DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REFUSAL TO INITIATE AN INVESTIGATION, REFUSAL TO INITIATE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, TERMINATION OF CRIMINAL PROSECUTION AND WAIVER OF STATE ACCUSATION

Abstract

The article discusses, in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Law of Georgia, the institutions of refusing to initiate an investigation, refusing to initiate a criminal prosecution, terminating a criminal prosecution and refusing to file a state accusation, the similarities and differences between them. The author presents the problems of initiation and implementation of the aforementioned procedural institutions in practice and ways of solving them. The author is working on a doctoral dissertation, the title of which is "The Refusal of the State Accusation by the Prosecutor and Its Legal Consequences." Although this article is not part of the thesis, it is closely related to the scientific characterization of the institution of waiver of charges. In addition, the topics discussed in it will help the reader to have a clear idea about the legal regulation of the institution of refusal to charge, its role and its importance in procedural legislation. The study of the mentioned issue will help us to compare the issue under consideration with the procedural institutions that are close to it, which will allow us to clearly present the legal analysis of the specific discretionary powers of the prosecutor.

The article will give the reader a clear idea about the powers of the prosecutor, which at first glance does not represent a characteristic right of the prosecutor's office, but has a special place in the extensive arsenal of the prosecutor's powers and perform certain functions of protecting rights.

Keywords: prosecutor, accusation (charge), accuser, termination of prosecution, waiver of accusation

Introduction

At present, Georgian scientific works do not pay attention to the issue of waiving state charges and their legal consequences. We believe that the scientific study of this component, the identification of existing problems and the search for ways to solve them will contribute to the perfect implementation of the principles of the criminal justice process in the sense that everyone who has committed a crime will be held criminally liable, and at the same time, the conviction of an innocent person should be excluded.

We believe that related instruments for waiving charges in procedural legislation are presented in the form of a refusal to initiate an investigation, a refusal to initiate criminal prosecution and a termination of criminal prosecution. The mentioned procedural decisions are fully harmonized with the recommendation of the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers, according to which state accusers should not initiate or continue criminal prosecution, if, as a result of an objective investigation, the groundlessness of the accusation is established.[1]

Studying the research topic from a scientific point of view will allow us to fill the void that is accompanied by the rejection of the state accusation in the Georgian reality, and this void will be filled by answering such questions, which are problematic and interesting for both scientists and practising lawyers. A scientific study of the institution of waiver of state charges, a detailed analysis of its essence and results, in the light of current legislation of Georgia, will allow us to identify the problems that accompany the aforementioned procedural action, as well as create a clear idea and formulate recommendations that will ensure, on the one hand, in finding ways to solve the problems surrounding the procedural institution and on the other hand for the perfection of the procedural legislation. A scientific study of the issue will help the prosecutor to more actively and smoothly use his discretionary authority and to minimize subjective and criminal approaches by the state prosecutor when refusing the state charges.

In this regard, a discussion on the problems of the prosecutor's refusal to file state charges should be published in the Georgian legal literature. For comparison, this issue is actively raised and discussed in the legal circles of foreign states.

The conviction of an innocent person has been considered a serious crime since ancient times. Therefore, the ancient world severely punished those who illegally accused a righteous person. For example, the laws of Hammurabi punished with death the accuser who failed to prove the person's guilt. Ancient Greece and ancient Rome also shared this approach and believed that it was better for the guilty to go unpunished than to punish the innocent. According to the Roman Constitution of 212, the burden of the accusation rested on the accuser, and according to the Magna Carta (Great Charter of Freedoms), the authority to judge a person could not be given to the king but only to a fair trial.[2]

Justice in Georgia is carried out on the basis of equality and competitiveness of the parties, which ensures the democratization and perfection of the justice process.[3]

In this process, a decisive role is assigned to the process of exercising the discretionary powers of the prosecutor, who at the decisive stage of the legal proceedings, in particular during the trial of the case, acts as the state prosecutor, is responsible, not only for criminal prosecution but also, if there are legal grounds, for waiver of state accusation. The mentioned authority gives the prosecutor, as a state accuser, the rights and duties of a human rights defender since, if there are sufficient grounds, the rejection of state charges are directly related to the realization of a person's legal rights. During the use of the authority to refuse to execute state charges, the prosecutor protects the rights of the accused and the use of this right is assigned by the law to the state prosecutor with the same success as the implementation of criminal prosecution, which excludes the implementation of criminal prosecution procedures against an innocent person before the final decision of the court and will promote fair and lawful administration of justice.

