Optimization of the Composition of Participants in Criminal Pre-Trial Proceedings

Alongside establishing the procedure for criminal proceedings, a primary objective of criminal procedure legislation is to precisely define the legal status and procedural powers of participants in criminal procedure relations. This involves setting the boundaries of their rights and obligations. Accordingly, particular emphasis should be placed on delineating the subject matter of criminal proceedings by devising a plan to enhance their position, role, and procedural status. The aim of the study is to scrutinize legal issues concerning the exercise of procedural powers by various participants in criminal proceedings and to explore avenues for enhancing the composition of criminal pre-trial proceedings. The article delves into matters concerning the procedural role of the investigator and examines their interaction with the procedural leader and the prosecutor. Special attention is paid to the procedural status of the person in respect of whom a crime report is being checked, the problem of criminal prosecution when checking a crime report is revealed, the roles and functions of an educator and a psychologist are investigated. In addition, the author substantiates the idea of expanding the range of participants in the pre-trial stages. The methodological framework of this work encompasses principles from the general scientific method of cognition, including formal logic, generalization, analysis, and description. It also draws upon methodologies from the fields of general theory of law, criminal procedure, criminology, psychology, pedagogy, logic, and other related sciences. As a result, the following conclusions were drawn. When exploring the primary issues concerning the enhancement of participants' procedural status in pre-trial proceedings, the author proposes considering the following provisions: shifting departmental procedural oversight and prosecutorial supervision in favor of the latter and establishing a unified format for preliminary investigation; engaging the suspect at the initial stage of a criminal case; elucidating the purpose and function of involvement by educators and psychologists in the case; broadening the subject composition by granting individual participants procedural petitioner status.

1. Markelova O. N. The Ratio of the Procedural Management, Public Prosecutor’s Supervision and Judicial Control. Humanities, Social-Economic and Social Sciences. 2019;9:152-155. DOI: https://doi.org/10.23672/SAE.2019.9.36832 (In Russ.)

2. Kuznetsova S. M. Reform of the Preliminary Investigation: Prospects for Development. Bulletin of the Kazan Law Institute of MIA of Russia. 2015;2:80-83. (In Russ.)

3. Shalumov M. S. Advocate in Pre-Investigation Verification: Conditions for Participation as a Defense Counsel. Criminal Procedure. 2018;6:26-31. (In Russ.)

4. Derishev Yu. V., Zemlyanitsin E. I. Procedural Status of the Person Against Whom a Preliminary Verification of Reporting a Crime Is Conducted. Legal Science and Law Enforcement Practice. 2014;3:95-100. (In Russ.)

5. Bredikhin A. L., Baykeeva S. E. Legal Relations: to New Grounds for Classification. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. Series: Law. 2022;7(1):5-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.47475/2618-8236-2022-17101 (In Russ.)

6. Mirzoyan G. A. Concept of Criminal Prosecution. International Journal of Humanities and Natural Sciences. 2021;3-1:222-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24412/2500-1000-2021-3-1-222-225 (In Russ.)

7. Derishev Yu. V. Relic of Socialist Legality Is Mutating. Russian Law: Education, Practice, Research. 2017;6:71-76. (In Russ.)

8. Semenov Ye. A. Doctor, Pedagogue, Psychologist, Translator and Their Legitimate Position in the RF Criminal Code. Legal Science and Practice: Journal of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2016;2:503-508. (In Russ.)

9. Kurbatova S. M. Psychologization of Criminal Proceedings and Its Negative Consequences (Review of the Report of Prof. V. V. Nikolyuk at the Plenary Session of the International Conference “Ensuring the Rights of Participants in Criminal Proceedings with Disabilities: a Compensatory Approach”). Forensics: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. 2021;3:24-32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24412/2587-9820-2021-3-24-32 (In Russ.)

10. Bychkov A. N. Involvement of Educators in Russian Criminal Proceedings. Moscow, 2011. 176 p. (In Russ.)

11. Shuvalova M. A. Teacher and Psychologist as Two Independent Procedural Figures of Criminal Proceedings. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2019;3:118-123. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35750/2071-8284-2019-3-118-123 (In Russ.)

12. Tetyuev S. V. Why Is the Presence of an Educator Necessary in the Criminal Process? Russian Justice. 2010;6:37-41. (In Russ.)

13. Tarasov A. A. To the Question About the Procedural Status of the “Applicant Abouta Crime”. Judicial Authority and Criminal Process. 2021;1:131-141. (In Russ.)

14. Cherkasova Yu. A. Procedural Guarantees for the Complainant as a Participant in Criminal Proceedings with Uncertain Criminal Procedural Status. Vestnik of Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2021;3:197-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-0454-2021-3-197-200 (In Russ.)

15. Muzhenskaya N. E., Kostyleva G. V. An Applicant – Participant of Criminal Proceedings. Zakonnost Journal. 2012;7:52-56. (In Russ.)

16. Bashinskaya I. G. On the Legal Status of Applicant at the Pre-Trial Stage of Criminal Proceedings. Society and Law. 2014;3:157-160. (In Russ.)

17. Grachev S. A. Procedural Problems of Securing the Rights of the Declarant on the Stage of the Institution of the Action. Legal Science and Practice: Journal of Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia. 2012;3:34-38. (In Russ.)

18. Naumov A. M. Procedural Status of Pre-Investigation Check Participants. Russian Investigator. 2016;8:8- 12. (In Russ.)

19. Volodina L. M. Criminal Procedural Legal Relations. Tyumen State University Herald. 2004;1:138-144. (In Russ.)