a harmed person with victim status is made through autodynamic procedure and that the Code purposely does not lie the burden of proof for attest suffered harm on the victim, which he or she proclaimed in a complaint. The common legal Presumption of Integrity and good faith of the person is embodied in mentioned legal provision and, as the author pointed out, have led to the obligation of competent officers to use an Anticipatory Trust Doctrine in resolving the issue of deprivation of the procedural status of the victim. The burden of proof for absence of harm is lied on investigator or prosecutor according to the author’s interpretation of Part 5 Art. 55 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. The Code purposely does not provide the procedure for deprivation of the procedural status of victim in the stage of Trial too. Court order of investigating judge on the cancellation of the prosecutor's decision on deprivation of the procedural status of victim, ipso facto, entitling the complainant with victim status, as it restores the normative provision of first paragraph of Part 2 Art. 55 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine. The author analyzed nationwide statistic of court orders of investigating judge in two-last-years period and concluded that, on the one hand, the harmed persons often believe that their procedural rights are violated or ignored in pre-trial proceedings (at the initiation of criminal proceedings and in pre-trial investigation), which is leading to increased risks of secondary victimization; on the other hand, the rates of satisfaction of victims' complaints by the investigating judge are high, which proves the effectiveness of the institution of challenging in correcting mistakes that were committed earlier.
Keywords: secondary victimization, objectives of criminal procedure, victim, harmed person, anticipatory trust doctrine, presumption of victims’ integrity, preservation of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of victims, legal entitlement with status of the victim, acquisition of the status of the victim, deprivation of the procedural status of victim, refusal to recognize the victim, challenging in pre-trial investigation.
Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitlement to Facilitate Coasean Trade
