Teisingumo vykdymas. Kaltinimo pakeitimas teisme
| Date Issued |
|---|
2007 |
Domėtis šia tema paskatino tai, jog dažnai tik teismo metu yra pastebima, jog prokuroras kaltinamajame akte apsiriko, nesurinko pakankamai įrodymų ar atsirado naujų aplinkybių, kurios prieštarauja byloje jau esantiems duomenims. Kaip turėtų elgtis teismas: nutylėti savo pastebėjimus ar juos išsakyti ir imtis iniciatyvos pakeisti kaltinimą ir taip susilaukti kritikos dėl nesugebėjimo būti nešališkas. BPK komentare teigiama, kad „teismas turi reaguoti, kad prokuroras ir ikiteisminio tyrimo įstaigos neišaiškino kai kurių aplinkybių, kurios vėliau buvo nustatytos teisiamajame posėdyje, ar, priešingai, nepagrįstai pripažino nustatytomis kaip kurias aplinkybes, netiksliai formulavo kaltinimą ir kvalifikavo kaltinamojo veiksmus“ [5, p. 94]. Pabandykime pasiaiškinti, kaip teismas turėtų „reaguoti“, kad vėliau nebūtų apkaltintas šališkumu. O kadangi baudžiamasis procesas nėra atskiras ir nuo nieko nepriklausantis institutas, tad, kaip ir kitų teisės šakų teisės normos, yra pagrįsta Konstitucijoje įtvirtintais principais. Todėl teisiškai vertinant BPK normas šiame straipsnyje bus remiamasi Konstitucija, Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucinio Teismo ir Lietuvos Respublikos Aukščiausiojo Teismo praktika, analizuojamas jų santykis.
The paper deals with the issues on implementation of Justice. Author rises the question whether the Court as an only institution implementing function of Justice, is not constrained while performing its functions. It is quite common that a prosecutor makes an error in a prosecution act, a suficient scope of necessary evidences is not provided or new facts contrary to the earlier facts arise during the trial. The problematic issue there is: should the court remain silent or on the contrary take iniciative to change the content of prosecution, which would probably lead to a risk being criticized because of bias. In the commentary on Criminal procedures code it is expressed that the court must react if the prosecutor or other prejudicial institution had not fully revealed the facts of the case that became known only during the trial or by contrary those institutions insupportably acknowledged the facts as sufficient, wrongly prepared the prosecution act or qualified the activities of defendant. The author analyses how the court should act in order to avoid the criticism on the ground of bias. In fact since criminal procedures is not a separate and independent field of law, it should comply with the general principles embodied in the Constitution. Nevertheless this issue is not solved in the laws and is contrasting if we compare it with the practise of national courts of member states of European Communities. Because of the membership in EU, Lithuania has to adopt and harmonize the standards of law, hence it is highly possible that all the issues in corrections of prosecution during the trial will be solved. On the other hand preconceived corrections on prosecution act may be qualified in such a way that the court, despite the case is not yet decided, would be considered as prejudicially familiar with what the decision will be hold. However the court cannot have any ancipatory stances. Without any doubts the court has to follow its obligation to determine the truth in the case and by doing this, it could not exceed the principles and limits set by Constitution. The inability to correct the prosecution constrains the powers of the courts and makes its jurisdiction dependent on the prosecutor, private prosecutor or defendant.