The prosecutor as a subject of criminal procedural evidence during the pre-trial investigation

According to Art. 1311 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Art. 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), the prosecutor in criminal proceedings supervises compliance with the laws during the pre-trial investigation in the form of procedural guidance. In essence, this means that it is the prosecutor who is responsible for organizing the pre-trial investigation process, determining its directions, coordinating the conduct of procedural actions, and ensuring compliance with the requirements of the laws of Ukraine during criminal proceedings. When carrying out procedural guidance of the pre-trial investigation, the prosecutor has constant access to procedural information, is aware of all key decisions made by the investigator, is obliged to promptly eliminate violations of the law, and on the basis of the evidence collected under his leadership, subsequently supports the public prosecution in court. The prosecutor is the official who takes part throughout the entire criminal proceedings. Of course, at each separate stage, the functions and powers are different and reflect the peculiarities of a particular stage of criminal proceedings. The article examines the features of the prosecutor’s participation in the process of providing evidence during the pre-trial investigation. This stage is regulated by criminal procedural law and is aimed at the rapid, complete and impartial establishment of the circumstances of the criminal offense committed, so that everyone who committed it was held accountable to the extent of their guilt, no innocent person was accused, no person was subjected to unjustified procedural coercion and that due legal procedure was applied to each participant in the criminal proceedings. Evidence in criminal proceedings has always been one of the most discussed problems among scientists and practitioners. This situation is primarily explained by the importance of evidence and the process of providing evidence. In general, it can be noted that the main purpose of criminal proceedings is the establishment of circumstances stipulated in Art. 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is this article that determines the actual direction of criminal procedural activity, because in order to achieve the goal of the investigation and a fair trial, it is necessary to establish the event of a criminal offense, the person who committed it, the causal relationship between the act and this person. In fact, the process of proving determines the essence of the entire criminal proceedings, because it is aimed at achieving the main objectives of the criminal process. Its authorized participants play a key role in this activity. This especially applies to the investigator (investigator) and the prosecutor, who are charged with the duty of proof by law. Accordingly, it is these participants in the criminal process, by collecting, verifying and evaluating evidence, form the vector of criminal proceedings, which will determine the course of both the pre-trial investigation and the trial. And although the subject authorized to conduct the pre-trial investigation is the investigator, it is the prosecutor who has a more significant influence on the process of proving in criminal proceedings. He, as the procedural leader, must control the course of the pre-trial investigation, and at the time of drawing up suspicion and approving the indictment, objectively assess all the collected evidence, primarily from the point of view of its relevance, admissibility, reliability and sufficiency. Therefore, this article is devoted to the study of the prosecutor’s activities as a subject of evidence in criminal proceedings during the pre-trial investigation. The work analyzes the current legislation of Ukraine, scientific research on the evidentiary activities of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings. The materials of the article are of both theoretical and practical value. They can be used for further scientific research of the features of domestic criminal procedural evidence, as well as for proper understanding and implementation of its law-enforcement criminal procedural activity.