Search

The article examines the topical issues surrounding the principle of justice in the context of the practical work of investigators and interrogators. The analysis is conducted through a comprehensive and in-depth study of the term “justice” and its origins and evolution. The article presents various perspectives from prominent theorists and practitioners across different scientific disciplines, such as philosophy, sociology, psychology, etc. The authors draw parallels with existing criminal and criminal procedure legislation, systematically assessing their relevance to the concept of justice through a philosophical and legal analysis of legal norms. This approach enables specific conclusions to be drawn based on an extensive and monumental study of the works of various scholars. The paper delves into the perspectives of participants in pre-trial proceedings and the viewpoints of law enforcement officials to construct a more precise understanding of the theses presented in the article.

Economic human rights are essential components of democratic societies, enabling individuals to engage in economic activities, own property and exercise entrepreneurship without undue interference. This article examines the role of representative bodies in protecting these rights, with a particular focus on the European standards set by the Council of Europe and the principle of bona fide. The purpose is to offer a comprehensive understanding of how these rights are protected and promoted, especially in the context of ongoing legal and policy reforms in Ukraine. The methodology involves a detailed analysis of the relevant legal texts and standards, both Ukrainian legislation and the Council of Europe legal framework. This approach allows for a critical analysis of the principles underpinning the protection of economic human rights and provides insights into best practices that Ukraine can adopt. The study emphasises that the protection of economic rights is not only a matter of compliance with the law, but also a moral imperative that requires honesty, transparency and integrity in governance. Representative bodies, such as the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, play a crucial role in this process by adopting and enforcing laws that protect economic freedoms and guarantee fair practices. Particular emphasis is placed on the principle of good faith, which requires all actors, including the state, to act in good faith and honesty to foster an atmosphere of trust and accountability. This principle extends to the enforcement and remediation of economic rights violations, requiring a transparent and fair response to violations and adequate remedies for those affected. In conclusion, bringing Ukraine's practices in line with European standards strengthens the protection of economic rights and promotes deeper integration into the European context. By adhering to the principle of good faith, Ukraine can strengthen its legal and economic systems, thereby contributing to the welfare and development of its citizens and society as a whole. This commitment is not only in line with European norms, but also lays the foundation for sustainable and equitable economic growth.

Copyright of Ruch Prawniczy, Ekonomiczny i Socjologiczny (0035-9629) is the property of Adam Mickiewicz University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article aims to present selected issues related to the participation of an attorney-at-law in pretrial proceedings in criminal cases as a defense counsel of choice (excluding offense cases, fiscal offenses and fiscal crimes), taking into account the relevant rights and obligations of attorneys-atlaw in connection with the provision of legal assistance set by the regulations of the Act on Attorneys-at-Law, the Polish Code of Criminal Procedure, as well as rules of professional deontology, particularly the Code of Ethics for Attorneys-at-Law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The purpose of the article is to study the procedural possibilities of a request and permission to change the remand in custody to a more lenient preventive measure during pre-trial criminal proceedings. The article uses the methods of system analysis, synthesis, analogy and generalization. The author concludes that a direct appeal to the court with a request to mitigate the preventive measure in the form of detention at the preliminary investigation stage within the meaning of the criminal procedure law by the participants in criminal proceedings on the part of the defense is possible at the time when the court considers the investigator's request to extend the period of detention or to change the preventive measure, or at any time during criminal proceedings in the case of a bail application. When the request for changing the preventive measure is received during the preliminary investigation from the participants in the criminal proceedings on the part of the defense during the period between court sessions on the extension of the preventive measure, the court must assess its content. If there is no evidence of a change in the grounds for changing the preventive measure in the form of detention to a more lenient one, the court shall refuse to accept the request for consideration. If the circumstances indicated in the request show a change in the grounds for applying the preventive measure, the court must adopt it and consider it under the adversarial conditions with the participation of the parties in the order of Article 108 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. In the event of refusal to satisfy the request, a repeated request on the same ground is not permitted.

