DEGREE OF IDENTITY BETWEEN THE CONTENT OF THE INDICTMENT AND THE NOTIFICATION OF SUSPICION

Abstract

Comparison of the content of the indictment and the report of suspicion gives grounds for concluding that certain differences in the content of the specified procedural documents are directly provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure. That is, structurally, the specified procedural documents consist of different mandatory components.The lack of complete identity of the specified procedural documents has other explanations: the specified procedural documents are drawn up in different time periods of the pre-trial investigation, when the amount of information about the committed criminal offense is not the same in volume. Thus, the report of suspicion may be drawn up at the beginning of the pre- trial investigation, when the amount of information about the criminal offense is minimal, while the indictment, in comparison with the report of suspicion, is filled with specifics and information that was established during the pre-trial investigation and as a result of obtaining the entire amount of evidentiary information.At the same time, a certain identity of the indictment and the report of suspicion must take place, since otherwise, a situation may arise when the indictment sent to the court is significantly different from the report of suspicion, and the legally significant factual circumstances described in the indictment are not identical to those described in the report of suspicion and significantly differ from them, which violates the right of a person to be informed immediately and in detail in a language understandable to him about the nature and reasons for the accusation, and calls into question the legitimacy of the accusation.In this regard, the question remains open: what information specified in the indictment should be identical to that specified in the report of suspicion? Is it permissible and in what way is the difference in the description of the information that identifies the criminal offense itself (in the report of suspicion and the indictment)? If the difference in the description of the information that identifies the criminal offense itself (in the report of suspicion and the indictment) is permissible, then how different can this description be? All these questions are clarification of the degree of identity of the specified procedural documents, and this article aims to provide answers to them.