Review

The aim of this publication is to shed light on the practical problems arising in the course of the preliminary inquiry and at-trial procedure in criminal proceedings when the question about agreement on reconciliation is being concluded or already concluded.

An institute of agreements in criminal proceedings is the innovation of the current CCP that in its testing process encountered a number of obstacles. Firstly, it is the imperfect procedural rules regulating the procedure of concluding agreements in criminal proceedings and the features of the trial proceedings. Secondly, it is the absence in CCP a fixed participant of criminal proceedings with its own procedural status, that should not only come to an agreement on reconciliation formally, but should also exhaust the conflict situation that has arisen as a result of committing a criminal offense. Thirdly, in my opinion, creates an unprecedented situation in general, is a subjective approach to institute of agreements in criminal proceedings on the part of investigators, prosecutors, judges, and worst of all, a different interpretation of this situation by the competent judicial authorities.

A great number of practicing lawyers indicated on imperfect procedural rules which set norms of the institute of agreements in criminal proceedings in their publications, particular, the author of this publication.

To my mind, the analysis of practical problems done, existing of opposite views in competent courts, demonstrates the depth and extent of the current problems in understanding the institute of agreements in criminal proceedings, and we have only hope that, in these realities of the legal framework and the ambiguity of jurisprudence, modern investigators, prosecutors can effectively perform the tasks of criminal proceedings, as this article focuses only on a few of several dozen of gaps and conflicting aspects.

Keywords: investigator, preliminary inquiry, mediation, agreement on reconciliation, procedural decision, jurisprudence, conflicts, gaps.