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The purpose of the article is to study the legal essence of restricting the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings in criminal procedure, the specific goals of their restriction, the list of rights that may be subject to restriction, grounds, criteria, conditions, as well as limits of restriction. The article uses methods of system analysis, synthesis and generalization. Results: the author concludes that the system of restricting the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings in criminal cases includes: objectives, grounds, conditions, criteria and limits of restriction; the powers of officials provided for by the criminal procedure law to restrict the rights of participants in proceedings; procedural rights of participants in criminal proceedings, the exercise of which is aimed at ensuring that coercive measures are not applied to them; procedure and terms for restricting the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings, which vary depending on which right is subject to restriction; control over the restriction on the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings (procedural control, prosecutorial supervision, judicial control). The specific purpose of restricting rights in pre-trial proceedings is to ensure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings. The limits of restriction on the rights of participants in pre-trial proceedings are determined by the specific purpose of legal restriction, the nature and specificity of the investigative or procedural action, in the exercise of which the rights are restricted by the discretion of the official, who decides on the specific restriction, which is formed on the assessment of the actual situation, the characteristics of the person whose rights are subject to restriction. Any restrictions on rights are exercised only on the basis of a procedural decision by an official (inquirer, investigator, court) in accordance with the law and if there are grounds for it. The most significant restrictions on the rights of participants in criminal proceedings are permitted only by a judicial decision.

Introduction: the article analyzes provisions of the Criminal Procedural Code of the Russian Federation and its impact on the implementation of key legal institutions designed to ensure respect for the rights and legitimate interests of criminal proceedings participants by law enforcement and judicial authorities. Purpose: having studied effectiveness of the amendments made in the CPC and conducted statistical analysis of the results of criminal cases investigation, the author presents shortcomings in the legislation identified by the scientific community and law enforcement practice and proposes measures to improve both certain legal norms of the CPC RF and its procedural institutions in order to ensure constitutional provisions on the state protection of human and civil rights and freedoms. Methods: the researcher used historical, comparative legal and empirical methods for describing quality and legality issues in the investigation of criminal cases; theoretical methods of formal and dialectical logic. Private scientific and legal technical methods, as well as the method for interpreting specific legal norms were applied. Results: the analysis of development of Russian and foreign criminal procedural legislation and law enforcement practice objectively indicates that the absolute majority of the amendments made to the Code contributed to enhancing performance of pre-trial investigation or initial inquiry bodies in implementing the provisions of Article 6 of the CPC. It stipulates protection of the rights and lawful interests of the persons and organizations, who (which) have suffered from the crimes, as well as their protection from unlawful accusations and conviction, and other restrictions of their rights and freedoms. Betterment of the criminal procedural legislation is also aimed at overcoming formalization of its individual provisions and bureaucratization of actions of the inquirer, investigator, prosecutor’s office and judicial community in the investigation and trial of criminal cases. Conclusions: to adapt the modern Russian criminal process to modern realities (new types of crimes and methods of their commission, increased requirements for ensuring legality in activities of pre-trial investigation bodies, their compliance with procedural deadlines in criminal cases and improving investigation quality) it is necessary to make changes in pre-trial proceedings, in particular, to reorganize procedural rules for commencement of criminal proceedings; bringing investigation terms into line with the provisions of Article 61 of the CPC on a reasonable period of criminal proceedings; differentiating investigation forms, etc. All this is focused on improving effectiveness of the fight against crime and its most dangerous types.

Copyright of Justicia (0124-7441) is the property of Universidad Simon Bolivar and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: the article considers problematic issues related to the participation of penal system officials in procedural activities to verify reports of crimes committed by convicted persons, accused persons, and suspects in correctional institutions, and puts forward proposals aimed at improving the effectiveness of these activities. Our arguments are directly related to the following: determining the moment from which the calculation of the terms of such an inspection should begin, assessing the expediency of such an inspection, actual content of the procedural actions it contains and participation of the defender in them. Aim: to analyze the stages of participation of officials of bodies and institutions of the penal system in procedural activities to verify reports of crimes committed by convicted persons, accused persons, and suspects in places of imprisonment, in order to classify the problems of implementing this process and identify ways to solve them. Methods: we use complex analysis to make a classification of the problems of responding to various violations of criminal law prohibitions on the part of persons sentenced to imprisonment, as well as suspects and accused persons in custody. Results: in the course of the analysis, we identified the following groups of problems: 1) problems related to the reasons for initiating a criminal case; 2) problems related to the verification of reports of prison offences; 3) problems related to the adoption of final procedural decisions and the provision of qualified legal assistance to convicted persons in the implementation of verification actions. Taking into account the specifics of the problems, we propose the ways to solve them. Conclusions: we convincingly show that the timely and professional response of officials of correctional institutions (including pretrial detention centers) to various violations of criminal law prohibitions on the part of those sentenced to imprisonment, as well as suspects and accused persons held in custody, is mandatory and has a number of specific features due, first of all, to the environment in which such a response is carried out.

