| Abstract [eng] |
Legitimacy of Procedural Activities of Secret Agents (Articles 158 and 159 of Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Lithuania) Special investigation techniques (provided in Lithuanian legislature – Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter reffered as CCP) articles 158 and 159) are considered as coercive measures in the context of criminal procedure. However, these techniques are used on the purpose to gather important evidence relevant to the criminal offense (in this case – a crime). Undercover agents actions and actions of criminal conduct simulation should be understood as ultima ratio evidence gathering method – they should be applied only when important evidence cannot be gathered using others, public investigation methods. This thesis analyzes the concept of special investigation techniques provided in CCP articles 158 and 159 and their differences from similar actions used in criminal intelligence. Attention is drawn to the Lithuanian statutory legal regulatory shortcomings, discussing various options of improvement, including the possibility of moving related norms from non-criminal procedure statute and lower than statute act to CCP. Also, this thesis analyzes the issue of entrapment, aspects of data sufficiency, proportionality, maximum terms for using these techniques and judicial control, as a measures of human rights protection. Again, attention is drawn to the fact that there are no regulations of maximum term for using special techniques in CCP articles 158 and 159, emphasizing that the lack of regulation leads to even greater significance for judicial control and legal document which not only allows undercover agents to use these special investigation techniques, but also lays down the rules of the legality of such actions limits. An analysis of the subject in actual Supreme Court of Lithuania and the lower court‘s practise was ended with conclusion that in practise the investigating authorities and private individuals who are carrying the secret investigative actions both often use their powers incorrectly, and errors lead to violations of human rights and gathered data non-recognition as evidence during the process in a trial. |
