Los puntos clave no están disponibles para este artículo en este momento.
The article is devoted to the definition of the concept and system of criminal prosecution remedies. The author emphasizes that the issue of the concept and system of criminal prosecution remedies remains highly controversial and requires further research and substantiation. It is stated that the implementation of activities related to exposing a person and establishing his/her involvement in a criminal offense does not depend on the availability of any procedural status. The author points out that imperfection of the regulatory framework for the system of criminal prosecution creates risks of violation of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a person who is exposed. It is noted that the system of criminal prosecution means is much broader and should include all procedural actions (interim measures) aimed at obtaining evidentiary information regarding a person’s involvement in a criminal offense. Undoubtedly, investigative (search) actions are the main means of collecting evidence, but other procedural actions also lead to the receipt of incriminating evidence. The author substantiates the criteria which determine whether a relevant procedural action (interim measures) belongs to the means of criminal prosecution. Firstly, it is necessary to take into account the focus of such measures which are aimed at obtaining information about a criminal offense. Secondly, means of criminal prosecution regulated and (or) not prohibited by the norms of the criminal procedural law should not lead to the violation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which may be significant or insignificant. Thirdly, under the general permissive type of legal regulation, criminal prosecution may be used that is not expressly prohibited by the rules of procedural law, but is legitimate in view of the absence of a risk of human rights restriction. At the same time, the specially permissive type of legal regulation of criminal prosecution means provides for the implementation of procedural activities only in the manner expressly permitted by the criminal procedural legislation.
D. А. Patrelyuk (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: