VinFunPark
Logo SLS
Logo SLS
Submit an article
VinFunPark
ISSN 2617-4162 e-ISSN 2617-4170

Social and Legal Studios

All Issues
Submit an article

Current

Social and Legal Studios

Vol. 9, No. 1, 2026

Social and Legal Studios

ISSN 2617-4162

e-ISSN 2617-4170

Publisher: Lviv State University of Internal Affairs

Received 10.12.2025, Revised 03.03.2026, Accepted 25.03.2026 Published 01.04.2026
Pages 26-40
https://doi.org/10.32518/sals1.2026.26
Vol. 9, No. 1, 2026
Article

Paternalistic limits of procedural guarantees: Psychological and legal aspects of appealing a notice of suspicion


Abstract

The article presents a critique of the paternalistic architecture of the suspicion appeal process, with the aim of formulating criteria for procedural equality through the integration of the concepts of Justice, behavioural economics, and role conflicts. Using the method of doctrinal analysis, the normative structure of appealing a suspicion was examined, which revealed systemic paternalistic features due to the deferred appeal periods for one or two months, the lack of positively defined criteria for the validity of suspicion, and legal gaps in the mechanism for allocating pre-trial investigation materials. The practice of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Anti-Corruption Court was examined using case studies and content analysis, which showed the dominance of a formal and procedural approach to checking suspicion. Using the functional analysis of official statistics, it is established that the share of satisfied complaints about suspicion in the High Anti-Corruption Court is 58.3% in the first half of 2025, while 35.07% of procedural appeals are completed without consideration on the merits due to procedural grounds. The results of the study show that the application of an interdisciplinary theoretical framework allowed operationalising the mechanisms of transformation of normative architecture into the psychological effect of powerlessness due to the lack of components of voice, neutrality, and respect. Role conflicts arising from transitions between institutional roles in the criminal justice system further limit the willingness to use formal safeguards. The comparative legal method showed that the French and German systems mitigate institutional dominance through formalised criteria for the validity of suspicion and immediate judicial control. The results support the hypothesis that the low efficiency of appealing a suspicion is a systemically determined interaction of legal constructs with cognitive biases and role conflicts of participants in the proceedings. The practical significance of the study lies in the development of a system of organisational, procedural, and behavioural recommendations for the transformation of the procedural architecture from a paternalistic to a partner model


Keywords: institutional dominance; pre-trial investigation; judicial control; role conflict; investigating judge; cognitive bias


