THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
42
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
PUBLISHED DATE: - 28-06-2024
DOI: -
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume06Issue06-07
PAGE NO.: - 42-47
PROSECUTION AUTHORITIES OF
UZBEKISTAN AND TURKEY POSITION AND
LEGAL STATUS IN THE STATE AUTHORITY
SYSTEM
Urinboy Khudoberdievich Abduolimov
Doctoral student of the Academy of Law Enforcement of the Republic of Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan
INTRODUCTION
It is known that in the conditions of establishing a
democratic legal state and a just society in
Uzbekistan, prosecutor's offices have a special
place. Because they play an important role in
achieving legality and legal consistency in the
system of state authorities and management
bodies.
The Prosecutor’s Office is a state div with powers
aimed at ensuring the rule of law in all spheres of
social relations. Consequently, it plays a special and
important role in regulating social life and ensuring
legal behavior in society. On the other hand, the
role of prosecutor's office in the system of
separation of powers has been the cause of
disputes and debates among jurists conducting
scientific-theoretical research in this field.
During the years of independence, a special
contribution to the study of issues related to the
activities of the prosecutor's office was made by
such legal scholars as M. Makhbubov, Z. Ibragimov,
B. Pulatov, F. Otakhonov, I. Dzhasimov, A. Khalimov
in Uzbekistan and its status in the system of
government.
In particular, the legal scholar F. Otakhanov
specifically stated that the Constitution of the
Republic of Uzbekistan has a separate chapter
dedicated to the prosecutor's office. This indicates
that the prosecutor's office has a special
constitutional-legal status in the state mechanism
and its high-level social position, and that it is a
constitutional div, unlike other law-enforcement
bodies.
According to the late I.Djasimov, independent
Uzbekistan did not give up the historical role and
role of the prosecutor's office as protection of
rights. On the contrary, the role of the prosecutor’s
office was determined in a separate chapter of the
Constitution and noted as the only state div that
exercises control over the clear and uniform
execution of laws. Determination of the legal status
of the Prosecutor's Office at such a high level
created the basis for the successful use of its
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Abstract
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
43
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
capabilities and legal powers in order to strengthen
state sovereignty and legitimacy.
THE MAIN FINDINGS AND RESULTS
It should be noted that various approaches to the
status of the prosecutor's office in the system of
state authorities have been put forward in the
scientific literature, and although most of the
opinions and views are often not clear and similar,
they have their own common aspects. For example,
a group of scholars emphasize that the prosecutor’s
office belongs to the executive power. For example,
the Russian jurist N. Fedorov suggests that the
prosecutor's office be included in the
organizational structure of the executive power. In
this, he cites as evidence that in most foreign
countries, the prosecutor’s office is included in the
executive bodies of the government. Similarly,
another group of scholars and practitioners
emphasize that the powers of the prosecutor
belong to the executive power because they are
administrative and imperative in nature.
Scholars belonging to the second group consider
the prosecutor's office as a special part of the
legislative power because it verifies the execution
of laws and the legality of legal documents on the
territory of the state. In particular, V. Lomovsky
believes that the prosecutor's office should be
under the legislative authority, because on the one
hand, after the adoption of laws, the supreme
legislative authority cannot be indifferent to their
implementation. Therefore, it retains the function
of ensuring the unity of legality, which it performs
directly, as well as through the prosecutor's office.
On the other hand, the prosecutor’s office, as
written by this author, cannot fulfill the tasks
assigned to it “alone”, it needs to be supported,
because in most cases it will have to oppose “the
most powerful people”, therefore, it is considered
necessary for the prosecutor’s office to be under
the legislative authority.
In our opinion, both of the above groups of
scientists expressed their scientific views based on
the Russian legal system and practice, and these
views are not very compatible with our national
legal system. Because, while the first group of
scholars did not pay enough attention to the
activities of the prosecutor's office related to the
control over the implementation of laws, the
second group of scholars, on the contrary,
approach this activity more and do not dwell on the
tasks of the
prosecutor'’ office, such as carrying out
criminal prosecution and assisting in justice.
Similarly, a number of national legal scholars Z.
Islamov, M. Radjabova, G'. Alimov, A. Makhmudov,
who conducted scientific research on this topic,
note that the prosecutor's office does not belong to
any branch of state power.
For example, Professor Z.Islamov stated that the
prosecutor's office cannot belong to the legislative
or executive power according to the content of its
functions, but according to M.Radjabova, the
prosecutor's office is a state authority that controls
the clear and uniform application of laws, unlike
the above two authorities.
