Do the Laws in Lithuania Guarantee the Equality of Arms between the Victim and the Suspect (accused, convict) in Criminal Procedure?

Šio tyrimo tikslas – įvertinti ar Lietuvoje teisės aktais užtikrinamas nukentėjusio ir įtariamojo (kaltinamojo, nuteistojo) lygiateisiškumas baudžiamajame procese. Tyrimo tikslui pasiekti išsikelti šie uždaviniai: pristatyti procesinio lygiateisiškumo principą baudžiamojo proceso teisėje; aptarti asmens tapimo įtariamuoju/nukentėjusiuoju atvejus ir sąlygas bei galimybę naudotis procesinėmis teisėmis; išanalizuoti įtariamojo (kaltinamojo, nuteistojo) ir nukentėjusiojo teisės į teisminę pagalbą reglamentavimą teisės aktuose ir šios teisės įgyvendinimą; aptari įtariamojo (kaltinamojo) ir nukentėjusiojo parodymų davimo galimybes; aptarti įtariamojo ir nukentėjusiojo teisės susipažinti su bylos medžiaga ikiteisminio tyrimo metu įgyvendinimą; atskleisti nukentėjusiojo teisės pateikti prašymą pakeisti kaltinimą reglamentavimą ir įgyvendinimą ir kaltinamojo teisių užtikrinimo garantijas; palyginti įtariamojo (kaltinamojo, nuteistojo) ir nukentėjusiojo procesines teises ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjui atliekant įtariamojo ir liudytojo apklausas, taikant suėmimo skyrimo ir nuteistųjų paleidimo į laisvę institutus. Atlikus tyrimą paaiškėjo šie pagrindinai nukentėjusiojo ir įtariamojo (kaltinamojo, nuteistojo) teisių neatitikimo atvejai: pirma, asmuo, įtariamas padarius nusikalstamą veiką, įtariamuoju tampa nuo sulaikymo momento, nuo apklausos pradžios ar nuo šaukimo apklausai įtariamuoju išsiuntimo momento ir gali naudotis jam suteiktomis procesinėmis teisėmis. Tuo tarpu tik priėmus nutarimą ar nutartį asmenį, kuriam nusikalstama veika padarė fizinės, turtinės ar moralinės žalos, pripažinti nukentėjusiuoju, jis įgyja teisę pasinaudoti nukentėjusiojo procesinėmis teisėmis ir siekti savo teisėtų interesų baudžiamajame procese; antra, įtariamasis (kaltinamasis) turi teisę duoti parodymus, todėl už atsisakymą duoti parodymus ar melagingų parodymų davimą nėra taikomos procesinės prievartos priemonės ar baudžiamoji atsakomybė, kai tuo tarpu nukentėjusysis privalo duoti teisingus parodymus, todėl už atsisakymą duoti parodymus gali būti taikytos procesinės prievartos priemonės, o duodant melagingus parodymus ir baudžiamoji atsakomybė; trečia, nukentėjusysis ir jo atstovas neinformuojami apie ikiteisminio tyrimo teisėjo atliekamas įtariamojo ir liudytojo apklausas, taip pat apie teismo posėdžius, kuriuose nagrinėjami klausimai dėl suėmimo skyrimo, dėl lygtinio atleidimo nuo laisvės atėmimo bausmės prieš terminą, neatliktos laisvės atėmimo bausmės pakeitimo švelnesne bausme ir lygtinio paleidimo ir negali dalyvauti šiuose proceso veiksmuose.It is very important to guarantee the equality of arms between the parties to proceedings – the suspect (accused, convict) and the victim in criminal procedure, thus, guaranteeing these parties the possibility to equally exercise their rights and rightful interests. The issue of the topic – the laws in Lithuania insufficiently guarantee the equality of arms between the victim and the suspect (accused, convict) in criminal procedure. The suspect (accused) has more possibilities to defend against the stated suspicion (indictment), exercise his rights and rightful interests. However, the laws do not provide the victim with enough remedies to seek that the guilty person be identified and appropriately sentenced as well as to claim for damages. The relevance of the topic – the rights of the suspect (accused, convict) or the rights of the victim in criminal procedure are analyzed and considered separately. No comparative analysis of the rights of the suspect and the victim is given in scholarly studies, the equality of arms between these parties is not considered. The aim of the research is to evaluate whether or not the laws in Lithuania guarantee the equality of arms between the victim and the suspect (accused, convict) in criminal procedure. The following goals were set to achieve the aim: to present the principle of equality of arms in criminal procedural law; to discuss the circumstances and conditions when a person becomes the suspect/victim and possibilities to exercise procedural rights; to analyze how the right of the suspect (accused) and the victim