Concistency of juvenile justice legal acts: procedural issues

Straipsnyje nagrinėjama, kaip Nepilnamečių justicijos 2009–2013 m. programos vykdymo metu Lietuvoje keičiami teisės aktai, kurie reguliuoja nepilnamečių justiciją, ir ar tie pokyčiai sistemingi, pakankami, atitinkantys programos keliamus tikslus bei uždavinius. Apžvelgus bendras tendencijas, koncentruojamasi į vieną mažiausiai pokyčių paliestą sritį – nepilnamečio, pažeidusio teisę, atžvilgiu vykdomo baudžiamojo ir administracinio proceso teisės normas, jų atitiktį tarptautiniams vaiko teisių apsaugos standartams bei nuoseklumą ir darną tarp administracinės ir baudžiamosios justicijos. Analizuojami teisėjų ir kitų pareigūnų, dalyvaujančių procese, specializacijos, nepilnamečių privatumo apsaugos, specialistų dalyvavimo proceso metu bei alternatyvių (neteisminių) būdų spręsti nepilnamečių bylas klausimai.The article examines the changes of juvenile justice legal background during the execution of Juvenile Justice Program 2009-2013 in Lithuania. The general overview of the recent trends shows that legal changes in the area of juvenile justice were not systematic, adequate and consistent with the Program goals and objectives. One of the segments which was least affected by positive changes is the procedural part of juvenile justice system. The topics of compliance with international child’s rights protection standards and coherence between the administrative and criminal procedural legal norms are still receiving critical remarks from UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, also from national Ombudsperson for Children’s Rights. The article splits into four main parts each devoted to certain procedural issue. The focus is put on the specialization of the judges and other officers participating in the juvenile administrative and criminal cases, protection of the juvenile and his/her privacy, involvement of the specialists in such process, alternative (non-judicial) ways of dealing with juvenile cases. Currently Lithuanian legal acts provide for the specialization of judges and prosecutors for juvenile cases, but these provisions do not guarantee that every administrative or criminal case of minor will be examined by the judge, prosecutor or police officer, specializing for juvenile matters. The second part of the article deals with the problem of formal, episodic and not mandatory participation of the child protection services specialists in the juvenile criminal cases. This causes the lack of appropriate support for a minor from the very beginning of the process. Also gathering the information on juvenile’s social environment and personality, preparing of social status report for the officers is not ensured. In the third part of the article the problem of incoherence ensuring the protection of juvenile‘s privacy in Criminal procedure and in the process of Administrative Law Violation is discussed. In order to protect the minor from the spread of negative information about his/ her offense, it is necessary the Code of Administrative Violations to align with the Criminal Procedure Code establishing the restrictions for the publication of data on juvenile offenders prior to their hearings, also providing for the possibility to limit public access to the juvenile administrative violation proceedings in the court or other institutions. The last part of the article deals with the necessity of wider opportunities to divert juvenile criminal and administrative cases from formal process providing legal regulation for the mediation and/or other restorative justice models