JUDICIAL CONTROL AS A GUARANTEE OF HUMAN RIGHTS DURING THE PRE-TRIAL INVESTIGATION STAGE

Abstract

This article examines judicial control as one of the key mechanisms for ensuring human rights and freedoms during the pre-trial investigation stage. It is justified that, in the context of the application of procedural coercive measures, judicial control is aimed at verifying the legality, justification and necessity of interference with an individual’s rights. It is established that the activities of the investigating judge are not merely permissive but also substantive and evaluative in nature, and involve verifying the existence of sufficient legal grounds, the relevance and admissibility of evidence, compliance with procedural form, and the conformity of the interference with the principle of proportionality. In this regard, it is of great importance to assess the adequacy of the prosecution’s justification for its applications and the completeness of the materials submitted, which confirm the necessity of applying the relevant measure. The article examines the nature of investigative judges’ powers as a guarantee and their importance in ensuring respect for individual rights when procedural decisions are taken. It identifies the main forms of judicial review, in particular preliminary, subsequent and remedial review. Particular attention is paid to preliminary judicial review as a procedure that precedes the application of procedural coercive measures and ensures that their justification is verified prior to the actual restriction of rights and freedoms. It is further emphasised that such verification involves not only formal grounds but also a substantive assessment of the proportionality of the interference with the procedural objective set. It is specifically emphasised that judicial review is conducted independently of the prosecutor’s procedural guidance and has independent significance as a form of external inspection of the decisions, actions and omissions of the prosecution. It is concluded that the effectiveness of judicial review is determined by the investigating judge’s ability to carry out a comprehensive, objective and reasoned review of the grounds for applying measures of procedural coercion, to assess the possibility of applying alternative measures, and to ensure the restoration of rights that have been violated. It has been demonstrated that judicial review contributes to the development of a practice of the proper application of Ukraine’s criminal procedural legislation.