Search

Problem setting. The article considers features of the interaction between an investigator as a representative of the prosecution and other various participants of criminal proceedings including a head of investigation unit, prosecutor, investigative judge and others. The topicality of raised questions in the current article is confirmed by the fact that previously the interaction between an investigator and other participants of criminal proceedings in pre-trial investigation was conducted in terms of the former Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine (1960). Recent research and publications analysis. Some of questions regarding the interaction between an investigator and other participants of criminal proceedings in pre-trial investigation were examined by Linovskii V. A, Bandurka A. M., Groshevii Y. M., Larin O. M., Loboika L. M., Pogoretskii M. A., Tatarov O. Y., Sheiffer S. A., Golovko L. V., Baulin O. V., Zelenetskii V. S., Yukhno A. A. and others. Paper objective. The main aim of the article is a research of features of the interaction in current circumstances between an investigator and other participants of criminal proceedings including the head of investigation unit. It concerns as well the research of different scientific views regarding the matter and various ideas about improvement of principal norms in the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine and other legal acts that regulate the above-mentioned interaction. Paper main body. During the pre-trial investigation the essential question is the interaction between an investigator and a prosecutor who conducts an oversight in criminal proceedings. The current Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine greatly expanded the full powers of the prosecutor to oversee the compliance of laws during a pre-trial investigation. Only the prosecutor should conduct a procedural supervision in a pre-trial investigation. We believe this procedural possibility limits an investigation independency. The interaction between an investigator and court during the pre-trial investigation reflects in judicial control over the investigation activity. An investigative judge takes almost all essential decisions in the pre-trial investigation. We believe such procedural and judicial control during the pre-trial investigation is excessive, and legally, undercover investigative (detective) actions could be controlled by the prosecutor. It has been always discussed the question of the interaction between an investigator and various detective units. The matter is still unsolved. We believe consideration should be given either to allow detectives to conduct independently undercover investigative (detective) actions or request their conducting to an investigative judge or prosecutor. Conclusions. Besides that, consideration should also be given to research the interaction between an investigator and an expert (specialist). We believe that the criminal responsibility for providing false statement and an intentional obstruction of identifying the truth in criminal proceedings should also be reflected in the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine.

In the Peruvian practice of international law, the universe of international agreements is not reduced merely to treaties. In that context, this article seeks to examine the international instrument par excellence that is celebrated between public entities of at least two States. Such accord, within the framework of Peruvian legislation, is called «interinstitutional agreement». First, this paper will study the main characteristics of this kind of agreement with the purpose of identifying its legal nature. Subsequently, it will examine some of the main challenges the use of an interinstitutional agreement faces: (1) the difficulty of classifying an interinstitutional agreement as a legal norm within the Peruvian system of law sources; (2) the possible confusion with other international instruments, such as twinning arrangements (a kind of interinstitutional agreement), memoranda of understanding or collaboration agreements; (3) the possible consequences than an interinstitutional agreement infers in regard to the commission of an international illicit act in the sphere of the international responsibility of the State. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little research has been conducted into the way delegations prepare for, and then participate in, plenary meetings under multi-lateral environmental agreements – a key administrative stage in the on-going development of international environmental regimes and law. Using the 1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance as the main example, this paper explores the external rules that shape the 'internal modalities' of states and their delegations as they undertake these stages. Other insights into delegate preparation and participation are sought from published accounts and internet based resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]