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background. Violations of the law by the preliminary investigation bodies are detected by the prosecutor when he conducts inspections of the implementation of the law, which are the main form of supervision by the prosecutor at the pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings. The result of such checks, as a rule, is the adoption by the prosecutor of a cer-tain decision, which is commonly referred to as acts of prosecutorial response. However, the legislator has not clearly defined a list of acts of prosecutorial response to detected vio-lations of criminal procedure legislation. The purpose of the work is based on the analysis of the current legislation and the practice of its application to consider the measures of prosecutorial response used in pre-trial criminal proceedings, as well as to make proposals for improving legislative regulation. Materials and methods. The article used normative legal acts and scientific works on the problem under study, official statistical data on the number of offenses at the pre-trial stages of the criminal process. The methodological basis was the universal dialectical method of cognition. Also, during the preparation of the artic-le, the following methods were implemented: logical, formal-legal, statistical, and the study of practice. Results. The analysis of official statistical indicators on the activities of the prosecutorʼs office has been carried out, the features of the acts of the prosecutorʼs response issued following the results of the prosecutorʼs checks on detected violations of the law by the preliminary investigation bodies have been studied. Conclusions. Based on the results obtained, proposals have been made aimed at improving the efficiency of the activities of the prosecutorʼs office and the preliminary investigation bodies in this area.

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.

The article discusses the problems associated with a possible change in the institution of judicial control in criminal pre-trial proceedings. A comparative legal study of foreign criminal procedure legislation was carried out, where over the past ten years there have been significant changes in the control function of the court by introducing a new participant in the criminal process the investigating judge. A review of the position of process scholars on the issue of introducing an investigative judge into the Russian criminal process is carried out, and both positive and negative aspects of the concept are evaluated. The author analyzes the positive and negative assessments of the developed concept of “Return of the institution of investigative judges in the Russian criminal process”. An intermediate conclusion is made that the appearance of an investigative judge in the domestic criminal process will entail significant changes in legal relations arising between subjects of pre-trial proceedings and will generally change the modern concept of judicial control.

Paper looks controversial aspects of prosecutorial supervision of criminal procedure and operatively-search activity, analyzes the major issues concerning the powers of the prosecutor in these activities, explores the negative effects on introduced in 2007, amendments to the legislation to reform the forms and methods of prosecutor’s supervision over pre-trial proceedings. Finally, it makes recommendations to address the issues raised in the article.

Introduction. The article considers the requirements for conducting investigative (search) actions in criminal proceedings, which include the definition of theoretical provisions, which can be described as follows: the conditions for conducting investigative (search) actions include the presence of a participant in the process who has procedural powers to conduct criminal proceedings against the suspect at the stage of pre-trial investigation; procedural grounds for conducting investigative (search) actions that indicate a suspect who has committed a criminal offense; venue under the current CPC of Ukraine; the procedure for conducting pre-trial proceedings on the basis of reasonable terms of pre-trial investigation, which includes drawing up and executing a resolution on conducting procedural, investigative (search) action, procedural form of recording the results of conducting investigative (search) action with a protocol; determination of procedural rights and responsibilities of participants in the investigative (search) action; cognitive techniques and methods of investigative (search) actions; guarantees of participation of the parties, participants of criminal proceedings during establishment of circumstances of a criminal offense. Summary of the main research results. It is proposed to define the concept of the criminal process of Ukraine as its construction based on institutions, which determine the application of the rules governing the substantive provisions of the procedure and procedural consolidation of the fact of a criminal offense. Conclusions. The author's definition of the mechanism of conducting investigative (search) actions in criminal proceedings is given as factual and legal grounds for applying the procedure of conducting investigative actions in dynamics, combined with the requirements of criminal procedure legislation and recommendations of forensic tactics. Ways to improve the current legislation of Ukraine are proposed.

Introduction. Security must be ensured in various spheres of socially significant activity. As criminal proceedings are one of the most important activities of the state, the issue of ensuring the safety of participants in criminal proceedings becomes particularly relevant. The term "security of participants in criminal proceedings" is not an abstract concept, as security must be provided to specific persons involved in criminal proceedings, and if there are real grounds for doing so. Summary of the main research results. The need to ensure the safety of participants in criminal proceedings in Ukraine arose not so long ago as some other criminal procedural institutions (for example, the Institute for the Protection of Suspects and Accused). Many procedural scholars have dealt with this issue. It is proposed to expand the provisions on ensuring the safety of a person harmed by a crime and to specify that such security should be provided to a natural person who has suffered from a crime, regardless of his status as a victim, and to a representative of a legal entity in case of property damage. reputation of this legal entity. Conclusions. It should be noted that the vast majority of proposals developed and substantiated by criminal procedure science were requested by the legislator to form a system of security measures enshrined in the CPC of Ukraine. At the same time, a large number of issues related to the establishment of criminal security measures remain unresolved to this day. Ways to improve the current legislation of Ukraine are suggested.

