Investigative and the Rule of Law: A Cameroonian and Ukrainian Criminal Proceedings Law Understanding

There is no instance in a given society that can successfully opeate and function without respecting existing standards and principles set in place in ensuring the respect of fundamental human right and dignity. The notion and acceptable rule is that, Crime commission is an unavoidable singularity in any given and documented society functioning under the umbrella of established rules and regulations. Cameroon and Ukraine has engaged huge steps in establishing credible laws, all in the preservation and protection of fundamental human right of those presumed of crime commission. This article articulates and establishes that,the only way the rule of law can be respected during the investigative stage, will only when those responsible for investigation respects the due process of the law in the course of its investigation so that their act should not contravene the right of the suspect or accused in question. It provides that when issues of investigation are carried out by Ukraine and Cameroon police, gross violations of the criminal process are always experienced, and this greatly affects the objective of criminal law being that of protecting the right and dignity of everyone irrespective of the status quo acquired during the criminal proceedings.the results of this gross violation of the accuesed rights and status during the investigative stage will affect the rationale and objective of the criminal law system which is to ensure that all criminal process should respect human standard and dignity. The reason for this is that, during the investigative process and procedure, the law enforcement ofiicers must be able in detaching their various duties assigned with due diligent and respect of the various criminal standards of investigation. To ensure that this is done, there is that need of those enforcing the jucial process and trial should that all evidences, searches, seizures, recording done by the investigative police officials should be done in accordance of the free will of the presumed criminal.

Theoretical Aspects of Integrating Special Investigations in the Criminal Process in the Republic of Moldova

This article is devoted to the issue of integrating special investigation activities in the criminal process. The paper comments on the contradictory visions regarding the researched subject. The legal nature of the special investigative measures and the results obtained from them are analysed. The final conclusion is that integrating special investigations into criminal proceedings generates serious problems that undermine respect for the rights and freedoms of participants in criminal proceedings. The issues related to carrying out special investigative measures outside the limits of the criminal investigation and capitalizing on them remain remarkably current.

CONCERNING THE STRUCTURE OF PUBLIC LEGAL INTEREST IN CRIMINAL COURT PROCEEDINGS

В статье анализируется структура публичного законного интереса в уголовном судопроизводстве, входящих в него элементов на примере института домашнего ареста. Авторская модель публичного законного интереса участников уголовного процесса «привязана» к стадийности и может распространяться не только на вопросы, связанные с мерами пресечения. По мнению авторов, публичный законный интерес в контексте рассматриваемой проблемы воплощается в жизнь на основе нормативно установленного действия, содержащего конкретно сформулированные правила, устанавливающие четко определенные права и обязанности участников правоотношений. Данная деятельность сопряжена с определенными этапами (стадиями), которые в той или иной степени характерны соответствующей мере пресечения, и возможна в той стадии, где осуществляется оценка действий, предпринятых должностным лицом, осуществляющим производство по уголовному делу. Реализация публичного законного интереса, заявленного следователем, дознавателем на избрание домашнего ареста, зависит от того, как соответствующие устремления оценят другие должностные лица - руководитель следственного органа, прокурор (не обладающие правами реализации публичного законного интереса), то есть от их усмотрения. Законодатель не предоставляет следователю, дознавателю возможность «непосредственно» обратиться в суд - участнику процесса, наделенному правом реализовать их устремление на избрание меры пресечения. Подобные «преграды» не предусмотрены в законе для иных участников уголовного процесса, не наделенных публичной властью и стремящихся реализовать свой законный интерес. The article analyzes the structure of public legitimate interest in criminal proceedings, its constituent elements on the example of the institution of house arrest. The author's model of the public legitimate interest of participants in the criminal process is «tied» to the stage and can extend not only to issues related to preventive measures. According to the authors, public legitimate interest in the context of the problem under consideration is brought to life on the basis of a normatively established action containing specifically formulated rules establishing clearly defined rights and obligations of participants in legal relations. This activity is associated with certain phases (stages) that are more or less characteristic of the corresponding measure of restraint, and is possible at the stage where the actions taken by the official conducting the criminal proceedings are evaluated. The realization of the public legitimate interest declared by the investigator, the investigating officer for the election of house arrest depends on how the relevant intentions will be evaluated by other officials - the head of the investigative body, the prosecutor (who do not have the rights to realize the public legitimate interest), i.e. on their discretion. The legislator does not give the investigator, the inquirer the opportunity to turn «directly» to the court - a participant in the process, entitled to realize their intentions for the election of measures of restrain. Such «barriers» are not provided in the law for other participants in the criminal process who are not endowed with public authority and who seek to realize their legitimate interest.

