| Abstract [eng] |
Summary On the one hand, the topic of the master‘s thesis could hardly be considered very fresh, because the law passed on March 14, 2002, established the new Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Lithuania, which conditioned the Law on the Amendment of Article 118 of the Constitution, because rules of the new Criminal Procedure Code conflicted with this article. Thus, when Article 118 of the Constitution was amended, the public prosecutor was accorded with functions of organizing and supervising pre-trial investigation. On the other hand, the topic is quite fresh due to its still being relevant because of such reasons as reorganization of the prosecutor‘s office and the pre-trial investigation bodies as well as the recommendations of the Attorney General, which constantly undergo changes and legal effect of these departmental normative acts is constantly being discussed. The master‘s thesis attempts to distinguish, define and determine the concepts of organising and supervising pre-trial investigation, to analyze and present conception and bases of these functions of the public prosecutor. Moreover, it explicitly and in detail analyzes functions of the executive activities of organising and supervising pre-trial investigation (organizational activities and supervision, planning and control), by comparing to what extent does the theory meet the practice and by emphasizing problematic aspects. The thesis pays particular attention to the problems of cooperation between the public prosecutor and pre-trial investigation officers (bodies), and ways to improve it, so that pretrial investigation is successful and effective. Article 168, paragraph 1, of the CPC provides for procedural actions which can be performed prior to the pre-trial investigation. Although Article 168, paragraph 1, of the CPC states that these procedural actions are to be performed within the shortest possible terms, it does not indicate who has control over the pre-trial investigation officers performing the afore-mentioned actions. Such loophole with regard to procedural actions performed by the pre-trial investigation officers, allows for avoidance of procedural control. Therefore, I suggest that this Article of CPC be complemented by including a subject who would perform the function of procedural control over the pre-trial investigation officers carrying out actions prior to the pre-trial investigation, in order to exclude possibility for the pre-trial investigation officers to abuse the law and perform procedural actions uncontrolled. |
