Problematic aspects of pretrial measures

Only the judge of pretrial investigation imposes three strictest remands, i.e. detention, home arrest and obligation to live separately from the victim. Detention limits both the person’s physical freedom and the movement freedom, communication and intercommunication freedom, that is a remand restricting the human rights most of all. The Criminal Procedure Code (Article 127) establishes the biggest permissible terms of application of detention. This limitation disappears when the case goes to court and detention can be continued for unlimited period. That creates prerequisites for the freedom of the person who has not been recognized as committed offense to be restricted for unlimited period which can be the same or even longer than imprisonment, The law also does not provide for the judge seeing that it is not expedient to impose the strictest remand to impose at his own initiative other milder remand. Home arrest is one of the sorts of the remands limiting the Constitutional right to freedom. Article 132 of the Criminal Procedure Code establishes that the obligation for the suspect on the established time to stay in his place of residence, not to visit public places and not to communicate with certain persons, however, more various prohibitions ought to be provided for in the law as the prohibition for the suspect to communicate by telephone, use internet, send parcels post and use other means of communication. Since 2004 a new remand was legalized – the obligation to lives separately from the victim. By this remand the suspect can be obliged not to visit certain places where the victim or persons living with him are, not to communicate directly, through other persons and with the help of technical means, not to look for ties with the victim and the persons living with him. Article 1321 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not provide for what term this remand can be imposed, so the duration of applying home arrest depends on the presence of application basis, case circumstances, decisions of the public prosecutors or court. However, the permanent control of expediency of this remand is also necessary, so the establishing of terms of this remand in the law would be necessary. The law of protection from violence in close environment has consolidated a new concept – close environment. In the event of establishing the fact of violence in close environment these measures of ensuring protection of the person who has experienced violence are imposed. In the law in effect at present rather many cracks and obscurities are present, the law has not been concerted with the provisions of the Criminal Code and Criminal Procedure Code.Lietuvos Respublikos baudžiamojo proceso kodekse procesinės prievartos priemones suskirstytos į du atskirus skyrius, t. y. „Kardomosios priemonės“ ir „Kitos procesinės prievartos priemonės“. Pats žodis „kardomosios“ nusako šių priemonių esmę. Tai priemonės, kurios užkardo, trukdo įtariamajam atlikti tam tikrus veiksmus, kurie kliudytų normaliai proceso eigai ir tiesai nustatyti, taip pat daryti naujas nusikalstamas veikas. Šiame straipsnyje siekiama atskleisti termino „kardomoji priemonė“ sampratą, paskirtį. Taip pat analizuojami baudžiamojo proceso teisės klausimai, teorinės ir praktinės problemos, susisijusios su ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjo skiriamomis procesinėmis prievartos priemonėmis, lyginamuoju aspektu išanalizuotos smurtą patyrusio asmens apsaugos užtikrinimo priemonės, numatytos Apsaugos nuo smurto artimoje aplinkoje įstatyme, kadangi daugiausia problemų tiek ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjams, tiek proceso dalyviams kyla dėl baudžiamojo proceso įstatymo spragų