THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE WITHIN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

Abstract

The public prosecutor’s office is an independent state body tasked with protecting constitutionality and legality. It this regard, the prosecutor’s office is responsible for prosecuting perpetrators of criminal offenses ex officio. The majority of criminal offences in the Republic of Serbia fall into this category, meaning that a significantly smaller number of offences are prosecuted by private complaint, which depends solely on the will of the injured party. The author first of all examines the historical development of the public prosecutor’s office, which has its roots in France. In the early XIX century, French Code d’instruction criminelle formalized the role of prosecutors as essential participants in the court proceedings, a practice that proved highly effective. The French model was later adopted by other European countries. The paper aims to define the public prosecutor’s office in the context of its organization, focusing on the principles that underpin this state body. These principles exist to ensure the office operates as efficiently as possible. They include the principles of indivisibility, unity, hierarchical structure and monocratic decision-making. The author provides a detailed analysis of each of these principles, thereby offering deeper insight into the organization of the public prosecutor’s office. Particular emphasis is placed on the position of the public prosecutor in the criminal proceedings, as one of the main criminal procedure actors, alongside the criminal court and the defendant. The prosecutor’s role is most easily defined through the analysis of the rights and duties assigned by law. Therefore, the author outlines the role of the public prosecutors not only during the main trial, but also during the investigation, emphasizing their authority to represent the prosecution in the public interest. The public prosecutor is obliged to present the court with relevant evidence showing that the accused has indeed committed the offence in question, which will result in a conviction and the satisfaction of justice. In this regard, the author highlights the role of the police, other state bodies, and all natural and legal persons who are obliged to provide the requested information to the prosecutor if so required. The public prosecutor may propose that the criminal court examine a person as a witness, believing that the individual possesses useful information about the perpetrator and the circumstances under which the crime was committed (location, motive, potential accomplices, etc.). The author’s intention is for the research results to underscore the necessity of good organization and regulation of the position of the public prosecutor’s office, as this is the only way to ensure the effective protection of social goods. These goods primarily relate to a wide range of fundamental human rights guaranteed by both domestic and international legal acts. In conclusion, the author stresses the importance of legal regulation of criminal proceedings because convictions can deprive individuals of their right to freedom for an extended period. For this reason, the author clearly points out the need for fairness in the proceedings, which also applies to the conduct of the public prosecutor, who is obliged to present both inculpatory and exculpatory evidences before the court. Finally, author addresses the anomalies faced by certain states regarding the independence of the public prosecutor’s office, providing recommendations to eliminate, primarily, political influence on the work of public prosecutors.