Infringement of application of procedural coercive measures and obligation to compensate harm

Coercive in all cases is a malady, but sometimes it is impossible to determine the truth in the case without restriction of human rights. That’s why in necessary circumstances national and international law acts allow using procedural coercive measures. Law enforcement authorities can use procedural coercive measures only strictly in accordance with the law and only for the purposes of public benefit. One of the duties of commonwealth is to create efficiently functioning mechanism of the compensation of harm, which person has experienced as a result of application of procedural abuse. So, in this article author analyze infringement of application of procedural coercive measures and the duty of the state to compensate person’s experienced harm. In Lithuania there are two traditional forms of compensation of harm – judicial and non-judicial. But author suggests to extend such approach and to use alternative forms of compensation of harm, which person experienced as a result of applying of procedural coercive measures. It could be – moral and restitutional forms of compensation. Usually persons who experienced harm approach directly to the court. For example in 2012 there were 42 such appeals to the courts and only 22 – to the Lithuanian Ministry of Justice. The main reason of such situation is that required sum of the harm is limited in non-judicial form. Another aspect is that in non-judicial form it is required to submit more documents which confirm that procedural coercive measures were applied illegally. In the article author mainly analyze judicial form of compensation of the harm. In criminal procedure law we assess that procedural coercive measures were applied illegally when such application breaks concrete rules of Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Lithuania. In civil cases of compensation of harm procedural actions unlawfulness is valued differently. Of course, first of all, courts asses if such application complies with the rules of Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Lithuania, but also they evaluate whether officers, who applied procedural coercive measures, behaved sufficiently carefully and prudently.Straipsnyje analizuojamas procesinių prievartos priemonių taikymo pažeidimas kaip prielaida asmeniui, kurio atžvilgiu jos buvo taikytos, reikalauti žalos atlyginimo. Kad procesinė prievarta nebūtų taikoma beatodairiškai, valstybė yra įpareigota numatyti tam tikras garantijas, viena iš šių garantijų – tai efektyviai veikiantis žalos, atsiradusios dėl procesinės prievartos taikymo, atlyginimo mechanizmas. Straipsnyje, greta klasikinių žalos atlyginimo formų - teisminės ir neteisminės, autorius ragina ikiteisminį tyrimą atliekančius pareigūnus vis dažniau apsvarstyti galimybę taikyti moralinę bei restitucinę žalos atlyginimo formas. Taip pat identifikuojamos pagrindinės priežastys, lemiančios itin retą neteisminės žalos atlyginimo formos naudojimą. Ypatingas dėmesys yra skiriamas teisminei žalos, atsiradusios dėl procesinės prievartos priemonių taikymo pažeidimo, atlygimo formai. Šie pažeidimai analizuojami valstybės civilinės atsakomybės sąlygų kontekste. Straipsnyje daugiausia dėmesio skiriama vienai iš valstybės civilinės atsakomybės sąlygų – teisėsaugos institucijų pareigūnų veiksmų neteisėtumo analizei ir jos refleksijai praktiniame procesinės prievartos priemonių taikymo procese