Prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights abolition sparks debate over effectiveness

Controversy continues to surround an amendment to the Criminal Procedure Act that abolishes prosecutors' supplementary investigation rights. While the amendment aims to allow prosecutors to 'find facts,' the prosecution service internally criticizes the provision as lacking practical effect, arguing it cannot be used as evidence in court. The core of the amendment, set for a plenary session vote, involves deleting Article 196, which stated, 'Prosecutors shall investigate criminals, criminal facts, and evidence.' To compensate, a new provision, Article 245-13, was introduced, allowing prosecutors to 'find facts.' This allows prosecutors to hear opinions from complainants or suspects for fact-finding and, if deemed necessary for maintaining a public prosecution, to request information from investigative or judicial bodies via official documents. However, the crucial issue is that facts directly ascertained by prosecutors cannot be used as evidence in trial records. This limitation is expected to significantly reduce the likelihood of complainants or suspects agreeing to interviews requested by prosecutors for fact-finding. Furthermore, if a prosecutor attempts an interview for opinion gathering, suspects could argue that the prosecutor is exceeding their authority by conducting an illegal investigation under the guise of fact-finding. Critics also point out that if a prosecutor, based on opinions gathered, requests supplementary investigations from the police, it could lead to delays in case processing. A senior prosecutor expressed frustration, stating, 'For example, if a prosecutor interviews a stalking victim for their opinion, that information cannot be used as direct evidence, forcing a supplementary investigation request to the police, which will further delay the case.' The prosecutor added, 'It's sophistry to say that official documents received from state agencies can be used as evidence for case processing, but prosecutor interview materials cannot.' Criticism also targets the supplementary investigation request provisions, which are deemed ineffective. The amendment includes a clause requiring prosecutors to maintain case numbers within the criminal justice information system to manage the implementation of supplementary investigations. This is intended to track the time taken from case reception to processing. However, the Supreme Prosecutors' Office argued in a recent explanatory document that 'as long as prosecutors have no investigative authority, merely maintaining case numbers makes it difficult to expect substantive judicial control and case management.'

“

For example, if a prosecutor interviews a stalking victim for their opinion, that information cannot be used as direct evidence, forcing a supplementary investigation request to the police, which will further delay the case. It's sophistry to say that official documents received from state agencies can be used as evidence for case processing, but prosecutor interview materials cannot.