Kardomųjų priemonių tikslų ir įtariamojo procesinio statuso įgijimo santykio problematika

LTStraipsnyje analizuojama Lietuvos bei užsienio šalių baudžiamojo proceso teisės doktrinoje esanti kardomųjų priemonių sąvoka, kurios pagrindinis elementas yra kardomųjų priemonių tikslai. Detali kiekvieno tikslo analizė leidžia atskleisti tikrąją kardomųjų priemonių instituto paskirtį jo taikymo galimybes ir apribojimus. Straipsnyje analizuojant kardomosios priemonės skyrimo procedūrą bei atskirose jos stadijose sprendžiamus klausimus, iškeliama kardomosios priemonės skyrimo galimumo ir tikslingumo problematika. Statistinių duomenų bei konkrečių baudžiamųjų bylų analizė leidžia atskleisti susiformavusią ydingą praktiką, kuomet įtariamojo procesinio statuso įgijimas „automatiškai“ nulemia kardomosios priemonės paskyrimą, net neanalizuojant jos skyrimo tikslingumo. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamasis procesas; Kardomosios priemonės; Įtariamasis; Criminal procedure; Supervision measures; Suspect.

ENThe article analyzes the Lithuanian and foreign criminal law doctrine in the concept of supervision measures, which are a key element in supervision measures purposes. The comparison of various supervision measures concepts leads to the conclusion that the unrestricted criminal procedure and the offender's participation in criminal procedure on the objectives of pre-trial supervision measures are typical in many countries criminal proceedings. Such a concept of comparative analysis also confirms the trend of democratic states, pre-trial preventive measures aim – to prevent further offenses – are in the background, or it is generally denied, or pre-trial preventive measures aim is seeking in exceptional cases. This situation is explained by the fact that supervision measures goals are similar to the goals of punishment and subjects applying the supervision measures are approaching to the restriction of human rights and liberties, and their violation. Detailed analysis of each objective enables to reveal the true purpose of the supervision measures institute‘s applicability and limitations. The articles puts forward a proposal that looking for an optimal unrestricted pre-trial, the trial and execution of the sentence of achievement of target, and minimize individual liberties and rights violation, there is a possibility to supplement the Criminal Procedure Code of Republic of Lithuania.It should be provided for the possibility that the suspect (accused) on any of the nine pre-trial supervision measures should be given additional restrictions – a prohibition from visiting certain places or not searching for a contact with certain persons. It would be quite an effective alternative to more restrictive supervision measures place a person a lighter supervision measure and remand it with the additional restrictions. The paper analyzes the pre-trial measures the appointment procedure and issues in the individual stages of pre-trial. The article raises problems of granting pre-trial supervision measures feasibility and targeting. Although Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Lithuania do not provide that when a person acquires his procedural status of the suspect, a suspect should be given a supervision measure, but the statistical data and specific analysis of criminal cases reveals problems with the established practice, when the suspect's procedural status of the acquisition "automatically" determine the appointment of a supervision measure, even without examining the appropriateness of the appointment. The article outlines suggestions for the person acquiring the procedural status of the suspect, before the decision of detention on remand, sequentially, one after another, to address two separate issues – the desirability of granting pre-trial supervision measures, and only then remand the type of instrument selection issues which are currently being shaken into one. Only in this way it be will reduces the number of state lawsuits for damages unduly restricting individual rights and liberties, and ensure the protection of human rights standards governing the implementation of appropriate legislation. [From the publication]