ПРОЦЕСУАЛЬНА ДІЯЛЬНІСТЬ ПРОКУРОРА ЩОДО ДОКАЗУВАННЯ ПІД ЧАС ДОСУДОВОГО РОЗСЛІДУВАНННЯ У КРИМІНАЛЬНОМУ ПРОВАДЖЕННІ
Strengthening the role of prosecutors in the activities of the prosecution by supervising them in the form of procedural guidance in pre-trial investigation (Part 2 of Article 36 of the CPC) requires the study of the peculiarities of the exercise of their procedural powers in key areas of criminal procedural activity, one of which is the proof in criminal proceedings. . This is also prompted by a critical analysis of current methodological developments regarding the peculiarities of prosecutorial supervision during the pre-trial investigation through the prism of prosecutors' experience in proving the CCP of Ukraine in 2012.
To date, the modern scientific society has been confronted with the issue of adjusting and rethinking traditional views on the role of the prosecutor in proving during the trial. This is due in particular to the reform of the criminal procedural legislation, the extension of the limits of the application of the principle of competitiveness in criminal proceedings, which together with others determines the content and structure of all criminal proceedings, due to the adoption in 2012 of the new Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the extension of prosecution authorities during the pre-trial investigation.
At the same time, the proper definition of the role and position of the prosecutor during the pre-trial investigation in criminal proceedings, taking into account the specific functions entrusted to him in the field of evidence in criminal proceedings, will allow to reveal the content, structure and limits of the prosecutor's activity.
Proper prosecutorial supervision in the form of procedural guidance for pre-trial investigation of criminal offenses, careful examination of evidence by the prosecutor contribute to the speed and completeness of pre-trial investigation. Not only the investigator but also the prosecutor is the subject of the pre-trial investigation. It is his duty, as the subject of the evidence, to ensure that the procedural means afforded him by a speedy, complete and impartial examination of all the circumstances which form the subject of the evidence.