Basic principles of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-122 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ihor Rohatiuk

Principles have always been the cornerstones of criminal proceedings’ legal regulation affecting all participants of criminal process. Taking into account the accelerated pace of current law enforcement reforming it is necessary to mention the prosecution institute and key role of criminal proceedings’ principles presenting scientific background for further empirical findings. The majority of these principles defines the priority growth directions of criminal process as well as creates friendly environment for behavioral aspects of criminal proceeding parties. This article provides comparative analysis of the existing criminal procedural principles of the prosecutor’s role in the criminal proceedings with specification of the legality principle as a requirement for all subjects of the criminal proceedings, including the prosecutor, to use the norms and provisions of legal acts correctly, to comply it consistently and perform accurately, explores the historical origins of these principles and their determinants’ origin starting from the times of Kievan Rus and its unique judicial system and proves that the adversarial principle is closely connected with dispositivity of prosecutor’s participation in criminal proceeding. An emphasis is placed on correlation between the ‘principles’ and ‘foundations’ terms examined by Ukrainian and Soviet scholars and its application in relation to the newly adopted Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Viacheslav V Vapniarchuk ◽  
Inna L Bespalko ◽  
Maryna G Motoryhina

Abstract The urgency of the problem stated in the article is conditioned by amendments to the criminal procedural legislation, which in a new way regulate the procedure of criminal proceedings concerning criminal offences. The aim of the article is to investigate the procedure for conducting criminal proceedings for criminal offences and to make suggestions for improving its regulatory framework. The basic approach to the study of this problem was to conduct a critical analysis of the rules of the current criminal procedural legislation, which regulate criminal proceedings for criminal offences, and to express views on rules’ proper understanding and application. Based on the analysis of the features of the normative regulation of criminal proceedings concerning criminal offences, the publication comments on a number of norms of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which regulate both pre-trial investigation of criminal offences in the form of enquiries and court proceedings against them; approaches to their elimination have been proposed. The materials of the article represent both theoretical and practical values. They can be used for further scientific investigation of the features of criminal proceedings regarding criminal offences, as well as for the proper understanding and implementation of law enforcement criminal proceedings.



2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 133-142
Author(s):  
Iryna Sukhachova ◽  

The article is devoted to one of the effective means of obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings – temporary access to things and documents, the legal regulation of which is defined in Chapter 15 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Attention is drawn to a number of problematic issues related to the prosecutor's use of temporary access to things and documents in the exercise of the function of prosecution, the presence of which does not ensure the effectiveness of criminal procedural evidence and the effectiveness of this institution in criminal proceedings. According to the results of the study, the author concludes that the use of temporary units to temporarily access things and documents on the basis of a prosecutor's order makes it impossible to recognize the results of such action as evidence in criminal proceedings, as they do not meet the admissibility requirement. Prosecutorial oversight in criminal proceedings should not only ensure the inevitability of criminal punishment, but also ensure proper respect for human rights in criminal proceedings, respect for the individual, treatment as a person whose guilt has not yet been proven, and ensure impartiality and objectivity of the pre-trial investigation. Based on the results of the analysis of the decisions made by the investigating judge based on the results of consideration of the petitions, the author identified the grounds for the prosecutor's refusal to satisfy these petitions by the investigating judges. It is proposed to expand the procedural powers of the prosecutor as a subject of criminal procedural evidence, giving him the right to instruct operational units to conduct not only investigative (investigative) and covert investigative (investigative) actions, but also other procedural actions. Thus, taking into account the results of the analysis of scientific literature and materials of law enforcement practice, we can conclude that it is necessary to expand the procedural powers of the prosecutor as a subject of criminal procedural evidence by stating paragraph 5 Рart 2 of Art. 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the following wording: «to instruct the investigative (search) actions and covert investigative (search) actions or other procedural actions to the relevant operational units», as well as the need to supplement Part 1 of Art. 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine by the authority of operational units to carry out other procedural actions on behalf of the prosecutor.



Author(s):  
V. Stratonov

The basis of the legal and judicial reform that is being carried out in Ukraine is the reform of the judicial system. At the same time, the purpose and activities of other law enforcement agencies are changing. In this regard, the legislator improves the activities and increases the role of the pre-trial investigation bodies, the prosecutor, the court, and especially the investigating judge in criminal proceedings, including expanding their powers and influence on the rights and freedoms of participants in criminal proceedings. Since there is no separate article of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, which would indicate the powers (rights and obligations) of the investigating judge, we summarize the powers of the investigating judge, which are “scattered” throughout the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and actualize the problems of both theoretical and practical directions.