Difference between Refusal to Initiate an Investigation, Refusal to Initiate Criminal Prosecution and Waiver of State Accusation

If a crime is reported, the law obliges the investigator and the prosecutor to initiate an investigation[4]. In practice, is an investigation initiated on the basis of any report of a crime? As mentioned above, the positive obligation to start an investigation upon receipt of information about the commission of a crime is assigned to the investigator and the prosecutor by procedural law and in this case, it does not represent such discretionary powers as, for example, initiating a criminal prosecution, as well as its termination and refusal to present accusations.

It should be noted here about a formal but important circumstance. In particular, procedural legislation does not recognize either the procedural institution of refusal to initiate an investigation or the system of pre-investigative actions. In some cases, scientists positively evaluate this legislative trend and believe that such an approach will prevent the establishment of the "syndrome of impunity" in the country[5].

The refusal to initiate investigation and/or criminal prosecution at the early stage of criminal proceedings is in accordance with the principles of the criminal proceedings[6], as it speeds up the process of resolving the conflict between the participants in the process, it saves material and human resources, which in turn directs these assets to the investigation of serious and especially serious crimes.

In what cases the investigator and the prosecutor cannot start the investigation? To answer this question, we should again be guided by the text of Article 100 of the Civil Code, which deals with information about crimes. It should be noted that the investigator and the prosecutor must, first of all, establish the presence of signs of crime in written, oral or otherwise recorded reports[7], Which is an extremely important issue also for the initiation of the investigation in order to determine the qualification of the crime. Currently, there are seven independent investigative structures in Georgia, namely: the Prosecutor's Office of Georgia, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the State Security Service, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Finance and the Special Investigation Service. Of course, the aforementioned bodies will not have the same approaches to recording information about crimes, but what unites them all is the electronic program for the investigation of criminal cases, which has been adapted to all investigative bodies of Georgia since 2010 and which is used by all investigators and prosecutors of Georgia in their daily activities. Registration of the report in the mentioned program assigns it a unique registration number, after which, if the investigator and the prosecutor come to the conclusion that there are obvious signs of a crime, the electronic program allows the investigator to start an investigation on an action-by-action basis, after which the program automatically creates a so-called Form #1, in which the number of the criminal case, the plot of the crime, the criminal qualification of the crime and the electronic signature of the authorized person are indicated.[8]

If the investigator and the prosecutor fail to establish the signs of a crime in the report and, moreover, the report unambiguously indicates the absence of signs of a crime based on its content, in such a case, the investigator and the prosecutor will not have an obligation to initiate an investigation, and they must make an objective decision to refuse to initiate an investigation.

It should be noted here that a report on a crime, if we do not consider the case revealed during criminal proceedings, always has a specific initiator, which in some cases is subjective and acts based on personal interests. Accordingly, the investigator and the prosecutor, before starting the investigation, should study and analyze the facts and circumstances mentioned in the information in detail, at which time, based on their professionalism, they should, first of all, determine the presence of signs of crime in the report, and then give legal qualifications to the illegal activity.

