The Necessity of Reforming Judicial Control Procedures by clear and practical divisions within the Investigative Process

In the fall of 2025, the momentum for reforming the criminal investigative structure is palpable. Various bills have become the subject of much debate, including proposals to abolish long established prosecutorial investigative powers and even the prosecution service itself. Although many subjects are hotly contested, direct discussions on establishing a rational judicial control procedure through substantive divisions in the investigative process seem to be avoided. Instead, the focus has been placed primarily on creating new investigative agencies or redistributing authority between the police and the prosecution. Reform, however, should not merely be confined to the redistribution of powers among state organs such as the police and the prosecution. It must also be pursued with the intent to enhance the protection of human rights while responding more effectively to crime. A desirable reform of the investigative structure should proceed in the direction of substantively dividing the investigative process and applying appropriate judicial control accordingly. Traditionally, criminal procedure has been structured on a framework that regulates investigations by dividing them into the police and prosecutorial phases. Such an approach overly emphasizes the allocation of powers between the police and the prosecution. Instead, the investigative process should be distinguished based on the initiation of significant compulsory measures, and once such measures are undertaken, judicial control over the investigation should be clearly and firmly established. This would prevent the abuse of authority by the investigative bodies and enhance the protection of human rights, hence regulating the investigative process by a practical setting of divisions in place. When compulsory measures such as the detention of a suspect or searches and seizures of residences are executed, the case has in effect reached the stage preliminary to indictment. Once an investigation enters this phase, it is essential to reasonably restrict time limits, methods, and the scope of the investigation to protect its integrity. Transparency of investigations should also be improved. Once an arrest has been made, the police should be limited to a set time in deciding whether to refer the case, and prosecutors should determine whether to indict within a corresponding timeframe. Furthermore, compulsory measures in this stage should be restricted to the proper scope necessary for prosecution. Judicial control procedures of this kind are necessary regardless of which investigative body is conducting the inquiries. Major countries likewise exercise thorough judicial control when compulsory measures such as detention have been effected. The question of how to regulate investigations after compulsory measures have been taken remains a central and ongoing issue in criminal procedure reform, particularly in the area of the investigation. A new criminal procedure must ensure that investigations are conducted swiftly and fairly, achieve substantive truth-finding, and simultaneously safeguard the citizens’ rights through due process of law. Broad and continued debate and deliberation are paramount to achieving this goal.