|Abstract: ||Persekiojimas - tai sunkiai apibrėžiama sąvoka, kadangi apima daug visuomenėje įprastų veiksmų, kurie atrodo nepavojingi, tačiau gali sužlugdyti aukos gyvenimą. Ši veika sulaukusi dėmesio ne tik valstybių nacionalinėje teisėje, nuo jos siekiama apsaugoti ir tarptautiniame lygmenyje. Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse ši veika atskiru straipsniu nėra įtvirtinta, tačiau bendrai už ją galima patraukti baudžiamojon atsakomybėn, todėl kyla klausimas, ar esamas reglamentavimas yra pakankamas apsaugoti persekiojimo aukas.
Šio darbo tikslas yra apibrėžus žmogaus persekiojimo sampratą, nustatyti persekiojimo veikos kriminalizavimo tikslingumą Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse.
Siekiant šio tikslo, buvo naudoti analizės, sintezės, aprašomasis, lyginamasis, analoginis, dedukcijos ir apibendrinimo metodai. Persekiotojo elgesio būdai, kurių neapima galiojančios Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo kodekso normos, buvo vertinamos ultima ratio principo kontekste, persekiojimo veika įvertinta per nusikalstamos veikos kriminalizavimo kriterijus, t. y. veikos pavojingumo, paplitimo, ultima ratio principo ir baudžiamosios teisės veikimo srities ir ribų kontekste.
Persekiojimo veika gali būti apibrėžiama kaip nepageidautini, sistemingi asmens veiksmai kito atžvilgiu, kuriais siekiama paveikti arba sukelti pasekmes persekiojamam asmeniui. Persekiojimui, kaip nusikalstamai veikai, būdingi elementai: a) persekiojimo veiksmų pasikartojimas bent du kartus, b) šie veiksmai asmeniui, kurio atžvilgiu atliekami, yra nepageidaujami ir c) persekiotojo ketinimai persekioti auką ir/arba žalingos pasekmės nukentėjusiajam. Lietuvoje ne už visus persekiotojo elgesio būdus galima baudžiamoji atsakomybė, pavyzdžiui, asmuo niekada neatsakys už nepageidautiną, pakartotiną prekių ar paslaugų užsakymą aukos vardu ir nepagrįstą, nuolatinį kreipimąsi į teismą, siekiant aukos dėmesio. Vertinant šiuos elgesio būdus ultima ratio principo kontekste, nustatyta, kad šių veiksmų pasekmės nėra tokios žalingos, kad už jas reikėtų taikyti baudžiamąją atsakomybę. Nors nėra alternatyvių poveikio priemonių šiai veikai sustabdyti, tačiau baudžiamosios atsakomybės taikymas už nedidelio pavojingumo veikas pažeistų minėtą principą. Už pavojingiausius, sukeliančius rimčiausias pasekmes persekiotojo elgesio būdus baudžiamoji atsakomybė Lietuvoje galima. Dėl šių priežasčių darbe daroma išvada, kad persekiojimo veikos kriminalizavimas Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamajame kodekse netikslingas.|
Stalking – it is difficult to define because the concept involves a lot of society as normal action, which look harmless, but can ruin the life of the victim. This act received attention not only in national laws, since it is intended to protect from it at international level too. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania does not include this act in a separate article, but in general, it can be prosecuted for it. Therefore, the question arises as to whether the existing regulation is sufficient to protect victims of stalking. The aim of the Master thesis is after definition of the concept of stalking to determine the expediency of criminalization of the stalking in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. In order to assess the necessity of criminalization of stalking in the Republic of Lithuania, analytical, synthesis, descriptive, comparative, analog, deduction and aggregation methods were used. Acts of stalking which are not covered by the current norms of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania were assessed in the context of the ultima ratio principle; the conduct of stalking was assessed through the criteria for criminalization of a crime. The hypothesis that it was expedient to criminalize the stalking in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania has not been established. In order to achieve the above goal, the first step was to delineate the act of stalking and find out the elements that are characteristic for it. It has been established that the act of stalking can be disguised as an unwanted, systematic person's actions in relation to the purpose of which is to influence or endanger the person being stalked. Elements of stalking as a criminal offense are: a) the repetition of at least two acts of stalking, b) the acts committed by the person being subjected to undesirable, and c) the stalker's intentions to pursue the victim and / or harmful consequences for the victim. Given the fact that a person usually only receives help from law enforcement officials in the event of certain negative consequences, it may be agreed with the view that a more important element is the consequences, rather than of persuasive