The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
24
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
24-29
10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue05-06
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
15 March 2025
ACCEPTED
11 April 2025
PUBLISHED
13 May 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue05 2025
CITATION
Khushnur Khurshedovich Maksudov. (2025). Theoretical and legal historical
analysis of prosecutorial supervision over the implementation of laws in
the field of combating illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances. The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology,
7(05), 24
–
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajpslc/Volume07Issue05-06
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Theoretical and legal
historical analysis of
prosecutorial supervision
over the implementation
of laws in the field of
combating illicit trafficking
in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances
Khushnur Khurshedovich Maksudov
Senior Prosecutor of the Department for Supervision of the Execution of
Laws by Internal Affairs Bodies of the General Prosecutor's Office of the
Republic of Uzbekistan
Abstract:
Based on a historical approach, the article
contains
prosecutorial
supervision
of
the
implementation of laws in the field of combating illicit
trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances, which was conditionally divided into four
stages of the formation and development of
counteraction to drug trafficking. Through a
comprehensive study of the retrospective theoretical
and legal analysis of the prosecutor's supervision over
the implementation of laws in the fight against drug
trafficking carried out by the prosecutor's office. The
author cites the opinions of scientists regarding their
scientific research on the theoretical and scientific
analysis
of
prosecutorial
supervision
of
the
implementation of laws, depending on emerging
situations in the practical activities of the prosecutor's
office.
Keywords:
Theoretical,
historical
analysis
of
prosecutorial supervision, illicit trafficking in drugs and
psychotropic substances, prosecutor, supervision of the
implementation of laws, algorithm of actions.
Introduction:
Uzbekistan
has
demonstrated
a
commitment to implementing strategic measures to
mitigate the adverse health implications of narcotics
and psychotropic substances on the population and the
nation's gene pool. This commitment involves the
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
25
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
suppression of illicit trafficking within Uzbekistan. The
primary entity responsible for the coordination of
efforts to combat illicit drug trafficking is the
procuratorial
authorities,
which
oversee
the
enforcement of the law in combating drug trafficking.
The efficacy of procuratorial oversight in enforcing
legislative norms to combat drug trafficking is
predominantly influenced by the established
procedure (i.e., algorithm) of actions undertaken by
procuratorial bodies in executing this oversight
function. This procedural aspect, in turn, affects the
content and specificity of legal norms that regulate
both the strategic and tactical issues of countering
illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances.
In order to comprehend the fundamental role of the
prosecutor's office in combating illicit drug trafficking,
it is necessary to briefly examine the office's
supervisory functions in implementing legal measures
against such trafficking.
The utilization of narcotic substances by humans
possesses profound historical origins, dating back to
antiquity. Researchers of criminal law posit that the
first cases of drug use occurred as early as 40,000
–
10,000 years BC. In India, hemp, a plant containing
narcotic drugs, was mentioned in the 14th to 20th
centuries BCE. In ancient Egypt, narcotic substances
were used during the reign of Ramses I. In Europe,
hemp was introduced by the Scythians approximately
5,000 years ago [1, p. 153].
Throughout the documented history of Central Asia,
where modern Uzbekistan is located, cultivation and
consumption of narcotic substances have been a
characteristic feature of social life. This applies to all
state formations that existed in this territory in
different periods: from the Persian Empire and Greco-
Bactria (6th-4th centuries BC), the Kushan Kingdom,
Parthia, Kangyu, the Ephthalite state and the Turkic
Kaganate (2nd century BC - 7th century AD), to the
Arab Caliphate (7th-12th centuries BC), the Chagatai
ulu (2nd century BC - 7th century AD), the Chagatai ulu
(2nd century BC - 7th century AD), and the Arab
Caliphate (7th-12th centuries BC). ), the Chagatai ulus
of the Mongol Empire (12th-13th centuries), the
Timurid State (14th-16th centuries), the Khanates of
Khiva and Kokand, the Emirate of Bukhara (16th - mid-
19th centuries), the Turkestan Governor-General's
Office of the Russian Empire (19th-20th centuries), the
Uzbek SSR (1917-1991) and the modern Republic of
Uzbekistan (since 1991).
The criminalization of drug trafficking has a complex
history intertwined with a multitude of social,
economic and legal factors. The development of
legislation and law enforcement practice has gone hand
in hand with changing public attitudes towards drugs,
understanding of their impact on health and society,
and attempts by states to control drug trafficking and
enforce the law through prosecutorial oversight.