PROBLEMIC ISSUES ARISING IN PRACTICE DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A PREVENTIVE MEASURE IN THE FORM OF A PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS

В статье рассматривается ряд проблем, возникающих на стадии назначения и реализации меры пресечения в виде запрета определенных действий. Осуществляется анализ судебной практики и нормативно-правовой базы, регулирующей условия избрания и исполнения меры пресечения в виде запрета определенных действий. Автором статьи приводятся примеры проблемных ситуаций, возникающих в практической деятельности уголовно-исполнительных инспекций, в рамках осуществления контроля за установленными запретами. Проводится обзор противоречий, возникающих при установлении запретов в рамках меры пресечения и уголовных наказаний, не связанных с изоляций от общества, в частности, лишения права заниматься деятельностью, связанной с управлением транспортными средствами, и запретом на управление транспортными средством. Дается характеристика работоспособности системы электронного мониторинга подконтрольных лиц и электронных технических средств надзора и контроля, применяемых к подозреваемым или обвиняемым, в отношении которых назначен запрет определенных действий. В заключение автором статьи выработаны предложения, направленные на нивелирование имеющихся проблем и повышение эффективности меры пресечения в виде запрета определенных действий в уголовном процессе и деятельности уголовно-исполнительных инспекций. The article examines a number of problems that arise at the stage of the appointment and realization of a preventive measure in the form of a prohibition on certain actions. The analysis of judicial practice and the legal and regulatory framework governing the conditions for the election and execution of a preventive extent in the form of prohibition of certain actions is carried out. The author of the article provides examples of problematic situations that arise in the practice of criminal executive inspectorates, as part of the control over the established prohibitions. A review of the contradictions arising in the establishment of prohibitions within the framework of a preventive measure and criminal penalties not related to isolation from society, in particular, the destitution of the right to engage in activities connected to car vehicles and a prohibition on driving vehicles, is reviewed. A characteristic is given, as well as an assessment of the performance of the electronic monitoring system of controlled persons and electronic technical means of supervision and control applied to suspects or accused, in respect of whom certain actions are prohibited. In conclusion, the author of the article developed proposals aimed at leveling the existing problems and increasing the effectiveness of a preventive extent in the form of a prohibition on certain actions in the criminal process and the activities of criminal executive inspections.

On the Effectiveness of the Prosecutors Role in Pre-Trial Proceedings: the Position of the Legislator and the Opinion of the Law Enforcer

The author examines the problems connected with the position of the prosecutor in a criminal process from the standpoint of the effectiveness of the prosecutor’s work. Specifically, using statistical data on the situation with the legality and the quality of preliminary investigations and the results obtained by other Russian scholars who researched this issue, the author shows that the transfer of investigators from the jurisdiction of the prosecutor’s office to a newly created independent Investigation Committee of the Russian Federation, the transfer of the right to the procedural guidance of the investigation from the prosecutor to the head of the investigation body, revoking the prosecutor’s right to coordinate the decision of the investigator, inquirer, or an inquiry body to initiate a criminal case, and in general the right to do it — all of these, in fact, improved the effectiveness of the supervisory function and, consequently, improved the legality and quality of preliminary investigations. At the same time, the author presents his own view on the directions of improving the effectiveness of the role of the prosecutor in the pre-trial proceeding, which should ensure a general sustainable development of Russian criminal procedure legislation.

Reform of the Spanish jury trial

The article discusses the reform of the Spanish jury court in 1995, based on the provisions of the classical jury court of the Anglo-Saxon legal family. The author uses a comparative legal method to identify the features of the adversarial and inquisitorial systems of law, allowing to distinguish between the main models of the criminal process. Comparing the essence of the American jury trial as a representative of the Anglo-Saxon system with its Spanish counterpart, the author comes to the conclusion that the reform didn’t lead to drastic changes, but it only strengthened the investigative nature of the process.

