Judicial control as a guarantee of protecting the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of a detained person

Abstract

Background. Judicial control is traditionally conceptualized as the fundamental guarantor of participants' rights in criminal proceedings. In Ukraine, its normative framework is anchored in constitutional mandates that prioritize the right to liberty and security of person, requiring immediate judicial oversight of any custodial restriction. Within the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) of Ukraine, judicial control functions as a vital institutional check against potential abuses by pretrial investigative bodies, ensuring rigorous adherence to procedural standards.

Problem Statement. The distinctiveness of judicial control concerning detainees lies in its dual nature: a preventive mechanism that safeguards against arbitrary detention and a corrective instrument that enables prompt judicial intervention to restore violated rights. However, a critical systemic flaw remains: national legislation does not mandate an automatic judicial review for every instance of detention. This leads to a formalistic approach by investigating judges, particularly regarding warrantless detentions under Article 208 of the CPC.

Purpose. This study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the theoretical and practical dimensions of judicial control as a primary procedural guarantee. The research specifically focuses on addressing the "procedural vacuum" that exists between the moment of actual detention and the subsequent court hearing.

Methodology. The study employs a multidisciplinary framework, integrating the dialectical method with comparative-legal, formal-legal, and systemic analysis to evaluate the efficacy of current judicial oversight.

Results. The findings expose the inherent inefficiency of existing appeal mechanisms. A significant legislative gap was identified in Article 303 of the CPC, which fails to provide a direct, autonomous right to challenge the legality of detention until the prosecution initiates a motion for a preventive measure.

Conclusions. To resolve this imbalance, the article formulates transformative proposals for amending Articles 303 and 304 of the CPC. These amendments aim to institutionalize a proactive mechanism for the autonomous appeal of detention, shifting the judicial role from a reactive observer to an active guardian of individual liberty.