Law enforcement mechanisms in the implementation of preventive measures in criminal proceedings

This article is devoted to the analysis of law enforcement mechanisms in the implementation of preventive measures in domestic criminal proceedings. The reasons for the continuous improvement of the regulatory segments of legal support related to the choice of preventive measures, their modification or cancellation are analyzed.

The authors conduct a critical analysis of the key contradiction inherent in the institution of preventive measures in the criminal process: conflicts between the need to ensure the effectiveness of judicial proceedings and the duty of the State to guarantee the inviolability of individual rights and freedoms. The authors not only state this contradiction, but also identify its specific manifestations in modern law enforcement practice. The paper proves that, despite the obvious progress in the field of judicially sanctioned measures (a decrease in the number of arrests), a serious imbalance remains in pre-trial proceedings. The main problem is the "legal vacuum" that forms around preventive measures that are chosen without a court decision. The example of a written undertaking demonstrates how the lack of clear legislative criteria and effective follow-up control leads to its transformation into a fiction applied by default.

The study highlights that this practice not only violates the rights of the accused, but also strategically undermines the legitimacy of the entire justice system, devaluing the victim's restorative rights. As a way out, the author suggests a set of measures aimed at legislatively "tightly linking" the use of any preventive measure with the establishment of an individual, rather than a hypothetical procedural necessity.