| Abstract: | Šiame magistro baigiamajame darbe yra aptariami ekspertizės ir objektų tyrimo veiksmai, subjektų atliekančių ekspertizes ir objektų tyrimus teisės, pareigos, atsakomybė, bei jiems keliami reikalavimai. Darbe yra analizuojamos problemos su kuriomis susiduria ekspertai ir specialistai atlikdami jiems pavestas funkcijas. Šiai dienai, procesiniam veiksmui – objektų tyrimui, trūksta didesnio teisinio reglamentavimo, kadangi ekspertizės atveju, šis procesinis veiksmas yra reglamentuojamas kur kas plačiau – tiek teisės aktuose, tiek aprašomas mokslinėje literatūroje. Tokia šiandieninė situacija daro poveikį mūsų įsitikinimams vertinant šiuos procesinius veiksmus, todėl nagrinėjama tema yra aktuali šiai dienai.
Šis darbas parašytas vadovaujantis įvairia moksline literatūra, kuri atspindi tiek senesnius laikus, tiek dabartį, kas per tą laiką keitėsi atliekant ekspertizės ir objektų tyrimo veiksmus. Rašant šį darbą yra analizuojami įvairūs teisės aktai, įstatymai, kodeksai, rekomendacijos, kurie įtvirtina ekspertizių ir objektų tyrimų funkcijas. Be šių minėtų teisės šaltinių, baigiamajame darbe yra vadovaujamasi užsienio šalių literatūra, bei Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo teismo praktika. Analizuojant įvairius teisės aktus, mokslinius šaltinius, magistro baigiamasis darbas parašytas taikant lyginamąjį, aprašomąjį (analitinį), lingvistinį ir teisinių dokumentų analizės tyrimų metodus.
Magistro darbas susideda iš trijų skyrių – pradedant sąvokų išaiškinimu ir baigiant probleminiais aspektais. Pirmajame skyriuje yra aptariami bendrieji požymiai būdingi ekspertizėms ir objektų tyrimams – pateikiama šių procesinių veiksmų samprata baudžiamajame procese, išaiškinama specialiųjų žinių panaudojimo svarba, nustatomi ekspertizių ir objektų tyrimų tikslai, bei jų skyrimo tvarka. Antrajame skyriuje pateikiami reikalavimai norint tapti ekspertu ar specialistu, šiems subjektams suteiktos teisės, pareigos, atsakomybė. Trečiajame skyriuje, kuris yra darbo pabaiga, analizuojami probleminiai aspektai, su kuriais susiduria ekspertai ir specialistai vykdydami savo funkcijas. Išskiriamos problemos kurios iki šiandien nėra atsakytos: 1) ekspertizės ir objektų tyrimo veiksmų lygiavertiškumas, 2) ikiteisminio tyrimo pareigūno atliekančio specialisto funkcijas ir specialisto nedirbančio ikiteisminio tyrimo įstaigoje išvadų lygiavertiškumas, 3) ikiteisminio tyrimo veiksmų – apžiūros, įvykio vietos tyrimo, objektų tyrimo, eksperimento taikymas, 4) ekspertų ir specialistų pateiktų išvadų vertinimas įrodymų leistinumo atžvilgiu. Darbo eigoje analizuojamos šios ir kitos problemos, pateikiami apibendrinimai ir išvados.
In this final master's thesis the actions of expertise and object‘s research, the rights, duties and responsibilities of subjects who carry out expertises and object‘s research are discussed and requirements to become these subjects are raised. In this work the problems that face experts and specialists performing assigned to them tasks are analysed. Nowadays the procedural action – object‘s research lacks of a more detailed juridical regulation as in the case of expertise this procedural action is regulated much more widely – both in acts of law and described in the scientific literature. Such today’s situation has an impact on our beliefs evaluating these procedural action thus the subject is relevant today.