Components of the factual basis to be proved for the decision on state protection of participants in criminal proceedings

The article proposes the author’s scheme for establishing the actual grounds for deciding on the state protection of participants in the criminal process. The content of this scheme consists in transferring the rules of criminal procedure evidence to the procedure under analysis. The authors implement this by supplementing the law of criminal procedure with a group of articles, one of which is devoted to the circumstances to be proved (established) for the application of the procedure of state protection of participants in criminal proceedings. Thus, the work justifies the need to establish the components of the actual basis of state protection by means of criminal procedure evidence.

The institution of suspicion and the initial stage of the criminal process: interrelated prospects of development

The article considers the question of the interdependence of the improvement of the institution of suspicion and the transformation of the initial stage of the Russian criminal process. The article highlights the problem of the legislative limitation of the period of the procedural status of a person as a suspect in the event of a criminal case being initiated not against him, but upon the commission of a crime and insufficient evidence of the involvement/non-involvement of such a person in a criminal offence committed at the initial stage of the investigation, which often does not allow avoiding unreasonable restrictions on the constitutional rights and freedoms of this participant in criminal proceedings. The relevant experience of some post-Soviet states that followed the path of a radical change in the criminal procedure model after the collapse of the USSR is analysed. The article compares the provisions of the criminal procedure legislation of the Russian Federation and the Kyrgyz Republic directly related to the institution of suspicion, including the moment of triggering criminal prosecution and the duration of a suspect’s keeping the specified procedural status. The arguments given in the article substantiate the need to reform the initial moment of the emergence of the procedural status of a suspect in Russian criminal proceedings and the associated expediency of abolishing the stage of initiation of a criminal case in order to increase the guarantee of the rights and legitimate interests of the person introduced into the procedural status we are analysing.

The legal regulation of the preliminary investigation bоdies activities according to UPK Uzbek SSR 1929

At the present stage of development of the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan, many legal institutions that have a long history of doctrinal development have received normative consolidation. Among them is the institution of participants leading the criminal process at the stage of pre-trial investigation. In the history of Uzbekistan, the activities of these subjects of the criminal process were regulated by numerous normative legal acts, including codified ones. The first Criminal Procedure Code of the Uzbek SSR was adopted in 1926. Soon the Uzbek SSR Criminal Procedure Code of 1929 entered into force. In comparative legal terms, the latter was significantly inferior to the previous one in terms of the degree of detail in the regulation of criminal procedural relations with the participation of pre-trial investigation bodies. Analysis of the content of the legal norms of the Criminal Procedure Code of 1929, regulating the activities of these bodies, allows us to identify features that, from the standpoint of the modern vision of the optimal model of the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan, are assessed as shortcomings in the legal regulation of the relevant public relations. As such, we can name the following: the CPC does not contain norms defining the sources of criminal procedural law; the code does not provide for a separate chapter devoted exclusively to investigative actions, a detailed description of their procedural form; there is no clear delineation of the competence of the bodies of inquiry and the investigator; the investigator is by law entrusted with supervisory functions that are not characteristic of him in relation to the bodies of inquiry; the Criminal Procedure Code does not include a norm prohibiting persons conducting a preliminary investigation from obtaining evidence by violence, threats, etc.; The Criminal Procedure Code determined the existence of sufficient data, and not evidence, as the basis for the accusation. After being charged, the person acquired the status of a defendant, not an accused; the application of preventive measures, including detention, was carried out by the investigator independently, without the sanction of the prosecutor, which testified to the absence of guarantees of the observance of the right to personal inviolability.

Legal framework as a means of effective communication between the investigator and the body of inquiry (through the example of internal affairs bodies)

Based on the conducted research the authors concluded that there are regulatory legal acts regulating the issues of interaction between the investigator and the body of inquiry, which in addition to the criminal procedural law include other laws and by-laws, in particular, the federal laws “On operative-investigative activity”, “On the police”, departmental orders and instructions. It is noted that the existing disputes about the legality, procedure, types and subjects of interaction, about the procedural nature and evidential significance of information obtained from interaction, about the methods of its registration demonstrate the imperfection of the current regulatory framework in this area, which prevents its effective enforcement. The article indicates that the gaps in legislation in some of the most significant areas of intervention in the system of the Ministry of Internal Affairs have been filled through regulatory legal acts issued both at the federal level of the department and the level of territorial internal affairs bodies (in the form of orders, decrees, instructions and etc.), which certainly allowed to solve a number of practical problems. The authors of the publication make proposals for improving the legislative regulation of the procedural status of the body of inquiry as a participant in a criminal process.