Inevitable necessity as an element of legitimate self-defense - analysis of arbitrations

V trenutno veljavnem Kazenskem zakoniku je silobran opredeljen kot obramba, ki je nujno potrebna, da storilec odvrne od sebe ali koga drugega istočasen protipraven napad. Ravnanje storilca silobrana vsebuje znake kaznivega dejanja, vendar se ti izničijo, kadar se storilec brani proti napadalčevemu protipravnemu napadu. Za upravičljiv silobran mora biti napad stvaren, resničen, protipraven in povzročen s strani človeka. Usmerjen mora biti k posamezniku ali njegovi kazenskopravno zavarovani dobrini. Napadalec lahko deluje naklepno, iz malomarnosti ali pa mu je krivda celo izključena, pa je obramba še vedno dovoljena. Krivda napadalcu je lahko izključena v primeru, da gre za neprištevno osebo, za osebo, ki ravna v zmoti, ali za otroka, ki še ni dopolnil 14 let in torej ni subjekt kazenskega prava. Obramba je v teh primerih dovoljena, pomembno pa je vprašanje, ali je bila neizogibno potrebna. Obramba in napad morata potekati istočasno. V trenutku, ko se konča napad, se mora znotraj upravičljivega silobrana končati tudi obramba. Ta mora biti neizogibno potrebna in sorazmerna z napadom. Sprva se oceni, ali je bila obramba potrebna, torej ali je bila zares ogrožena katera dobrina do te mere, da jo je bilo treba braniti. Če se ugotovi, da napada ni bilo mogoče odvrniti drugače kot s poškodbo napadalčeve dobrine, se znotraj neizogibne potrebnosti ocenjuje intenziteta obrambe in njeno sorazmerje z napadom. Intenzivnost obrambe ne sme presegati intenzivnosti napada. V kolikor jo preseže, gre za prekoračen silobran. Temu protipravnost ni izključena, možna je le milejša kazen ob upoštevanju okoliščin. V pričujočem diplomskem delu je analiza sodb prikazala enakost sojenja v podobnih situacijah neizogibne potrebnosti, ob tem pa ne gre pozabiti, da v kazenskem pravu ni mogoče sklepati in razlogovati zgolj na podlagi podobnih judikatov, saj je vsak primer edinstven in vsebuje unikatne okoliščine, ki vplivajo na razsodbo.Self-defense is defined as a defense that is necessary to divert a simultaneous attack away from yourself or somebody else. Self-defense has signs of a criminal act, but it\u27s unlawfulness is excluded when diverting an unlawful attack. The attack has to be real, unlawful and carried out by a human. It has to be aimed at an individual or their protected matter. The attacker can act intentionally, unintentionally or with excluded fault. Fault may be excluded when a person is mentally ill, is acting by mistake or is a child under 14 of age and is not yet a subject of criminal law. Self-defense is permitted in such cases, but the question is whether the defense is inevitably necessary. The defense and attack have to take place simultaneously. When the attack stops, the defense must also stop. The defense has to be inevitably necessary and proportional to the attack. First, it has to be decided whether the defense was inevitably necessary and whether the attack posed a serious threat that had to be stopped. If it is decided that there was no other way than injuring the attacker in defense, it has to be then decided whether the defense was proportional. Intensity of the defense must not surpass intensity of the attack. When intesity of the defense is surpassed, unlawfulnes of the self-defense is no longer excluded. Criminal punishment for surpassed self-defense may be lowered due to circumstances. The analysis of arbitrations showed consistent verdicts in similar cases. However, similarity in cases can only be seen when looked at generally. Looking closely, every life situation is different and cannot be compared to another in details. In criminal law, the cases can not be looked at generally, because each veridct is influenced by detailed individual circumstances