| Abstract [eng] |
The public and legal interest in the institution of the exemption from criminal liability under surety is unquestionable. Despite centuries of practice in the use of sureties in criminal cases, this is the first time that it has been the subject of scientific analysis. The main objective of this thesis is to comprehensively examine and evaluate the legal establishment and overall regulation of the exemption from criminal liability under surety in the laws of the Republic of Lithuania, the practice of its application, and to reveal the shortcomings of the legal regulation and practical application. The dissertation research also seeks to identify the points of contact between two relatively completely different branches of law - civil and criminal law. Although suretyship undoubtedly dominates the legal relations regulated by private law, the results of the study show that the structure of suretyship remains unchanged irrespective of its legal form. The research methods used to examine suretyship are based on a completely new approach, which has never been explored in Lithuanian or foreign legal scholarship before: the concept of the creation of a relationship of trust. The dissertation defines the concept of suretyship in criminal law, takes a fresh look at relatively "old" issues of Lithuanian criminal law doctrine related to the interpretation of the concepts of criminal liability and exemption from criminal liability, and examines other issues related to the topic under analysis, in particular, the alignment of the imposition of measures of penal influence with the objectives of exemption from criminal liability under surety, the existence of which is based on the creation of a trust relationship between the state and the perpetrator of a criminal offence. The work pays considerable attention to the issue of the application of surety at different stages of the proceedings, examining this issue in the context of the constitutional principles of the presumption of innocence and the administration of justice, and concluding that the application of surety at trial and the pre-trial investigation stages is fundamentally different. |