What legal mechanism exists in the case when the report does not allow for categorical analysis? In particular, there are no signs of crime, but the fact requires further study. The following question logically arises, in the conditions when the current procedural legislation of Georgia does not recognize pre-investigation proceedings, how should the investigator and prosecutor check the facts indicated in the report, which do not contain obvious signs of crime? This issue is regulated by various laws and subordinate normative acts, which generally regulate the activities of law enforcement agencies. As an example, we can cite the laws of Georgia "On operative-search activity" and "On counter-intelligence activity". In addition to the above, before the investigation, the police officers, including the investigator of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, have the right to interrogate a person, identify him, call him, examine him and perform a superficial inspection[9]. Employees of the State Security Service, which also includes the service investigators, have the right to conduct these procedures[10] before the start of the investigation. Employees of the General Inspection of the Ministry of Defense, including investigators, have the right to request information, consider complaints, demand explanations from employees regarding their official activities, etc., before the investigation begins[11]. After the completion of the relevant legal procedures, if there are no grounds for the initiation of the investigation, the investigator and the prosecutor refuse to initiate the investigation. The specified decision does not have the form of a procedural document since, as mentioned above, the Code of Procedure does not recognize such a situation, and therefore it cannot have the form of a procedural document such as a resolution. In such a case, the investigators draw up a written document, which can be in the form of a notice or protocol, which indicates the receipt of the report, its content, the verification of the factual circumstances indicated in the report, the measures taken and the conclusion obtained as a result of their analysis that it does not contain signs of crime[12]. The mentioned document should be reflected in the electronic investigation program, and the status of the registered report should be changed from "active" to "completed".

When starting an investigation, it is important to take into account the issue of its expediency. Since it is possible to start an investigation on a specific action, it may be more difficult and painful, even for public and private interests, as well as senseless and unfair, than to refuse to start it.

We should also touch on such a matter when we have formal signs of crime, but due to private, public and social interests, it may not be appropriate to start an investigation. In general, the investigation process is related to the time factor and human and material resources, which should be consistent with its legal outcome. For example, the sanction of a specific criminal act includes a minimum fine and/or community service.

We believe that the investigation should not be started on the facts of a crime with such a formal composition, which is a less serious crime, and when the time and resources required for conducting the investigation will be incompatible with its results. For example, when an investigation is to be conducted on the fact of a less serious crime, which is punishable by a minimum fine when the person does not pose a public danger, the damage has been compensated, the situation has changed, the victim does not demand offender's punishment, or when, based on public, private or social interests, it is inappropriate to open an investigation.

In case of refusal to initiate an investigation, it is necessary to analyze the set of factual circumstances based on which the prosecutor and/or investigator can use this authority. In particular, the issue of compensation for material and moral damage should be considered; it can be expressed both in kind and in monetary form, as well as by an apology, payment of treatment costs, assistance in the restoration of other violated rights, which corresponds to personal and public interests.

It should also be noted here that in a number of cases, by starting an investigation, it is possible to achieve such legitimate goals as the reconciliation of the participants in the process, awareness and repentance of the perpetrator of his illegal actions, compensation for damages, prevention of similar or other crimes in the future, and others.

Accordingly, it can be concluded that the absence of signs of a crime in the notification may be considered the basis of the classic form of refusal to initiate an investigation.

According to Georgian legislation, the prosecutor leads the litigation process up to the stage of judicial review, which also includes the pre-investigation stage. Despite the foregoing, the investigator has the right to refuse to start the investigation, which on the one hand, speeds up the litigation process and, on the other hand, strengthens the institution of the investigator, which is a positive issue since the levelling of the investigator's rights under the current regulations may be considered the Achilles heel of the current procedural code.

