Genesis of the Institute of Procedural Guidance: Historical and Legal Aspect

Marharyta О. Bibikova
{"title":"Genesis of the Institute of Procedural Guidance: Historical and Legal Aspect","authors":"Marharyta О. Bibikova","doi":"10.56215/04221202.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The result of the reform of the criminal process in 2012 was the introduction of a new institute of procedural guidance for pre-trial investigations. This institute has become the object of many scientific discussions, and therefore there is a need to analyse its historical and legal genesis to clearly understand the place and role of the prosecutor in modern criminal proceedings. The purpose of the study is to examine the institute of procedural guidance in criminal proceedings and identify promising areas for improving its legal regulation. The study used dialectical, system-structural, synthesis, formal-logical, and historical methods. It is proved that the institute of procedural guidance originated quite a long time ago. From the very beginning, monarchs used civil servants to represent exclusively their interests in certain processes that were important to them. It is established that the genesis of the institute of the prosecutor’s office began to be used quite widely, up to the development of a separate structure of the relevant state bodies and assigning them the function of supervision over certain spheres of life, that is, the functions of the prosecutor’s office expanded sufficiently and representation of the interests of the state in criminal proceedings became part of the overall function of supervision. With the change in the socio-political orientation of Ukraine’s development after independence, the place and role of the prosecutor’s office in the system of state bodies have evolved under the influence of advanced European trends. The reverse process of changing the functions of the prosecutor’s office in criminal proceedings has begun, namely, the function of total prosecutor’s supervision has begun to narrow and be reduced to procedural guidance of the criminal process and representation exclusively in certain cases. As a result of the study, it was stated that the legislation regulating the legal status of the prosecutor’s office has contradictions, namely, the Law of Ukraine “On Prosecutor’s Office” imposes broader powers on the prosecutor than the Constitution of Ukraine, which undoubtedly requires legislative correction by making appropriate changes. The findings of the study can be used in rule-making and law enforcement activities.","PeriodicalId":334836,"journal":{"name":"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56215/04221202.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The result of the reform of the criminal process in 2012 was the introduction of a new institute of procedural guidance for pre-trial investigations. This institute has become the object of many scientific discussions, and therefore there is a need to analyse its historical and legal genesis to clearly understand the place and role of the prosecutor in modern criminal proceedings. The purpose of the study is to examine the institute of procedural guidance in criminal proceedings and identify promising areas for improving its legal regulation. The study used dialectical, system-structural, synthesis, formal-logical, and historical methods. It is proved that the institute of procedural guidance originated quite a long time ago. From the very beginning, monarchs used civil servants to represent exclusively their interests in certain processes that were important to them. It is established that the genesis of the institute of the prosecutor’s office began to be used quite widely, up to the development of a separate structure of the relevant state bodies and assigning them the function of supervision over certain spheres of life, that is, the functions of the prosecutor’s office expanded sufficiently and representation of the interests of the state in criminal proceedings became part of the overall function of supervision. With the change in the socio-political orientation of Ukraine’s development after independence, the place and role of the prosecutor’s office in the system of state bodies have evolved under the influence of advanced European trends. The reverse process of changing the functions of the prosecutor’s office in criminal proceedings has begun, namely, the function of total prosecutor’s supervision has begun to narrow and be reduced to procedural guidance of the criminal process and representation exclusively in certain cases. As a result of the study, it was stated that the legislation regulating the legal status of the prosecutor’s office has contradictions, namely, the Law of Ukraine “On Prosecutor’s Office” imposes broader powers on the prosecutor than the Constitution of Ukraine, which undoubtedly requires legislative correction by making appropriate changes. The findings of the study can be used in rule-making and law enforcement activities.
程序指导制度的起源:历史和法律方面
2012年刑事诉讼程序改革的结果是引入了一套新的审前调查程序指导制度。这一制度已成为许多科学讨论的对象,因此有必要分析其历史和法律渊源,以便清楚地了解检察官在现代刑事诉讼中的地位和作用。这项研究的目的是审查刑事诉讼程序指导制度,并查明有希望改进其法律规定的领域。该研究运用了辩证、系统结构、综合、形式逻辑和历史方法。事实证明,程序指导制度起源于相当久远的历史。从一开始,君主就使用公务员在某些对他们重要的过程中专门代表他们的利益。可以确定的是,检察官办公室机构的起源开始被相当广泛地使用,直到相关国家机构的单独结构的发展,并赋予它们对某些生活领域的监督职能,也就是说,检察官办公室的职能得到充分扩大,在刑事诉讼中代表国家利益成为监督的整体职能的一部分。随着乌克兰独立后发展的社会政治方向的变化,检察官办公室在国家机构系统中的地位和作用在欧洲先进趋势的影响下发生了变化。改变检察官办公室在刑事诉讼中的职能的相反过程已经开始,即检察官的全部监督职能已经开始缩小,并减少为刑事诉讼程序的程序指导和专门在某些案件中代表。根据这项研究,有人指出,关于检察官办公室法律地位的立法存在矛盾,即乌克兰“关于检察官办公室”的法律赋予检察官比乌克兰宪法更广泛的权力,这无疑需要通过作出适当修改来进行立法纠正。研究结果可用于规则制定和执法活动。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信