Imperfections of reglamentation of evidence conception in criminal procedure code

Straipsnyje nagrinėjama ir teisės teoretikams, ir teisės praktikams pastaruoju metu itin aktuali problema, kokie ikiteisminio tyrimo duomenys vadintini įrodymais baudžiamajame procese. Plėtojant temą buvo siekiama paanalizuoti, kokia moksline koncepcija turi būti remiamasi norint apibrėžti įrodymų sąvoką baudžiamojo proceso teorijoje bei galiojančiame Baudžiamojo proceso kodekse. Siekiama parodyti ikiteisminio tyrimo metu surinktų ir teisme vertinamų faktinių duomenų ryšį bei jų tapatumą ir abiejų šių sampratų reikšmę įrodinėjimo procesui. Šios kertinės įrodymų teisės sąvokos atskleidžiamos per baudžiamojo proceso įstatyme įtvirtintą įrodymų požymių prizmę. Straipsnyje kritiniu požiūriu vertinama baudžiamojo proceso įstatyme įtvirtinta įrodymų sąvoka, nagrinėjami kai kurie svarbiausi įrodymų požymiai. Tarp jų išskirtini šie: įrodymų gavimo leistinumo požymis arba, kitaip tariant, teisėtos įrodymų gavimo procedūros reikalavimas, jų sąsajumas su įrodinėtinomis aplinkybėmis bei duomenų vertinimo ypatybės. Šiuo aspektu parodoma, kad teisinė įrodymų reglamentacija galiojančiame Baudžiamojo proceso kodekse yra neišbaigta. Taip pat pateikiamas pasiūlymas, kaip vertėtų keisti įrodymų sąvoką Baudžiamojo proceso kodekso 20 straipsnyjeThe author tried to show the main problem of all law theorists and law practicians -- what kind of data we could call evidence in criminal procedure law. It is a pity but there are no true theoretical analyses of this problem in Lithuanian criminal procedure theory. There were some articles about evidence problems in Lithuanian criminal law procedure, such as evidence kinds, evidence sources and etc. These problems were analysed in some short points, but not on the main things, such as the concept of evidence. The object of this investigation was the concept of evidence we have in the criminal procedure code of Lithuanian Republic, the signs of evidence and how actual are the data we get in pre-trial procedure and the data, we get in court. Are they the same, or different in the point of the signs of evidence we know in the criminal procedure code of Lithuanian Republic, article 20. The aim of this searching was to estimate a new conception of the evidence in the criminal procedure code of Lithuanian Republic and to show do it keep the line with the theoretical concept we know in criminal procedure law. To show this problem, we tried to demonstrate on what theoretical conception is based the evidence concept in the criminal procedure theory and in the valid criminal procedure code. By using critical method, we tried to represent the main signs of evidence and what kind of criminal procedure rule are erroneous and inadequate the evidence concept formulated in the criminal procedure code of Lithuanian Republic. The author shows, that the evidence concept should base on criminal reflection theory we know in crime investigating procedure. It helps us to show, that every criminal act and its parts: the object, the act, the subject and other, reflect in surroundings. Also, if we agree, that cognition process and evidentiary process begins at the same time, it would be wrong to say that only data collecting process in the court is the main evidentiary process. The main problem is that this point of view we have in valid criminal procedure code of Lithuanian Republic, but the theory of criminal procedure shows us the different way of the solving of this problem. It shows us, when we get the evidence and value it on restrict criminal procedure law rules: admissibility and relevancy, we could call it not only a data, but also the real evidence, with all the signs. The judge and also the public prosecutor use the same value criteria: admissibility and relevancy, self-confidence and the law, to admit that this data is also the evidence in the criminal case. So we should do the correction in criminal procedure code, where are done a lot of mistakes in the description of evidence and evidentiary procedur