The Limits of the use of undercover agents and the right to a fair trial under article 6(1) of the European convention of human rights

LTVis dažniau taikomi įvairūs specialieji tyrimo metodai, kurių neišvengiamą panaudojimą skatina šiandieninė tikrovė kovojant su organizuotu nusikalstamumu tokiose srityse kaip korupcija, prostitucija, narkotikų prekyba, prekyba žmonėmis, pinigų padirbinėjimas ir kt. Todėl vis dažniau yra taikomi slapti tyrimo metodai, kurie yra labai veiksmingi renkant įrodymus siekiant atskleisti ar tirti gerai organizuotus ar labai latentiškus nusikaltimus. Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencija, t. y. jos 6 str. ir kiti tarptautiniai teisės instrumentai nedraudžia naudoti specialiuosius tyrimo metodus, tačiau jų naudojimas negali pažeisti žmogaus teisių. Specialių tyrimo metodų, kaip slaptų agentų ar kitų slaptų tyrimo priemonių naudojimas, pats savaime nepažeidžia žmogaus teisių, o ir pačios teisės į teisingą teismą, tačiau jo panaudojimas turi turėti aiškias ribas bei saugiklius. Straipsnyje detaliai analizuojama Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo (toliau - Teismo) praktika tiek bylose prieš Lietuvą, tiek kitas valstybes dėl slaptų agentų panaudojimo ir teisės į teisingą teismą pagal minėtos Konvencijos 6 str. 1 d. užtikrinimą, ypač daug dėmesio skiriant naujausiai pastarųjų metų Teismo jurisprudencijai bei byloms prieš Lietuvą. Atskirose keturiose straipsnio dalyse detaliai analizuojami autorės išskirti keturi kriterijai remiantis Teismo praktika: slaptų agentų dalyvavimo ribos; įrodymų, gautų panaudojus slaptus agentus, panaudojimas bylose; galimybė ginčyti provokavimo klausimą bei šalių lygiateisiškumo bei rungtyniško proceso principų užtikrinimo klausimai. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Biomedicininiai tyrimai; Tiriamieji asmenys; Atsakomybė; Informuotas sutikimas; Biomedical research; Research subject; Liability; Informed consent.

ENVarious special investigative methods are more often applied nowadays; their use is unavoidably induced by today’s reality in combating organised crime in the spheres such as corruption, prostitution, drug trafficking, trafficking in persons, money counterfeit and etc. Therefore, special secret investigative methods are more often used and they are very effective in gathering evidence for the purpose of detecting and investigating very well-organised or latent crimes. Both the Convention on the Protection on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter - the Convention) itself, i.e. its Article 6, and other international instruments, such as the Council of Europe’s Criminal Law Convention, the Council of Europe’s Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and others, do not prohibit the use of special investigative methods, provided that their use does not violate human rights. The use of special investigative methods, such as undercover agents or other undercover investigative methods, cannot in itself infringe human rights and the right to a fair trial; however, its use must have clear limits and safeguards. 3 The recent judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - the Court or ECHR) regarding the use of undercover agents confirm that the use of undercover agents in certain types of cases is often unavoidable and also very problematic, because the Court imposes on the member states of the Convention increasingly wider obligations. Partly this is determined by the fact that the current jurisprudence of the Court is still in the state of formation, therefore many questions are left unanswered.The article analyzes the Court’s jurisprudence both in the cases against Lithuania and other member states of the Convention regarding the use of undercover agents and the protection of the right to a fair trial under Article 6 (1) of the Convention, with particular emphasis to the most recent Court’s jurisprudence and the cases against Lithuania. 4 Both the cases where the violations of the right to a fair trial have been established and the cases that serve as examples of good practice are analyzed. The author has distinguished four criteria with regard to the current jurisprudence of the Court, which are examined in four separate parts of the article: the issues related to the limits of undercover agents’ involvement; the use of evidence acquired as a result of the use of undercover agents; the possibility to challenge the fact of entrapment and the protection of principles of equality of arms and adversarial process. In the end the author makes an overall conclusion that the use of undercover agents is still very problematic and not yet determined by the Court’s practice; therefore it results in more infringements of the right to a fair trial and thus causes problems of application and regulation in the national law. It should be observed that the concepts entrapment (pranc. - provocation; liet - provokavimas ) and incitement, instigation (pranc. - guet-apens; liet. - kurstymas) are used in this article as synonyms because the Court in the cases against Lithuania and in cases against other states uses both concepts to define an activity in breach with Article 6 (1). [From the publication]