DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE PUBLIC PARTICIPANTS IN THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE PROCEDURE FOR INITIATING CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AND THE INITIATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS A SEPARATE, EXCLUSIVE POWER OF THE INVESTIGATOR

The article examines the problems concerning the relationship between the competences of the public participants in the proceedings and the disagreements arising between them in the procedure for initiating criminal proceedings. Considering the initiation of criminal proceedings as a separate and exclusive procedural power vested in the investigator, the author first addresses the legal significance of the transition from the model of “instituting a criminal case” to the mechanism of “initiating criminal proceedings” and the lawful prerequisites for the commencement of proceedings. Subsequently, on the basis of a combined analysis of the legal nature of the prosecutor’s report and their instruction to initiate criminal proceedings, the author substantiates that a prosecutorial instruction, as a means of supervisory influence, cannot independently replace the occasion prescribed by law for initiating criminal proceedings. In this context, it is proposed to establish legislatively that such an instruction must comply with the requirements prescribed for a prosecutor’s report or be accompanied by the corresponding report. The procedural procedure applicable when an investigator discovers indications of another alleged crime during the preliminary investigation is discussed separately. Through an analysis of the relationship between Articles 41, 173 and 177 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia (hereinafter referred to as the Code), the author identifies the normative uncertainty between the power to initiate new proceedings immediately and the requirements for submitting a report of a crime. It is proposed to recognise such discovery as an independent lawful occasion for initiating criminal proceedings. At the same time, it is substantiated that, until the legislative elimination of the aforementioned uncertainty, following any of the possible interpretations of the competing regulations cannot, in itself, constitute a sufficient basis for instituting disciplinary proceedings against the investigator.