Ar principas non bis in idem pripažintas tarptautiniu principu?

Baudžiamosios teisės specialusis principas non bis in idem yra vienas iš pagrindinių principų, be kurio neįmanomas teisinės valstybės egzistavimas. Prieš nagrinėjant non bis in idem principą tarptautinėje erdvėje, trumpai apžvelgiama principo istorinė raida, išaiškinamos pagrindinės sąvokos vartojamos darbe. Išanalizavus non bis in idem principo sampratą didžiausią įtaką turinčiuose tarptautiniuose susitarimuose, i.e. ekstradicijos sutartyse (pasirinkti Lietuvos ir Jungtinių Amerikos valstijų atvejai), Europos Žmogaus teisių ir pagrindinių laisvių apsaugos konvencijoje, Tarptautiniame pilietinių ir politinių teisių pakte, Romos statute, Europos Sąjungos Pagrindinių teisių chartijoje, Konvencijoje įgyvendinančioje Šengeno susitarimą, bei apžvelgiant non bis in idem principo taikymą Europos Žmogaus teisių teismo praktikoje, Žmogaus teisių komiteto išvadose, Baudžiamojo Teismo praktijoje, Teisingumo Teismo praktikoje atsakoma į klausimą, ar non bis in idem principas yra tarptautinis principas. Nors non bis in idem principas įtrauktas į tarptautinius susitarimus, tačiau skiriasi teisės aktų straipsnių formuluotės ir jose vartojamos sąvokos, o tai sąlygoja neharmonizuotą principo taikymą. Principas non bis in idem Europos Sąjungos narėse gali būti taikomas dvejopai, priklausomai nuo valstybių narių nacionalinių teisės aktų. Be to, atsižvelgiant į tarptautines sutartis suformuluoti pagrindinius non bis in idem principus yra labai sudėtinga, kadangi kai kurie teisės aktai riboja dvigubą baudžiamumą tik vienos valstybės teritorijoje, o kiti draudžia ekstradiciją, jei vienos valstybės teritorijoje asmuo jau buvo teisiamas. Taip pat non bis in idem principo vienodą taikymą esant ratio decidendi komplikuoja valstybės, pasinaudojusios išlygų teise, prieš prisijungdamos prie tarptautinės sutarties.

The non bis in idem principle is one of the general principles of the criminal law and deeply incorporated in most domestic criminal law systems throughout the world and in numerous regional, bilateral treaties. The non bis in idem principle is also known as double jeopardy in common law jurisdictions and it has the purpose to prevent a person from being tried or punished twice for the same offence. Sometimes non bis in idem is codified as a constitutional right (The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania Article 31: “No one may be punished for the same crime a second time”, The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution: “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb”, The Constitution of Germany Article 103:” No one may be punished for the same act more than once under general criminal legislation”, Constitution of the Portuguese Republic Article 29:” No one shall be tried more than once for the same crime.”, Constitution of the Republic of Estonia Article 23:” No one shall be prosecuted or punished again for an act of which he or she has been finally convicted or acquitted pursuant to law”, Constitution of Slovenia:” No one may be sentenced or punished twice for the same criminal offence for which criminal proceedings were dismissed finally, or for which the charge was finally rejected, or for which the person was acquitted or convicted by final judgement”). It is answered the question: is the principle non bis in idem an international? Before analyzing principle non bis in idem in international area, this principle is reviewed historically, defined the main concepts used in master thesis. The main legislative instruments incorporating the non bis in idem principle are: extradition treaties (these treaties provide that, a state is not required to extradite a person if that state has already tried him); (discussed Lithuania and Unites States of America cases); The European Convention on Human Rights Protocol No. 7 Article 4 (“No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State”); the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 14 (“No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country”); Rome statute Article 20 (“Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court”); the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union Article 50 (“No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for an offence for which he or she has already been finally acquitted or convicted within the Union in accordance with the law”); the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement Article 54 (“A person whose trial has been finally disposed of in one Contracting Party may not be prosecuted in another Contracting Party for the same acts provided that, if a penalty has been imposed, it has been enforced, is actually in the process of being enforced or can no longer be enforced under the laws of the sentencing Contracting Party”). Case law of diferrent courts (ECHR, ECJ,) in the field of non bis in idem principle has been analyzed. Arba – Analysis of case law in different courts e.g. ECJ, ECHR, in the field of non bis in idem has been carried out in this thesis. . After the analysis of case law, it is apparent that non bis in indem principle does not have a common definition. As it has no common, universal definition, states apply this principle in repsect of their national legal systems. Extradition treaties incorporate non bis in idem principle, but there are no common definition of this principle, so the states applies this principle with respect to national legal system. The Human Rights Committee clarifies that, non bis in idem principle prohibits double jeopardy only with regard to an offence adjudicated in a given State. The European Court of Justice stated that, the relevant criterion for the purposes of the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement Article 54 is identity of the material acts, understood as the existence of a set of facts, which are inextricably linked together, irrespective of the legal classification given to them or the legal interest protected. Some states made reservations of non bis in idem principle in international treaties, so this principle cannot be applied seamlessly. Despite the fact that non bis in idem principle is incorporated in international agreements, the main elements of the content of this pinciple are different.