Copyright of Cuestiones Políticas is the property of Revista Cuestiones Politicas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Croatian Annual of Criminal Sciences & Practice / Hrvatski Ljetopis za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu is the property of Hrvatsko Udruzenje za Kaznene Znanosti i Praksu and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article investigates the characteristics and forms of cooperation between criminal investigation officers* and forensic laboratory specialists in pre-trial proceedings, as well as practical problems in such cooperation. Recently there have been a number of particularly heated debates about the relationship between determining a person possessing special knowledge and his/her status in pre-trial proceedings. Other discussed aspects include cooperation between entities involved in pre-trial proceedings in international contexts. A less intensive (albeit equally important) discussion relates to the form and characteristics of cooperation between criminal investigation officers on the one hand and specialists and experts on the other in investigating criminal acts. Bearing in mind the high practical importance and the existing differences in scholarly approaches to these issues, the current study concentrates on the forms and content of cooperation between law enforcement officers and specialists (experts) from forensic laboratories, as well as on problems resulting from such cooperation and directions for improvement. The first part of the article presents selected views on the definition of a person possessing special knowledge currently used in Lithuania** and in a number of other states. In the authors’ opinion, unification (harmonization) of various notions (definitions), terms and statuses of an expert, a specialist and special knowledge should be one of the objectives in implementing the vision of the joint European forensic science area 2020. Achieving this objective requires a comprehensive analysis of standards in law and management in using special knowledge of each state***. The second part, supported by empirical study results, discusses practical problems of cooperation between a law enforcement officer and a specialist (expert), analyzes three basic forms of their cooperation and presents the content of those forms: activities at the crime scene, cooperation of the two entities in commissioning tests, preparing test materials and actual performance of such tests, and finally participation of a specialist in other pre-trial activities. This part of the paper also proposes methods of improving the efficiency of such cooperation. The third part is based on an evaluation of the study results and presents the authors’ observations regarding the tendency of improving the efficiency of cooperation between law enforcement officers and specialists (experts).

The article notes that in the post-Soviet doctrine a conceptual methodological hypothesis starts to be formed on the need for restructuring of criminal procedure by taking the subsystem of pre-trial proceedings out of the general structure of criminal proceedings (criminal procedure). It is noted that in practical terms, this statement should lead to a differentiated legal regulation of two legal phenomena: 1) deformalized administrative and police detective activities aimed at preparing a criminal action which are made under judicial control in the form of the police inquiry; 2) activities of the court aimed at considering the legal claims of the prosecution as a criminal plaintiff which are made within the framework of due process (article 2 of the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine, CPC of Ukraine). If we accept this scientific hypothesis, then the police version-generating (drafting and cognitive) and substantiating activities may be qualified as preparatory activities (preparatory proceedings) of the prosecution which precede the proving in court of its categorical assertion about the presence of appropriate physical and procedural grounds for a criminal action (parts 1, 2, article 17 CPC of Ukraine). Therefore, the author suggests that the phenomenon of criminal procedure should be considered as an exclusive attribute of the judiciary, since "the procedure is available only where there is a prosecution and a court". The purpose of the article is an attempt to problematize (to question) this generally accepted and time-honored doctrinal status quo, and accordingly, to offer new visions of the phenomena of proof and proving in criminal procedure. The author believes that the concept of "proving" in court procedure can be defined as a special legal concept denoting a kind of argumentative thinking activity by the prosecution in court aimed at defending its legal position in merito. The article investigates the issue of the normative structure of the prosecution's activity with the aim of proving in court, and it is comprised by such elements as "object", "purpose", "source material", "method", "actor", "means", "product". It is emphasized that the represented functional structure of the prosecution's activity of proving in court is implemented in its procedure which may be split into the preparatory, main and final stages. According to the author, the preparatory stage of proving consists of the following elements: 1) announcement of the indictment by the prosecutor; 2) obtaining of the prosecutor's "clarifications" concerning the indictment; 3) finding out of the defense attorney's position concerning the indictment; 4) finding out of the defendant's attitude towards the charge brought against him/her; 5) finding out of the defense attorney's position concerning acceptability of the legal formula of the defendant's speech. The main stage of proving in court consists of the following elements: 1) introductory speech by the prosecutor; 2) submission to court of the list of evidence materials of the prosecution; 3) finding out of the defense attorney's position concerning the evidence offered by the prosecution; 4) examination of evidence submitted by the prosecution; 5) opening speech by the defense attorney; 6) submission to court of the list of evidence for the defense; 7) finding out of the prosecution's position concerning the evidence offered by the defense; 8) examination of evidence submitted by the defense; 9) interrogation of the defendant. The final stage of proving in court consists of closing speeches by the parties. The author concludes that since the main body of the argumentative work of proving and disproving within the proposed scheme is done by the parties during the specially designated time, the task of the closing speeches is to summarize the resulting criticism of their opponents' legal positions and to submit their proposals for the sought-for court decision. As for the closing speeches, the first of them is that of the prosecution, the second one - of the defense represented by the defense attorney, and the defendant him- / herself with the so-called "last plea" does not speak at all. After the speeches are made, the parties hand over their respective texts to the court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the study of foreign and Russian models of procedural management of criminal prosecution. The authors propose general theoretical approaches that made it possible to conduct their systemic analysis and comparison. Prerequisites for the research: the necessity to reform legislation in terms of procedural management of criminal prosecution, optimize the distribution of procedural functions between the official subjects of criminal procedural activity. Purpose of the research: to create a theoretical model of procedural management of criminal prosecution based on historical and comparative-legal analysis of Russian and foreign structures. Results and novelty: An abstract (theoretical) model of managing criminal prosecution is a set of procedural parameters reflecting: 1) The coincidence of the head of the criminal prosecution and the subject who initiated it, or the absence of such a coincidence; 2) Unity or plurality of subjects of procedural management, their subordination; 3) The presence or absence of a combination of managerial powers with supervisory and control powers; 4) Correlation of the management with the procedural independence of the subject conducting the criminal prosecution; 5) The coincidence of the head of the criminal prosecution and the public prosecutor in one person; 6) Freedom and limits of disposal of the subject of criminal prosecution, and criminal action; 7) The powers of the head of the criminal prosecution to terminate the case and withdraw the charges. The scientific novelty of the research is determined by the range of analyzed problems, taking into account the changes that occur in the field of criminal proceedings, as well as the need for an optimal distribution of powers in the procedural management of criminal prosecution.

