SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSION ON THE INTERPRETATION OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE LAW OF UKRAINE "ON AMENDMENTS TO THE ECONOMIC PROCEDURAL CODE OF UKRAINE, THE CIVIL PROCEDURAL CODE OF UKRAINE, THE CODE OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDICIARY OF UKRAINE AND OTHER LEGISLATIVE : IN THE PART CONCERNING AMENDMENTS AND ADDITIONS TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF UKRAINE
Review
This scholarly opinion critically examines the amendments to the Ukrainian Criminal Procedure Code introduced by Law 2147 of October 3, 2017. The authors identify several problematic changes:
The general investigation deadline now runs from ERDR registration rather than from notification of suspicion, upsetting the balance between investigating judges and prosecutors.
The general investigation deadline now runs from ERDR registration rather than from notification of suspicion, upsetting the balance between investigating judges and prosecutors.
Investigation time-limits are drastically shortened (2–6 months) without regard to case complexity.
Investigation time-limits are drastically shortened (2–6 months) without regard to case complexity.
Defense counsel’s role is constrained by truncated time frames and an automatic case-closure trigger, impeding victims’ access to justice.
Defense counsel’s role is constrained by truncated time frames and an automatic case-closure trigger, impeding victims’ access to justice.
Counsel may now challenge the notification of suspicion without clear grounds, risking procedural abuse.
Counsel may now challenge the notification of suspicion without clear grounds, risking procedural abuse.
Search warrants require excessive detail about items and evidence, undermining the need for surprise.
Search warrants require excessive detail about items and evidence, undermining the need for surprise.
Practical recommendations are offered to realign these provisions with the objectives of pre-trial proceedings, the rights of defense and victims, the principle of reasonable time-limits, and the adversarial system.