Also, A. Makhmudov puts forward the opinion that
in Uzbekistan, the prosecutor's office is not
included in any branch of government, and the
prosecutor's office performs its activities
independently of the legislative, judicial and
executive authorities.
In our opinion, the opinions of these scholars that
the prosecutor's office is a unique, independent
institution that does not belong to any authority
and provides a reasonable balance between
authorities can be considered correct from the
legal point of view and according to the essence of
the historical formation of the prosecutor's office.
It should be noted here that large-scale reforms are
being implemented in the country in terms of
improving and democratizing state administration,
increasing the standard of living and quality of the
population, and comprehensive development of
regions. Powers and capabilities of the
prosecutor's office were fully mobilized to ensure
legality and law and order in the country, to
implement democratic, socio-economic reforms,
and to unconditionally execute legal documents
aimed at reliable protection of human rights and
freedoms.
In particular, in 2023, about 134,000 (about
116,000 in 2022) control documents were used in
connection with cases of law violations identified
by the prosecutor's office, and the violated rights of
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
44
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
321,000 (217,000) citizens were restored. 2.3
trillion, which was found to have been transferred
from guilty persons to citizens and state interests
during the control measures and preliminary
investigation. (1.5 trillion soums) recovery of
damages is ensured. With the direct efforts of
prosecutors, more than 163,000 (161,000) needy
families were provided with all-round assistance in
a short period of time, and more than 177,000
(175,000) unemployed citizens were provided
with employment. Systematic measures were
implemented in the current areas of economic
development, such as the rapid development of
entrepreneurship, attracting investments, and
increasing the volume of exports, the violated
rights of nearly 12 thousand (7 thousand)
entrepreneurs were restored, and more than 26
thousand (25 thousand) people were helped to
solve their problems. It was ensured that 2,702
hectares (3,336 hectares) of land, which were
found to be arbitrarily occupied during the control
measures, were returned to the reserve, as well as
12,733 hectares (35161 hectares) 664 (987)
criminal cases were initiated in connection with
the looting of land areas.
Considerable work has also been done to ensure
the authority of the prosecutor in civil, criminal,
administrative and economic cases. In particular,
about 2,500 decisions of courts on criminal cases,
or almost 60% of such court documents, were
brought into line with the law precisely on the basis
of prosecutors' protests. Prosecutor’s protests
were the basis for the adaptation of nearly 1,000
decisions of civil, economic and administrative
courts to the law. Priority is given to open
communication with the people, solving the
problems of citizens, during the reporting period,
215 thousand (more than 220 thousand) appeals
were resolved directly in the prosecutor's office,
and more than 40 thousand (40 thousand) violated
rights of persons were restored. After all, in New
Uzbekistan, the role of the prosecutor's office
aimed at strengthening the protection of human
rights will expand even more. In the future, it is an
important task to further increase the role of the
prosecutor's office, which has a central place in the
mechanism of extrajudicial protection of human
rights, and to further improve the activity of the
prosecutor's office in the restoration of rights.
On the other hand, the above figures show how
high the place and role of the prosecutor's office of
the Republic of Uzbekistan in ensuring the rule of
law in our country, strengthening legality,
protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, the
interests of society and the state protected by law,
in our opinion. At the same time, these indicators
indicate that the prosecutor's office has become not
a punitive div, but a div that ensures the
interests of the state and society, as well as the
protection of human rights and freedoms.
At this point, a number of scientists, including Dr. It
should be recognized that it was conducted by
Hüseyin Şık, Ali Selim Genç, Nurcan Gündüz.
The position of the prosecutor's offices of
Uzbekistan and Turkey among the state authorities
is determined by their legal status. In our opinion,
there are some differences.
In particular, in the Constitution of the Republic of
Uzbekistan, a separate Chapter XXV (Articles 143-
146) is allocated to the Prosecutor's Office.
According to Article 143, the Prosecutor General of
the Republic of Uzbekistan and subordinate
prosecutors exercise control over the clear and
uniform implementation of laws on the territory of
the Republic of Uzbekistan. Therefore, the legal
status of the prosecutor's office of the Republic of
Uzbekistan is reflected in the main law of the state
and, according to this aspect, it is considered to
have a constitutional status.