to the legal counsel is regulated and exercised; to discuss the possibilities for the suspect (accused) and the victim to testify; to consider how the suspect and the victim can exercise the right to access the file during the pre-trial period; to discuss how the right of the victim to make a motion to change the indictment is regulated and exercised, as well as how the rights of the accused are protected; to compare the rights of the suspect (accused, convict) and the victim when the suspect or the witness testifies upon the pretrial judge, as well as when the court decides weather or not to take the suspect (accused) into custody or release the convict on parole. The object of the research – Lithuanian and international laws that regulate the rights of the suspect (accused, convict) and the victim in criminal procedure, as well as jurisprudence of the Lithuanian Constitutional court, Lithuanian Supreme court, Lithuanian court of Appeal and European court of human rights. Methods used in the research: document research method used to reveal the content of the research sources (Lithuanian and international laws, jurisprudence of the Lithuanian Constitutional court, Lithuanian Supreme court, Lithuanian court of Appeal and European court of human rights, books and scholarly articles by Lithuanian and foreign authors); comparative method applied to compare the rights of the victim and the suspect (accused, convict) that are established in Lithuanian and international laws; method of critique used in discussing the discrepancy between the rights of the victim and the suspect (accused, convict); logical analysis method applied in analyzing the rights of the victim and the suspect (accused, convict) in criminal procedure, as well as in drawing conclusions and making suggestions; linguistic method used to define and reveal the content of the key words such as equality of arms, the suspect and the victim, as well as Lithuanian and international laws. The main instances of discrepancy between the rights of the victim and the suspect (accused, convict): the person, suspected of committing a crime, acquires the status of the suspect from the moment of arrest, from the start of interrogation, or from the moment the summons to the interrogation is sent, and can exercise the rights of the suspect. On the other hand, only when the decision is made to recognize a person, who suffered physical, property or non-pecuniary damage, as a victim, he can exercise the rights of the victim and seek remedies. Besides, the victim gains the right to the secondary legal counsel, irrespective of wealth and income, when he acquires the status of the victim and only in the damage compensation cases. Thus, by the help of the legal counsel he can exercise only one of the two main interests of the victim – claim for damages. Meanwhile, the suspect (accused) can exercise the right to the secondary legal counsel, irrespective of wealth and income, when there are conditions for the necessary advocate participation. Thus, with the help of the advocate, the suspect can exercise all the rights and rightful interests in criminal case. In addition, the suspect (accused) has the right to testify, thus, if he refuses to testify or gives false testimony no coercive measures or criminal liability is imposed. On the other hand, the victim must give reliable testimony, thus, if he refuses to testify the coercive measures can be taken, or if he gives false testimony criminal liability can also be imposed. Furthermore, the suspect (accused, convict) and his advocate must/can appear at the court when the suspect or the witness testifies upon the pretrial judge, as well as when the court decides weather or not to take the suspect (accused) into custody or release the convict on parole. These parties can ask questions, express their opinion and pronounce on the arguments. On the contrary, the victim and his counsel are not informed about and cannot appear at the court when the suspect or the witness testifies upon the pretrial judge, as well as when the court decides weather or not to take the suspect (accused) into custody or release the convict on parole. It follows that they cannot ask questions, express their opinion or pronounce on the arguments.Vytauto Didžiojo universiteta