| Abstract [eng] |
SUMMARY Today such undercover investigation methods as an entrapment must be applied in the fight against crime. Undercover investigation methods are very effective in gathering evidence in order to reveal or investigate a well-organized and very latent crimes. Use of these actions is hard to apply and problematic, but does not violate the human rights itself. In this work the legal regulation and application in practice of entrapment as a procedural compulsary measure is analysed exhautively. The examination of the Lithuanian Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Lithuania and the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence allows to present this procedural compulsary measure the criterion establishment of legitimacy, taking into account its specific nature and the human rights protection requirements. Also, the assessment of the surveys results conducted during research is presented. The main problem associated with the imperfection of undercover investigations regulation, indistinctness, application procedure and legitimacy of these actions. The main suggestions made in this work: 1. The right to authorize undercover operations and control its course must depend exclusively on the court, many other problems could be solved with that decision. Appropriate amendments should be made in The Law on operational activity legal regulation, which regulates the entrapment. 2. A precise and concrete definition of entrapments conception must be agreed on in legal regulations. More stringent requirements for these actions implementation grounds must be made. The age limit for individuals involved as entrapments implementation subjects and individuals before you can apply these actions must be provided. Provided individuals who possess the immunity to this procedural compulsary measure. It is advised the shortest term for application of entrapment procedures. 3. Since applying entrapment often causes cases of provocation, it is proposed after assessing the situation, to use the special technical measures like sound and video fixing, that the court would objectively assess the legitimacy of entrapments implementation. And the biggest control to minimize the cases of provocation, has to come from the side of the head of institution, to whom is directly subordinated officials, who implements the entrapment. |
