Review

The article is devoted to a comprehensive analysis of the implementation of the adversarial principle at the pre-trial investigation stage through the prism of judicial control as a key mechanism for ensuring procedural balance between the parties in criminal proceedings. It is substantiated that precisely at the pre-trial stage adversariality is most vulnerable to formalization due to the concen-tration of authoritative and procedural powers on the part of the prosecution and the limited ability of the defense to influence the formation of the evidentiary basis. In this context, judicial control is considered not as an auxiliary element of procedural form, but as an institutional guarantee of the real, rather than declarative, nature of adversariality. The article раскрывает the content and functional purpose of adversariality in pre-trial criminal proceedings, defines its limits, and demonstrates the distinction between formal and real adversari-ality. The concept, features, and functions of judicial control are analyzed, as well as the place of the investigating judge within the system of subjects of pre-trial investigation. Particular attention is paid to the role of the investigating judge in considering motions on the application of measures to ensure criminal proceedings, exercising judicial control over covert investigative (search) actions and the use of their results, as well as ensuring equality of procedural opportunities of the parties in the relevant procedures. Systemic problems in the practice of judicial control are identified, in particular its formalization, the limited procedural initiative of the defense, the risks of substituting judicial control with prosecu-torial supervision, and the negative impact of these phenomena on the admissibility of evidence. It is proven that in the absence of substantive and effective judicial control, adversariality at the pre-trial stage loses its practical significance, while evidentiary activity becomes vulnerable to violations of procedural guarantees and standards of a fair trial. Based on the results of the study, conclusions and proposals are formulated to improve proce-dural mechanisms for ensuring real adversariality, in particular by increasing the requirements for the reasoning of judicial decisions, unifying standards for judicial review of motions and complaints, expanding the effective capabilities of the defense, and clearly delineating the functions of judicial control and prosecutorial supervision. It is emphasized that strengthening the role of judicial control at the pre-trial investigation stage is a necessary condition for forming an admissible, fair, and veri-fiable evidentiary basis and for establishing adversariality as a real procedural standard of criminal proceedings.