Abstract

The result of the reform of the criminal process in 2012 was the introduction of a new institute of procedural guidance for pre-trial investigations. This institute has become the object of many scientific discussions, and therefore there is a need to analyse its historical and legal genesis to clearly understand the place and role of the prosecutor in modern criminal proceedings. The purpose of the study is to examine the institute of procedural guidance in criminal proceedings and identify promising areas for improving its legal regulation. The study used dialectical, system-structural, synthesis, formal-logical, and historical methods. It is proved that the institute of procedural guidance originated quite a long time ago. From the very beginning, monarchs used civil servants to represent exclusively their interests in certain processes that were important to them. It is established that the genesis of the institute of the prosecutor’s office began to be used quite widely, up to the development of a separate structure of the relevant state bodies and assigning them the function of supervision over certain spheres of life, that is, the functions of the prosecutor’s office expanded sufficiently and representation of the interests of the state in criminal proceedings became part of the overall function of supervision. With the change in the socio-political orientation of Ukraine’s development after independence, the place and role of the prosecutor’s office in the system of state bodies have evolved under the influence of advanced European trends. The reverse process of changing the functions of the prosecutor’s office in criminal proceedings has begun, namely, the function of total prosecutor’s supervision has begun to narrow and be reduced to procedural guidance of the criminal process and representation exclusively in certain cases. As a result of the study, it was stated that the legislation regulating the legal status of the prosecutor’s office has contradictions, namely, the Law of Ukraine “On Prosecutor’s Office” imposes broader powers on the prosecutor than the Constitution of Ukraine, which undoubtedly requires legislative correction by making appropriate changes. The findings of the study can be used in rule-making and law enforcement activities.