| Abstract [eng] |
The master's thesis analyzes the theoretical and practical problems of starting a pre-trial investigation, refusing to start a pre-trial investigation and clarifying the circumstances. The grounds, forms and procedure for starting a pre-trial investigation are revealed. Different features of starting a pre-trial investigation are discussed: when a pre-trial investigation is started in general order; only according to the complaint of the victim or the statement of his legal representative; at the request of the prosecutor; after the prosecutor or pre-trial investigation officer has identified the signs of a criminal act. Thanks to the practice, legal acts, and scientific works of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the problematic aspects arising both with the initiation of a pre-trial investigation and with the refusal to initiate a pre-trial investigation or when clarifying the circumstances have been revealed. This is an assessment of the received information about a criminal act, whether it is sufficient to make a procedural decision, or whether it can be verified. It is discussed when the pre-trial investigation is considered to have started. Analyzing the refusal to start a pre-trial investigation revealed violations of human rights, because when making a decision, the received information is not fully investigated, its entirety, and the decisions are not motivated. As a result, the criminal process becomes long, difficult and expensive. This paper also touched upon the problems arising from the clarification of the circumstances, one of them being the illegal procedural actions performed by the pre-trial investigation officers, although the procedural actions that can be performed are clearly specified in the Criminal Procedure Code. Mistakes made by pre-trial investigation officers have been revealed, because whether the decision made is correct and legal depends on their competence. |
