Search

Currently, in the theory of criminal procedure there are disputes and intensive searches for models of criminal procedure adequate to modern social conditions. The form of preliminary investigation is of particular importance in this regard, including ensuring the objectivity and impartiality of the investigation through the proper allocation of procedural functions. Purpose: to conduct a comparative analysis of the leading national models of preliminary investigation to identify the main directions of their development, their strengths and weaknesses, in order to develop proposals for the optimal choice of the required form, taking into account various social conditions. Methods: structural-functional analysis, comparative legal method, formal-legal method, method of legal hermeneutics. Results: the separation of procedural functions makes it possible to divide opposing interests in criminal procedure, without linking them to the activities of the same participants, which primarily guarantees the independence of the court and observance of the rights of the defense party. The concept of procedural functions is rooted in the adversarial type of criminal proceedings (accusation – defense – justice). However, due to the factual inequality of opportunities, it is dangerous to impose a purely accusatory task on the state authorities in charge of preliminary investigation. A restraining factor may be the separation of the functions of public prosecution, carried out by services such as prosecutors, and investigation, usually carried out by police inquiries or investigating judges. The forms of their combination can be very different in French, German, and even Anglo-American types of proceedings; however, the investigating body should always, in one way or another, be distanced from the procedural function of prosecution, engaging as far as possible in an objective and unbiased investigation, which requires a sufficiently high level of legal culture. In its scarcity, a competing adversarial model may be an investigation conducted by the public prosecution and defense in full equality under the auspices of an independent judge supervising the investigation.

The activity of the defense lawyer in the criminal process is directly related to the principle of ensuring the person's right to defense. However, this principle makes it possible to combat unjustified allegations advanced by the investigating authorities, to present evidence in order to prove the innocence of the defendant and to obtain a proper mitigation of liability for the deed committed. Ensuring the right of the accused or the defendant to the defense consists, first of all, in obtaining a timely and qualified legal assistance, which can be ensured by the participation of the defense in criminal cases. The defendant can exercise his right to defense if he knows, to a full extent, the content and character of the accusation brought against him. The law not only proclaims the person's right to defense, but also obliges the representatives of the law enforcement bodies to ensure the exercise of this right. The defendant's right to defense contributes not only to the protection of his legitimate interests, but is also directed towards the proper performance of the characteristic tasks of criminal justice. The evolution of legal practice and science convincingly demonstrates that the adversarial proceedings are the only correct way to establish the truth. However, at present, the adversarial principle occupies a key position in the criminal proceedings, by virtue of which there is an urgent need for research in the field of tactical features of the activity of the parties to the defense and prosecution. In the content of this study, a modest attempt was made to expose and analyze the activity of the defense lawyer in the criminal trial from the positions of achievements and performances of forensic tactics.

In the focus of this paper are considerations about procedural functions. The author first gives an overview of the ruling concepts about this issue and notes that the theory of criminal procedural law did not sufficiently address the general problems of criminal procedural functions. The author concludes that is not reasonable to distinguish between basic and secondary criminal procedural functions. There are also the reasons for which there is a need for theoretical processing of criminal procedural functions.