intent. The next step was to analyze how stalking is defined in international and foreign law. It has been established that, in international law, acts of a person are to be regarded as stalking in the event that a person seeks to cause the victim to be feared or threatened with his / her safety, the stalking acts repeated more than once, and these actions may have consequences for the victim. In the examined foreign countries, i.e. Germany, Denmark, United States of America and the United Kingdom, law it was found that the essential features of stalking are repeat behavior and a person's intent. The element of the consequences for the victim is not well defined, since at one time, it is compulsory and the consequences of the victim elsewhere are mentioned only as possible. The third step was to analyze what kind of stalking actions in the Republic of Lithuania can be criminalized. It has been established that for attempts to contact the victim by telecommunication and other means of communication, the respondent can respond according to the rate of terrorist and systematic intimidation. However, in order to be considered a measure of stalking, the minimum levels of systematic intimidation and stalking must coincide, i.e. the person must act in a rigorous manner and the actions of stalking must be repeated at least several times, the victim may, but not be required, have certain consequences. When the stalker, in order to compromise the victim, deliberately spread false rumors about the victim at least twice, may be prosecuted for stalking in accordance with Article 154 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. A person enters into the victim's home and leaves certain signs of his visit, such as a letter it can be prosecuted for unlawful breach of personal inviolability of the dwelling. However, in order to be in violation of the definition of stalking, an individual has intentionally to enter the premises more than once during a certain period of time or to use more methods of stalking to be incriminated in accordance with other articles of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, in order to violate the unlawful personal integrity of a person. A person who monitors the victim, seeks to get into its life, supervises a person, can be prosecuted directly for stalking in accordance with Article 167 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania, if his or her behavior complies with the definition of stalking, i.e. the actions are repeated and intrusive stalker does so intentionally. This shows that in the Republic of Lithuania criminal liability can be established for certain methods of stalking. Fourth, in order to assess the expediency of criminalization of stalking in Lithuania it was important to find out to what extent a person could be held responsible for stalking in accordance with the current norms of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania. It has been established that not all forms of stalking can lead to criminal liability, for example, a person will never be held responsible for unwanted repeated orders for goods or services on behalf of the victim and does not result in a constant appeal to the victim's attention. In assessing these behaviors in the context of the ultima ratio principle, it has been established that, although the ordering of goods or services on behalf of the victim, unfounded, constant access to a court is in accordance with the criterion of the nature of the danger, but does not reach the required degree of severity, the consequences are not so harmful that they should be criminalized. For this reason, it is conceivable that it is inappropriate to criminalize these stalking methods individually. When assessing the compliance of the stalking with the criteria for criminalizing the act, it was established that the conduct of stalking meets them; however, research that is more extensive is needed in order to find out how many people per year face this phenomenon in the Republic of Lithuania. It has also been established that criminal liability for the most dangerous and most serious consequences of stalking may be. Even if there are no alternative means of stopping this activity, but the application of criminal liability for acts of minor hazard would violate the ultima ratio principle. For these reasons, the work concludes that stalking criminalization in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania is inappropriate. The analysis revealed that there is a lack of information in the society about stalking, how to deal with the act of stalking, and when the stalker can be prosecuted for this act. For this reason, it is advisable to create a specific government program that will solve this problem.