The criminalization of drug trafficking is a multifaceted
phenomenon, intricately interwoven with a myriad of
social, economic, and legal factors. The evolution of
legislation and law enforcement practices has been
intricately intertwined with shifting public attitudes
concerning drugs, the comprehension of their
ramifications on health and society, and the endeavors
of states to regulate drug trafficking and enforce the law
through prosecutorial oversight.
The establishment of the prosecutor's office was driven
by the necessity of overseeing and enforcing legal
mandates. The prosecutor's office, as an institution of
state power, first emerged in France, established by an
ordinance of King Philip IV on March 25, 1302.
Subsequently, in 1586, French legislation formally
established the structure and operations of the
prosecutor's office, thereby delineating its position
within the broader framework of state institutions.
According to the provisions of the aforementioned
legislation, the prosecutor's supervisory prerogatives
encompassed the following domains: administrative
and political functions, the oversight of investigative
proceedings, and involvement in judicial and legal
proceedings [2, p. 14].
From a historical perspective, the supervision of law
enforcement in the fight against illicit trafficking of
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances by
prosecutors can be divided into four distinct stages.
First stage: The period extending from the origin of
human society to the beginning of the 20th century is of
particular interest in the context of the study of drug
use. During this era, the dangerous properties of
containing narcotic substances were established,
marking the inception of the modern understanding of
these substances.
For millennia, humankind has engaged in the use of
narcotic and psychotropic substances for a variety of
purposes, including ritual, medical, and recreational
activities. However, it was not until the early twentieth
century that these practices were criminalized or
penalized. The advent of drug regulation can be traced
back to the nineteenth century, a period marked by the
recognition of the hazardous nature of substances such
as opium and cocaine.
Second stage: The period under consideration extends
from the early twentieth century to the mid-twentieth
century, marking the advent of grounds for criminal
liability and the advent of the technology of
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
26
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
prosecutorial supervision of illicit trafficking in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances.
In the early 20th century, as awareness of the harms
associated with drugs and addiction increased, efforts
to regulate them began to take shape. In 1909, an
international conference was convened in Shanghai,
where the initial measures to regulate opium were
adopted. In 1912, the Hague Convention was signed,
which restricted the international drug trade. During
the 1930s, numerous countries initiated the
implementation of their respective drug legislation.
Subsequently,
in
1971,
the
Convention
on
Psychotropic Substances was adopted to regulate the
handling of psychotropic drugs.
Third stage: In the latter half of the 20th century,
significant advancements were made in the realm of
law enforcement and criminal justice. These
developments focused on enhancing the procedural
order, investigation techniques, and prosecutorial
supervision of illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances.
Since the 1970s, concerted efforts have been made to
counteract the illicit drug trade. Separate legislative
acts were passed that delineated narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances by type, based on their
narcotic content. During this period, there was a
notable increase in the number of crimes associated
with illicit trafficking of narcotic substances.
Fourth stage: In the modern period, spanning from the
late 20th to the early 21st century, there has been an
enhancement in the efficacy of the prosecutor's
oversight mechanisms in addressing the illicit
trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances.
A thorough analysis of the present state of affairs
reveals that the illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances has evolved into a pervasive
problem. The rise in drug trafficking within Afghanistan
and Latin American countries has prompted a
concerted
response
from
the
international
community, with efforts being made to combat the
issue.
Law enforcement structures such as the United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, or
UNODC) and the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA)
—
an agency within the U.S. Department of
Justice dealing with the fight against drug trafficking
—
have been established around the world. These
structures focus on the fight against organized crime
and drug trafficking. In the current era, there has been
a shift in the approach to trafficking in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances. In the context of drug
policy, certain nations, including Portugal, have
adopted a decriminalization approach, which involves
the substitution of criminal penalties with treatment
interventions. This approach has yielded favorable
outcomes, including a reduction in addiction and related
criminal activity. Additionally, there has been a surge of
interest in the medical use of cannabis and other
psychotropic substances, which necessitates a thorough
legislative review.
A retrospective analysis of prosecutorial oversight of
law enforcement in the area of illicit trafficking in
narcotic
drugs
and
psychotropic
substances
demonstrates that this phenomenon is influenced by
social, economic, and political factors. The realm of
criminal liability for drug trafficking is undergoing a
period of significant evolution, with contemporary
approaches
necessitating
a
comprehensive
consideration of various factors. These include, but are
not limited to, the protection of society, the promotion
of human health, and the safeguarding of individual
rights. In this regard, the role of the prosecutor in
overseeing the enforcement of laws pertaining to the
illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances assumes a multifaceted character. This
oversight is undertaken with the objective of ensuring
the protection of citizens' rights, maintaining the rule of
law, and fostering a sense of order within society.
