Prosecutor’s place and role as a procedure supervisor in pretrial investigation management

Abstract

Due to prosecutor’s definition as a key authoritative subject of pretrial investigation the discussion on prosecutor’s procedure supervision of it is taking place. Different scientific schools’ representatives evaluate this activity ambiguously. According to part 2 article 36 CPC of Ukraine prosecutor performing law observance oversight during pretrial investigation in a form of procedure supervision is authorized to start the pretrial investigation, to be accessed to all materials, documents and other information concerning pretrial investigation, to charge pretrial investigation body with conducting of pretrial investigation, to countermand the illegal or ill-founded investigators’ decisions, to make procedural decisions, to inform the person about suspicion, to make the civil complaint, to affirm or not affirm the bill of indictment etc. But prosecutor haven’t to perform the investigator’s functions. Prosecutor either acknowledges the procedural acts of investigator as legal and approve it or doesn’t acknowledge and reject investigator’s applications, recognizes the extent of evidences as sufficient to inform the person about suspicion and regulates further investigation. Investigator in his turn selects tactical methods of crime investigation and receives the prosecutor’s approval on them. Thus a kind of investigator and prosecutor’s tandem is creating to investigate the crime. Simultaneously legislator in CPC of Ukraine has strengthened the judiciary control function on personal rights, freedoms and interests’ adhering in criminal procedure and assign the investigative judge to it. Therefore most procedure acts and decisions during pretrial investigation which are to restrict personal rights, freedoms and interests have to be approved by investigative judge.