|Abstract: ||Magistriniame darbe buvo tiriama asmens, duodančio parodymus apie savo paties galimai padarytą nusikalstamą veiką, procesinio teisinio reguliavimo problematika teisės į gynybą atžvilgiu. Asmens, duodančio parodymus apie savo paties galimai padarytą nusikalstamą veiką, institutas turi tiek liudytojo tiek įtariamojo bruožų, todėl darbe buvo palygintas kiekvienam įstatymo leidėjo garantuotos su gynyba susijusios teisės. Taip pat siekiant ištirti asmens, duodančio parodymus apie savo galimai padarytą nusikalstamą veiką, institutą buvo nagrinėjama tokio asmens sąvoka, įvertintas jos dvilypiškumas. Išanalizavus Prancūzijoje taikomą asmens, duodančio parodymus apie savo paties galimai padarytą nusikalstamą veiką, institutą buvo padaryta išvada, kad šioje valstybėje tokiam asmeniui yra suteiktos papildomos procesinės teisės, kurios įtakoja teisės į gynybą užtikrinimą. LR BPK asmeniui, duodančiam parodymus apie savo paties galimai padarytą nusikalstamą veiką, numato teisę turėti įgaliotąjį atstovą, tačiau normose, reglamentuojančiose pastarąjį proceso dalyvį, tokia galimybė nėra numatyta. Dėl šios priežasties darbe buvo pasiūlyta baudžiamojo įstatymo pataisa. Taip pat nagrinėjant įgaliotojo atstovo teisinį reguliavimą, buvo įvardinta galimo nekvalifikuoto atstovavimo problema, dėl galimybės atstovauti asmeniui, turinčiam aukštąjį teisinį išsilavinimą. Taip pat atlikus tyrimą paaiškėjo, jog asmeniui, duodančiam parodymus apie savo paties galimai padarytą nusikalstamą veiką, LR BPK nenumato ir kitų teisių, esančių teisės į gynybą sudėtine dalimi, pavyzdžiui būtinojo gynėjo dalyvavimo, kurio skyrimas užtikrina gynybos teisių realizavimą (tokios procesinės teisės nenumatymas praktikoje gali pažeisti asmenų konstitucines teises), taip pat teisės į valstybės garantuojamą teisinę pagalbą (įpareigoja garantuoti ES teisės aktai), bei teisės apskųsti pareigūnų veiksmus (ši teisė gali turėti įtakos tolimesniam procesui). Dėl šių priežasčių buvo padaryta išvada, kad asmens, duodančio parodymus apie savo galimai padarytą nusikalstamą veiką, procesinis teisinis reguliavimas pažeidžia teisę į gynybą.|
In the Master's theses the research on person's, giving testimony about his personal presumably committed crime, lawful process regulation problems-with the view to the right to defense, was performed. Having carried out the research a conclusion was made that the right to defense is regulated both by international acts of law and national. After investigating court practice which concerns the right to defense (its content), widely speaking it combines the suspect's and the accused one's total guarantee of the rights and processes, which provides an opportunity to deny or object to the arisen suspicion or provided accusation. Also, attention was drawn to the importance of this right in law system, because due to the investigated practice in legal state the cases when this right is not guaranteed or questioned cannot exist. The person giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime is an intermediate specific institution possessing all features of a witness, suspect, and the accused, so in that case it was especially relevant to compare their rights about defense guaranteed for each of them by the lawgiver. The research revealed that comparing all three institutions of a person who is giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime , the institution of a witness according to its objective features mostly resembles the suspect's, accused, thus following the LR Criminal Code and the principle of equality of treatment established in international law, a conclusion was made that the person testifying about his own presumably committed crime must be guaranteed equal process rights as for the suspect, accused. Moreover, trying to investigate the institution of a person, who is giving the testimony about his own presumably committed crime, there was considered such person's concept, its duality was estimated, because in LR Criminal Code, the concept of a person who is giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime is established while in the enforceable act-Recommendations- as of a special witness. In addition, the origin and the purpose of this institution was investigated. The conclusion of the research showed that the institute was established trying to violate the legislation which prohibits forcing to give testimony against yourself and provide a possibility to interrogate the people who have immunity to Criminal jurisdiction and the agreement of a certain institution must be obtained in order to face the prosecution. Having analyzed the applied in France person’s, who is giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime, institution a conclusion was made that in this country such a person is provided extra process rights, which influence the guarantee of the right for defense. Such rights include: the right for the lawyer, who has a right to learn the material of the case in the similar order as the lawyers of the parties, the right for the person who is giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime to have lawful help guaranteed by the state, also the right to apply to a court about procedural steps, which is not foreseen in Lithuania. Also there was a research about the in USA established person's giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime procedural lawful regulation and comparing it to Lithuanian model, a conclusion was made that the main principle of regulation is that in USA there the ban to force a person to testify against himself is not guaranteed. LR Criminal Code foresees for the person giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime the right to have an authorized representative, however in the rules regulating the latter participant of the process, such possibility is not foreseen. Also, it was noticed that in these rules there is a final established list of people who can have an authorized representative. Due to this reason and on the systematic basis of LR legislation, in the theses there was a suggestion for amendment to the Criminal Law. In addition, investigating the lawful regulation of an authorized representative, who is applied to a person giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime a possible problem of presumable unqualified representation was named, due to a possibility to represent a person with high legal education. It is worth mentioning that such person's qualification, contrary to the lawyer’s, is not verified, and he is not restricted by ethical code or disciplinary responsibility, so in practice there might appear cases when such a representative will represent the defensive's interests inappropriately. Also after the research it became clear that for a person giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime LR Criminal Code foresees other rights combining the rights of defense, for instance, compulsory defendant's participation, whose nomination guarantees the realization of defense rights and if not foreseeing such procedural rights in practice person's constitutional rights may be violated. In the law rule, regulating compulsory defendant's participation, the discussed institution is not foreseen. Also, LR Criminal Code does not foresee lawful state help for the person giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime. It is noticeable that this right is obliged to be guaranteed by European Union legislation-the Directive about the right to have a lawyer and the Directive about free lawful help and these rules must be transferred to national law. LR Criminal Code does not foresee a possibility for a person who is giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime to appeal about the actions of the officials. It is marked that this right might have impact on the further process. In the theses applying linguistic method of explication of law a conclusion was made that not providing that right, it may predetermine complete failure of defense, because in the references it is stated that the person who is giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime may be represented by the authorized representative only due to the decision of the pre-trial investigation officer or the prosecutor. According to these reasons (loophole regulating the authorized representative, the problem of his qualification, non-verification of state lawful help, not guaranteeing compulsory defense , right to appeal about the actions of the pre-trial officials, prosecutor or pre-trial judge) a conclusion was made that the person's, giving testimony about his own presumably committed crime, procedural law regulation violates the right to defense.