The concept and types of accusations in the science of criminal procedure here are considered. In the initial stages of the formation of the criminal process, it was particular principles that prevailed. During the Soviet era, the basis of publicity was expanded in the criminal process, which accordingly contributed to the narrowing of private principles. After the proclamation of Ukraine’s independence the state has reoriented to the position of priority of human interests, which gave push to expand private principles. Exploring the concept of “accusation” scientists consider it in two meanings – material and procedural. Some authors disclose the concept of accuслотвіsation as a procedural activity of authorized persons, it emphasizes its procedural meaning. Others understand the accusation as a statement, and the very wording (description) of the signs of a committed criminal offense, presented to a person in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Procedure Code, that is, in compliance with the procedural procedure. However, although these notions of prosecution have different meanings, they are inextricably linked, as prosecution is a category that has a procedural form. Therefore, it is proposed to understand the accusation as the activity of authorized subjects of criminal proceedings to expose persons guilty of criminal offenses, during which the allegation that a certain person committed an act under the law of Ukraine on criminal liability in the manner prescribed by criminal procedure. It is concluded that the concept of prosecution is a variable category, which changes depending on the development of society, which is characterized by public and private characteristics. The indictment covers the entire set of procedures provided by law for the consideration of the case against the guilty person and the issuance of a final decision. The following types of charges have been identified and disclosed: public (state), private, private-public, public-private.
1.Foinytskyi Y. Ia. (1996). Kurs uholovnoho sudoproyzvodstva / pod red. A. V. Smyrnova. SPb.: Alfa. T. 1. 607 p. 2. Strohovych M. S. (1969). Kurs sovetskoho uholovnoho protsesa. Moskva:Nauka . T. 1. 470 p. 3. Alpert S. A. (1974). Obvynenye v sovetskom uholovnom protsese: ucheb. posob. Kharkov. 39 p. 4. Nazarov V. V., Omelianenko H. M. (2008). Kryminalnyi protses Ukrainy: navch. posib. Vyd. 2-he, dop. i pererobl. K.: Atika, 584 p. 5. Savytskyi V. M. (2013). Hosudarstvennoe obvynenye v sude. M., Nauka. . 6. Karkach P. M. (2013). Derzhavne obvynuvachennia v sudi za novym kryminalnym protsesualnym zakonodavstvom Ukrainy: navch. posib. Kh.: Pravo. 184 p. 7. Kukel V. V. (2010). “Subsydyarnoe” obvynenye v uholovnom protsesse Rossyy. Uholovno-protsessualnoe zakonodatelstvo v sovremennыkh uslovyiakh: problemы teoryy y praktyky. Moskva: Volters Kluver. P. 79–83. 8. Hloviuk I. V. (2015). Kryminalno-protsesualni funktsii: teoriia, metodolohiia ta praktyka realizatsii na osnovi Kryminalnoho protsesualnoho kodeksu Ukrainy 2012 r.: monohrafiia. Odesa: Yurydychna literatura. 712 p.