The prosecutor's oversight of the implementation of
legislation pertaining to the illicit trafficking of narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances is a subject that has
been examined from the perspectives of processualists,
criminologists, and criminologists. This examination has
been conducted in two distinct aspects. The initial facet
pertains to the notion of prosecutorial supervision,
which constitutes a distinct form of supervision during
the phases of pre-investigation, inquiry, preliminary
investigation, and judicial proceedings. The objective of
this supervision is to enhance the efficacy of procedural
order and criminalistic tactics. The second facet of the
prosecutor's oversight entails the implementation of
preventive measures aimed at mitigating the societal
harms associated with illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances.
These aspects impose certain organizational difficulties
for the qualitative and effective implementation of
prosecutorial supervision over the execution of laws in
the field of combating illicit drug trafficking. In order to
comprehend the fundamental nature of this form of
supervision within the context of law enforcement
activities conducted by prosecutor's offices, it is
imperative to consider the overarching provisions that
pertain to the supervisory functions of these entities.
The majority of scientists specializing in prosecutor's
supervision have expressed the opinion that there are
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
27
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
grounds for recognizing the norms regulating
prosecutor-supervisory relations as an independent
branch of law. Conversely, others argue for the
opposite point of view. V.I. Rokhlin's position is that
this is a separate branch of law (3, p. 23). He argues for
this position by noting that the legal regulation of the
prosecutor's supervision contains all the necessary
features and elements that are characteristic of an
independent branch of law.
It is imperative to acknowledge the prosecutor's
supervision as a distinct arm of the legal apparatus that
is inherently associated with the endeavor to combat
illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances. It is a well-established fact that the
majority of drug trafficking is carried out in the form of
transnational organized crime. The theoretical,
organizational, and legal underpinnings of the
activities of organized criminal formations were
examined by I. Ismailov [4, p. 47].
In essence, the supervision of the enforcement of laws
in the fight against illicit drug trafficking by prosecutors
can be defined as a professional activity of the
prosecutor's office. In essence, the aforementioned
entities oversee the precise execution of assigned
tasks, ensuring adherence to legal obligations. In the
event of transgressions, they are tasked with
implementing measures to ensure compliance with the
rule of law, thereby ensuring that those responsible
are held accountable.
This assertion is made by A.Yu. As stated by Vinokurov
[5, p. 12], the essence of prosecutorial supervision can
be defined as a distinct form of state activity,
characterized by its objectives and the unification of
the prosecutor's office system. However, significant
disparities emerge within the purview of prosecutor
supervision, stemming from the idiosyncrasies
inherent in the legislation subjected to oversight, the
heterogeneity of entities responsible for its
implementation, and, consequently, the variances in
the prosecutors' authorities.
In order to comprehend the fundamental principles of
the subject under investigation, it is imperative to draw
parallels with a prevalent scenario in the operations of
investigative entities. In the course of the investigation
into the possession of narcotic drugs by a citizen, a
criminal case of possession was initiated under Article
276 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
However, no measures were taken to identify the
individuals who had sold the citizen the narcotics in
question. Consequently, the source from which the
drugs were procured could not be ascertained. The
supervising prosecutor revealed this fact in a timely
manner and provided written instructions to the
operative units of the criminal investigation department
to identify the individuals involved in the drug trade.
However, these individuals were not identified, and the
case was separated into a separate proceeding and
subsequently suspended.
In addition to the oversight exercised by the Ministry of
Internal Affairs through its Criminal Investigation and
Investigations Department, there is also departmental
control over direct compliance with criminal procedure
legislation. This control is exercised by the
aforementioned department, as well as by the relevant
territorial units of the criminal investigation service and
the agencies conducting pre-investigations, initial
inquiries, and pretrial investigations. It is also exercised
by information and analytical work and coordination of
the activities of law enforcement agencies in combating
illicit drug trafficking.
In light of the aforementioned general provisions
pertaining to the conceptualization of prosecutor's
supervision, complemented by the insights derived from
practical experiences, the formulation of a position on
the essence of prosecutor's supervision over the
enforcement of drug trafficking legislation must
prioritize the delineation of the object and subject.
A thorough examination of the extant literature on the
subject of prosecutorial oversight reveals a dialectical
relationship between the concept of oversight and that
of its object. Frequently, these concepts are used
interchangeably.
