Ar nagrinėjant baudžiamąsias bylas, kaltinamajam nedalyvaujant, yra užtikrinami dispozityvumo ir rungimosi principai?
Smagurytė, Irma |
Darbe nagrinėjama baudžiamojo proceso eiga kaltinamajam nedalyvaujant šiais dviem atvejais: kai kaltinamasis vengia atvykti; ir kai nedalyvauja dėl mirties, siekiant atskleisti dispozityvumo ir rungimosi principų realų veikimą teisminio nagrinėjimo metu. Per rungtyniškumo sampratą atskleidžiamos proceso šalių galimybės daryti įtaką teisminio nagrinėjimo eigai bei priimant galutinį sprendimą. Šis principas yra vienas svarbiausių teisingo teismo garantų, užtikrinantis proceso dalyvių lygiateisiškumą. Dispozityvumo principas, suteikiantis alternatyvią galimybę nedalyvauti kaltinamajam savo bylos nagrinėjime, pateikiant tai, kaip savo paties pasirinktą elgesio variantą, atskleidžia šių dviejų darbe analizuojamų principų priešpriešą, o tai tik įrodo, jog principai nėra absoliutūs, jų veikimo ribos turi būti aiškiai nustatytos ir tarp principų privalo būti rasta atsvara. Tyrimo tikslas - atsakyti į klausimą ar užtikrinamos savo noru neatvykstančio ar mirusio kaltinamojo galimybės pasinaudoti jam suteiktomis procesinėmis teisėmis bei ar įmanoma užtikrinti rungimosi ir dispozityvumo principus šiame procese. Tyrimu siekta išsiaiškinti ar bylose kaltinamajam nedalyvaujant yra užtikrinamas ir įmanomas principų veikimas, nepažeidžiant nedalyvaujančio asmens procesinių teisių. Manytina, kad procesas kaltinamajam nedalyvaujant vyksta laikantis baudžiamojo proceso kodekso normų ir tik tais atvejais, kai egzistuoja šiam procesui keliamos sąlygos. Pastebėtina, kad kaip atsvara nedalyvaujančio asmens pasyvumui, užtikrinamas būtinas gynėjo dalyvavimas, kuriam suteikiamos plačios galimybės disponuoti procesinėmis teisėmis, taip užtikrinant kaltinamojo interesų apsaugą ir principų veikimą procese. Kitokia situacija atsiskleidžia procese kaltinamajam nedalyvaujant dėl jo mirties, kai procesą nusprendžiama tęsti reabilituojančiais pagrindais. Skirtumai tarp šių procesų pastebimi vertinant principų užtikrinimo alternatyvas, nes jų veikimo efektyvumas siejamas su asmens valios išraiška, o kartu ir galimybe atlikti procesinius veiksmus. Kadangi rungimosi ir dispozityvumo principai siejami su asmens valia ir teisinio subjekto pasirinkimu, situacijose mirus kaltinamajam, principų užtikrinimas procesą tęsiant reabilituojančiais tikslais sunkiai įgyvendinamas, nes asmuo nebeturi galimybės pasirinkti ir inicijuoti procesinių veiksmų. Reabilitacijos instituto taikymas bylos nagrinėjimo pirmos instancijos stadijoje praranda savo esmę, nes jo paskirtis ištaisyti galimai padarytas teismo klaidas, o nesant priimto apkaltinamojo nuosprendžio, pagrindų taikyti reabilitacijos procedūrą nėra.
In this work there has been analyzed the process of criminal proceedings with the absence of accused: when accused avoids participate; and when accused is not participating because of death. The aim is to reveal the accurate operation of dispositive and adversarial principles during the court session. Adversarial conception reveals the abilities of the process parties to have the influence on the final decision of the case. This principle is one of the most important guarantees of a fair trial, which ensures equality of the process parties. Dispositive principle, providing the alternative ability to the accused not to participate in his case hearing, introducing it as personally selected behavior variant, reveals contraposition of these two principles analyzed in this work. This proves that these two principles are not absolute, their operation limits must be clearly determined and between principles the balance must be observed. The aim of the analysis is to answer to the question whether voluntary not participating or dead accused is ensured to use assigned procedural rights and is it possible to guarantee adversarial and dispositive principles in this process. With the analysis was trying to investigate, whether, the operation of the principles, not violating the rights of not participating person is possible with the absence of accused. It has been considered that the process with the absence of accused proceeds following the norms of criminal process code and only in that cases when peculiar conditions exist. It has been observed that as the balance to the passivity of not participating person, obligatory participation of the defender should be ensured, who has all the abilities to dispose with procedural rights, by this way ensuring the protection of accused interests and principles operation in the process. Another situation appears than accused does not participate in the process because of death, when the process is being continued under exonerating bases. While considering guarantees of alternatives, the differences between these two processes may be observed, because the efficiency is related with the expression of the person’s will and also with the opportunity to execute procedural actions. Whereas adversarial and dispositive principles are related with the person’s will and selection of legal subject, in the situations when the accused is dead, the assurance of the principles, continuing the process is hardly executed. In the first stage of the case investigation the application of rehabilitation institution dismiss the essence, because the purpose of rehabilitation institution is not to correct mistakes possibly made by the court and to use rehabilitation procedure when the decision is made. After the analysis the following conclusions were observed: 1. By applying exceptional opportunity, it means executing the process when the accused is not participating, it is very important to ensure that the process will be executed adversarial and will be dispositive. Concerning the fact that violation cannot be observed in the process in absentia it is necessary to estimate two conditions which are essential to the analysis of the process. These conditions are: person being not in Lithuania and the avoidance to participate. Even though when this is designated, it is also necessary to estimate, whether right case solution is possible when accused is not participating in the process. 2. The essence of the adversarial principle in the criminal process is that cases must be judged by litigation, it is essential to give the ability to the persons to state their position towards each analyzed question. Also to know and comment the arguments and proofs of other participants. 3. Dispositive process may be indicated than parties have the ability to use and dispose their procedural rights, also may select their behavior model which is adequate to their voluntary will expression therefore anticipating the ability not to participate in the process. 4. In order that the principles of adversarial and dispositive will be ensured in the process in absentia it is essential to consolidate the participation of the defender. The participation of the defender in the process in absentia does not allow state the violation of adversarial and dispositive principles, because it is obliged to confirm the interests of the accused. 5. In the process, than accused is dead, it is not purposeful to continue the investigation of process than Police-Court has no decision under such situation and it is impossible to ensure the operation of adversarial and dispositive principles. Therefore the aim to rehabilitate the person who, under the court decision is not adjudged guilty for criminal act accomplishment is not accepted in the practice of the Supreme Court of Lithuania. Suggestions: the negotiable question would be to legalize voluntary refusal to participate in the investigation of simple criminal acts cases.