CONCEPT AND CONTENT OF A RECONCILIATION AGREEMENT IN THE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS OF UKRAINE

Author(s):  
Mariia Sirotkina ◽  

The article is turned out to a scientific search for the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or accused" through the study of the essence of reconciliation and role in criminal proceedings thereof. The author notes that criminal procedural law (until 2012) had been proclaimed another approach to reconciliation between victim and suspect, not involved a dispute procedure as a conflict, the result of which can be reached by compromise and understanding through reconciliation. It is stated that one of the ways to resolve the legal conflict in committing a criminal offense was the opportunity to reach a compromise between the victim and the suspect (the accused) by concluding a reconciliation agreement between them, provided by the Code of Сriminal Procedure of Ukraine (2012). The main attention is placed on the shortcoming of the domestic criminal procedure law which is the lack of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement between the victim and the suspect or the accused", which can be eliminated only through examining the essence or legal nature of reconciliation in criminal proceedings. Taking into consideration the current legislation and modern views on the institution of reconciliation in criminal proceedings, the author's definition of the concept of "a reconciliation agreement" is proposed. Thus, “The conciliation agreement is an agreement in criminal proceedings concluded between the victim and the suspect or the accused person on their own initiative in relation to crimes of minor or medium gravity and in criminal proceedings in the form of private prosecution, the subject of which is the compensation of harm caused by wrongdoing or committing other actions not related to compensation for the damage that the suspect or the accused is obliged to commit in favor of the victim, in exchange for an agreed punishment and sentencing thereof or sentencing thereof and relief from serving a sentence with probation, as well as the statutory consequences of conclusion and approval of the agreement".

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 68-81
Author(s):  
Željko Mirkov

Although there is no uniform definition of procedural principles in criminal procedure theory, they can be defined as legal rules or guidelines on which the criminal proceedings are based. As such, the principles of criminal procedure law apply to procedural entities and procedural actions. Evidentiary actions, as a type of procedural action, clarify the criminal case that is the subject of the criminal proceedings. The Criminal Procedure Code stipulates several evidentiary actions, one of which is the preliminary hearing of the defendant. The defendant hearing, in which the defendant gives their testimony, is given a great deal of attention because it represents one of the most important pieces of evidence, and the course of evidence presentation is the most significant and crucial issue of the criminal proceedings. Therefore, the paper will present a review of the criminal procedure principles related to this evidentiary action, starting from the principle of legality as the main principle, followed by the principles of orality, publicity, immediacy and adversity (party control of facts and means of proof).


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 98-105
Author(s):  
Nikolay N. Kovtun

This work critically assesses the legal nature and practice of the institution of bringing as a defendant in criminal proceedings in Russia, particularly in its relation to the substantive legal act of bringing to criminal responsibility. The author argues that, due to the general bureaucratization of the process, both the first and second acts have actually lost their original purpose to be the determining material and procedural guarantee of individual and justice in criminal proceedings. Objectifying as a legal fiction, the act of bringing the accused as an accused in the doctrine of Russian criminal procedure law, done directly in practice, is increasingly characterized as an accusation of duty, initial, intermediate, and final, which respectively form the ideas of duty, intermediate, initial, and investigative-final criminal prosecution. This negates the role of the named defining acts. Hence, the paper suggests an optimal mechanism for their implementation according to the purposes and tasks of substantive and procedural law