Such a constitutional status, generalized in form
and content, is the basis of the legal status of the
prosecutor's office, and it includes, firstly, the
constitutional norms on the activities of the
prosecutor's office, and secondly, the place, role
and tasks of the prosecutor’s office in the
mechanism of separation and interaction of power
in these norms, the Constitution of the Republic of
Uzbekistan strengthens the powers to perform the
assigned functions. Granting such a constitutional
status to the prosecutor's office is an important
factor in the effective functioning and
independence of the prosecutor’s office.
However, such views cannot be advanced in
relation to the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
45
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
of Turkey, because in the Constitution of Turkey,
the prosecutor's office, more specifically, the
norms regarding prosecutors are covered in
Section 3 - "Judiciary". From this, it becomes clear
as day that the prosecutor's office is seen as a part
of the judiciary in Turkey.
Turkey's prosecutor's office is a div for ensuring
justice and criminal prosecution (investigation),
which organizes its activities more on the basis of
the European model.
However, according to some literature, despite its
unique structure and playing the role of a bridge
between the judiciary and executive power, the
prosecutor's office is part of the executive power.
The prosecutor's office is an administrative
institution within the executive branch. In our
opinion, it is impossible to agree with these
opinions, because according to many researchers,
the Turkish prosecutor's office is included in the
judicial power due to the similar and closely
related tasks performed by the judge and the
prosecutor. Judiciary does not consist only of
judges and courts, prosecution bodies, which aim
to serve justice, also perform important tasks in
this regard. The legislature treats the prosecutor as
an officer of the court, therefore the institution of
the prosecution is regulated in the judicial branch
of the Turkish Constitution and not in the executive
branch.
Another important point that needs to be
emphasized here is that although the prosecutor's
office does not have the authority to make the final
decision on the resolution of the dispute, the
investigative and prosecution function it performs
is of great importance. Courts cannot initiate
lawsuits, the authority to initiate lawsuits is
considered to belong only to the prosecutor's
office.
Also, in Turkey, the prosecutor's office actively
participates in the investigation and prosecution
stages of criminal proceedings. At the stage from
the beginning of the investigation to the acceptance
of the indictment, the prosecutor carries out
investigative activities both personally and
through the judicial police under his control. While
exercising this authority, he must gather all the
evidence in favor of and against the suspect and
fulfill all requirements to ensure a fair trial, protect
and respect the rights of the suspect. At the
accusation stage, the prosecutor contributes to the
maximum to ensure a fair trial and, in necessary
cases, asks for the acquittal of the accused. The
main task of the prosecutor is not to accuse the
prisoner, but to help him get a fair trial.
At the investigation stage, the prosecutor needs a
judge’s decision on actions that harm the rights and
freedoms of citizens, for which he applies to the
court. In emergency situations, it can also carry out
some legal proceedings, but is still obliged to
present its decisions to a judge for approval.
Although the prosecutor is considered the “owner
of the investigation”, he is under the control of the
court. The fact that the prosecutor has similar
rights to judges does not give him the right to
exercise special powers, because the prosecutor is
not considered a judge.
When the prosecutor's panel discusses the
decision/sentence,
the
prosecutor
cannot
participate in this confidential discussion. He, like a
defense attorney, is limited to expressing his
opinion at the hearing.
CONCLUSION
Summarizing the above-mentioned opinions,
scientific-theoretical
views,
the
following
conclusions can be reached:
firstly, according to the essence of the prosecutor's
office, the opinion that this div is a state div that
does not belong to one or another branch of power,
is independent and ensures a reasonable balance
between powers is considered correct;
secondly, the prosecutor's office of the Republic of
Uzbekistan is the only constitutional state div
that exercises control over the clear and uniform
implementation of laws on the territory of
Uzbekistan.
thirdly, in the system of state authorities, the
prosecutor's office of the Republic of Turkey is an
integral part of the judiciary, performing a large
number of tasks as a div providing justice. The
Turkish Prosecutor's Office organizes its activities
on the basis of the European model, provides
justice and carries out criminal prosecution. Unlike
the legal status of the prosecutor's office of the
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
46
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
Republic of Uzbekistan, Turkish prosecutor's office
does not have a constitutional status.
REFERENCES
1.
Ибрагимов З.С. Мустақиллик ва Ўзбекистон
Республикаси прокуратураси (истиқлол
йилларидаги
ҳуқуқий
мақоми
ривожланишининг
қиёсий
таҳлили).
Монография. –
Т.: «Noshir», 2011. –
440 б.
2.
Пўлатов Б.Х. Ўзбекистон Республикаси
прокуратурасининг
конституциявий
мақоми // «Ўзбекистон Республикаси Бош
прокуратурасининг Олий ўқув курслари
Ахборотномаси», 2017, №4 (32). –
Б. 27
-28.
