The need of prosecution reform discussed in Lviv
During the discussion, participants expressed their position, explained why there is a need to improve activity of the prosecution, and identified a number of problems, which demonstrate the need for prosecution reform. In particular, most participants agreed that many current functions of prosecutors are a relic from the Soviet times. Participants also noted inefficiency of the prosecution, its inaction in many areas. Many participants believe that at present prosecution is a means of political influence rather than a body which aims to ensure legitimacy. In addition, participants noted a considerable load of prosecution due to a large number of functions that directly affect the efficiency of its work.
Participants of the discussion did not support the idea of continuation of prosecution executing a function of general supervision over compliance with the law. In particular, all agreed that this function is unnecessary and needs to be canceled.
However, some human rights advocates said that prosecutors should be remained a function of supervision of human rights and freedoms adherence by state executive authorities, local self-government bodies and officials, because at present there is no other mechanism of protecting human rights. Yet, participants agreed that such mechanism could be ensured by the institute of Ombudsmen which would have to carry out its functions effectively.
Among the views expressed by NGO representatives, dominated the following: the prosecutor’s office should be, first of all, an element of the criminal justice system, and then the body with other functions; even a large agency with a lot of staff cannot execute all the functions which the prosecutor’s office has (due to that, there are instances in criminal justice when human rights are not fully protected in conflicts with authorities), some functions “conflict” with one another in the criminal justice (for example, prosecutor’s office initiates criminal cases and investigates them, while there is no overseeing of the investigation), the status is uncertain (this agency is not referred to as state authorities).
Most human rights advocates complained that no criminal cases are initiated that fall within the investigating competence of prosecutors concerning appeals from citizens and organizations. The very list of crimes, stipulated in the Criminal Code of Ukraine, indicates that most of them relate to public sphere, high public interest and rights, which are most often violated today. For example, investigators of prosecutor’s office conduct preliminary investigation of crime cases concerning voting rights, violation of equality of citizens with regard to their race, nationality or religious beliefs; violation of secrecy of correspondence, telephone conversations, telegraph and other correspondence transmitted by means of communication or via computer; hindering legitimate activity of trade unions; interference into legitimate professional activity of journalists; major violations of labor legislation, including knowingly illegal dismissal; violation of right to education; violation of right to free health care; illegal privatization of state, municipal property; failure to face mandatory conditions for privatization of state and municipal property or enterprises and their future use; violations of environmental rights; abuse of power or position; negligence, bribe receiving, coercion to testify, the ruling of judge (judges) knowingly unfair verdict, decision, or regulations; failure to execute judgements and others.
Human rights advocates pointed out that today prosecutor’s office takes a very close position, while even courts are open to monitoring. Instead, organizations of civil society want to know more about activities of prosecutor’s office.
Participants discussed the possibility of functioning of the prosecution at court, as it is in some European countries (Italy, France, Germany etc.), based on the fact that its main function is to participate in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, the court must control prosecutor in the criminal process, while the prosecutor controls the investigation undertaken by the relevant bodies, but in any case, not by prosecution.
In general, participants of the discussion concluded that prosecutors can function either at court or in the executive branch, but must do this effectively, focusing their efforts on protecting citizens’ rights and the rule of law.
These and other results of the discussions and research will be presented at the academic and practical conference, conducted by the Center for Public Advocacy and Law Faculty of Lviv State Institute of New Technologies and Management named after Chornovil in the frames of the project “Improving activity of prosecutor’s office of Ukraine – a way to reforming criminal justice”, with the support of “Rule of Law” Program of the International Renaissance Foundation.
Contact person: Leonid Tarasenko, leonlaw@rambler.ru