This work is written following various scientific literature which reflects both the older times and the present, what has changed during that time performing the actions of expertise and object‘s research. Writing this work various acts of law, pieces of legislation, codes, guidelines that establish the functions of expertises and object‘s research are analysed. In addition to the above-mentioned sources of law, the final work follows foreign literature and the Lithuanian Supreme Court practice. Analysing and investigating various acts of law and scientific sources the master's thesis is written using comparative, descriptive (analytical), linguistic methods and the method of analysis of juridical documents.
The master's thesis consists of three chapters in which issues related to expertise and object‘s research ranging from interpretation of the concepts to problematic aspects are analysed. In the first chapter general features characteristic of expertises and object‘s research are discussed – the concept of these proceedings in the criminal process is presented. In the first chapter is also explained the importance of the use of special knowledge, the aims of expertises and object‘s research and their appointment procedure are set. Special knowledge used by the subjects of criminal procedure – specialists and experts – ensure a smooth course of the process. The use of this knowledge is not only involved in the criminal process but also performs a very important function- it brings benefit to the investigation of criminal offence and helps to assume the conclusion of specialist and the act of expertise probative power in the process. Specialists and experts are responsible for the proper use of this special knowledge because only they have the competence to solve the answers for these issues that require knowledge.
In the second chapter of the work the requirements to become an expert or specialist and the rights, duties and responsibilities of these subjects are presented. Analysing the requirements for functions performed by experts and specialists, it should be noted that the work of these subjects really is very responsible and requires high criteria. The requirements for court experts in statutory order are larger than for specialists but it does not mean that they have more rights than specialists. Specialists are often compared with the experts, perhaps to some purpose, because their duties and responsibilities remain the same and the performed investigations are equally important to the present case.
In the last, the third chapter the problematic aspects faced by experts and specialists performing their functions are analysed. Some problems that aren‘t answered until now are distinguished: 1) The equivalence of the actions of expertise and object‘s research. Analysing this problem should be noted that deciding which document is more valid, the written act by the expert or findings of a specialist, it is necessary to follow statutory provisions. In current laws, both the Criminal Procedure Code of Lithuania and other laws there is no statutory provision which would confirm that one action of the process is more reliable than the other. Court practice also does not provide an answer to this question. The authors of the comment of Criminal Procedure Code G. Goda and others are of the opinion that the appointment of a specialist in criminal proceedings is simpler than the one of an expert but in regard to probative information findings of a specialist aren‘t less important than the act of expertise. 2) The equivalence of findings of the pretrial investigation officer performing the functions of a specialist and the ones of a specialist who doesn‘t work in the pretrial investigation office. Analysing this issue the opinions of scientists of criminal proceedings and the standard of Criminal procedure code that regulates the assimilation of the pretrial investigation officer with a specialist are followed. After the analysis on the subject it should be noted that the findings presented by the pretrial investigation officer are equal to the findings of a specialist and have the same probative power. 3) The application of the pretrial investigation actions – inspection, research of the scene of the crime, object‘s research, experiment. Exploring the application of these actions, between which experts and specialists sometimes get confused it is clear that most of the proceedings really have many similarities and specialists and experts sometimes choose not a right investigation or perform it wrong, how it should be performed, or do not understand why exactly such an investigation assign to perform the subjects who have right for that. There is indeed lack of a more detailed juridical regulation and description of certain investigations and in particular of their sorts. Also important are teamwork, training and experience because all of this will help to choose the right investigation and perform it thoroughly. 4) The assessment of findings presented by experts and specialists in regard to admissibility of evidentiary material. Assessing the findings presented by experts and specialists whether they may on the whole be recognized as evidentiary material are followed formal criteria which do not give any information about the content validity of findings presented by above – mentioned subjects, idest they are assessed according to general requirements of Article 20 of the Criminal Procedure Code as the law does not regulate any special standards for the assessment of the findings or acts presented by experts and specialists. In the course of work this and other problems are analysed, generalizations and conclusions are presented. |