2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 386-393
Author(s):  
Kirill Naumov

The relevance of the problem covered is explained by the essence of goal-setting of any activity, which determines its final result and procedural structure. The direction of actions of state bodies in responding to crimes depends on it, as well as the arsenal of means provided for this to the law enforcement officer. The Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation does not have a norm directly formulating the goal and objectives of criminal judicial proceedings. The legislator has applied such a non-standard category as “purpose”, which replaced the customary provisions that existed for more than 40 years on the tasks of criminal proceedings, enshrined in the previously existing code. Since the procedural law does not name the goals and objectives of the criminal process, the analysis of the target settings of modern criminal justice, the essence of the categories “purpose”, “goal”, “task”, their correlation and meaning is of particular importance. The Author analyzes the points of view of the processors of the pre-revolutionary and modern periods. The conclusion about the differentiation of the given concepts is made. Unlike the views of most scholars, the Author believes that purpose and goal are identical concepts, since they determine the final result of procedural activities. The goal is seen as the end result of the activity, and the task is determined by the goal and is considered as the result of its separate stage. Therefore, the Author conditionally correlates these categories as general (goal) and particular (task). There can be many tasks, and they are subject to changes under certain conditions, and the goal is always the same. The goal of any criminal process is determined by the need to streamline the dispute between the parties arising from the crime committed. The absence of clearly formulated elements of goal-setting prevents the assessment of the effectiveness of activities to resolve a criminal-legal conflict. The flaws in the legal structure of teleological norms of the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation are noted. On the basis of a comparison of the views of procedural scholars, analysis of regulatory legal acts, the author came to the conclusion that the result of the criminal process should be the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of individuals, organizations, society and the state from criminal encroachments; protection of the individual from illegal and unjustified accusations, convictions, restrictions on his rights and freedoms. The tasks, despite their uncertainty from the point of view of legal regulation, constitute an established formula: quick and complete disclosure of a crime, the appointment of a just punishment to the guilty, education and prevention. The Author believes that the current structure of norms on the appointment of criminal proceedings does not reflect the absolute need to protect the interests of society and the state, and also does not define specific tasks as a guideline for the law enforcement officer to fulfill them in each criminal case in order to achieve this goal. Therefore, we propose our own legal structure of the norm on the tasks of legal proceedings, complementing the current provisions.



It is established that today many problems arise in the activities of the pre-trial investigation bodies, their legal status, probity and other important issues specified in the legislation are not always clearly and consistently. It is noted that there are various problems with the implementation of investigators of his powers, there are complications with the understanding of his independence. It was argued that it is important to identify and analyze the problems that arise in the work of the pre-trial investigation bodies, the problems of implementing the legal status of the investigator, including by comparative analysis of the regulation of these issues in the 1960 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, 2012 , as well as expressing their own position on the reform of these bodies. It has been established that the comparative analysis of the current criminal procedural legislation with the 1960 law also suggests the procedural functions that can act as a certain link between the tasks and the legal status of the participant in the process, since they determine the procedural status of the investigator, his rights and duties , which are specified in separate criminal procedural institutes and procedural norms. It is noted that the knowledge of the system of procedural functions of the investigator as the main directions of his activity allows the most fully to determine the role of the investigator in the execution of the criminal proceedings, to correctly understand and apply each legal institution and each legal regulation regulating its activities. As future state representatives, investigators have legally established procedural powers that are both for them and for rights (as they allow for procedural actions and procedural decisions), and duties (due to the inappropriate or untimely use of their rights may be an offense if there is no evidence of a crime). It has been argued that within the criminal process there were significant procedural transformations related to the change of the law, some of which were rather substantial, but not always consistent and such that increased the efficiency of the functioning of state authorities aimed at bringing individuals to legal liability.



Issues of Law ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 89-93
Author(s):  
S.M. Darovskikh ◽  
◽  
Z.V Makarova ◽  

The article is devoted to the issues of formulating the definition of such a criminal procedural concept as «procedural costs». Emphasizing the importance both for science and for law enforcement of clarity and clarity when formulating the definition of criminal procedural concepts, the authors point out that the formulation of this concept present in the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is far from being improved. Having studied the opinions on this issue of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, a number of procedural scholars, the authors propose their own version of the definition of the concept of «criminal procedural costs» with its allocation in a separate paragraph of Article 5 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.