Suggested citation

Bilokin, R. (2026). Paternalistic limits of procedural guarantees: Psychological and legal aspects of appealing a notice of suspicion. Social and Legal Studios, 9(1), 26-40. https://doi.org/10.32518/sals1.2026.26
References
  1. Ansems, J.R., van den Bos, K., & Mak, E. (2021). Perceived procedural justice, outcome favorability, and defendants’ satisfaction with judges’ decisions in criminal cases. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, article number 746364. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.746364.
  2. Atamanov, O. (2020). Change of notice of suspicion in pre-trial investigation. Scientific Bulletin of the National Academy of Internal Affairs, 114(1), 37-52. doi: 10.33270/01201141.37.
  3. Baker, H., Harkin, D., Mitsilegas, V., & Peršak, N. (2020). The need for and possible content of EU pre-trial detention rules. Retrieved from https://eucrim.eu/articles/need-and-possible-content-eu-pre-trial-detention-rules/.
  4. Cabell, J.J., Moody, S.A., & Yang, Y. (2020). Evaluating effects on guilty and innocent suspects: An effect taxonomy of interrogation techniques. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(2), 154-165. doi: 10.1037/law0000224.
  5. Catlin, M., Wilson, D.B., Redlich, A.D., Bettens, T., Meissner, C., Bhatt, S., & Brandon, S. (2024). Interview and interrogation methods and their effects on true and false confessions: A systematic review update and extension. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(4), article number e1441. doi: 10.1002/cl2.1441.
  6. Code of Criminal Procedure of French. (1959, March). Retrieved from https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/article_lc/LEGIARTI000006575198/2020-01-01.
  7. Code of Criminal Procedure of Germany. (1877, February). Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/stpo/__112.html.
  8. Code of Judicial Ethics of Ukraine. (2013, February). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/n0001415-13.
  9. Constitution of Ukraine. (1996, June). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/254к/96-вр.
  10. Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. (2012, April). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/4651-17.
  11. Elaad, E. (2022). Tunnel vision and confirmation bias among police investigators and laypeople in hypothetical criminal contexts. SAGE Open, 12(2). doi: 10.1177/21582440221095022.
  12. European Union Advisory Mission Ukraine. (2024). Public opinion poll for the EU Advisory Mission in Ukraine. Retrieved from https://euam-ukraine.eu/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/2024_EUAM-Survey-Results_UKRFor-website.pdf.
  13. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
  14. Goffman, E. (1967). On face-work: An analysis of ritual elements in social interaction. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face behavior (pp. 5-45). New York: Pantheon Books.
  15. Graham, L. (2023). Liberty and its exceptions: Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 72(2), 277-308. doi: 10.1017/S0020589323000027.
  16. Hahach, V. (2024). Tactical and psychological principles of interrogation during the investigation of criminal offenses in the field of economic activity related to document forgery. Legal Psychology, 35(2), 45-53. doi: 10.32782/psy-visnyk/2024.1.14.
  17. High Anti-Corruption Court. (2020). Review of the case law of the High Anti-Corruption Court regarding the consideration and resolution of complaints against notices of suspicion for the period from 5 September 2019 to 27 April 2020. Retrieved from https://hcac.court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/VAKS/statistics/review_05.2020.pdf.
  18. High Anti-Corruption Court. (2023). Report on the consideration of cases and materials of criminal proceedings for 2023. Retrieved from https://court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/hcac/statistics/reports/1-K_2023_1.pdf.
  19. High Anti-Corruption Court. (2025a). Analysis of the administration of justice by the High Anti-Corruption Court (as a court of first instance) in the first half of 2025. Retrieved from https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/hcac/statistics/analyses/justice_2025_1.pdf.
  20. High Anti-Corruption Court. (2025b). Report on the review of cases and materials of criminal proceedings for the first half of 2025. Retrieved from https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/hcac/statistics/reports/1-%D0%9A_10.07.2025.pdf.
  21. Horinetskyy, Y., Nesterova, I., & Replyuk, N. (2024). Problems of protecting the rights of a person whose actions are under pre-trial investigation before being notified of suspicion. Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence, 3, 525-529. doi: 10.24144/2788-6018.2024.03.91.
  22. Jansen, G. (2021). The need for a new roadmap of procedural safeguards: A lawyer’s perspective. ERA Forum, 22(2), 279-294. doi: 10.1007/s12027-021-00667-5.
  23. Jolls, C., Sunstein, C.R., & Thaler, R.H. (1998). A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review, 50(5), 1471-1550.
  24. Judgment of High-Anticorruption Court of Ukraine in Case No. 1-ks/4910/268/19. (2019a, September). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/84601385.
  25. Judgment of High-Anticorruption Court of Ukraine in Case No. 991/2386/22. (2022, November). Retrieved from https://hacc-decided.ti-ukraine.org/uk/documents/105292560.
  26. Judgment of High-Anticorruption Court of Ukraine in Case No. 991/4108/24. (2024, June). Retrieved from https://hacc-decided.ti-ukraine.org/uk/documents/119355046.
  27. Judgment of Supreme Court of Ukraine Case No. 169/867/21. (2023, Decmber). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/115752100.
  28. Judgment of Supreme Court of Ukraine in Case No. 601/473/20. (2021a, November). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/101673740.
  29. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Case No. 14310/88 “Murray v. the United Kingdom”. (1994, October). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-57895"]}.
  30. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Case Nos. 12244/86, 12245/86 & 12383/86 “Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom”. (1991, March). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-57722"]}.
