Оцінні поняття, використовувані при регламентації запобіжного заходу у вигляді особистої поруки

Abstract

Зауважено, що обов’язковою вимогою до поручителя є те, щоби це бу-ла особа, яка зможе забезпечити мету особистої поруки. У вирішенні питання про можливість певної особи бути поручителем варто зважати на її особисті якості, характер взаємовідносин між підозрюваним та особою, яка виявила бажання стати поручителем, здатність потенційного поручителя впливати на поведінку підозрюваного/обвинуваченого. Сформульовано низку рекомендацій щодо вдосконалення норм, які регламентують застосування цього запобіжного заходу. The article states that the requirement for the guarantor is that it would be a person who could provide a purpose of personal surety. When solving the problem of the ability of certain person to be the guarantor it is necessary to pay attention to the personal qualities of the person, the nature of the relations between a suspect and a person who wishes to be the guarantor, the ability of the potential guarantor to influ-ence on the behavior of the suspect/accused. An argument against expressed in legal literature offers to estimate a new concept of «good faith behavior of a guarantor». It is proved that the arguments of the guarantor about implementation of good faith of the obligations assumed and the inability to prevent undesirable behavior of the sus-pect / accused, in any case do not release him from liability. It is claimed that the achievements in any field do not guarantee the presence of the potential guarantor’s positive moral qualities, the desire to promote criminal justice authorities, the availability of respect from the part of the suspect / accused, the opportunity of influence on him. Criticized the opinion of some researchers who argue that the enforcement authority must determine which specific obligations can take on each of the guarantors and really ensure their implementation and that such distribu-tion of responsibilities between the guarantors of their responsibility for misconduct will have a personal character. The author defends the point of view that each guarantor undertakes to: 1) ap-pear at the appointed time for the challenge of leading the process; 2) The other way not to interfere with the criminal proceedings and argues that the law does not share these commitments with the personal surety. Proved that the personal surety should apply only at the request or with the surety agreement (which shows the relationship of mutual trust between him and the suspect /accused). Given this proposed relevant amendments to the Code of Ukraine in 1912.