3.
Халимов А.Х. Прокуратуранинг давлат
ҳокимияти механизми тизимидаги ўрни:
илмий рисола / Масъул муҳаррир: ю.ф.д.,
проф. З.М.Исломов. –
Т.: ТДЮИ, 2006. –
95 б.
4.
Маматов Х. Прокуратура органлари –
қонун
устуворлигининг
кафолати,
халқ
манфаатларининг
ҳимоячиси
//
«Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
Бош
прокуратураси
Академияси
Ахборотномаси», 2022, №1 (49). –
Б. 54.
5.
Махмудов А.А. Прокуратура органларининг
давлат ҳокимияти тизимидаги ўрни ва
мустақиллиги асослари // «Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
Бош
прокуратураси
Академияси Ахборотномаси», 2022, №1
(49).
–
Б. 50
-51.
6.
Махбубов М. Создание и развитие органов
прокуратуры в Узбекистане: Автореф. дисс.
... канд. юрид. наук. –
Т.: Институт
философии и права им. И.Муминова, 1993. –
47 с.
7.
Отахонов
Ф.
Прокуратуранинг
конституциявиф мақоми ва қонунийликни
таъминлашдаги роли // «Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
Бош
прокуратураси
Академияси Ахборотномаси»,
2022, №1
(49).
–
Б. 18
-19.
8.
Джасимов И.К. Қонун устуворлигини
таъминлаш прокуратуранинг муқаддас
бурчидир // «Ўзбекистон Республикаси
Бош
прокуратураси
Академияси
Ахборотномаси», 2022, №1 (49). –
Б. 47.
9.
Федоров Н.В. О судебной реформе в России
// Государство и право. 1992. №6.
10.
Бессарабов В.Г Место прокуратуры в
государственном механизме современной
России. // Законность, 1999, № 10. –
С. 40
-45.
11.
Назаров Ф.А. Ўзбекистон Республикаси
прокуратура
органлари
фаолиятини
стратегик
ривожлантиришнинг
истиқболлари: магистр даражасини олиш
учун ёзилган диссертация. –
Тошкент: 2021.
–
Б. 17.
12.
Алимов Ғ. Правовой статус и деятельность
органов
государственной
власти
в
Республики Узбекистан. –
Т., 2004. –
С. 40.
13.
Исламов З.М. К какой власти отнести
прокуратуру? –
“Народное слово”, 3 июля
2003 года.
14.
Раджабова М.А. Ҳуқуқий давлатчилик сари.
–Т.: “Ўзбекистон”, 2000. –
Б. 22
-24.
15.
Саидов А.Х. Янги Ўзбекистонда инсон
ҳуқуқларини ҳимоя қилишда прокуратура
органларининг ўрни // «Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
Бош
прокуратураси
Академияси Ахборотномаси», 2022, №1
(49).
–
Б. 14.
16.
[Электрон
манба]:
https://www.prokuratura.uz/#/newsview?id
=8633. (мурожаат вақти: 13.06.2024 йил).
17.
Dr. Hüseyin ŞIK. ”Türk Adli Yargı Sisteminde
Savcılık Kurumu” isimli doktor
a tezi.
–
Ankara:
2018.
–
S. 549.
18.
Ali Selim Genç. Cumhuriyet savcısının özel
hukuk davalarındaki yeri: Yüksek lisans tezi.
-
M.: T.C. İstanbul Üniversitesi Sosyal bölümler
enstitüsü Özel hukuk anabilim dali, 2019.
–
S.
177.
19.
Nurcan Gündüz. Ceza muhakemesinde savcilik.
Doktora Tezi. Ankara- 2016
–
S. 250.
20.
Ўзбекистон Республикаси Констицияси //
Қонунчилик маълумотлари миллий базаси,
01.05.2023 й., 03/23/837/0241
-
сон.
21.
Пўлатов Б.Х. Ўзбекистон Республикаси
Конституциясида прокуратура ва унинг
THE USA JOURNALS
THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY (ISSN- 2693-0803)
VOLUME 06 ISSUE06
47
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
такомиллашуви
//
«Ўзбекистон
Республикаси
Бош
прокуратураси
Академияси ахборотномаси», 2021, №4 (48).
–
Б. 4.
22.
Tuğrul Katoğlu, “Savcılık Üzerine Düşünceler”,
Mülkiyeliler Birliği Dergisi, C. 19, S. 177, 1995,
–
S. 21.
