Ikiteisminio tyrimo pradėjimas : dabartis ir perspektyva

LTŠiame straipsnyje nagrinėjamas baudžiamojo proceso pradžios apibrėžimo klausimas. 2003 m. gegužės 1 d. įsigaliojo naujas Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo proceso kodeksas. Kartu su juo atėjo ne tik naujos, iki tol nacionalinėje baudžiamojo proceso teisėje nevartotos jos sąvokos, bet ir proceso dalyvių santykiai. Įgyvendinti naujajame Kodekse siūlomas nuostatas nėra lengva. Nusikalstamų veikų tyrimo pradžia – tai momentas, kai valstybės įgaliotos institucijos pradeda vykdyti visuomenės saugumo funkcijas. Mūsų nagrinėjamas baudžiamojo proceso pradėjimo klausimas lieka aktualus ir teisiniu, ir praktiniu normų įgyvendinimo požiūriais. Straipsnyje autorius lygina ikiteisminio tyrimo pradėjimo instituto raidą, analizuoja dabartį, t. y. praktinį naujai priimtų baudžiamojo proceso nuostatų įgyvendinimą, pateikia konkrečius siūlymus situacijai gerinti. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Baudžiamasis procesas; Baudžiamasis procesas, ikiteisminis tyrimas, ikiteisminio tyrimo pareigūnas, teismas; Ikiteisminio tyrimo pradžia; Ikiteisminis tyrimas; Criminal procedure; Criminal procedure, pre-trial investigation, official person of pre-trial investigation; Pre-trial investigation; The start of pre-trial investigation.

ENCriminal procedure norms establish the main points of organization of crime investigation. That is a defense (protection) guarantee of procedure from abusing and corruption (in the case of this phenomenon to find out it and investigate), protects from the human factor (sympathies, antipathy, moods, statesmen features of character, etc.). However, norms of criminal procedure do not feet the developed public relations and complicate to realize criminalistic recommendations and tactical measures. By present CPC time for check of applications is not established. The received application or the message should be registered immediately and only then it can be checked. However, there is other question: which measures could specify the received application or the message? The present code has allowed carrying out all actions only after start of pre-trial investigation. However, maybe it is a step back. As we see, the terms have changed, not essence. Besides we should recognize, that the new regulation of this stage has complicated work of inspector, because it is not specified, which measures are could be taken to specify the application. As we see, the present process does not give the inspector time, measures that could specify the application of victim. It demands to begin pre-trial investigation immediately. However this question of the organization of investigation is important in the other aspect; an opportunity of the public prosecutor to replace the official person of pre-trial investigation. Modern criminal procedure does not establish an opportunity of the public prosecutor to address to the head of pre-trial investigation office for replacement of the official person of pre-trial investigation, who carried out crime investigation incorrectly.The inspector should qualify the social phenomenon and give a legal estimation: this is a crime, or it is administrative offence, or it is civil relations, or it is labor disciplinary relations or this is natural phenomenon. Whether on it the start of crime investigation will depend. In criminal procedure the situations of disclosing the basic types of crime are not stipulated. It is not a lot of them: detention of the suspect with proves on a crime scene or after fulfillment of crime by officials of pre-trial investigation office (in our case – police); applications or messages of citizens about incidents; the crime features that established by the official persons of pre-trial investigation office; the attributes of crime established by the public prosecutor. Unfortunately, with little changes, the same situation is created by investigation of applications of citizens. The criminal procedure code does not provide any actions that are carried out during investigation of the applications of citizens, so pre-trial investigation hasn’t started yet. In recommendations for registration by the official person of pre-trial investigation are disadvantages of future realization. I suggest changing the regulation of the beginning of pre-trial investigation. Pre-trial investigation is considered started if officer who authorized by the head of pre-trial investigation office or the public prosecutor have executed even one remedial action stipulated by this code. [From the publication]