The problems of legal regulation of the appeal of the notice of suspicion

The article is aimed at solving the scientific task of studying the problematic issues arising in connection with the implementation of the institute of appealing against a notice of suspicion in pre­trial criminal proceedings. It is noted that with a view to ensuring human rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings, the provisions of criminal procedure legislation enshrine the right of a suspect to appeal against a notice of suspicion. However, the lack of clear legal regulation of the substantive and criminal procedural grounds for such an appeal leads to a violation of the principles of reasonableness of time limits and application of due process of law to a person. The author establishes that among the substantive grounds for appeal, the provisions on the completeness of the content of the suspicion, the correctness of the criminal law qualification should be distinguished, and among the criminal procedural grounds - the proper subject, compliance with the deadlines, availability of sufficient evidence, explanation of the suspect’s rights, and compliance with the procedure for serving a notice of suspicion. It is noted that in the context of determining the level of violation of human rights and freedoms, the criterion of ‘materiality/ insignificance’ should influence the establishment of grounds for appealing against a notice of suspicion to ensure the requirement of general fairness of criminal proceedings. The author emphasizes that the problem of regulatory regulation of appealing against a notice of suspicion is the uncertainty of the procedural time limit after which a relevant complaint may be filed if the prosecution parties notify a new suspicion or change the original notice of suspicion. It is found that the implementation of a notice of suspicion covers several stages, and therefore is considered through the prism of a combination of a procedural decision and the execution of a procedural action. It is stated that the inaction of an investigator, coroner, or prosecutor, which is manifested in the failure to serve a notice of suspicion, is subject to a separate appeal in terms of failure to serve a written notice of suspicion.