Author(s):  
Tatyana Plotnikova ◽  
Andrey Paramonov

In the current difficult conditions for the economy of our state, corruption crimes represent a higher level of danger. It is necessary to reform anti-corruption activities in order to increase its effectiveness. One of the radical measures in the field of anti-corruption will be the abolition of the presumption of innocence for corrupt illegal acts. The presumption of inno-cence is a fundamental and irremovable principle of criminal law, which is enshrined in article 14 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Violation of this principle is impossible for criminal proceedings, but modern circumstances require timely, prompt, and sometimes radical so-lutions. It is worth not to neglect the measures of “insuring” on the part of law enforcement agencies, since otherwise it will increase the share of cor-ruption crimes in law enforcement agencies. The content of paragraph 4 of article 14 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation is man-datory even if the presumption of innocence for corruption crimes is can-celed: “A conviction cannot be based on assumptions”. At the same time, the principle of differentiation of punishment will be implemented by assigning the term of imprisonment from the minimum to the maximum, depending on the severity of the illegal act.



2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 147-150
Author(s):  
Iryna Hloviuk ◽  

Current period of development of the legal system of Ukraine is characterized by variability of legislation that regulates, in particular, organization of judicial system and implementation of criminal proceedings. Unfortunately, criminal procedure legislation is no exception, given how many changes and additions have been made to the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine since its entry into force in 2020. Undoubtedly, like any other codified legal act, CPC of Ukraine in modern conditions cannot be unchanged, given the dynamics of public relations, the provisions of international law, decisions of ECtHR and number of attempts to solve identified problems of its application. Difficulties of criminal procedural law enforcement are manifested in such an area as the use of discretion of authorities in criminal proceedings, although without it application of legislation is ineffective. At the same time, lawful discretion in criminal proceedings should not turn into its opposite � arbitrariness, which will already violate rights and legitimate interests of individuals and legal entities. In criminal proceedings, given the imperative method of legal regulation and possibility of various coercive measures, including those related to the restriction of constitutional human rights, this issue is of particular importance, given, inter alia, that prosecution�s discretion applies within non-adversarial procedure, and the CPC of Ukraine does not always provide for the possibility of appealing such decisions in court. The peer-reviewed monograph consists of four chapters, which contain 10 sections. Structuring of the monograph is logical; the author analyse problems of discretion from questions of concept, signs and limits of discretion, and then moves to the characteristic of realization of discretion by judge, prosecutor, investigator, detective. In general, without a doubt, the monograph of Torbas O. O. �Discretion in the criminal process of Ukraine: theoretical justification and practice of implementation� is relevant, complete and fundamental scientific work, has scientific and practical value. Monograph of Torbas O.O. significantly enriches criminal procedure doctrine regarding the subjects of criminal proceedings, criminal procedure decisions and other areas.



2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 96-105

Investigation of crimes against justice in Ukraine is among topical problems of miscarriage of justice. Hundreds of criminal cases are recorded as a crime in the Official Register in Ukraine but only a few have been brought to the court. In this article we try to approach this problem in three ways: from the point of view of criminal law, criminal procedure and criminalistic measures of counteraction to miscarriage of justice. Such an approach helps to demonstrate problems of investigator, prosecutor and judge at different stages of criminal proceeding. Special attention is paid to specific regulation of the issues of criminal proceedings against a certain category of persons, including judges. Mistakes of representatives of law enforcement bodies become visible as a result of analyzing of real criminal cases. Such an analysis is aimed to disclose the problem of counteraction to miscarriage of justice in Ukraine.



2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 52-60
Author(s):  
Tri Budi Haryoko

This writing aims to discuss the implementation of the duties and functions of  management of confiscated objects and booty of the state in the Class I Semarang  Sitemap Storage House. One of the core business of the implementation of the  RUPBASAN duties and functions is the function of saving the confiscated objects of the  state that have been mandated in. This paper will see if there is a gap gap when the  function of rescuing confiscated objects mandated by Law No. 8 of 1981 concerning the  Book of Law on Criminal Procedure (KUHAP) and Government Regulation Number 27 of  1983 concerning the Implementation of the Criminal Procedure Code can work well with  support and commitment. related law enforcement officials. It was also explained that  the storage of confiscated objects and booty of the State in the RUPBASAN aims to  guarantee the protection of the safety and security of confiscated objects for the  purposes of evidence at the level of investigation, prosecution, and examination in court  as well as objects which are otherwise confiscated for the state based on court decisions  which has permanent legal force.This paper uses a qualitative approach. The results of  the discussion indicate that the implementation of confiscated objects in RUPBASAN is in  accordance with the KUHAP mandate. But in its implementation these tasks and  functions have not been optimally supported both from internal institutions and related  law enforcement institutions. 



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document