No 4 (2023)

The paper presents a study of the problem of determining the criminal procedure goals in relation to modern Russian criminal proceedings. The authors summarized the concepts, views, and approaches to determining the goals of criminal procedure (criminal proceedings) historical types presented in criminal procedure science. The authors applied the results obtained to the current model of the Russian criminal procedure and carried out a functional analysis of procedural activities separately in pre-trial and court proceedings focusing on powers of officials carrying out criminal proceedings. When searching and formulating goals for each part of court proceedings, the authors relied on the characterization of the goal as a hypothetical form of completing the process determined by the powers of the head of the procedure and the relation of the criminal procedure with criminal law. The study shows that attempts to formulate a single goal of a criminal procedure organized according to a mixed type are initially doomed to failure due to the fundamental differences between pre-trial and court proceedings. The authors propose distinguishing in the Russian criminal procedure (criminal proceedings) not one, but several goals determined by the characteristics of separate stages of procedural activity: the goals the investigator (inquiry officer) faces during the preliminary investigation; the goals the prosecutor faces during criminal prosecution; and the justice goals ensured by the court. The proposed goal-setting system of the Russian criminal procedure is based on an objective criterion – functional differences in the procedural statuses of officials conducting criminal proceedings.

The paper studies the essence and significance of the criminal-procedural activity of a prosecutor on completion of a preliminary investigation as a specific stage of pre-trial proceedings in a criminal case, which differs from the preliminary investigation in its parties, implemented tasks, specific forms of activity and legal relations, and final procedural decisions. The author analyzes the process of transformation of the indictment (charging document, accusatory decision) from a document completing the preliminary investigation and summing up its results into a document setting the limits, that is, the subject and scope of the upcoming trial. The paper considers the criminal-procedural significance of an act of approving the indictment (act, resolution) by the prosecutor. As a result of the study, the author formulates and substantiates conclusions on the end of pre-trial proceedings, as an independent, third in pre-trial proceedings, stage of the criminal process, which has its own boundaries (beginning and completion), specific goals and objectives, a responsible actor, and a special final procedural decision of multi-aspect significance. The prosecutor’s approval of an indictment (act, resolution) means: a) the prosecutor’s agreement with the preliminary investigation results; b) the end of pre-trial proceedings; c) the criminal case transition to the next stage – the judicial stage of the criminal procedure; d) the transfer of the burden of proof from a subject (body) of the preliminary investigation to the prosecutor heading the prosecutorial jurisdiction; e) the emergence of a state prosecution as a criminal-legal claim of the state against an accused. The paper contains the proposals, which determine the prospects for further improvement of the criminal-procedural law and increasing the efficiency of criminal-procedural activities by more clearly delineating responsibility for the results achieved between the preliminary investigation bodies and the prosecutor.