Closure of criminal proceedings through the decriminalization of criminal offense: analysis of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case regarding the presumption of innocence

M. Stoianov,O. Torbas,V. Zavtur
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2022.03.47
2022-09-28
Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence
Abstract:The article is devoted to the doctrinal analysis of the positions of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, set out in Decision No. 3-р(II)/2022 of June 8, 2022, and the formulation of a proposal to improve criminal procedural legislation in terms of introducing effective mechanisms for the legal protection of a person whose proceedings are closed on the basis of Clause 4 Part 1 of Art. 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and the practice of its application. A number of theoretical and practical aspects of the application of Clause 4 Part 1 of Art. 284 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in the light of the positions set forth in the Decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in the case regarding the presumption of innocence were examined, in particular: compliance of this provision of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with the principle of presumption of innocence; delineation of various grounds for decriminalization of an act; possible mechanisms for protecting the rights of a person who wishes to be rehabilitated. The authors defend the position according to which decriminalization is not a uniform legal procedure and in fact should entail different legal consequences. Accordingly, the closure of criminal proceedings due to the decriminalization of a criminal offense by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine is a non-rehabilitative reason for closure, and decriminalization by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine is a rehabilitative one, because the norm is recognized as unconstitutional throughout its existence. It is noted that used by the legislator in Clause 4 Part 1 of Art. 284 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the wording «committed by a person» does not necessarily indicate the involvement of a specific person in a criminal offense, but only states the mandatory presence of the subject in any criminal offense. Directions for improvement of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine in terms of implementation of effective remedy for person against whom the proceedings are closed in connection with the decriminalization of criminal offence are proposed.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?