The criminal procedural functions, concept, types, content of these categories are established in the Code of Criminal Procedure adopted in 2001. At the legislative level, a distinction was made between the tasks of structures and officials. The article will examine the existing criminal procedure functions, their concept and system.
Definitions
As a rule, the system of criminal procedural functions was considered as a complex of activities carried out by authorized persons and bodies in accordance with the provisions of the CPC. According to this view, a category definition was formulated. In particular, some authors believed that the concept of criminal procedural functions implies specific parties, areas of activity that are not absorbed by each other and do not coincide. Other authors interpreted the essence of the category in a slightly different way. In particular, a definition was given, according to which the term was considered as a special role and appointment of participants in the activity.
Features
A number of experts identified certain criteria by which to characterize the concept, the content of the criminal procedure functions. First of all, they speak about the existence of legislative regulation of the implementation of activities. This means that certain structures and persons fulfill their authority, tasks within the framework of the requirements. The next criterion is subjectivity. Criminal procedural functions may be performed only by specific persons. In addition, as a distinctive feature of the category in question is the focus on achieving the purpose of legal proceedings.
Goals
It must be said that earlier, characterizing the criminal procedural functions, their concept and types, specialists placed special emphasis on the corresponding position of employees of state authorities. Leading, therefore, and priority status has always been given to an official. Such an attitude is caused by the fact that the previous Code of Criminal Procedure was focused on protecting state and public interests while ignoring dispositiveness. Currently, the main criminal procedure functions are focused on the following:
- Ensuring the safety of the legitimate interests of organizations and citizens who have become victims of crime.
- Refusal to prosecute the innocent, rehabilitation of persons unjustifiably subjected to him.
- Protection of the individual from unreasonable and illegal charges, conviction, as well as infringement of freedoms and rights.
- Prosecution and assignment of perpetrators of acts of just punishment.
Thus, the criminal procedure functions are implemented in two main directions. First of all, this is the restoration of the rights of victims of unlawful acts. The second direction is the prevention and elimination of unreasonable and illegal accusations of persons.
The relevance of the issue of separation of tasks and powers
According to some experts, it is not advisable to separate criminal procedural functions according to the purpose of the activity or the appointment of each person. Otherwise, a situation may arise when one or another participant will be given only his characteristic task. Their number will be close to the number of participants in the proceedings. Quite a lot of discussion was held between scientists on the issue of classification. Some authors seek to transfer specific criminal procedure functions to each participant in the proceedings. The content of the tasks, therefore, is tied directly to the role of the person. To the categories that exist today, some scholars seek to add additional ones. For example, some say that the criminal procedure function of the investigation should be separately legislated. A separate area, according to some scholars, should be highlighted and the maintenance of civil lawsuits. This, in turn, gives rise to the formation of another function - protection against claims.
Classification differences
Some scholars have suggested that criminal procedure functions should be divided into 7 groups. The following list is proposed:
- Establishment and verification of information on crimes.
- The criminal procedural function of the prosecution.
- Oversight of the prosecutor's office for the enforcement of the rule of law.
- Criminal procedure protection function.
- Consideration of the case in court and its resolution.
- An auxiliary task involving the activities of witnesses, experts and other persons.
- Side function, expressed in the actions of civil defendants and plaintiffs.
Daev at one time, considering the criminal procedural functions, their concept and types, offered his own classification. It was based on the interests of the participants in the proceedings. He compiled the following list:
- Investigation of the case.
- Oversight by the prosecutor of the observance of the rule of law in legal proceedings.
- Protection of the procedural interests of the individual.
- Providing assistance in the framework of legal proceedings.
Zelenetskiy was proposed to divide the criminal procedural functions into private and general. In other words, he intended to single out the tasks that are implemented throughout the production of the case, and those that are carried out in one or more of its stages.
Criminal procedure functions and their types in the modern Code of Criminal Procedure
Depending on the interests pursued, the participants in the proceedings are divided into three groups:
1. The court . This body is completing the proceedings.
2. The prosecution . They include:
- The victim.
- Investigator.
- The prosecutor.
- Inquirer.
- Private prosecutor.
- Head of the investigation department, etc.
3. The side of protection . They include:
- Accused.
- Suspect.
- Defender and so on.
For each of the indicated parties corresponding tasks are provided. Other persons participate in legal proceedings. Among them, for example, an expert, witness, witness, translator, etc. Thus, in modern legislation an attempt was made to end long-term discussions by establishing criminal procedural functions and their types, grouping them into three categories according to the main participants in the proceedings.
Justification for separation
According to many experts, the allocation of other tasks will not only not fit, but in most cases will contradict the principle of competition. For example, if the prosecutor’s oversight function is separated into an independent category, the prosecution will be vested with greater powers than the suspect / accused party. The prosecutor’s capabilities should not be wider than that of the other participants. When constructing legal proceedings on the basis of competition, the separation of tasks is the main condition. However, this does not mean yet that a subject who already has a particular criminal procedure function (defense, for example) will be entrusted with a different task that does not belong to the three categories identified. Thus, one element cannot be vested with different powers. For example, the prosecutor supports the prosecution in court, since he himself participated in its drafting during the preliminary events, led and coordinated the investigation of the case. In this case, he acts as the person responsible for the legality and validity of the claims against the defendant / suspect. In addition, it has the obligation to oversee the work of the participants in the preliminary investigation. In essence, the activities of the prosecutor are a way of responding to violations of the provisions of the law, in the presence of which the court can recognize the claims against the suspect as unlawful.