Some scientists consider the moment of registration[13] of the crime as the stage of the beginning of the investigation, which we cannot agree with because we believe that the pre-investigative activities, as its name clearly shows, are the previous stage of the investigation, in addition, the electronic criminal investigation program considers the moment when on an action-by-action principle, the investigator receives an investigation initiation card in the program, which provides a unique identifier of the criminal case - the case number. Here we must also take into account the formal conditions established by the current legislation. In particular, the application of the norms of the Criminal Procedure Code in practice, implementation is possible only after the beginning of the investigation, and the pre-investigation procedures are not regulated in it. Simply put, there cannot be an investigation process without the implementation of procedural legislation, and its implementation is directly related to the issue of initiating an investigation, and if we use the old terminology, "Criminal proceedings are the first step in the initiation of an investigation into a criminal case, it is the beginning of a criminal case that provides a basis for conducting all kinds of procedural investigative actions".[14]

With regard to the similarity between the initiation of the investigation and the refusal to bring charges, it should be noted that in both cases, the prosecutor has the authority to make a decision (when refusing to initiate an investigation jointly with the investigator or independently) and in both cases (the case of complete waiver of charge) a specific stage of the proceedings is completed. And as for the difference between them, in the first case, we have the stage and procedures before the start of the investigation, which is not regulated by the procedural legislation, and the refusal of the accusation is possible, according to the procedural legislation, only after the investigation has begun, it is conducted in its full scope, and the case is sent to the court for consideration.

Regarding the issue of termination of the investigation of the criminal law case, it should, first of all, be noted that the investigation belongs to the special administration of the highest state bodies of Georgia[15], despite the indicated constitutional reservation, the basic principle of the current procedural legislation is competition[16], which implies the equality of the parties in terms of gathering evidence as well. Such procedural regulation of the issue, on the other hand, as a democratic starting point, limits the monopoly of the state on criminal proceedings and, accordingly, strengthens the authority of the defense side in terms of independent collection of evidence[17]. The process of obtaining evidence independently by the parties, in turn, accelerates the criminal proceedings and makes it possible to make a timely summary decision on the case, even as the termination of the investigation in the case.

The legal grounds for termination of investigation and/or refusal to initiate criminal prosecution, as well as its termination, are regulated by Article 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Termination of the investigation is the authority of the prosecutor[18]. We agree to divide the grounds for termination of the investigation into two main groups: substantive and procedural. The first group includes all the grounds that categorically exclude the existence of corpus delicti (a crime) in the act, which in turn excludes the issue of criminal prosecution and conviction against a person. Procedural grounds for termination of the investigation and refusal to start the investigation exist in such circumstances, the presence of which indicates the committed crime and the possibility of applying the punishment, but the legal regulations do not provide proper conditions for starting and/or continuing the proceedings[19].

The prosecutor issues a decision to terminate the investigation, which is reflected in the electronic program of the investigation of the criminal case. After the decision is made, in the electronic program, the status of the case, "active", is changed to "terminated", and the program no longer provides technical means for performing any investigative action. The current procedural legislation, for its part, does not recognize the possibility of conducting any investigative or procedural action after the termination of the investigation. If we do not include the protocols and/or notices showing the disposal of the material evidence[20] attached to the case, the investigator and/or the prosecutor draw up these procedural documents in accordance with the resolution part of the decision to terminate the case[21], by which the fate of the material evidence was decided. Such procedural documents can be, for example, a protocol on unsealing, viewing and returning material evidence to the owner, a protocol on the destruction of material evidence, and others.

Professor Apollon Paliashvili divided the grounds for terminating the investigation into three groups:

1. Grounds that exclude the investigation of a criminal case;


2. Grounds that give the producer of the process the right to terminate the investigation;


3. Grounds for terminating the investigation due to non-confirmation of the accused's involvement in the crime.

There is the following similarity between the termination of the investigation and the refusal of the accusation, in both cases, the investigation has been started, and only the prosecutor has the right to terminate the investigation, as well as to refuse the accusation, and in both cases, formal grounds are required to make a procedural decision, which is presented in Article 105 of the Civil Code of Georgia. As for the difference between them, the prosecutor can terminate the investigation only before sending the case to the court for consideration, while the charge is dropped only at the trial stage, the investigation can be terminated even when the case has not been prosecuted, while the charge is withdrawn only after such, if any. In the first case, it is possible that we do not have a victim the case, but if there is one, the victim has the right to appeal the termination decision made by the prosecutor.[22] At the time of refusal to bring the charge, the current procedural code does not give the victim this right, which we consider to be an essential violation of the adversarial procedural principle and which we will talk about in detail in other studies since it is beyond the scope of the article.

