A Comparative Analysis of Pre-Trial Procedure in Europe: The Search for an Ideal Model
The Pre-trial Procedure in Republic of North Macedonia
Gordana Lažetıć, Gordan Kalajdziev, Boban Mısoskı, Divna Ilıć DımoskıThe chapter is focused on different aspects of the concept of pre-trial procedure that encompasses preinvestigative and investigative procedure in North Macedonia. The previous concept of the criminal procedure was based on inquisitorial elements, hence the investigative judge has been part of the investigative procedure. However, research indicates that the investigative judge in practice almost never found new evidence. His role was simply to formally record evidence collected by the police and proposed by the prosecutor. This had a negative impact on the main hearing, as in practice it became a simple duplication of the investigation, instead of being a proper testing phase for the examination of the previously collected evidence. Moreover, the investigative judge accepted almost all of the requests for investigation filed by the public prosecutors, without critically assessing them. Due to these conclusions, as well as having in mind comparative trends and experiences, a new Law on Criminal Procedure was enacted in 2010. The Law delivered a totally new concept of the criminal procedure in North Macedonia, with special emphasis on pre-trial procedure. Namely, the investigative judge was abolished, while the public prosecutor is stipulated as dominus litis of the pre-trial procedure, with the help of the judicial police. Accordingly, the judge of pre-trial procedure was introduced, as guarantor of the rights and freedoms of the suspect. It is important to underline that the judge of pre-trial procedure is not merely a substitute to the investigative judge, but it is a completely new figure of pre-trial procedure, with distinctive duties. The authors will elaborate on the limits and the aim of the investigation stage of pre-trial procedure, together with the most important issues regarding defence rights. As a basic standard to be achieved, the authors use the latest EU directives which regulates the rights of the suspect, as well as the ECtHR standards, and the best practices in the law and practice of the states used as a model for the reform. Specifically, the chapter focuses on the evidentiary value of the statements made during the investigative stage in the further procedure.