ZHURAVLOV O. Implementation of industry principles of criminal procedure in appellate proceedings

The dissertation is the first in the science of criminal procedural law to comprehensively study the implementation of the principles of sectoral criminal procedure in appeal proceedings. The following list of key features of the principles of the criminal process was formed: - principles are certain ideas, principles, provisions (or any other synonymous noun that emphasizes their fundamentality); - foundations are certain fundamental, basic, main main (or any other adjective that strengthens the key noun and emphasizes their fundamentality); - the principles are universally binding; - the principles are fixed in the criminal procedural norms; - the principles are aimed at the performance of the tasks of criminal proceedings (in this aspect, it is possible to additionally add what the main or specific tasks are, which will not necessarily be provided for in Article 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine); - a certain (quite often – criminal procedural) responsibility should occur for non-compliance with the principles. The existence of such a principle as procedural responsibility of the prosecutor has been proven. In this case, we are not talking about procedural responsibility from the point of view of establishing a specific criminal procedural or some other sanction, but the prosecutor's responsibility for the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal proceedings. In addition to the fact that the prosecutor-procedural manager really guarantees the effectiveness of the pre-trial investigation, special emphasis is placed on the fact that according to Part 2 of Art. 37 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, the prosecutor exercises his powers in criminal proceedings from the beginning to the end. As a matter of fact, the immutability of the prosecutor is not a determining factor, because in isolation it only concerns the fact of the internal organization of the activities of the prosecutor's office and the determination of the list of persons who will be procedural leaders in one or another criminal proceeding. It is not the duty of the prosecutor's constancy that matters, but the consequences that this duty generates. The prosecutor is procedurally responsible not for the results of a separate stage of the criminal process, but for the results of the entire criminal proceeding. Such responsibility significantly changes the philosophy of his work, because he must be sure that no errors or violations that occurred at the stage of the pre-trial investigation will not affect the results of the trial. Conversely, if already at the stage of the pre-trial investigation it is obvious to the prosecution that there is not enough evidence to prove guilt, then it would be more expedient for the prosecutor to close such criminal proceedings or, if it is permissible, to enter into a plea agreement with the suspect. That is why we believe that the prosecutor's procedural responsibility for the results of criminal proceedings should be considered as the basis of criminal proceedings.