Criminal procedural functions, their concept and types. Content and system of criminal procedure functions. The criminal procedural function of protection

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, the tasks of the structures and officials were delineated. The article will examine the existing criminal procedural functions, their concept and system.

Definitions

As a rule, the system of criminal procedural functions was considered as a set of directions of activities performed by authorized persons and bodies in accordance with the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. According to this point of view, the definition of the category was formulated. In particular, some authors believed that the concept of criminal procedural functions involves specific parties, areas of activity that are not absorbed by each other and do not coincide. Other authors treated the essence of the category somewhat differently. In particular, the definition was given, according to which the term was considered as a special role and purpose of the participants in the activity.

Features

A number of specialists have identified certain criteria by which the concept and content of criminal procedural functions can be characterized. First of all, they speak about the existence of legislative regulation of the implementation of activities. This means that the authorities, tasks, or other structures and persons execute within the framework of the regulations. Subjectivity is the next criterion. Criminal procedural functions can only be performed by specific individuals. In addition, as a distinctive feature of the category in question, the focus is on achieving the purpose of judicial proceedings.

Objectives

It is necessary to say that earlier, when characterizing criminal procedural functions, their concept and types, specialists placed special emphasis on the corresponding position of employees of state power bodies. The leading, therefore, priority status has always been given to the official. Such an attitude is conditioned by the fact that the CCP, which was in effect earlier, was focused on protecting state and public interests while disregarding the dispositions. At the moment, the main criminal procedural functions are focused on the following:

1. Ensuring the safety of legitimate interests of organizations and citizens who became victims of crimes.
2. Refusal to prosecute the innocent, the rehabilitation of persons who have been unreasonably exposed to him.
3. Protection of the person from unreasonable and illegal accusations, conviction, as well as infringement of freedoms and rights.
4. Persecution and appointment of culprits in acts of just punishment.

Thus, the criminal procedural functions are realized 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 unjustified and unlawful accusations of persons.

The urgency of the issue of the division of tasks and powers

According to a number of experts, it is not appropriate to separate criminal procedural functions for the purpose of the activity or the appointment of each person. Otherwise, there may be a situation when a particular task will be transferred to a particular participant only. The number of them will be closer to the number of participants in the proceedings. Between the scientists there has been and continues to be a lot of discussions on the classification issue. Some authors seek to transfer specific criminal procedural functions to each participant in the proceedings. The content of tasks, therefore, is attached directly to the role of the person. To the existing categories today, some scholars are trying to add additional ones. For example, some say that the criminal procedural function of the investigation should be legislated separately. Separate direction, according to a number of scientists, should be highlighted and the maintenance of civil suits. This, in turn, generates the formation of another function - protection from claims.

Differences by classification

Some scholars propose that criminal procedure should be divided into 7 groups. The following list is suggested:

1. Establishment and verification of information on crimes.
2. The criminal procedural function of the prosecution.
3. Supervision of the prosecutor's office for the execution of the law.
4. The criminal procedural function of protection.
5. Consideration of the case in court and its authorization.
6. An auxiliary task that provides for the activities of witnesses, experts and other persons.
7. A side function, expressed in the actions of civil defendants and plaintiffs.

In his time, Daev, considering the criminal procedural functions, their concept and types, offered his classification. It was based on the existence of the interests of participants in the proceedings. He made the following list:

1. Investigation of the case.
2. Supervision of the prosecutor for compliance with the law in the judicial process.
3. Protection of the procedural interests of the individual.
4. Assistance in the legal proceedings.

Zelenetsky was invited to divide criminal procedural functions into private and general ones. In other words, he intended to highlight the tasks that are being implemented throughout the proceedings, and those that are carried out in one or more of its stages.

Criminal procedural 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 completes the proceedings.

2. The party of charge . It includes:

• The victim.
• The investigator.
• The Prosecutor.
• The inquirer.
• A private prosecutor.
• Head of Investigation Department, etc.

3. The party of protection . It includes:

• The accused.
• The suspect.
• Defender and so on.

For each of these parties, relevant tasks are provided. In the proceedings, other persons participate. Among them, for example, an expert, a witness, a witness, an interpreter, etc. Thus, in modern legislation, an attempt was made to conclude long-standing discussions by establishing criminal procedural functions and their types, grouping them into three categories for 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 it will contradict the principle of competitiveness. For example, in the separation of the functions of supervision of the prosecutor into an independent category, the prosecution will be vested with greater powers than the side of the suspect / accused. The prosecutor's capacity should not be wider than that of the other participants. In the construction of proceedings on the principle of competitiveness, the separation of tasks is the main condition. However, this does not mean that the subject, who already has this or that criminal procedure function (protection, for example), will be entrusted with a task that is not related to the three categories identified. Thus, one element can not be vested with different powers. For example, the prosecutor supports the prosecution in court, since he himself participated in drafting it during the preliminary events, supervised 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 duty to supervise the work of the participants in the preliminary investigation. In essence, the activity of the prosecutor is a way of responding to violations of the provisions of the law, in the presence of which the court can recognize the claims to the suspect as unlawful. Having singled out only three criminal procedural functions, the legislator prevented the probability of losing the specific sense of the category by which the form of activity of a particular subject is determined. The delineation of other tasks in independent elements can be justified when none of the participants in the proceedings has the authority to implement them.

