Abstract: This work examines the origin and evolution of the concept of “criminal procedure function”. A comparison is made on various approaches to definition of the criminal procedure function. The author demonstrates the systemic foundation of functionality in the criminal procedure. From the dialectics positions, the author unifies the approach towards definition of the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity, viewing it as duties established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure. The author makes a conclusion that the main directions of the criminal procedure work that are manifested in the criminal procedure carry systemic character. The author removes the contradictions in the outlooks upon the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity as established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure.

Abstract: This work examines the origin and evolution of the concept of “criminal procedure function”. A comparison is made on various approaches to definition of the criminal procedure function. The author demonstrates the systemic foundation of functionality in the criminal procedure. From the dialectics positions, the author unifies the approach towards definition of the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity, viewing it as duties established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure. The author makes a conclusion that the main directions of the criminal procedure work that are manifested in the criminal procedure carry systemic character. The author removes the contradictions in the outlooks upon the criminal procedure function as a branch of activity as established by the law or rights of general character of the parties of the criminal procedure.

Abstract: The subject of the study is the functional content of prosecutor's activities on pre-trial stages of criminal proceedings, in which of particular importance are procedural oversight and criminal prosecution. The author studies the regulatory framework of the Criminal-Procedural Code of the Russian Federation serving as the means of these functions implementation. The article shows their interrelations and the relations with the main criminal - procedural functions. The author analyzes the range of views on the definition of a prosecutor's criminal - procedural function by other scientists, and offers his own point of view. The main research method is the dialectical method of cognition. The author also uses the comparative legal, the logical-legal and the system methods of cognition. The novelty lies in the comparison of modern scientific attitudes towards the functional range of prosecutor's activities. The author concludes that the function of criminal procedural oversight in criminal proceedings is an imported from the outside state-legal function of oversight and at the same time - the main criminal-procedural function. Special contribution to the study consists in the author's proposals to amend the existing legislation.

Abstract: This article discusses and analyzes the different approaches to the determination of the number of criminal procedural functions in the Russian criminal trial. It is concluded that the joint criminal process associated with more than three main functions of criminal procedure. It is determined that there are three main features of criminal procedure specific to criminal proceedings in Russia. The author highlights the key arguments in favor of the qualitative differentiation of procedural functions of organs and persons in criminal proceedings and the main functions of criminal procedure as qualitative characteristics of the process. The author gives classification of criminal procedural functions. General scientific methods of gaining new scientific knowledge, in particular, systemic analysis and systemic theory, formal logical and other methods that would allow examining the correlation in legal relations in the sphere of criminal proceedings, as well as private methods - historical, comparative legal. The author determines the number by the number of criminal procedural functions inherent in the Russian criminal trial, as well as proposes an original classification. The author gives criteria of differentiation of criminal procedural functions from the functions of organs and persons, as well as the division of procedural functions into basic and advanced. The non-functional activity of the subjects of domestic criminal proceedings is being exposed.

Abstract: The subject of the research is the evolution of functional content of the prosecutor's activities at pretrial stages of criminal process. The author outlines the functions of  procedural oversight and prosecution in the prosecutors' activities. The author analyzes the normative base of Russian legislation from Peter the Great to the present day, which is a means of these functions implementation. The author examines such aspects of the issue as the origins of the prosecutor's criminal procedural functions, their dependence on the role of the prosecutor in the state mechanism as a whole. The article shows the historical continuity of Russian prosecutors of different epochs in implementation of these two functions. The methodology of the study is based on the provisions of the dialectical method of cognition. Along with it the study uses the comparative legal, the system, the logical-legal and the historical methods of scientific research. The scientific novelty of the research lies in the complex historical and legal study of the implementation of the functions by the prosecutor in the criminal trial in Russia from Peter the Great to the present day. The article shows the historical continuity of the role of the prosecutor's figure in the criminal proceedings in different historical epochs. The research provides the extensive analysis of pre-revolutionary and contemporary authors' views towards the issue. The author comes to the conclusion about the necessity of simultaneous possession by the prosecutor of functions of prosecution and supervision, and the necessity of a further conservation of such a model of the prosecutor's activities.

Abstract: This article discusses and analyzes the different approaches to the determination of the number of criminal procedural functions in the Russian criminal trial. It is concluded that the joint criminal process associated with more than three main functions of criminal procedure. It is determined that there are three main features of criminal procedure specific to criminal proceedings in Russia. The author highlights the key arguments in favor of the qualitative differentiation of procedural functions of organs and persons in criminal proceedings and the main functions of criminal procedure as qualitative characteristics of the process. The author gives classification of criminal procedural functions. General scientific methods of gaining new scientific knowledge, in particular, systemic analysis and systemic theory, formal logical and other methods that would allow examining the correlation in legal relations in the sphere of criminal proceedings, as well as private methods - historical, comparative legal. The author determines the number by the number of criminal procedural functions inherent in the Russian criminal trial, as well as proposes an original classification. The author gives criteria of differentiation of criminal procedural functions from the functions of organs and persons, as well as the division of procedural functions into basic and advanced. The non-functional activity of the subjects of domestic criminal proceedings is being exposed.