The article describes the questions of the organization of pre-trial proceedings, which characterizes adversarial and mixed criminal proceedings.

The article describes the questions of the organization of pre-trial proceedings, which characterizes adversarial and mixed criminal proceedings

Objective: on the basis of the doctrine, legislation and practice, to make conclusions about the degree of efficiency of such participants in the criminal proceedings, as the detective, investigator, Prosecutor, judge, and to analyze the observance and implementation of such important principles as adversary, equality of the parties and presumption of innocence from the point of view of the thorough study of their practical application. Methods: dialectical method, analysis, synthesis, deduction and induction, and specific scientific methods of scientific cognition. Results: the actual position was determined of the subjects of criminal proceedings from the point of view of feasibility of basic principles of criminal proceedings, not in legislative but in practical aspect. Scientific novelty: Often the position of criminal proceeding subjects, their authority, role, and status are analyzed from the point of view of legislative norms. It also true for criminal proceedings. In the article an attempt is made to analyze with the new position the relationship of the criminal process setting and the objectives of public prosecution in the modern period of development of criminal procedural science. Practical value: the criminal proceedings is an essential element in the aspect of the citizens’ rights protection, thus it is obvious that the position of the criminal proceedings participants should objective and transparent, and the criminal proceedings principles should be implemented. The article shows the problems and proposes was of their solution, which are of objective interest. The research results can be applied in practice and taken into account when making changes in the legislation.

Objective: on the basis of data doctrine and practice to show the level of development of the competition principle in the Russian criminal procedure legislation, as well as to identify the existing problems in the role of court in criminal proceedings concerning the powers to return the case to the Prosecutor, as well as features of the state Prosecutor’s role and the interaction between the investigator and the Prosecutor. Methods: the method of dialectics as general scientific method, which allows to show the historical development of the problem; analysis and synthesis – phenomena links; special-legislative and comparative-legislative methods – regularity of procedural institutions development. Results: analysis was based on the use of a large number of doctrinal sources and practices data that allowed us to draw the work from theoretical aspect to the level of law enforcement and to show the relevance of the existing problems. Scientific novelty: on the basis of empirical research it was clearly shown that the competitive principle is poorly developed in Russia during that stage of the criminal process, and thus results in conflicts and abuse of authority. Solutions to the problem are proposed. Objectivity of the study gives it a novelty, because the problem has not been studied in such a vast aspect. Practical value: the data can be used in both practice and in law-making and to improve the efficiency of public institutions, as well as to bring the work of these bodies to the qualitatively new level.