AUTHORITY OF THE PROSECUTOR TO CONDUCT PROCEDURAL ACTIONS IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS: SEPARATE PROBLEMS

Abstract

The purpose of this publication is to convince the opponents that, performing the function of procedural management, the prosecutor, among other things, has the right to take a personal part in the investigation, because he is responsible for its results. And when there is a situation of possible loss of evidence, destruction of their sources, etc. due to delay in time, the initiative of the prosecutor is obvious and logical, which results in his implementation of relevant procedural actions within the limits of the powers granted to him. In order to achieve the stated goal and obtain appropriate results, the following set of methods was used: formal-logical, analysis and synthesis, sampling, comparative-legal, forecasting. The results of such activities are: 1) clarified that it is possible to give a thorough answer to the dilemma declared in the title only if we take into account those legislative provisions, court positions, and interpretations, as well as the author’s thoughts and conceptual understandings, which allow us to formulate the conviction that it is quite natural and logical, that the prosecutor, who is the procedural manager under the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, has broad powers to conduct individual procedural actions in criminal proceedings and the entire investigation as a whole; 2) it has been established that entering information into the EDPR allows the prosecutor to carry out his procedural activities within the first stage of criminal proceedings - the pre-trial investigation; 3) it has been proven that by carrying out all the actions provided for in part 2 of Article 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and exercising other powers determined for him by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the prosecutor, regardless of the place of the prosecutor’s office in the system of the prosecutor’s office of Ukraine or the administrative position held by the prosecutor in the prosecutor’s office, implementing procedural management of the pre-trial investigation, a priori does not go beyond the powers granted to him. Conclusions: The applied formal-logical method managed to generalize that the already mentioned procedural activity of the prosecutor simultaneously serves to fulfill and pursues the fulfillment of the tasks of criminal proceedings. And precisely based on the results of the above analysis and synthesis, the applied sample succeeded in formulating the conclusions that, when carrying out certain procedural actions after entering information into the Public Prosecutor’s Office, in cases where the prosecutor is the proper subject for them, talk about certain errors in the evidence formed by him base, only on the basis of an improper subject, is not proved.