Liudytojo apklausos reglamentavimo baudžiamojo proceso kodekse ir taikymo praktikoje santykio problemos

LTŠiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamos liudytojo apklausos reglamentavimo Baudžiamojo proceso kodekse bei liudytojo apklausą reglamentuojančių normų taikymo praktikoje problemos. Siekiama atskleisti reglamentavimo įstatymais spragas, suformuluoti teorines ir praktikoje kylančias liudytojo apklausos problemas, pasiūlyti šių problemų sprendimo ir kai kurių baudžiamojo proceso normų tobulinimo variantus. Daugiausia dėmesio skiriama parodymų leistinumo principo įgyvendinimui, savęs nekaltinimo privilegijos užtikrinimui, liudijimo imunitetų analizei bei ikiteisminio tyrimo metu duotų parodymų pagarsinimo teisme problemoms. Straipsnyje analizuojamos žmogaus teisių apsaugos problemos, kylančios apklausiant asmenis kaip liudytojus ikiteisminio tyrimo metu. Siūloma numatyti galimybę apklausti asmenį kaip liudytoją, kai ikiteisminio tyrimo medžiagoje yra duomenų, kad jis gali būti padaręs nusikalstamą veiką, bet duomenų nepakanka, kad asmuo būtų apklausiamas kaip įtariamasis. [...] Nagrinėjant liudijimo imunitetus, siūloma išplėsti asmenų, kuriems suteikiamas liudijimo imunitetas, sąrašą, įtvirtinti liudijimo imunitetą Seimo nariams. Be to, pateikiamas siūlymas atleisti nuo pareigos liudyti asmenis apie įslaptintos informacijos statusą turinčius duomenis be atitinkamo paslapčių subjekto leidimo paviešinti įslaptintą informaciją. [...] Liudytojo apklausą reglamentuojančios teisės normos nagrinėjamos lyginamuoju aspektu, siūlymai dėl BPK normų tobulinimo pateikiami remiantis užsienio šalių baudžiamojo proceso normų analize. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Liudytojo apklausa; Savęs nekaltinimo privilegija; Liudijimo imunitetai; Parodymų leistinumas; witness examination; Privilege not to accuse; Oneself; witness‘ immunity; Admissibility of testimony.

ENThe regulation of the witness examination in Criminal procedure code of the Republic of Lithuania does not introduce solutions to all the practical issues. Thus, the article deals with the problems of the legal regulation of the witness examination and the application of the witness examination regulating legal norms in practice. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the legal norms that regulate the witness examination on comparative aspect, to compare academic theses and opinions of different authors on this subject. Moreover, the main goal of the article is to formulate theoretical and practical problems of the witness examination as well as to propose solutions of these problems also to recommend improvements of legal norms. The article covers the issues of implementation of the privilege not to accuse oneself, analysis of witness‘ immunity and the problems of divulgence of testimony given during preliminary investigation. The article aims to discuss the aforementioned issues from the practical point of view. The Criminal procedure code provides for imperative prohibition to examine a person as a witness if he can give testimony to a criminal offence committed by himself. Thus, the practice of examination of a person as a witness when the data to claim him a suspect of committing a criminal offence is sufficient, is to be recognized as violation of the privilege not to accuse oneself. However, the status of a suspect ought not to be hasty so that neither mere suspicion would be a formal ground to apply legal restraints, nor unreasonable procrastination would limit possibilities to exercise rights of a suspect.Doctoral Candidate of Criminal Procedure Department of Law Faculty of Mykolas Romeris University. The amendments of Criminal procedure code are suggested as follows: to provide for possibility to examine a person as a witness if the preliminary investigation data suggests that he has possibly committed a criminal offence, but the data is not sufficient to claim him a suspect. Such a witness that is examined because of having committed criminal offence is to be ensured of a right of defence and a privilege not to give testimony against himself. His family members and close relatives ought to be granted immunity from obligation to testify as well. The author suggests that the circle of persons granted immunity not to testify would be extended and the criminal procedure code would be amended providing for witness‘ immunity for the members of the Parliament. In addition, a person should be granted immunity from testifying to information comprising state‘s secret without permission of authorised institution to divulge that secret information. The article covers the problems of reading aloud witness' testimony given in the course of pre-trial investigation at the court hearing. The suggestions are made to enable the court to read aloud the testimony when a witness has died or is missing, resides abroad or at an unknown place or has contracted a disease disabling him to appear before a court, even if the testimony is given to a pre-trial investigator or a prosecutor. [From the publication]The article discusses the problems of legal regulation of interviewing of witnesses in the Criminal Proceeding Code, and their application in practice. The author aims is to disclose legal regulation gaps, formulate theoretical and practical problems arising from the interviewing of witnesses as well as offer solutions of solving such problems, and improving some criminal proceeding norms. The most attention is paid on the problems of implementing admissible evidence principles, assuring self-innocence privileges, analysing witness immunities, and the in-court proclamation of witnesses obtained during the pre-court investigation. The article analyses problems of protecting human rights arising when interviewing witnesses during the pre-court proceedings. The author proposes the opportunity to interview a person as a witness when pre-court investigation material involves data that he/she might have committed a criminal offence, but lacks the evidence for interviewing him/her a suspect. [...] Analysing immunities of witnesses, the author suggest expanding the list of witnesses that are granted witness immunity by setting witness immunity to members of the Parliament. In addition, the author delivers a proposal to release persons from a duty of witnessing data having a status of confidential information without the appropriate permit to disclose the confidential information of its holder. [...] Legal norms, regulating the interviewing of witnesses, are analysed in a comparative perspective; proposals on the improvement of the CPC norms are based on the analysis of criminal proceeding norms of foreign countries.