| Abstract [eng] |
Concept of Provocation in Criminal Procedure Every legitimate state has duty to create such a legal system, that the crime would be solved as fast as possible without violating human rights and the guilty persons would be prosecuted, therefore in this master‘s degree study author analyzed conception of state entrapment and violations of criminal procedures rising from state entrapment. In this thesis author pays attention to the forms of state entrapment, because according to the definition of state entrapment provided in the national law, state entrapment is possible only with active state actions, that limit person‘s right to choose whether to commit a crime. According to the analysis of court precedents, author agrees, that state entrapment may occur without active state actions; that means that state entrapment is also possible by passive actions. This master‘s degree also contains the analysis of facts gained from state entrapment, conformiting requirements of evidence and such evidence evaluation making procedural decision in criminal case. It is noted, that entrapping person to commit a crime is valuating as violation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Conventions article 6 part 1, because in such case there would be denied person‘s right to a fair trial, besides it would violate person‘s right to defend himself and that is not compatible with the purposes of criminal procedure. Revealing conception of state entrapment, it is necessary to notice that judicial instances have a huge impact on entrapment clarification, because it is their responsibility to identify, if the actions of the officers did not assimilate with the entrapment and did not become illegal, while implementing criminal act simulating model. Also it is mentioned, that analysis of Supreme Court of Lithuania, the same as European Human Right Court formed a consistent practice, leads to conclusion, that on purpose to verify if person was not entrapped to commit a crime, it is necessary to verify the legitimacy of criminal act simulation model‘s authorization (i.e. it is necessary to verify, was there legal and factual grounds to authorize criminal act simulating model) and execution (i.e. it is necessary to verify if subjects acting in sanctioned model did not cross model boundaries and did not carry out such actions, which have significant influence to commit a crime) legitimacy. |
