Considering the issues of the genesis of the legal regulation of the interaction of the investigator and the bodies carrying out the ORDO, we come to the conclusion that there are certain patterns of development of this institution at various historical stages of law-making in the field of criminal procedural and administrative objective law. We believe that the very institution of interaction between the investigator (investigative body) and the body carrying out the ORDO has gone through several stages. At the first, initial stage of such interaction (from the formation of Russian statehood until the reforms of the 1860s), it is difficult to talk about any full-fledged interaction, because, unlike European countries, Russian law did not distinguish for a long period of time between the person conducting the preliminary investigation and the officials (authorities) contributing to this. Moreover, for a long time even the court and the investigator coincided in one person - in the person of the prince, the boyar.
In the landmark domestic acts containing criminal procedural norms (Russkaya Pravda, the Pskov Judicial Charter, the Court Books of 1497 and 1550, the Cathedral Code of 1649, "A brief image of trials or litigation", etc.), the institution of judicial control in close to our modern understanding is simply absent. The criminal process during the period of the above acts was formed in a different way and, in the absence, in most cases, of the participants in the criminal process, rights as such, the institution of interaction between the investigator and the bodies carrying out the ORDO could not arise and function due to the banal lack of specialization in the criminal prosecution bodies. Of course, there is some historical information about tyuns who had special tasks and powers in terms of searching for a criminal [1, p.48], but such data is extremely fragmentary and cannot be perceived as information about this or that interaction of law enforcement officers.
Some beginnings of specialization within the framework of the function of criminal prosecution, which inevitably entailed interaction, can be seen only during the heyday of the command management system in Russia of the XVII century [2, p.23]. The orders themselves were created haphazardly, as needed, caused by internal management problems or issues of external relations, their functions intersected and, often, they were generally vague. The authors see the Robbery Order as a prototype of the investigative body [3, p.14]. The function of the Robbery Order was, in fact, the implementation of police reprisals in a number of categories of cases [4, p.25].
In our opinion, it was the Robbery Order that became the first body coordinating the actions of the investigator and the local administration.
List of sources used:
1. Solovyov S.M. The history of Russia since ancient times. Book IV. Vol. 7. M., 1989 – 334 p.
2. Horiakov S. N. Procedural independence of the investigator. Dis.cand. jurid. M., 2006 – 202 p.
3. Stepanov. B.B. Procedural independence of the investigator in the investigation of crimes. Abstract of the dissertation of the Candidate of Sciences. M., 2007. - 28 p.
4. Ogorodov A.N. Procedural independence of the investigator in criminal proceedings. Dis.cand. jurid. M., 2018 – 198 p.
|
Ця робота ліцензується відповідно до Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Знайшли помилку? Виділіть помилковий текст і натисніть Ctrl + Enter
