| Abstract [eng] |
Status of Person who is Questioned about His/Her Possible Commission of Crime by Prosecutor's Resolution in Criminal Procedure This work aims to assess the comparative, legal and practical aspects of the status of person who is questioned about his/her possible commission of crime by prosecutor's resolution in criminal procedure. The paper attempts to answer the following key questions: whether the institute of the witness who is being interrogated about his possible commission of a criminal offense is properly regulated in Lithuanian criminal procedure; whether these practical benefits of this institute are real, or are they just a sham; should the institute be removed from the Lithuanian criminal procedure. The paper discusses the comparative aspects and origins in Lithuania of the status of person who is questioned about his/her possible commission of crime by prosecutor's resolution, also regulatory analysis and review of practical application is performed. This work leads to the conclusion that the special witness does not have any effective specific procedural guarantees, which could lead to: the compulsion to give evidence against oneself; de facto initiation (or targeting) of the prosecution of such person, unreasonably and unlawfully depriving him of the opportunity to defend himself; the abuse of authority by the investigating officers and (or) the prosecutor. In addition, the practical application of this institute is contrary to the objectives of the legislature, and the recommendations of the general prosecutor of the Republic of Lithuania compete with the CCP, which may call into question the legitimacy of the regulatory method and (or) content. Also, the status of person who is questioned about his/her possible commission of crime by prosecutor's resolution is more like an intermediate procedural position than new, separate procedural status. The paper proposes to eliminate the institute of special witness and fatherly develop evaluation practices of the data, collected during the exercise of criminal intelligence, interrogation at the scene, adjustment of data in a complaint, statement or report and (or) pre-trial investigation. |