2019 ◽  
pp. 58-68
Author(s):  
I. Pyrih

The article deals with problematic issues related to the norms of criminal procedure legislation, considering the involvement of an expert as an investigative action. Among criminal scientists and proceduralists there is no consensus on the procedural definition of forensic examination. Most of them include forensics to investigative actions. By the definition of a forensic examination, it is clear that an integral feature of a procedural action is to conduct it exclusively by officials of state bodies authorized by law to conduct criminal proceedings. These include: employees of the operational units, an investigator, a prosecutor, a judge. The subject of the examination is an expert – a person not authorized by law to conduct investigative actions. That is why, in our opinion, it is impossible to refer an examination to investigative actions. Proponents of referring a forensic examination to investigative actions most often mean it as «the appointment and conduct of a forensic examination». It is argued that actions regarding the appointment and conduct of the examination are different in nature and subjects of conduct. If we consider the stage of appointment of the examination, and for the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine – the involvement of an expert, then its subject is the investigator. The subject of the examination is an expert. Considering the characteristic features of the investigative action, it can be concluded that the stage of appointment of the examination or the involvement of an expert, which scientists consider as preparatory to the examination, has all the signs inherent in an independent investigative action. It is governed by the rules of procedural law, carried out in the framework of criminal proceedings, authorized by the person. When an expert is involved, the investigator conducts certain actions, the result of which is reflected in the ruling of the investigating judge. The purpose of the examination is to obtain, research and verify evidence. Considering the involvement of an expert as a separate investigative action, we define its content, divided into generally accepted stages: preparatory, working and final. To the preparatory stage, we include such actions: the decision to conduct an examination; selection of an expert institution or a private expert; determination of the type of examination and subject of study; determining the order of appointment of examinations in relation to the same objects; timing of appointment examination. The following should be attributed to the working stage: selection of objects for examination; receipt of the decision of the investigating judge for the examination. The final stage consists of the following stages: determining the circle of persons who may be present during the examination; referrals and necessary materials to the expert institution. Key words: investigative (search) action, forensic examination, appointment of expertise, involvement of an expert.


2021 ◽  
pp. 5-16
Author(s):  
V. Tishchenko ◽  
L. Belik ◽  
O. Samoilenko ◽  
Yu. Tishchenko

The article is devoted to the study of aspects of the essence and legal nature of forensic examination in criminal proceedings. It is analyzed the provisions of the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Examination”. The norms of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the grounds for the appointment and conduct of forensic examination have been investigated. It has been established that many scientists in the field of civil procedural law, criminal procedural law, criminology and forensic examination paid attention to the legal content of the forensic examination. The nature of occurrence of forensic examination has been investigated. It has been established that at the legislative level, the term “forensic expert activity” is used only in the Law of Ukraine “On Forensic Examination”. In the specified normative legal act there is no clear definition of this concept, scientists through the analysis of some norms of law reveal its content. Regarding the definition of the concept of forensic examination, it has been established that there is no consensus in legal science. Regarding the definition of the concept of forensic examination, it has been established that there is no consensus in legal science. The article analyzes the criminal procedure form of appointing a forensic examination. Key words: forensic examination, criminal proceedings, forensic expert activity, forensic expertology, criminal procedural form.


2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-152
Author(s):  
Dmytro Tychyna ◽  

The article provides a comprehensive study of theoretical and practical problems of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings against people’s deputies of Ukraine, given the regulations of current criminal procedure legislation and the theory of criminal procedure law of Ukraine. It is emphasized that the current legislation of Ukraine, which regulates the activities of the People’s Deputy of Ukraine, is based on the principles of traditional law and bears the imprint of the totalitarian past, so now it can not fully ensure the effectiveness of the institution of inviolability, leading to violations of human rights and freedoms. Criminal proceedings against a People’s Deputy of Ukraine may be carried out only under the condition of the procedural guidance of the Prosecutor General (acting Prosecutor General) or the Deputy Prosecutor General – the head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office and can be initiated only when there is sufficient evidence to indicate signs of a criminal offense, and the adequacy of the data is assessed in each case according to the internal convictions of the investigator. The main condition for the notification of suspicion against people’s deputies is the availability of sufficient evidence. The procedural procedure for summoning an investigator, prosecutor, summons during a pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings against people’s deputies of Ukraine is a set of procedural actions to draw up a summons (another document), send and serve it in the manner prescribed by procedural law, confirm receipt of summons, meet deadlines notification of the person about the call, as well as the procedural consequences of non-appearance on the call. The procedural position of the suspect-People’s Deputy of Ukraine must be considered in accordance with the procedural conditions. The general legal basis for the application of measures to ensure criminal proceedings is the decision of the investigating judge on the basis of an agreed request for their application with the Prosecutor General (acting person of the Prosecutor General). Exceptions are certain measures to ensure criminal proceedings, which can be applied without the decision of the investigating judge. The directions of improvement of the procedural order of decision-making on the beginning of pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses committed by the People’s Deputy of Ukraine on the basis of entering information into the Unified Register of pre-trial investigations, resolving issues of jurisdiction, notification of suspicion, application of criminal proceedings.


