Entry of Information Regarding a Criminal Offense into the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations. Procedural Time Limits and Procedural Consequences

Since the adoption of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, particular attention has been paid to the causes and consequences of failure to comply with procedural deadlines and inaction on the part of investigators and prosecutors regarding the failure to enter information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (hereinafter referred to as the URPI), or the entry of such information only after a corresponding decision by investigating judges.

However, in this article, I propose to examine the issue of entering information into the URPI from a slightly different angle.

To do this, we need to carefully re-read the provisions of Part 1 of Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.

An investigator or prosecutor must, without delay but no later than 24 hours after receiving a report a report of a committed criminal offense, or after independently discovering, from any source, circumstances that may indicate the commission of a criminal offense, shall enter the relevant information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, commence an investigation, and, within 24 hours of entering such information, provide the complainant with an extract from the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations (Part 1 of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine).

And so, I would like to draw your attention to the following provision of Part 1 of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine: “…but no later than 24 hours…”.

What are the procedural consequences of violating the aforementioned procedural deadline set forth in Part 1 of Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine—specifically, entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations after the 24-hour period has expired?

It is well known that, according to the Code of Criminal Procedure, procedural actions must be carried out within the time limits established by this Code (Part 1 of Article 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine).

Thus, if an investigator or prosecutor fails to enter the relevant information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations within 24 hours after receiving a report of a criminal offense or after independently discovering, from anysource of circumstances that may indicate the commission of a criminal offense, a procedural deadline will have been missed, even if the investigator or prosecutor subsequently entered the information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations.

The missed procedural deadline may be reinstated solely on the basis of a ruling by an investigating judge and only for valid reasons, as expressly provided for in Part 1 of Article 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine: “A time limit missed for valid reasons must be reinstated, upon the motion of an interested party, by a ruling of an investigating judge or a court.”

The Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine establishes that a pretrial investigation begins upon the entry of information into the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations (Part 2 of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine); conducting a pretrial investigation prior to the entry of information into the register or without such entry is not permitted (Part 3 of Article 214 of the CPC of Ukraine).

Evidence is deemed admissible if it is obtained in accordance with the procedure established by this Code (Article 86(1) of the CPC of Ukraine).

Thus, if information is entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations outside the time limits specified in Part 1 of Article 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and is not updated in accordance with the procedure set forth in Part 1 of Article 117 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, such (the information) is deemed to have been entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations in violation of the procedural rules established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine; consequently, all evidence collected in such criminal proceedings will be deemed to have been obtained in violation of the procedures established by the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, that is, in our view, must be deemed inadmissible.

Another interesting issue is the examination of evidence during the trial phase, specifically the examination of an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations.

In previous articles, our position was that without examining the extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations during the trial, it is impossible to determine compliance with the requirements of Parts 2 and 3 of Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, and, as a result, it is impossible to assess the admissibility of a particular piece of evidence in accordance with the requirements of Articles 86 and 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.

In my legal practice, prosecutors almost always submit an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations as evidence in criminal proceedings and request that it be examined in accordance with the requirements of Article 358 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.

Therefore, when examining an extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, we recommend paying particular attention to the following circumstances:

1. The entity that entered the information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (URPI) in light of the provisions of Article 216 of the CPC of Ukraine and Part 7 of Article 214 of the CPC of Ukraine;
2. The timeframes for entering information into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations, specifically whether the requirement of “…no later than 24 hours…”—that is, the provisions of Part 1 of Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine and Part 1 of Article 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine—was complied with;
3. The timing of when information was entered into the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations and when the collection of evidence began, in light of compliance with Parts 2 and 3 of Article 214 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine;
4. Whether the presumption of innocence was violated in the extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations (Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine, Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 17 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine).

This last provision is of significant procedural importance because, first, a violation of the presumption of innocence in the extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations indicates the one-sidedness and bias of the prosecution during the pretrial investigation stage, and second, it provides procedural grounds to deem the extract from the Unified Register of Pre-trial Investigations inadmissible evidence and to discontinue its examination, and, at the same time, to establish the violations discussed in this article before the court retires to the deliberation room to render a verdict, pursuant to the requirements of Part 1 of Article 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine.