Procedural powers of the prosecutor when receiving, checking and resolving a report on a crime in the Russian Federation and the socialist Republic of Vietnam

Abstract

The study is devoted to a comparative analysis of the powers of the prosecutor when receiving, checking and resolving a crime report under the current criminal procedure legislation of Russia and Vietnam. Comparative legal research always has the status of relevant, since it allows you to gain new knowledge and solve significant theoretical, legislative and law enforcement tasks at a high degree of efficiency. The purpose of the study is to form a unified methodological approach to determining the procedural position of a prosecutor at the stage of receiving, checking and resolving a crime report, which is objectively justified by modern achievements of criminal procedure science of the Russian Federation and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, especially relevant in the conditions of building an adversarial model of criminal prosecution [13].In the course of the study, the following tasks were solved: 1) to analyze the criminal procedure legislation of Russia and Vietnam regulating the procedural position of the prosecutor when receiving, checking and resolving a crime report; 2) to identify the general patterns of its (the prosecutor's procedural position) modern development, to determine the similarities and differences in the legal regulation of the prosecutor's procedural activity when receiving, checking and resolving crime reports; 3) to use the accumulated experience of criminal court proceedings to optimize the criminal procedure legislation of the two countries in this part. Methodology. The methodological basis of the study was the general dialectical method of cognition, as well as special legal ones, including comparative legal, formal-logical, system-functional, statistical and others. Main results: the presence of common patterns in the legal regulation of the prosecutor's procedural activity when receiving, checking and resolving reports on crimes of the two countries is established; the legislator of both states recognizes the special importance of legal and justified resolution of a crime report for the subsequent stages of criminal proceedings; significant differences in the prosecutor's procedural position are identified, the author's vision of the significance of these differences is given, and conclusions are formulated about the possibility of using foreign experience to regulate the procedural prosecutor in the national legislation [15] of each state.