Author(s):  
Y. Voitovych

The article considers the peculiarities of the legislative regulation of the institution of judicial control in the criminal process of Ukraine. The authors who paid attention to the research of this institute of criminal procedural legislation, the purpose of the research are determined. In particular, as a result, the definition of judicial control as an independent institution of procedural law has been clarified, taking into account both recent changes in procedural legislation and taking into account current changes. It is pointed out the imperfection of certain terms of the procedural law, which, among other things, affect the content of the institution of judicial control. The inconsistency of the content of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with the principles that preceded its adoption was emphasized. A gap in the procedural law has been identified, which consists in the lack of regulation of the actions of officials of the prosecution in the event of a court decision such as returning the indictment to the prosecutor as not meeting the requirements of the law. A comparative analysis of the criminal procedural norms that regulated the institution of additional investigation during the CPC of the USSR, with the rules that give the court the right to return the indictment to the prosecutor as one that does not meet the requirements of the law. The procedural powers of the investigating judge outside the stage of pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings have been defined, and their inadequacy to restore the constitutional rights of a person, which could potentially be violated, has been criticized. The constitutional prescriptions that define human and civil rights are analyzed, their implementation is assessed in terms of the problem covered; It is concluded that the requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law do not comply with the Constitution of Ukraine, in particular, attention is focused on the possibility of restricting the constitutional rights of a person in the absence of an effective mechanism for their renewal. The conclusion was made on the basis of the analysis of constitutional norms and doctrine of law with regard to the definition of justice. Certain provisions of the law have been criticized, and suggestions for their improvement have been made. As a result, it is proposed to define judicial control as a direct verification by an investigating judge of the legality and validity of decisions, actions or omissions of the prosecution and other state bodies in criminal proceedings.


2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160
Author(s):  
Andrіy Shulha ◽  
◽  
Tetyana Khailova ◽  

The article deals with the problem of specialist’s participation in the scene examination, which is carried out before entering information into the Unified Register of the pre-trial investigations. The essence of the problem is that the current criminal procedural law of Ukraine recognizes the specialist’s participation only in the pre-trial investigation, the litigation and the proceedings in the case of the commission of an unlawful act under the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine states that a specialist in criminal proceedings is a person who has special knowledge and skills and can provide advice and conclusions during the pre-trial investigation and trial on issues that require appropriate special knowledge and skills. In other cases, the specialist has no procedural status. In addition, Part 1 of Article 237 of the CPC of Ukraine «Examination» states that the examination is conducted to identify and record information on the circumstances of the offense commitment. It is an act provided by the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. However, there are the cases in the investigation, when a report is received, for example, about a person's death, other events with formal signs of the offense, which must first be checked for signs of a crime, and only then the act can be considered as offense. In this case, a specialist takes part in the scene examination. However, the current criminal procedure law in accordance with Part 1, Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine determines the legal status of a specialist only as the participant in criminal proceedings. The paragraph 10, part 1 of Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine defines the criminal proceedings as pre-trial investigation and court proceedings or procedural actions in the case of the commission of an unlawful act. Therefore, when the inspection of the scene is based on the uncertain status of the event (there is no clear information that the event contains signs of an offense), the specialist’s participation is not regulated by law. The authors propose to consider the specialists as «experienced persons» in cases mentioned above and to include their advices to the protocol of the scene examination, as the advices of other scene examination participants.


