Ar apsaugos nuo smurto artimoje aplinkoje orderis nepažeidžia smurtautojo teisių?
Jurkšaitė-Černiauskienė, Karolina |
Smurtas artimoje aplinkoje yra skaudi problema visame pasaulyje. Norint sumažinti tokio pobūdžio smurtą reikia imtis papildomų prevencinių priemonių. Viena iš tokių prevencinių priemonių yra apsaugos nuo smurto orderis, kuris skubiai užtikrina smurto artimoje aplinkoje aukos saugumą laikinai iškeldinant smurtautoją iš gyvenamosios vietos, kurioje gyvena kartu su auka, taip pat laikinai smurtautojui neleidžiama lankytis gyvenamojoje vietoje, bei bendrauti ar ieškoti ryšių su auka. Lietuvos Respublikos teisinėje sistemoje tokios prevencinės priemonė šiuo metu nėra, tačiau atsižvelgiant į gerąją užsienio šalių praktiką yra pateiktas Apsaugos nuo smurto artimoje aplinkoje įstatymo projektas, kuriame numatomas apsaugos nuo smurto orderio institutas. Suprantama, jog apsaugant aukas bus taikomi apribojimai smurtautojui, todėl šio baigiamojo darbo pagrindinis tikslas yra ištirti ar apsaugos nuo smurto artimoje aplinkoje orderis nepažeidžia smurtautojo teisių. Siekiant išsamiai ištirti darbo tikslą, darbe panaudoti šie metodai: dokumentų analizės, mokslinės analizės, statistinių duomenų, lingvistinis bei lyginamasis. Siekiant patvirtinti arba paneigti darbo hipotezę, darbe buvo susisteminta smurto artimoje aplinkoje samprata pasitelkiant nacionalinius ir tarptautinius teisės aktus bei mokslinę literatūrą, atskleistos tokio smurto priežastys ir pasekmės. Taip pat, darbe buvo analizuojamas apsaugos nuo smurto orderis, susipažindinama su apsaugos nuo smurto orderio nuostatomis analizuojant mokslinę literatūrą, tarptautinius teisės aktus, bei apsaugos nuo smurto artimoje aplinkoje įstatymo projektą. Atsakant į darbo tikslą analizuotos smurtautojo teisės: nuosavybės teisės neliečiamumas, privataus ir šeimos gyvenimo teisės neliečiamumas bei teisė laisvai judėti ir pasirinkti gyvenamąją vietą, nekaltumo prezumpcija. Taip pat, apžvelgtos smurtautojo teisės Lietuvos Teismų praktikoje, taikant analogišką priemonę apsaugos nuo smurto orderiui, tai kardomąją priemonę – įpareigojimą gyventi skyrium nuo nukentėjusiojo ir (ar) nesiartinti prie nukentėjusiojo arčiau nei nustatytu atstumu. Galiausiai, pasiekiamas pagrindinis darbo tikslas – patvirtinta tyrimo hipotezė, jog apsaugos nuo smurto orderis nepažeidžia smurtautojo teisių, kadangi apsaugos nuo smurto orderis yra prevencinė priemonė, kuri skirta apsaugoti auką, nuo smurto artimoje aplinkoje, o smurtautojo teisės negali būti iškeltos aukščiau aukos teisių.
