INSTITUTE OF CONTROL AND SUPERVISION ACTIVITY AND PROCEDURAL INDEPENDENCE OF THE INVESTIGATOR: ASPECTS OF CORRELATION

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to study aspects of the relationship between the procedural independence of the investigator and the institute of control and supervisory activities in the pre-trial investigation, taking into account scientific approaches, modern regulations and law enforcement. Aspects of the relationship between the procedural independence of the investigator and the institute of control and supervision in the pre-trial investigation are studied. The elements of procedural independence of the investigator are determined. The expediency of coordination of the key decisions of the investigator by the head of the pre-trial investigation body is substantiated. It is emphasized that a necessary condition for ensuring the procedural independence of the investigator is the establishment of reasonable limits for the organization of pre-trial investigation. It is no coincidence that a significant number of procedural scholars consider the observance of procedural independence of the investigator as one of the principles of the organization of pre-trial investigation. And there is no need to deprive the head of the pre-trial investigation body of procedural powers. After all, it is this entity, acting on the side of the prosecution and using the procedural powers to organize the investigation, really ensures the legality and validity of the actions and decisions of the investigator, thereby protecting the rights of participants in criminal proceedings. It was found that the independence of the investigator allows him to make procedural decisions (and bear full responsibility for them), evaluating the evidence only on his inner conviction, based on a comprehensive, complete and impartial investigation of all circumstances of criminal proceedings, evaluation of each piece of evidence affiliation, admissibility, reliability, and the set of evidence collected - in terms of sufficiency and interconnectedness. It is concluded that the institute of control and supervision should not deprive the investigator of procedural independence, but, on the contrary, should contribute to the provision of procedural guarantees for participants in criminal proceedings and strengthen the rule of law in investigative activities. Only a properly regulated mechanism for organizing a pre-trial investigation, if properly applied, will not only not limit, but, on the contrary, significantly increase the procedural independence of the investigator and ensure high comprehensiveness, completeness and impartiality of the investigation of criminal proceedings.