Author(s):  
Ulyana Polyak

The current criminal procedure law of Ukraine stipulates that a witness is obliged to give a true testimony during pre-trial investigation and trial, however, the legislator made an exception for this by specifying the categories of persons who have been granted immunity from immunity, ie they are released by law. testify. The article deals with the problems of law and practice regarding the prohibition of the interrogation of a notary as a witness in criminal proceedings and the release of him from the obligation to keep the notarial secret by the person who entrusted him with the information which is the subject of this secret. The notion of notarial secrecy is proposed to be changed, since the subject of this secrecy is not only information that became known to the notary public from the interested person, but also those information that the notary received from other sources in the performance of their professional duties, as well as the procedural activity of the notary himself, is aimed at achieving a certain legal result. The proposal made in the legal literature to supplement the CPC of Ukraine with the provisions that a notary is subject to interrogation as a witness on information that constitutes a notarial secret, if the notarial acts were declared illegal in accordance with the procedure established by law The proposal to increase the list of persons who are not subject to interrogation as witnesses about the information constituting a notarial secret is substantiated, this clause is proposed to be supplemented by provisions that, apart from the notary, are not notarized, other notarials, notaries as well as the persons mentioned in Part 3 of Art. 8 of the Law of Ukraine "On Notary". Amendments to the current CPC of Ukraine by the amendments proposed in this publication will significantly improve the law prohibiting the interrogation of a notary as a witness in criminal proceedings, as well as improve certain theoretical provisions of the institute of witness immunity in criminal proceedings.


Author(s):  
І. В. Гловюк

Стаття присвячена дослідженню проблемних питань застосування тимчасового вилу­чення майна та арешту майна як заходів забезпечення кримінального провадження із урахуванням наявної судової практики. Указано та обґрунтовано некоректність норма­тивного визначення тимчасового вилучення майна. Відмічено прогальність нормативного визначення арешту майна в аспекті об'єктів, на які може бути накладено арешт. Сфор­мульовано пропозиції щодо внесення змін та доповнень до ч. 1 ст. 167 КПК щодо ви­значення поняття «тимчасове вилучення майна» та ч. 1 ст. 170 КПК щодо осіб, на майно яких може бути накладено арешт.   The article is dedicated to the research of problematic issues of exercise of temporary seizure of property and arrest of property as means for ensuring criminal proceedings considering relevant judicial practices. Author mentioned and justified his point of view regarding incorrectness of the normative definition of seizure. Author also indicated whitespaces of the regulatory definition of arrest of property in the aspect of objects that may be the subject for the arrest. Proposals for amendments and additions to the part 1 of the Art. 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the definition of «temporary seizure of property» and part 1 of the Art. 170 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding the scope of persons whose property may be arrested have been made.


Lex Russica ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 133-141
Author(s):  
Ya. M. Ploshkina ◽  
L. V. Mayorova

The paper considers the second attempt made by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in terms of introducing the concept of criminal misconduct into the Russian criminal and criminal procedure legislation, examines the goals of its introduction. The authors conclude that the introduction of a criminal offense in the draft law No. 1112019-7 will entail the need to review some approaches in Russian law: the legal nature of the crime, the ratio of a criminal offense with a minor act and an administrative offense, the elements of a crime with administrative prejudice, the principle of justice. It seems possible to achieve procedural effectiveness, reduce the burden on judges and protect the rights of victims without introducing a criminal offense within the existing criminal and criminal procedural mechanisms related to exemption from criminal liability and expansion of non-rehabilitating grounds for termination of a criminal case or criminal prosecution. It seems possible to use the already established categorization of crimes in relation to crimes of small and medium gravity. In terms of expanding the grounds for terminating a criminal case or criminal prosecution, it is appropriate to use the experience of the German legislator, which provides for the possibility of terminating criminal prosecution on grounds of expediency when the accused fulfills various duties and regulations assigned to him. In German criminal procedure law, the termination of criminal prosecution on grounds of expediency when assigning duties or prescriptions to the accused is the right of the relevant officials and bodies, and not their obligation, since in fact it is an alternative to criminal prosecution. This will allow it to be terminated at a certain stage in the case when there are all legal grounds for criminal prosecution.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document