Размышления об эффективности судебного контроля за производством следственных действий

Abstract

This article discusses one of the most topical problems in modern science of the criminal procedure: the problem of judicial control over preliminary investigation body activities. In principle, the author believes that judicial control is an important legal guarantee for the security and protection of the rights and freedoms of the individual in the criminal procedure. However, the author has a lot questions about the reasonableness to apply these judicial procedures in the conduct of investigative actions: inspection, search, seizure and other in connection with decision-making. The author concludes that the priority of preliminary judicial control of investigative actions is the desire of the legislator to show democratic reforms in the Russian Federation, to show a fundamentally new ideology of the criminal procedure, where the rights and freedoms of the individual play the first role. However, the legal procedure of judicial control, which is now regulated by the Russian Criminal Procedure Code, has several large practical disadvantages. These shortcomings make judicial control over investigative actions rather weak and ineffective in terms of providing legal guarantees. First, judicial control over investigative actions is creating problems for organizing quick, effective investigator and police work during the initial stage of preliminary investigation. To overcome these legal obstacles investigators and the police often do not make inspection, search, seizure and other investigative actions. They either exceed their authority, or make these investigative actions as acts, which cannot be delayed. In addition, this only further restricts the rights and freedoms of the individual. Second, judicial control over investigative actions often has a secret character. This is a confidential meeting of the judge and of the subject that supports the prosecution. Judicial control over the inspection, search and seizure should not an adversarial form. It is contrary to the modern principles of the work of the judiciary. Judicial control in fact is turning into an administrative procedure. This leads to the fact that the court meets most of preliminary investigation motions. The author of this article changed his position that this problem can be solved by replacing the prior judicial control by subsequent judicial control. The author understood that subsequent judicial control is an even less reliable legal guarantee. Because of the conducted research, the author thinks that while in Russia there are no investigation judges, it is right to restore the judicial procedure of prosecutorial supervision over investigative actions. Prosecutorial supervision has a great potential to protect and ensure the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals who became subjects of criminal proceedings.