| Abstract [eng] |
This Master‘s thesis analyses the institution of reading out (publicising) the testimonies given during a pre-trial investigation during a trial. The synergy between legal science and cognitive psychology is used to assess the influence of testimonies given during a pre-trial investigation on the formation of a judge’s inner conviction. The analysis of the positions of legal scholars and the interpretations given by the Supreme Court of Lithuania reveals the purpose of the examination and evaluation of the data collected during a pre-trial investigation, including, inter alia, the statements given during a pre-trial investigation. It also assesses the fundamental principles of evidence, such as the principles of direct examination of evidence, adversarial proceedings, equality of arms, and the free evaluation of evidence, which should ensure the transparency of criminal proceedings and help the judge to reach a fair decision of the person’s guilt. Based on the jurisprudence of legal scholars, the Supreme Court of Lithuania and the European Court of Human Rights, this work examines the grounds for the hearing of statements given during a pre-trial investigation and the objectives of such a procedural action, as laid down in Article 279(1) and (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This work also analyses whether the publicising of statements given during a pre-trial investigation is an independent act during the investigation of evidence or whether it is an integral part of the interrogation of persons at the stage of the investigation of evidence. This work also seeks to establish whether statements made during the pre-trial phase of the investigation can be considered as an appropriate source in the evidentiary phase. This Master’s thesis also compares the institute of publicising the testimonies, given during a pre-trial investigation, as established in the criminal procedure laws of Lithuania and those of foreign countries. This comparative analysis aims to find out what helps to ensure an optimal balance between the expeditiousness of proceedings and the protection of human rights. |