Having singled out only 3 criminal procedural functions, the legislator prevented the possibility of losing the specific meaning of the category by which the form of activity of a particular subject is determined. The delimitation of other tasks into independent elements can be justified when none of the participants in the legal proceedings has the authority to implement them.
Additional group of participants
In many cases, persons whose activities do not overlap with the actions of the court, prosecution and defense are involved in legal proceedings. This group is defined in Ch. 8 Code of Criminal Procedure. The work of an expert, witness, translator, the activity of a witness involves the implementation of certain functions. In law, they are usually characterized as official, auxiliary or secondary.
Participants Interest
The separation of the parties to the proceedings is carried out depending on the direction of their activities and the purpose they pursue. According to experts, it does not matter the attribution of interest to a public or personal category. More attention is paid directly to its focus. For example, if there are participants on the defense side who represent private interests, this does not mean that they are united on the basis of his belonging to an individual category. Based on this provision, it can be assumed that the prosecutor and other participants seeking to hold a person accountable should pursue public goals. However, private individuals may also be prosecutors. From this it follows that the division proposed by the legislator is built precisely on the direction of interest, that is, the goal of the parties. Undoubtedly, each participant has his own motive. For example, the prosecution seeks to prosecute and impose a fair restraint measure. In addition, his interest is aimed at restoring and preserving the rights of organizations and citizens who have become victims of crime. Representatives of the defense advocate the prevention of unlawful conviction of the individual, against the restriction of freedom and rights of the suspect. The court is a state authority. He realizes the public interest, performs the function of an independent arbitrator. He has the exclusive right to pronounce a sentence.
Significance Issues
All existing functions of criminal proceedings mutually presuppose each other. In this regard, experts believe that attaching great importance to any one of them is hardly advisable. The special role of specific tasks does not proceed either from the goals pursued by legal proceedings, or from the interests of society, since it is equally important for him to expose the offender and to stop unlawful conviction. First of all, activity oriented towards criminal prosecution (prosecution) arises. But this does not mean that in all cases its appearance will predetermine the entry of other participants and their respective actions.
Unity of structure
All existing criminal procedure functions are central. They are inseparable, harmonious unity. Any of the tasks naturally and inevitably assumes the presence of the other two. Each function exists and develops with others. Thus, the lack of defense in the proceedings would give the process a one-sided character. Moreover, its existence without any claims to the suspect is generally impossible. A fair and proper resolution of a dispute is permissible only in an adversarial environment. The court, with the participation of both parties, carries out a thorough examination of the evidence, examines the arguments and circumstances directed both against and in defense of the defendant.
Mutual restriction
According to experts, the existing functions not only mutually suggest each other. There is also a limitation. So, for example, at the stage of initiating proceedings, activities are carried out exclusively on the charge (prosecution). At this stage, it is not yet clear whether the powers of the remaining groups of participants will be exercised. However, the investigation does not have the ability to carry out all the functions that exist in legal proceedings, despite the fact that he has no one to share them with. In the subsequent stages of the proceedings, he does not receive more powers than he had during the prosecution. This suggests that the investigation carries out activities within a certain framework, for which he is not allowed to go beyond even when no one is involved in the process.
Beyond these limits, other activities are already foreseen. It relates to the other two parties to the proceedings. The remaining two functions act as a kind of territory within which the investigator should not step. The scope of his freedom is established both by instructions on what he has the right to do, and by prohibitions on the commission of certain actions. Even in the absence of all parties to the proceedings and even before any work with materials has begun, a clear delineation of all functions from each other has already been established.
Interaction of the parties
Despite the existence of clear boundaries in the exercise of their functions by the participants in legal proceedings, one cannot talk about the absolute isolation of the latter from each other. This is due to the fact that the parties whose activities predetermine the existence of certain tasks in the course of their activities cannot be completely independent. For example, the law gives the defense party the right to challenge the prosecutor, judge, investigator. Thus, the ability to influence these participants is shown. The accused, suspect or defendant shall be required to appear upon the call of an authorized person. This, in turn, allows the competent authorities performing the functions of the prosecution or judicial tasks to influence the behavior of these entities. At the stage of direct trial in court, other participants have the right to file a motion. So the parties to some extent affect the behavior of the judiciary. Apart from each other, participants in the process can solve only certain issues. As a rule, they are of a fundamental nature. For example, this applies to the indictment, its scope, the choice of methods and means for upholding one’s position, resolving a case and so on. Other issues that are not of such fundamental importance are resolved by agreement. From this we can conclude that the activity on the implementation of criminal procedure functions has a mutually corrective character.
Conclusion
Based on the information presented above, it can be concluded that the scope and nature of the powers vested in various groups of participants are predetermined by the criminal procedure function they perform. These elements should not be subject to change at any stage of the proceedings. In addition, the criminal procedural functions act as peculiar limits within which the appropriate behavior of participants in legal proceedings is allowed. Due to the presence of this framework, the scope of authority established by law is distributed between specific groups of participants. This is done by indicating specific actions to which particular participants have rights, as well as prohibitions on the implementation of certain behavioral acts. Classification of functions distributes powers exclusively between groups of participants, which are united by a commonality of interest, without further delimitation of the established volume within each category. Nevertheless, according to some authors, the democratic nature of criminal proceedings cannot depend on only one nature of the distribution of functions between groups. Equally important is the scope of authority, as well as the assignment to each participant within a certain category of specific tasks at all stages of the proceedings.