After the investigation into the case, based on the analysis of the evidence obtained in the case, the prosecutor is authorized not to initiate a criminal prosecution. As a rule, the prosecutor makes such a decision when the investigation does not determine an action provided for by the criminal law, no harm has been caused or has already been compensated, as well as in the case of other factual circumstances, which is provided for by the procedural legislation.[23] As for the similarity between refusal to initiate prosecution and refusal to charge, both decisions are within the competence of the prosecutor. In both cases, the investigation is launched, and investigative actions are carried out. The difference between them is that the prosecutor can refuse to initiate prosecution by his decision only at the investigation stage, and it is possible to refuse charges only during the trial. In the first case, we do not have the fact of initiation of criminal prosecution against a person, which is a necessary component for the second case.

Refusal to prosecute those persons who first committed a less serious or reckless crime, who confessed and repented of it, fully compensated the damage and cooperated with the investigation, we consider it to be consistent with the fundamental principles of the Constitution of Georgia and Criminal Procedural Legislation in terms of protecting human rights, also represents a certain and objective order of society.

Along with the termination of the investigation, procedural legislation allows the prosecutor, in the presence of appropriate formal and factual circumstances, to terminate the criminal prosecution as well or to terminate only the criminal prosecution without the termination of the investigation. This occurs when there are obvious signs of a crime, the commission of which, on the basis of the additional evidence obtained in the case, confirms with a reasonable assumption that the person who is accused of committing it did not commit the crime.

Difference between Termination of Criminal Prosecution and Waiver of State Accusation

Termination of criminal prosecution, by its nature, is the closest to the procedural institution of refusal to charge. Therefore, there are more similarities between them than with such rights of the prosecutor, such as the refusal to initiate an investigation and the initiation of criminal prosecution or to terminate the investigation. This similarity is expressed in the fact that both decisions are taken only by the prosecutor. In both cases, the criminal prosecution has already started, and both decisions directly refer to the further fate of the accused, in particular, the issue of stopping the criminal prosecution against him. In both cases, the prosecutor may decide in whole or in part to continue the criminal prosecution. The essential difference between them is the legal norm, according to which the prosecutor can terminate criminal prosecution only at the stage of the investigation, as well as refuse the charge during the trial.

In practice, the waiver of the charge is more often presented when the case is considered on the merits, during the presentation of the closing speech by the prosecutor, although this authority can also be used when the evidence obtained during the investigation is examined in court, and the prosecutor can also waive the accusation at the stage of the pre-trial hearing. With regard to the partial refusal of the charge, the prosecutor can do this at any stage of the trial, while the partial waiver may affect both individual episodes of the charge as well as one specific charge as a whole.

In addition, in contrast to the complete cessation of criminal prosecution, the complete rejection of the accusation leads to the termination of the trial of the criminal case due to the absence of corpus delicti (composition of the crime).

A partial or complete waiver of the state charge or a partial or complete termination of the criminal prosecution is possible only if there are proper grounds stipulated by the law[24].

In the legal literature, we find an interesting division of grounds for exemption from criminal prosecution into interesting categories: imperative objective grounds, imperative subjective grounds, discretionary objective grounds and discretionary subjective grounds[25]. When making a decision on exemption from criminal liability, it is necessary to assess whether it corresponds to the tasks of protecting the rights and legal interests of the individual, society and the state. Cumulative analysis of objective and subjective criteria will contribute to the validity of such an assessment and will also make it possible to determine whether a refusal of criminal prosecution is in the public interest. Termination of criminal prosecution should not be applied automatically to the fact of reconciliation of the participants in the process and a formal correction of the situation, but it should be decided to take into account public interests. The current procedural legislation makes it possible to easily resolve the issue with the mentioned criteria since the right of discretion has been introduced into Georgian legislation since the entry into force of the new procedural code, which can be considered an important moment in law-making activity, which is based on the data of comparative jurisprudence and legal science.[26]

