Problem of the expansion of judicial control at the pre-trial stage of criminal proceedings

Abstract

Abstract: In the article analyzed possibility of expansion of judicial control within the framework of criminal trial. Proceeding possibility of introduction of new position is examined within the framework of the court. Keywords: judicial control, expansion of judicial control, criminal trial, department judicial, pre-trial production, judicial reform, functions of justice, legality, court, criminal procedure, inquisitional judge, law and order, criminal case, justice, Law, office of public prosecutor, Supreme court, plenary powers of court, Constitution, rights and freedoms, complaint, reform, state, investigation, investigation, crime, citizen, investigator, organs of inquest. At its substantive purpose judiciary is a specific form of state activities in their respective spheres of society. The need of the state in the judiciary is defined as the necessity to re-solve recurrent disputes and the necessity to protect the con-stitutional order, rights and freedoms, the legitimate interests of man and of civil society.The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan as a key priority determines the rights, freedom and legitimate interests of man and citizen, thus perpetuating the importance of judicial protection, one of the mechanisms which is judicial control.As a general rule the essence of judicial control is to ver-ify compliance with the objectives of monitoring results: the courts verify that the activities of state bodies and their of-ficials and the laws of their tasks; record deviations from the goals and ways to achieve them; take measures to prevent and bring to responsibility the guilty persons.Judicial control is primarily aimed at improving the ef-ficiency of criminal investigations, as well as raising the level of citizens’ rights protection in criminal procedures, which provide optimal conditions for the investigator to perform the main functions, consisting in the prevention and investigation of crimes.It is believed that the expansion of judicial control at the pre-trial stage of the criminal process in the proposed form would serve a greater enforcement of constitutional rights guar -anteed by the investigating authorities, which generally serve to strengthen the rule of law in the Republic of Kazakhstan [1].The current Criminally-Remedial Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan in art. 139 CPC RK has determined that a preven-tive measure is elected to prevent the possibility to the accused person to escape from the inquiry, preliminary investigation or trial, to prevent the objective investigation and trial pro-ceedings, to continue to engage in criminal activities and, to ensure its execution after sentencing. The list of mentioned circumstances in the theory either called “misconduct” or pur -pose, which is achieved by the institute of preventive measures.In accordance with Art. 140 CPC RK, the Preventive mea -sures are the following: recognizance not to leave and proper conduct; personal surety; placing a serviceman under the supervision of the commander of a military unit; the return of the minor under the supervision; pledge; house arrest; deten-tion [2]. Before turning to the issue of arrest sanctioning, it is necessary to find out what the arrest is a preventive measure.Detention is the strictest kind of procedural measures of restraint. Preventive measures are a form of coercive measures that apply to a person involved in the commission of a crime, in order to ensure his presence in the criminal process. Preven-tive measure is to limit the personal freedom of the accused approved by the prosecutor or the court decision by placing it in the pre-trial detention in the course of criminal proceedings Detention as a preventive measure — it is not a criminal of-fense the accused (alleged criminal). In this case it does not have punitive value and it has only preventive tone, it applies not to the guilty but to the accused (in exceptional cases — to the alleged). Detention creates optimal conditions for the participation of the accused in criminal proceedings, to sup-press his opposing to the normal course of an investigation or proceedings before a court, in order to prevent the defendant attempts to hide from the inquiry, investigation, trial, to prevent the establishment of truth on criminal case, re-engage in crimi -nal activity, as well as to ensure the execution of the sentence.The principal direction of the current criminal procedural legislation is to further the implementation of the criminal jus -tice system of additional procedural means and mechanisms to ensure the rights, freedom and interests of the individual. A number of theorists and practitioners believe that one of these mechanisms could serve as a further extension of judi-cial control over the pre-trial activity. However, the expansion