Theoretical and applied nature of the powers of the investigating judge in the criminal proceedings

Abstract

The article states that authority is a key structural element of criminal procedural competence. At the pre-trial stage, the investigative judge, who is empowered with powers that are specifically defined in the criminal procedure code, is a guarantee of the rights, freedoms and interests of individuals in criminal proceedings. In the general theory of competence distinguish the most typical powers, which include: a) to manage; b) to manage; c) to decide; d) participate; e) to standardize; e) to organize; g) develop; g) specify; h) coordinate; i) to control; and) prohibit.
In turn, looking at the issues of authority of the investigating judge through the lens of the dogma of competence theory, gives the opportunity to point out certain features and to isolate some theoretical and applied problems.
In accordance with the doctrine of criminal proceedings, powers are perceived as a duty (an inseparable combination of law and obligation) of a governmental entity. At the same time, the totality of such powers provides the possibility for the subject to fulfill his criminal procedural function. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the authority of the court in the scientific literature is defined as “fixed by the rules of criminal procedural law and determined by the subject matter of keeping the circle of rights and duties (responsibilities), established to perform specific procedural actions and to take appropriate procedural decisions in criminal proceedings.
In turn, other researchers, adapting this definition to the procedural status of the investigating judge, propose to define his authority as a set of interrelated rights and obligations (responsibilities) established for him to perform procedural actions and to make procedural decisions on judicial execution. control over observance of rights, freedoms and interests of persons in criminal proceedings . Thus, as we can see, the science of criminal proceedings proposes to take the powers of an investigating judge as a means of exercising his function, and the CCP focuses on the fact that the function (judicial control) is one of the possible powers of the investigating judge.
There are nine groups of powers for the investigating judge: 1) powers related to the application of criminal prosecution measures; 2) powers related to the consideration and resolution of issues concerning the granting of permission to conduct statutory investigative (investigative) actions, the NSRD and other procedural actions aimed at collecting evidence by the parties; 3) the authority to consider and resolve complaints against the decision, actions or omissions of the investigator and the prosecutor; 4) the power to collect evidence through interrogation and the appointment of expertise; 5) powers related to updating and setting procedural time limits; 6) the authority to consider and resolve allotment issues; 7) the authority to decide at the stage of pre-trial investigation the fate of material evidence; 8) the authority to resolve the issue of the use of information obtained as a result of the NSDF on the features of a criminal offense not investigated in this criminal proceeding in other criminal proceedings; 9) the general duties (powers) of the investigating judge on the protection of human rights enshrined in Art. 206 CPC.
The authority of the investigating judge, defined by the scholars as enshrined in the rules of criminal procedural law and determined by the subject matter of keeping the circle of rights and duties (responsibilities), is established for the execution of specific procedural actions and the adoption of appropriate procedural decisions in criminal proceedings.