Kankinimai: universalios baudžiamosios jurisdikcijos taikymo perspektyva

LTStraipsnyje pasitelkiant atvejo reprezentacinę analizę diskutuojama apie vienos iš tarptautinės teisės draudžiamo elgesio su žmonėmis formų – kankinimo teisinį vertinimą ir baudžiamosios atsakomybės už šį nusikaltimą taikymo Lietuvoje juridines prielaidas. Analizuojama ne tik tai, kokie yra pagrindiniai šio nusikaltimo sudėties požymiai, kaip jie dera su tarptautinės teisės reikalavimais, bet kartu ir svarstoma apie teisinės atsakomybės už kankinimą galimybes Lietuvoje net jeigu tokie neteisėti veiksmai buvo padaryti kitoje valstybėje, ne Lietuvos piliečių ir ne jų atžvilgiu. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Kankinimas; Universali baudžiamoji jurisdikcija; Tarptautinė baudžiamoji teisė. Keywords: Torture; Universal criminal jurisdiction; Internnational criminal law.

ENThe article aims at revealing the concept of torture in international law as well as focuses the problems of determination and implementation of criminal responsibility for torture crime. The authors analyse the concept of torture in international law. This analysis is based mainly on interpretation of provisions of the Convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Taking into account the elements of torture in international law the article proceeds with the determination of concept of torture in Lithuanian criminal law. Torture as one of the crimes against humanity may be carried out by the organisation or political group which controls territory and performs civil, military, politic administration de facto as well. Large scale (or widespread) criteria has been introduced in order to eliminate an isolated inhumane act committed by a perpetrator acting on his own initiative and directed against a single or couple of victims. According to the said criteria analysed crime may be committed only as an massive, frequent, large scale action carried out collectively with considerable seriousness directed against multiplicity of victims. Systematic criteria means that crimes against humanity shall be result of systematic actions as a thoroughly organised and following a regular pattern on the basis of a common policy involving substantial public or private resources. So, it should be emphasised, that the definition of torture has four elements: 1) intention of the perpetrator; 2) acts and omissions that inflict severe physical or mental suffering; 3) the involvement of a public official; and 4) for one of several specific enumerated purposes.Universal jurisdiction allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the idea that some international norms are erga omnes, or owed to the entire world community, as well as to the concept of jus cogens – that certain international law obligations are binding on all states. Universal jurisdiction is a legal doctrine that allows states to prosecute individuals in their domestic courts for certain heinous crimes such as genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture – also known as core international crimes – regardless of where the crime took place or the nationality of the parties. This jurisdictional principle is based on the idea that such crimes are so severe that the perpetrators are considered enemies of all humankind and therefore should not be given a safe haven or impunity. States exercising universal jurisdiction are regarded as agents of the international community with a universally accepted obligation of enforcing international law. [From the publication]