The mechanism for contesting the notification of suspicion as a means of protecting the rights of a suspect

Keywords: notification of suspicion, suspect, investigating judge, criminal proceedings, pre-trial investigation, contest of the notification of suspicion, complaint, Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations

Abstract

The possibility of contesting such a procedural document as a notification of suspicion has become an issue actively debated among scholars and practitioners. Taking a decision to make the notification of suspicion is an important step in the pre-trial investigation stage, which enables to confirm or deny a person's guilt and to prosecute him or her for criminal offences on the basis of the evidence collected. The ungrounded conclusions of the prosecution and of the court regarding the acquisition of the status of the suspect indicate that the rights and legitimate interests of the suspect have been violated and, subsequently, have corresponding consequences.

Contesting the notification of suspicion is an instrument to protect the rights of the suspect. The changes to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) in March 2018 enabled the person, notified of suspicion under Art. 276-279 of the CPC and granted the status of the suspected person (Art. 42 of the CPC), to decide on contesting this notification.

Investigators and prosecutors, abusing their authority, may unreasonably notify a person of suspicion, by which putting pressure on him or her. Subsequently, the decision on this person will be made in the court, and those who have made the notification of suspicion will not be held accountable for it in case of acquittal.

The institute of contesting the notification of suspicion, if applied properly, can become an effective remedy for the suspected person. The norm in this regard is quite new, so it is relevant to study the procedural mechanism of applying it: writing a complaint, filing it, considering it, rendering a decision and executing a decision. The investigator or prosecutor, in the event of receiving a decision to cancel a notification of suspicion, may address the deficiencies provided in the decision and resubmit the notification. This is why resolving the issue of contesting the notification of suspicion is an important step in ensuring the rights of the suspect.

The main grounds for cancelling suspicion include the following: divergent dates, names, or circumstances of the case, contradictions in the testimony, improper service of the notification of suspicion, the absence of signatures of officials notifying suspicion, non-clarified procedural rights and so forth.

References

Konstytutsiia Ukrainy: Рryjniata Verkhovnoiu Radoiu Ukrainy (1996). 30 [in Ukrainian].
Konventsiia pro zakhyst prav liudyny i osnovopolozhnykh svobod. Nabula chynnosti 3 veresnia 1953.
Kryminal’nyj protsesual’nyj kodeks Ukrainy (2013). Vidomosti Verkhovnoi rady (VVR). 9–10, 11–12, 13 [in Ukrainian].
Pro vnesennia zmin do Hospodars’koho protsesual’noho kodeksu Ukrainy, Tsyvil’noho protsesual’noho kodeksu Ukrainy,
Kodeksu administratyvnoho sudochynstva Ukrainy ta inshykh zakonodavchykh aktiv: Zakon Ukrainy vid 03.10.2017 № 2147-VIII. 48 [in Ukrainian].
Mel’nychenko, A.V. (2016). Zakhyst prav hromadian pid chas provedennia pevnykh protsesual’nykh dij. Naukovyj visnyk
Natsional’noi akademii vnutrishnikh sprav. 3 [in Ukrainian].
Kaplina, O.V. (2013). Pidozra u kryminal’nomu provadzhenni: poniattia, oznaky, sutnist’ / O.V. Kaplina. Yurydychnyj chasopys Natsional’noi akademii vnutrishnikh sprav. 1(5) [in Ukrainian].
Ivaschenko, O.V. (2013). Informuvannia uchasnykiv kryminal’noho provadzhennia : avtoref. dys. na zdobuttia nauk. stupenia kand. iuryd. nauk : spets. 12.00.09. Odesa [in Ukrainian].
Aliieva, O.M. (2013). Zahal’nyj analiz instytutu povidomlennia pro pidozru. Materialy Mizhnar. nauk.-prakt. konf., prysviach. 95-richchiu z dnia narodzhennia d-ra iuryd. nauk, prof. Strel’tsova L’va Mykhajlovycha (1918–1979). Chetverti iuryd. chytannia, 25 zhovt. 2013 r., m. Odesa / [uklad. : Z.V. Kuznietsova, A.V. Levenets’] ; ONU im. I.I. Mechnykova. Odesa : Astroprynt [in Ukrainian].
Paliukh, A.I. (2016). Uchast’ prokurora v dokazuvanni pid chas dosudovoho rozsliduvannia: dys… kand. iuryd. nauk: spets.
12.00.09. L’viv [in Ukrainian].
Cherniak, N.P. (2013). Protsesual’ni osoblyvosti povidomlennia osobi pro pidozru. Naukovyj visnyk Dnipropetrovs’koho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav. 1 [in Ukrainian].
Lozovyj, A. U chomu poliahaie sut’ pravok do kryminal’no-protsesual’noho kodeksu. URL: https://blogs.informator.nevs/uchomu-poliahaje-sut-pravok-kryminalno-protsesualnoho-kodeksu/ [in Ukrainian].
Pro zatverdzhennia Polozhennia pro poriadok vedennia Yedynoho reiestru dosudovykh rozsliduvan’: Nakaz Heneral’noi prokuratury Ukrainy vid 06.04.2016 № 139. URL: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/lavs/shov/z0680-16 [in Ukrainian].
Sprava № 569/81/16-k: Ukhvala Rivnens’koho mis’koho sudu Rivnens’koi oblasti vid 11.01.2016 roku. URL: http://reiestr.
tsourt.gov.ua/Reviev/55139205 [in Ukrainian].
How to Cite
Muliar, G., Khovpun, O., & Chasova, T. (1). The mechanism for contesting the notification of suspicion as a means of protecting the rights of a suspect. Law Review of Kyiv University of Law, (3), 228-233. https://doi.org/10.36695/2219-5521.3.2019.39
Section
Criminal law and criminology