Additional group of participants

In many cases, people are involved in legal proceedings, whose activities do not overlap with the actions of the court, prosecution and defense. This group is defined in Ch. 8 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The work of an expert, a witness, an interpreter, the activity of a witness involves the realization of certain functions. In their legislation, as a rule, they are characterized as official, auxiliary or collateral.

Interest of participants

The separation of the parties to the proceedings is carried out depending on the direction of their activities and the purpose they pursue. In the opinion of experts, it does not matter whether to classify an interest in 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 belonging to an individual category. Based on this provision, it can be assumed that the prosecutor and other participants who are trying to bring a person to justice must pursue public goals. However, individuals can be prosecutors. It follows from this that the division proposed by the legislator is based precisely on the direction of interest, that is, the purpose of the parties' activities. Undoubtedly, for each participant its motive. For example, the prosecution pursues the goal of criminal prosecution and the appointment of an equitable measure of restraint. In addition, his interest is aimed at restoring and preserving the rights of organizations and citizens who became victims of crimes. Representatives of the defense advocate the prevention of unlawful conviction of the person, against the restriction of freedom and the rights of the suspect. The court is the organ of state power. He realizes the public interest, performs the function of an independent arbitrator. He has the exclusive right to pass sentence.

Issues of importance

All the existing functions of criminal proceedings mutually assume each other. In this regard, experts believe that it is hardly advisable to attach importance to any one of them. The specific role of specific tasks does not come from the goals pursued by the judiciary, nor from the interests of society, since it is equally important for him to expose the criminal and to prevent the illegal conviction. In the first place, there is an activity focused on criminal prosecution (prosecution). But this does not mean that in all cases, its appearance will predetermine the entry of other participants and the implementation of their respective actions.

Unity of structure

All existing criminal procedural functions are the main ones. They are in indissoluble, harmonious unity. Any of the problems naturally and inevitably presupposes the presence of the other two. Each function exists and develops together with others. Thus, the lack of protection in the proceedings in the case would give the process a one-sided character. However, its existence without any claims to the suspect is completely impossible. A fair and proper resolution of a dispute is permissible only in adversarial conditions. The court, with the participation of both parties, carries out a thorough examination of the evidence, the investigation of arguments and circumstances directed both against and in defense of the defendant.

Mutual limitation

According to experts, existing functions not only mutually assume each other. There is also their limitation. So, for example, at the stage of initiating a case, activities are carried out exclusively on charges (prosecution). At this stage it is not yet clear whether the powers of the other groups of participants will be realized. Nevertheless, the investigation does not have the ability to carry out all the functions that exist in the proceedings, even though there is no one to share it with. In the subsequent stages of the proceedings, it does not receive greater powers than it did during the prosecution. This suggests that the investigation carries out activities within certain limits, for which he is not allowed to marry, even when, except for him, nobody participates in the process.

Other activities are envisaged beyond these limits. It refers to the other two sides of the proceedings. The remaining two functions act as a kind of territory, within which the investigator should not intervene. The framework 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 the beginning of any work with materials, a clear delineation of all functions from each other has already been established.

Interaction of the parties

Despite the existence of clear boundaries when the participants in the judicial proceedings exercise their functions, one can not speak of the absolute isolation of the latter from each other. This is due to the fact that the parties whose activities predetermine the existence of those or other tasks in the course of their activities can not be completely independent. For example, the law gives the defense the right to challenge the prosecutor, the judge, the investigator. Thus, the opportunity to exert influence on these participants is manifested. The accused, the suspect or the defendant are responsible for appearing on the call of the authorized person. This, in turn, allows competent authorities, performing the functions of charges or judicial tasks, to influence the behavior of these subjects. At the stage of direct trial of the case in court, other participants have the right to submit a petition. So the parties to some extent influence the behavior of the judicial body. Apart from each other, the participants in the process can solve only certain issues. As a rule, they are of a fundamental nature. For example, it concerns the presentation of the charge, its scope, the choice of methods and means for defending its position, resolving the case, and so on. The solution of other issues that are not of such fundamental importance is carried out by agreement. From this we can conclude that the activities for the implementation of criminal procedural functions have a mutually correct nature.

Conclusion

Based on the information presented above, it can be concluded that the scope and nature of the powers conferred on the various groups of participants are predetermined by the criminal procedural function performed by them. These elements should not be subject to change at any stage of the proceedings. In addition, the criminal procedural functions act as a kind of limits in which the appropriate conduct of participants in the proceedings is allowed. Due to the presence of this framework, the scope of powers established by law is distributed among specific groups of participants. This is done by specifying the specific actions to which certain participants have rights, as well as prohibitions on the implementation of certain behavioral acts. The classification of functions distributes powers exclusively between groups of participants that are united by a common interest, without further delineating the established volume within each category. Nevertheless, according to some authors, the democratic nature of criminal proceedings can not depend only on one nature of the distribution of functions between groups. Of no less importance is the scope of authority, as well as assigning to each participant within a certain category specific tasks at all stages of the proceedings.