The formation of charges in a criminal case is preceded by a complex and lengthy procedural activity of investigation. In addition, after the initiation of the criminal prosecution, the prosecutor has the right to change its wording, which is also related to the new evidence obtained in the case. The specified change can be carried out both in favour of the accused, in particular, to facilitate his accusation and also against his interests, which entails aggravation of the accusation. At the investigation stage, the prosecutor is not limited in the decisions made in relation to the charge, and he makes decisions based on the factual circumstances presented by the totality of the evidence gathered in the case, based on his own inner conviction.

In order to decide whether to stop the investigation and/or criminal prosecution, the prosecutor needs to be properly motivated, which in turn should be created by an objective analysis of the set of evidence in the case since the decision to terminate the criminal case, which can be made by subjective opinion and arbitrary decision-making, essentially violates the legality of the case, the requirements of validity and justice.

The prosecutor's subjective refusal to stop the criminal prosecution before sending the case to trial, which can be explained by various even non-corrupt motives, such as avoiding conflict[27] with investigative bodies, is objectively considered by scientists as a negative event, but it is a fact that the legal systems of different countries are facing this risk and the objective decision of the prosecutor to terminate the criminal prosecution in a timely manner should not be perceived as a failure of the investigative or prosecutorial bodies.[28] Based on the foregoing, the opinion is valid that if there are grounds for terminating the investigation and criminal prosecution, and the prosecutor has not used this right, the court has a positive obligation to terminate it during the trial. An unjustified refusal by the prosecutor to terminate the criminal case is considered a substantial violation of the Criminal Procedure Law, which should entail the annulment of the sentence[29].

When making a decision on exemption from criminal liability, it is necessary to assess whether it corresponds to the tasks of protecting the rights and legal interests of the individual, society and the state. Cumulative analysis of objective and subjective criteria will contribute to the validity of such an assessment and will also make it possible to determine whether the refusal of criminal prosecution is in the public interest. Termination of criminal prosecution should not be applied automatically to the fact of reconciliation of the process participants and a formal correction of the situation, but it should be decided to take into account public interests.[30]

In recent years, the issue of the expediency of criminal prosecution has come to the fore in the legislation of different countries, which in turn has led to the emergence of alternative institutions of criminal responsibility in the procedural legislation, which is related to the expediency of criminal prosecution in case of a crime.[31]

In such a situation, the problem of the synthesis of expediency and legality is on the agenda, which must be decided by the prosecutor, taking into account the factual circumstances of the specific case, the personality of the accused, his age and the illegal outcome. This issue becomes particularly relevant when the burden of proof and the potential consequences are disproportionate, for example, when the human and financial resources spent on the investigation will greatly exceed the size and nature of the potential harm. In addition, the issue of compensation for damages should be resolved in accordance with the legislation of Georgia and it should not harm the interests of third parties, which should also be taken into account when waiving criminal prosecution or public prosecution.

In Georgian procedural legislation, an important innovation in this respect is the establishment of procedural institutions of diversion[32] and diversion-mediation[33], the use of which is a discretionary authority of the prosecutor.

On the other hand, diversion and diversion-mediation may be considered a kind of conditional release from the criminal liability of the accused under the legislation of Georgia, during which it is possible to apply such obligations as a fine, community service and others. The legislation of France, Moldova, Poland and other countries provides for the possibility of refusing criminal prosecution and conditional release from criminal liability.

conclusion

Summing up, it should be noted that the existence in the Criminal Procedure Legislation of Georgia of such institutions as refusal to initiate an investigation, termination of an investigation, cessation of criminal prosecution and refusal of the accusation indicates the primacy of democratic principles. The state has exclusive authority to both investigate and prosecute and the procedural instruments we have reviewed present the prosecutor as an authorized representative of the state, not as an inquisitor but as a powerful authority figure. And when the appropriate factual and formal conditions occur, which contribute to the objective transformation of the prosecutor's inner convictions, he can easily wear the mantle of a human rights defender and stop the investigative and incriminating procedures. As the research showed us, the rights of the prosecutor in this regard are diverse, and it is advisable to establish a limit between them, which was scientifically presented by us in the above study.           

