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

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