The Right of the Accused to a Reasoned Court Decision

Autor u radu daje prikaz jednog važnog ljudskog prava optuženika – prava na obrazloženu sudsku odluku zajamčenog člankom 6. stavkom 1. Europske konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda. Polazna je tvrdnja autora da svaka sudska odluka kojom se odlučuje o kaznenom djelu, krivnji i kazni, mora biti potpuno i pravilno obrazložena. Pri tome opseg i sadržaj obrazloženja ne mora biti isti kod svih vrsta presuda, o čemu se u radu daju detaljniji izvodi. Također se upozorava na iznimnu važnost ovog optuženikovog ustavnog, zakonskog i konvencijskog prava, koja se ogleda u tome što je pravilno napisana kaznena presuda, posebice njezino obrazloženje, jamstvo pravičnog suđenja te istinitosti i zakonitosti donesene odluke. Osim toga, njome se osigurava djelotvorno ostvarenje i njegova prava na žalbu u kaznenom postupku. U kontekstu navedenih odrednica navedena su brojna pravna stajališta visokih domaćih i međunarodnih sudova. Zaključno se u radu ističe da nasuprot pravu optuženika na obrazloženu sudsku odluku stoji pozitivna obveza suda da svoje odluke pravilno, određeno i jasno obrazloži sukladno procesnim pravilima i općeprihvaćenim ustavnim i međunarodnopravnim standardima.The right of the accused to a reasoned court decision is guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia (Art 29), the law (Art 459, para 1, 4 - 9 of the CPA), and international law (Art 6, para 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights). It stems from a number of judgments of the highest domestic criminal courts, the Constitutional Court, and the European Court of Human Rights, according to which court decisions must include the court’s reasoning. It should be noted that the scope and content of the reasoning may not be the same in all types of judgment. The right to a reasoned judicial decision, especially if it rules on a criminal offense, guilt and punishment, refers to the right to knowledge of reasons and reasoned positions on the basis of which that decision is made. In explaining a written judgment the court must specifically and completely state its position on the facts (the criminal offense and the guilt), legal issues, the parties’ proposals, deviations from certain procedural principles (e.g. immediacy and contradictions in the presentation of evidence), and in the event of imposition of criminal sanctions, reasons for the type and range of sanction or punishment. A criminal procedure which does not result in a properly substantiated court decision does not meet the constitutional and international standards of generally accepted right of a citizen to a fair trial as a fundamental principle of criminal procedure. Exceptionally, a court, in whole or in part and according to the principle of economy and efficiency of criminal proceedings, may be exempted from the duty to give reasons for its decision only when it is expressly stipulated by law. A properly written criminal judgment, and particularly its reasons, represent a guarantee of a fair trial and the truthfulness and legality of the decision made. In addition, it ensures a valid informational, factual and legal basis for any decision on the submission of a remedy, and at the same time allows, if it comes to that, better control of the correctness of a court decision by a higher court. In addition to the first instance judgment, the obligation to give reasons for the appellate judgment arises out of the provision of Art 459, para 5 and Art 449, para 3. Specific rules for reasoning in appellate judgments are contained in the provision of Art 487, para 1-3. Reasoning of an appellate decision does not necessarily have to be as detailed as that of the first instance decision, especially when the first instance reasoning was full and detailed, and when the appellate court accepts its argumentation. In the end, it should be recalled that the obligation to give proper reasons for a judicial decision should encourage the court to properly and fully establish the facts in a criminal case in hand and correctly apply the legal standards so as to ensure a fair trial until the judgment becomes final