| Abstract [eng] |
The powers of a public prosecutor preponderate whether the pre-trial investigation is fulfilled properly and whether its results are encompassed altogether. Moreover, those powers determine that is to say if the outcome of the pre-trial investigation is satisfactory in order to unfold the criminal (unlawful) act and establish due facts, that is why this work for a master’s degree is topical and relevant not only in terms of legal theoretical basis but also practical dimension and social level. The society is positive and active in indicating and conveying its lively interest (involvement, some may say) in the subject of the competence which is incorporated in the capacity of the public prosecutor. Nowadays some argumentative deliberations constantly arise so that it would be probable or even possible to distinguish what kind of extent vested in the powers of a public prosecutor should be considered optimum. The subject of this work is relevant while discussing the alterations of the statutory regulation and how this matter may have an impact on the prosperous process of the pre-trial investigation as such. Also, it is topical making a comparison of the rules of law of the Republic of Lithuania with the legal mind of the selected foreign countries. The latter notably benefited when taking a broader estimation of the tangible inwardness which is incorporated in the powers of a public prosecutor and making a miscellaneous judgment on the substance. The subject has not been broadly analysed to the national extent, therefore the vast efforts of the author have been devoted in order to come up with some novel means to refine and improve the present statutory regulation. The practical problems and their corresponding theoretical aspects have been analysed. The concrete legal terms to terminate the pre-trial investigations do not function in their entirety because approximately every third investigation infringes the boundaries of the legal terms. There is a problem worth taking into consideration; the proposition that a public prosecutor is an undertaker and an executive of the pre-trial investigation is becoming quite declarative as factually the prosecutor is commissioned to lead such procedural actions that are not a part of the process. |