Bibliography

1. Recommendation No R (2000) of  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to member states on ,,The Role of the Prosecutor's Office in the Justice System".


2. Constitution of Georgia, Tbilisi, 1995, article 62, part 5.


3. Thandilashvili Kh., 2018, Prosecutor's Public Statement and Presumption of Innocence, ,,Justice and Law’’ magazine, № 4(60) 2018, p.164.


4. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 100.


5. Eileen Overbaugh, Human Trafficking: The Need for Federal Prosecution of Accused Traffickers, (2009), 39 Seton Hall, L. Rev. 635, 641-42.


6. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 8 and Article 16.


7. , Article 101, Part 2.


8. Begiashvili Kh., 2019, “Essence, Meaning and Scope of the Electronic Program of Criminal Proceedings", the scientific-practical legal journal of the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Georgian Judges Association ,,Justice and Law", Tbilisi, №2(62)19, p.123.


9. Law of Georgia "On Police", Tbilisi, 2013, Articles 19-22.


10. Law of Georgia "On the State Security Service", Tbilisi, 2015, Articles 14-17.


11. Regulations of the General Inspection of the Ministry of Defense of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2019, Article 3, "g", "m", "n", subsection.


12. The information is based on the results of interviews with practicing investigators and prosecutors as part of the study.


13. Meurmishvili B., Initiation and Implementation of Criminal Prosecution in the Criminal Legal Process of Georgia (at the stage of investigation), scientific work submitted for the degree of Doctor of Law, Tbilisi, 2014, p. 103.


14. Mjavanadze Z., Criminal Proceedings, Issues of Initiation of Criminal Proceedings and Preliminary Investigation, Tbilisi, 1999, p. 10.


15. Constitution of Georgia, Tbilisi, 1995, Article 7, Part 1, Subsection "D".


16. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 9.


17. Elsner B., Lewis Ch., Zila J., Police Prosecution Service Relationship within Criminal Investigation. In: European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 14, 2008., 203 - 224.


18. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 106, Part 1.


19. Paliashvili , Soviet Criminal Law Process, Tbilisi, 1968, p. 301.


20. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 3, Section 25.


21. , Article 81.


22. , Article 106, Article 1¹.


23. François Molins, L’action public, 2009, (dernière mise à jour: 2013), 12.


24. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 105.


25. Golovko L., Alternatives to Criminal Prosecution in Modern Law. St. Petersburg, 2002, pp. 286–287


26. Mefarishvili G, Concerning the Principles of Discretion, Journalistic of Law, Tbilisi, 2014, p.18.


27. Flanagan, Sir Ronnie, The Review of Policing. Final Report, 2008, p. 60.


28. Osce Odihr, III Expert Forum on Criminal Justice for Central Asia (op.cit. note164), pp. 9 and 22.


29. Kononenko V., Application by the Courts of the Norms of Criminal Procedure Law on the Termination of Criminal Cases after Reconciliation of the Parties in Cases of Public Prosecution, 2016, pp. 303-305.


30. Kaminsky E., Ensuring Public Legal Interests in the Application of Alternative Methods for Resolving Criminal Law Conflicts in Pre-trial Proceedings, Moscow, 2021, p. 119.


31. Golovko L., Alternatives to Criminal Prosecution in Modern Law. St. Petersburg, 2002, p. 21;

 Samarin V., The Principle of Expediency Versus the Principle of Publicity in the Modern Criminal Process, Criminal Procedure As a Means of Ensuring Human Rights in a State of Law.  Materials of the International scientific-practical conference. Minsk, 2017, p. 76.

32. Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 168¹.