Domestic violence is a very serious problem that occurs not only in Lithuania but all over the world and violates human rights and freedoms. Every country uses certain measures and laws to ensure that domestic violence is reduced, one of which is the Emergency Barring Order, which urgently ensures the safety of the victim of domestic violence by removing the perpetrator from the residence where they live with the victim, and by stopping the perpetrator from visiting, communicating with, or seeking contact with the victim. In Lithuania, there is no such preventive measure under which a police officer could order the perpetrator to leave the house (we have similar measures, such as a temporary measure to ensure the protection of the person who has been subjected to violence, and a supervision measure — an order to stay away from the victim and/or not to come closer to the victim than a certain distance). However, with the emergence of a new draft law aimed at introducing an emergency barring order in Lithuania, it is necessary to examine whether such a preventive measure will violate the rights of the perpetrator, and therefore the aim of my master thesis is to examine whether an emergency barring order does not violate the rights of the perpetrator. The three main methods used in this thesis are the linguistic method, the method of analysis of documents and courts, and the method of scientific analysis. The first part of the thesis provides a detailed structuring of the concept of domestic violence, using international instruments such as Directive 2001/220/JHA of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights of, and support for, and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2012/29/EU, and the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence, as well as the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. It also analysed how the concept of domestic violence is enshrined in national legislation and gave an overview of the concept of domestic violence envisaged in the new draft law. The causes and consequences of domestic violence were discussed using scientific literature. This part of the thesis has shown that domestic violence can be defined as physical, psychological, sexual or economic, although it is most commonly perceived in society as physical or sexual, due to the visible injuries. It was also summarised that the consequences of domestic violence are not only for the victim but also for the family members of the victim, such as children, who witness domestic violence. The second part of the thesis analysed the emergency barring order using the Istanbul Convention and its interpretative documents, as well as foreign scientific publications. Attention was drawn to how other countries have applied this preventive measure, who administers it, how long it is administered to the perpetrator. This part of the thesis also includes an overview of the Protection from Domestic Violence Bill, which proposes an emergency barring order. It was concluded that in Lithuania, an emergency barring order will be granted to a violent offender at the behest of a police officer for 72 hours, with the possibility of extending it for up to 12 calendar days. It has been highlighted that there are countries where courts, prosecutors, or mayors can issue emergency barring orders. They will also be imposed without arrest or detention, as the focus is on the safety of the victim and not on punishing the perpetrator. The third part of the thesis analysed the rights of the perpetrator that may be violated by the application of an emergency barring order. These include the rights of the perpetrator, such as the right to property, the right to respect for private and family life, the right to freedom of movement and residence and the presumption of innocence. These rights have been analysed on the basis of both international law and national law. The main sources are the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, CEDAW, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and the rulings of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. This part has revealed that the right to property of a violent person is not violated by the application of an emergency barring order, as this right is not absolute and can be limited by law when the aim is to protect the rights and freedoms of another person. An analysis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights also shows that the right of the perpetrator to respect for private and family life is not absolute, nor can the right of the perpetrator outweigh the rights of the victim to life, physical and psychological integrity. Regarding the right to freedom of movement and residence, it was noted that this right could also be limited by law, and it was stressed that an emergency barring order does not restrict the right to freedom of movement to the same extent as an arrest or detention order could. Finally, with regard to the presumption of innocence, this right was seen from the point of view that it is the police officer who imposes the emergency barring order, not the court, thus calling into question the presumption of innocence of the perpetrator of the violence, but the analysis concluded, that the presumption of innocence is not violated by the use of a protection order by a police officer, since the rights of a person can be restricted for up to 72 hours without a court decision, and that this is a preventive measure which does not impose a penalty, and that the violation of the presumption of innocence is therefore not justified since the person is only suspected of having committed the domestic violence. The last part of the paper reviewed the Lithuanian case-law, which restricts the rights of the perpetrator by imposing a measure analogous to an emergency barring order, i.e., supervision measure — the obligation to live separately from the victim and/or not to approach the victim closer than a specified distance, as provided for in Article 132¹ of the Criminal Procedure Code of Lithuania. This part of the thesis reveals that this supervision measure only restricts the rights of the abuser. It was also noted that the Lithuanian practice relies quite extensively on international law, namely that this measure seeks to protect and put the public interest (the victim) first, but that it is not more effective than a civil protection order against violence, as it is not imposed immediately after the arrival of the police officers. Analysis of international and national law, case-law, academic articles, summarising the concept, causes, and consequences of domestic violence, and structuring the protection order against domestic violence, the rights of the perpetrator that may be violated, and the analysis of Lithuanian case-law on the obligation to separate from and/or not to approach the victim, it has been concluded that the emergency barring order does not violate the rights of the perpetrator.