  31. Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case “Nechiporuk and Yonkalo v. Ukraine”. (2011, June). Retrieved from https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{"itemid":["001-104613"]}.
  32. Judgment of the High Anti-Corruption Court of Ukraine in Case No. 760/24486/19. (2019, October). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/84766483.
  33. Krymchuk, S. (2020). The state of research on the institution of notification of suspicion and the procedure for appealing it. Entrepreneurship, Economy and Law, 5, 246-251. doi: 10.32849/2663-5313/2020.5.43.
  34. Kuen, H.-H. (2024). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: Implications for legal compliance over time. Journal of Criminal Justice, 92, article number 102290. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102290.
  35. Lavrova, V. (2021). Time limits for appealing the notice of suspicion: Practical and theoretical aspects. Legal Gazette, 2, 166-176. doi: 10.32837/yuv.v0i2.2170.
  36. Law of Ukraine No. 1402-VIII “On the Judicial System and the Status of Judges”. (2016, June). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1402-19.
  37. Law of Ukraine No. 1697-VII “On the Prosecutor’s Office”. (2014, October). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1697-18.
  38. Law of Ukraine No. 1700-VII “On Preventing Corruption”. (2014, October). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1700-18.
  39. Law of Ukraine No. 2147-VIII “On Amendments to the Commercial Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Civil Procedure Code of Ukraine, the Code of Administrative Procedure of Ukraine and Other Legislative Acts”. (2017, October). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2147-19.
  40. Law of Ukraine No. 5076-VI “On the Bar and Legal Practice”. (2012, July). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/5076-17#Text.
  41. Law of Ukraine No. 889-VIII “On Public Service”. (2015, December). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/889-19#Text.
  42. Maksymenko, A. (2020). Appeals of suspicion report in criminal proceedings. Juridical Science, 110(8), 199-207. doi: 10.32844/10.32844/2222-5374-2020-110-8.25.
  43. Martufi, A., & Peristeridou, C. (2020). The purposes of pre-trial detention and the quest for alternatives. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 28(2), 153-174. doi: 10.1163/15718174-bja10002.
  44. Melcarne, A., Monnery, B., & Wolff, F.-C. (2022). Prosecutors, judges and sentencing disparities: Evidence from traffic offenses in France. International Review of Law and Economics, 71, article number 106077. doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2022.106077.
  45. Schaap, D., & Saarikkomäki, E. (2022). Rethinking police procedural justice: An organizational perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 26(3), 416-433. doi: 10.1177/13624806211056680.
  46. Sharenko, S.L. (2020). Problem issues of performance of judicial control during consideration by the investigative judge of the complaint on inactivity’s inaction, prosecutor’s office 214 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. Current Issues of State and Law, 88, 386-390. doi: 10.32782/2524-0374/2020-7/97.
  47. St. Louis, S. (2023). The pretrial detention penalty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of pretrial detention and case outcomes. Justice Quarterly, 41(3), 347-370. doi: 10.1080/07418825.2023.2193624.
  48. Supreme Court. (2021). Review of the case law of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court for October 2021. Retrieved from https://supreme.court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/supreme/Oglyad_KKS_October_2021.pdf.
  49. Supreme Court. (2024a). Analysis of the state of justice in criminal proceedings and cases of administrative offences in 2024. Retrieved from https://court.gov.ua/storage/portal/supreme/Analyz_zdijsnenna_pravosydda_2024.pdf.
  50. Supreme Court. (2024b). Review of the case law of the Cassation Criminal Court within the Supreme Court (current practice): Decisions entered into the Unified State Register of Court Decisions for February 2024. Retrieved from https://supreme.court.gov.ua/userfiles/media/new_folder_for_uploads/supreme/ogliady/Oglyad_KKS_02_2024.pdf.
  51. Teichman, D., Zamir, E., & Ritov, I. (2023). Biases in legal decision-making: Comparing prosecutors, defense attorneys, law students, and laypersons. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 20(4), 852-894. doi: 10.1111/jels.12365.
  52. Turkut, E., & Garahan, A. (2020). The “reasonable suspicion” test: Contrasting perspectives of Turkey and the European Court of Human Rights after the Turkish coup attempt. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, 38(4), 264-282. doi: 10.1177/0924051920967182.
  53. Tyler, T.R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. doi: 10.1515/9781400828609.
  54. Tyler, T.R., Goff, P., & MacCoun, R. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the United States: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16(3), 75-109. doi: 10.1177/1529100615617791.
  55. van Hall, M.S., Bosker, M., van der Laan, P.H., & van der Leun, J.P. (2024). Procedural justice in their eyes: A qualitative interview study among detainees. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. doi: 10.1177/0306624X241234857.
  56. Volobuyev, A. (2024). Notice of suspicion: Procedural significance and influence on the methodology of pre-trial investigation. Science and Information Bulletin of the Ivano-Frankivsk University of Law named after King Danylo Halytsky, 18(30), 139-146. doi: 10.33098/2078-6670.2024.18.30.139-146.
  57. Winter, C.K. (2020). The value of behavioral economics for EU judicial decision-making. German Law Journal, 21(2), 240-264. doi: 10.1017/glj.2020.3.
  58. Zaborovskyi, V.V., & Manziuk, V.V. (2015). The legal nature of the principles underlying the lawyer’s relations with the court and other participants in judicial proceedings. Scientific Bulletin of Uzhhorod National University. Series: Law, 32(3), 157-161.