In this regard, it is our opinion that a theoretical and
legal analysis of the prosecutor's supervision over the
execution of laws in the field of combating illicit drug
trafficking is impossible without their definition of the
object
and
subject.
Therefore,
following
a
comprehensive investigation into the fundamental
objectives of prosecutor oversight, and more
specifically, the scope of prosecutor supervision over
the implementation of legislation pertaining to drug
trafficking, it is possible to formulate a conclusion
regarding the nature of the subject matter of this
particular form of supervision.
A review of the scientific literature reveals a lack of
consensus regarding the definition of the subject and
object of prosecutorial supervision. This perspective is
consistent with the viewpoint previously expressed by
A.Yu. According to the literature, the term
"prosecutorial supervision" refers to a system in which
a prosecutor oversees a particular group of individuals
or entities. These individuals or entities are subject to
the prosecutor's oversight, and their actions fall within
the purview of prosecutorial supervision [7, p. 1111
–
1117].
According to V.P. Ryabtsev, the specified set of legal
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
28
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
entities and officials subject to the competence of
prosecutors is defined as the object of prosecutorial
supervision [8, p. 16].
In light of the prosecutor's oversight of law
enforcement activities pertaining to the suppression of
illicit drug trafficking, it is imperative to ascertain the
organizational framework governing the practical
actions of prosecutor's offices. According to A.F.
Smirnov, the algorithm of organization and activities of
the prosecutor's office is related to experience in the
implementation of prosecutorial oversight [9, p.7].
As a result of the analysis of literary sources, it is
possible to distinguish several positions regarding the
understanding of the object of prosecutorial
supervision. A number of scientists, including F.H.
Alimov [10, p. 25] and E.D. Boltoshev [11, p. 189], posit
that the subjects of supervision are officials whose
activities are overseen by the prosecutor. In such
cases, the subjects are endowed with the requisite
authorities and are subject to the oversight of the
prosecutorial apparatus. This position is supported by
the provisions of Article 1 of the Procurator's Office
Act, which stipulates that the Procurator-General and
his subordinate procurators are responsible for
ensuring the uniform and precise implementation of
legal principles within the territory of the Republic of
Uzbekistan.
Article 2 of the Procurator's Office Act elucidates that
the primary responsibilities of the procuratorial
authorities are to guarantee the implementation of the
rule of law and to fortify it. A.A. Matchanov adheres to
the opinion that the algorithm of technology algorithm
of law enforcement for uniform execution of laws by
the prosecutor's office is the object of prosecutorial
supervision[12, p.12]. V.F. Kryukov[13, p.34] also
considers the legality of the activities of the bodies
supervised by the prosecutor's office as an object of
supervision.
It is crucial to acknowledge that the purview of the
prosecutor's oversight does not encompass the
entirety of the official operations conducted by the
entities under their supervision. This is due to the
inherent distinction between supervision and control,
which are distinct functions within the prosecutor's
office. As articulated in [14, p. 53], the substitution of
supervision by control is not an inherent element of
the prosecutor's role. A scientific study was conducted
on the essence of control and supervision by D.M.
Mirazov, who defined the difference between these
concepts [15, p.].
The prosecutor's supervisory algorithm is predicated
on the notion that, from a philosophical perspective,
the object is conceptualized as "a form of realization in
concepts of universal ways of human relations to the
world, reflecting the most general and essential
properties, laws of nature, society, and thinking" [16, p.
237]. The object is defined as the entirety of reality that
falls within the domain of perception, rather than
focusing on the specific attributes or characteristics of
reality. The object is defined as an entity that functions
in opposition to the cognizing subject, existing
independently of it[17, p.5].
It is our position that, in accordance with the
aforementioned assertions concerning the object, a
specific official constitutes a component of the object of
supervision. However, it is essential to acknowledge
that this component, in isolation, is incapable of
encapsulating the entirety of the essence inherent to
the category under scrutiny.
A theoretical and legal analysis of the prosecutor's
supervision over the execution of laws in the sphere of
combating illicit drug trafficking is imperative to
understand the essence and content of the prosecutor's
supervisory activity in this regard. The object and
subject of supervision are fundamental categories in
this analysis. In her research, U.A. Tushtasheva
examined criminal procedural methods for addressing
judicial errors, which can be attributed to the
prosecutor's criminal procedural activities.
A rigorous theoretical and legal examination of
prosecutor supervision indicates the necessity for
amendments to the prevailing legislation governing the
activities of the prosecutor's office. In conjunction with
the implementation of the revised Constitution of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, it is hereby proposed to amend
the phrasing of paragraph 1, part 8 of Article 5 of the
Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On the Prosecutor's
Office" to the following: "Prosecutors of the Republic of
Karakalpakstan, regions, the city of Tashkent, districts,
and cities: It is incumbent upon the Kengashes of the
People's Deputies to submit their respective reports on
activities to the Jokargy Kenes of the Republic of
Karakalpakstan on an annual basis.