33. Juvenile Justice Code, Tbilisi, 2015, Article 39.

Footnotes

[1] Recommendation  No R (2000) of  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers to member states on ,,The Role of the Prosecutor's Office in the Justice System".

[2] Thandilashvili Kh., 2018, Prosecutor's Public Statement and Presumption of Innocence, "Justice and Law" magazine, № 4(60) 2018, p.164.

[3] Constitution of Georgia, Tbilisi, 1995, Article 62, Part 5.

[4] Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 100.

[5] Overbaugh E., Human Trafficking: The Need for Federal Prosecution of Accused Traffickers, (2009), 39 Seton Hall, L. Rev. 635, 641-42.

[6] Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 8 and Article 16.

[7] Ibid., Article 101, Part 2.

[8] Begiashvili Kh., 2019, “Essence, Meaning and Scope of the Electronic Program of Criminal Proceedings", the scientific-practical legal journal of the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Georgian Judges Association ,,Justice and Law", Tbilisi, №2(62)19, p.123.

[9] Law of Georgia "On Police", Tbilisi, 2013, Articles 19-22.

[10] Law of Georgia "On the State Security Service", Tbilisi, 2015, Articles 14-17.

[11] Regulations of the General Inspection of the Ministry of Defense of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2019, Article 3, "g", "m", "n", subsection.

[12] The information is based on the results of interviews with practicing investigators and prosecutors as part of the study.

[13] Meurmishvili B., Initiation and Implementation of Criminal Prosecution in the Criminal Legal Process of Georgia (at the stage of investigation), scientific work submitted for the degree of Doctor of Law, Tbilisi, 2014, p. 103.

[14] Mjavanadze Z., Criminal Proceedings, Issues of Initiation of Criminal Proceedings and Preliminary Investigation, Tbilisi, 1999, p. 10.

[15] Constitution of Georgia, Tbilisi, 1995, Article 7, Section 1, Subsection "D".

[16] Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 9.

[17] Elsner B., Lewis Ch., Zila J., Police Prosecution Service Relationship within Criminal Investigation. In: European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 14, 2008, pp. 203 - 224.

[18] Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 106, Part 1.

[19] Paliashvili A., Soviet Criminal Law Process, Tbilisi, 1968, p. 301.

[20] Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 3, Section 25.

[21] Ibid., Article 81.

[22] Ibid., Article 106, Article 1¹.

[23] Molins F., L’action public, 2009, (dernière mise à jour: 2013), 12.

[24] Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 105.

[25] Golovko L., Alternatives to Criminal Prosecution in Modern Law. St. Petersburg, 2002, pp. 286–287

[26] Mefarishvili G, Concerning the Principles of Discretion, Journalistics of Law, Tbilisi, 2014, p. 18.

[27] Flanagan, Sir Ronnie, The Review of Policing. Final Report, 2008, p. 60.

[28] Osce Odihr, III Expert Forum on Criminal Justice for Central Asia (op.cit. note164), pp. 9 and 22.

[29] Kononenko V., Application by the Courts of the Norms of Criminal Procedure Law on the Termination of Criminal Cases after Reconciliation of the Parties in Cases of Public Prosecution, 2016., pp. 303-305.

[30] Kaminsky E., Ensuring Public Legal Interests in the Application of Alternative Methods for Resolving Criminal Law Conflicts in Pre-trial Proceedings, Moscow, 2021, p. 119.

[31] Golovko L., Alternatives to Criminal Prosecution  in Modern Law. St. Petersburg, 2002, p. 21;

 Samarin V., The Principle of Expediency Versus the Principle of Publicity in the Modern Criminal Process, Criminal Procedure As a Means of Ensuring Human Rights in a State of Law.  Materials of the International scientific-practical conference. Minsk, 2017, p. 76.

[32] Criminal Procedure Code of Georgia, Tbilisi, 2009, Article 168¹.

[33] Juvenile Justice Code, Tbilisi, 2015, Article 39.