The procedural status of the investigator under the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine of 1960 and the Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine of 2012 in terms of the effectiveness of resolving issues of criminal prosecution of military servicemen

Abstract

It is established that today many problems arise in the activities of the pre-trial investigation bodies, their legal status, probity and other important issues specified in the legislation are not always clearly and consistently. It is noted that there are various problems with the implementation of investigators of his powers, there are complications with the understanding of his independence. It was argued that it is important to identify and analyze the problems that arise in the work of the pre-trial investigation bodies, the problems of implementing the legal status of the investigator, including by comparative analysis of the regulation of these issues in the 1960 Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, 2012 , as well as expressing their own position on the reform of these bodies. It has been established that the comparative analysis of the current criminal procedural legislation with the 1960 law also suggests the procedural functions that can act as a certain link between the tasks and the legal status of the participant in the process, since they determine the procedural status of the investigator, his rights and duties , which are specified in separate criminal procedural institutes and procedural norms. It is noted that the knowledge of the system of procedural functions of the investigator as the main directions of his activity allows the most fully to determine the role of the investigator in the execution of the criminal proceedings, to correctly understand and apply each legal institution and each legal regulation regulating its activities. As future state representatives, investigators have legally established procedural powers that are both for them and for rights (as they allow for procedural actions and procedural decisions), and duties (due to the inappropriate or untimely use of their rights may be an offense if there is no evidence of a crime). It has been argued that within the criminal process there were significant procedural transformations related to the change of the law, some of which were rather substantial, but not always consistent and such that increased the efficiency of the functioning of state authorities aimed at bringing individuals to legal liability.