Accordingly, the theoretical and legal analysis of
procuratorial oversight of law enforcement in the fight
against illicit drug trafficking is predicated on the
establishment of the object and subject of procuratorial
oversight of law enforcement in this area.
It is also noteworthy that, in accordance with paragraph
4, part 1, article 4 of the Law of the Republic of
Uzbekistan "On Prosecutor's Office," one of the primary
functions of the prosecutor's office is to oversee the
operations and investigations conducted by various
bodies, including pre-investigation, inquiry, and
preliminary investigation activities.
In light of the aforementioned evidence, it can be
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
29
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajpslc
The American Journal of Political Science Law and Criminology
deduced that the manner in which the prosecutor
oversees the implementation of legislation pertaining
to illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances is not an arbitrary phenomenon. Rather, it
is a product of a historical process that has shaped the
evolution of legal and social institutions in this domain.
A thorough examination of the notions of "object" and
"subject" in the context of the specific type of
supervision under consideration is essential for
comprehending
the
theoretical
and
legal
underpinnings of the prosecutor's oversight in the
realm of combating illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs
and psychotropic substances.
REFERENCES
Encyclopedia of Criminal Law: in 35 vols. - SPb.: Izdvo
Prof. Malinin, 2005 - 2020. - Vol. 22: Crimes against
public health and public morality. - 2014. -
С.153.
Prosecutor's supervision. Textbook / Baskov V.I. - M.:
BEK, 1995. -
С.14.
Rokhlin, V.I. Procuratorial supervision in the Russian
Federation: Study. -
St. Petersburg, 2000. С. 23.
Ismailov I. Theoretical and organizational-legal
provision of prevention of the activities of organized
criminal formations: Author's thesis. ... doctor of
jurisprudence - T., 2006. -
47 с.
Prosecutor's supervision: Textbook/Vinokurov Y.E.et
al.; Under the general editorship of Y.E. Vinokurov. -
6th ed., revision and additions - M.: Higher Education,
2005. -
С. 1
2.
Sharov M. I. Procuratorial supervision over the
execution of laws on drug trafficking: Author's thesis.
... kand. juridical sciences. -
М., 2017.
-
31 с.
Desktop book of the prosecutor / edited by S.G.
Kekhlerova, O.S. Kapinus; scientific ed. A.Yu.
Vinokurov. - Moscow: Yurait Publishing House, 2012. -
С.1111
- 1117.
Prosecutor's supervision: Textbook for universities /
Under the general ed. by A.Y. Sukharev. A.Y. Sukharev.
М., 2003.
-
С. 16.
Smirnov A.F. Prokuratura i Problems of Management.
М., 1997.
-
С.7.
Alimov F.H. The procedural position of the prosecutor
in pre-trial proceedings: theory and practice: Autoref.
dis.... kand. jurid. nauk. -
Т., 2009.
- 25 c.
Boltoshev E. D. Functions of the prosecutor in pre-trial
stages of criminal proceedings: Cand. jurid. nauk. -
М.,
2002. -
189 с.
Matchanov A.A. The function of prosecutor's
supervision in the fight against crime. Monograph. - T.
Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the
Republic of Uzbekistan, 2007. -
С.12.
Kryukov V.F. Procuratorial supervision: Textbook for
universities. -
М., 2006.
-
С. 34.
Davronov A.R. Procuratorial supervision over the
investigation of crimes in the field of information
technologies: Author's abstract of the dissertation.
...Doctor of Philosophy (PhD). -
Т., 2021.
-
53 с.
Mirazov
D.M.
Theoretical,
organizational
and
procedural aspects of improvement of control and
supervision over the activity of bodies of preliminary
investigation: Autoref. dis. ...dok. jurid. nauk. -
Т., 2016.
-
104 с.
Philosophical Dictionary / Edited by I.T. Frolov. - 7th ed.,
revision and addendum - M., 2001. -
С. 237.
Philosophy: Textbook for universities / ed. by A.F. Zotov,
V.V. Mironov, A.V. Mironov, A.V. Razin M. 2004. -
С.5.
Tukhtasheva U.A. Criminal-procedural ways of
elimination of judicial errors: Author's thesis. ...dr. jurid.
nauk (DSc). -
Т., 2020.
-
66 с.
