Constitutional Complaint Over Abolition of Prosecutors' Supplementary Investigation Authority... Constitutional Court: "No Infringement of Fundamental Rights"

The Constitutional Court ruled that a provision of the revised Criminal Procedure Act abolishing prosecutors' authority to conduct supplementary investigations posed no risk of infringing fundamental rights.

According to legal circles on October 29, the Constitutional Court on October 13 dismissed a petition filed by Claimant A seeking confirmation of the unconstitutionality of the deletion of Article 196 and Article 197-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. A dismissal on procedural grounds means that a court concludes the proceedings without reviewing the substance of a case because the lawsuit or petition is inadmissible or does not meet the requirements.

In September, the ruling party amended the Criminal Procedure Act, deleting Article 196, which set out prosecutors' authority to conduct supplementary investigations. Under Article 197-2 of the same Act, prosecutors were limited to requesting that judicial police officers conduct supplementary investigations.

Claimant A was being questioned as a suspect by the prosecution (now the Public Prosecution Office) when, after the revised Criminal Procedure Act took effect, a request for a supplementary investigation shifted responsibility for the investigation to the police. A then filed a petition seeking confirmation of unconstitutionality, arguing that this "violates the principle of due process and infringes the right to personal liberty and the right to a fair trial." The petition argued that the change could infringe the right to equality because suspects investigated by prosecutors and those investigated by police after the amendment are treated differently.

However, the Constitutional Court said the provisions concerning prosecutors' authority to conduct supplementary investigations govern the allocation of investigative powers between prosecutors and judicial police officers. It ruled that "a change in the allocation of investigative powers does not appear to have disadvantaged the claimant's legal status or rights and obligations." Regarding the provision on requests for supplementary investigations, the court said it "merely constitutes an internal case-handling rule between prosecutors and judicial police officers and has no effect whatsoever on the claimant's legal status," adding that "there is no possibility of an infringement of fundamental rights."

A constitutional complaint filed by the People Power Party in August is still awaiting a ruling on the merits. The party filed the complaint against the revised Criminal Procedure Act, citing alleged violations of the principle of due process and the right to personal liberty; rights inherent in the warrant requirement and prosecutors' authority to request warrants; the right to a speedy and fair trial; the presumption of innocence; the right of criminal victims to make statements in court proceedings; and the principle of proportionality.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.