Moment of Realization of Conflict Right in the Continuity of Criminal Procedure: stigmas in process

Pravičnost postupka za okrivljenika kao središnju točku postupanja organa kaznenog progona i postupka, jedno je od zahtjeva konvencijskog prava, utjelovljenom i u hrvatskom kaznenom procesnom pravu. Procesne stigme koje se povremeno pojavljuju u mjerodavnim odlukama kaznenih sudova, ukazuju na činjenicu da još uvijek nije uspostavljena pravna sigurnost po pitanju sudske prakse u pogledu vremena ostvarenja konfrontacijskog prava obrane, ali i na zabrinjavajuću arbitrarnost odluka, posebno u pogledu neusklađenosti s višim sudom. U ovome radu autor korištenjem case-study metode izučava recentne odluke hrvatskih kaznenih sudova po pitanju tumačenja trenutka kada, prema procesno-pravnim zahtjevima, nužno mora doći do realizacije prava obrane da ispita svjedoke optužbe. Zaključno se ukazuje na neujednačenost sudske prakse nižih sudova s onom najvišeg redovnog kaznenog suda hrvatske države, neodrživost pojedinih sudskih odluka i tumačenja na koje nije moguće uložiti (redovna) pravna sredstva i nametanja obveza tijelima kaznenog progona koje obveze ne postavlja kazneni procesni zakon.The fairness of the proceedings for the defendant as the central point of the prosecution of the criminal prosecution and prosecution body is one of the requirements of the convention law, embodied in the Croatian criminal procedural law. The process of stigma occasionally appearing in relevant criminal justice decisions points to the fact that legal certainty has not yet been established regarding judicial practice in terms of the time of the conflicting rights of defense, but also of the worrying arbitrariness of the decisions, particularly as regards non-compliance with a higher court. In this paper, the author uses a case-study method to study the recent decisions of Croatian criminal courts regarding the interpretation of the moment when, according to procedural legal requirements, the realization of the right of defense must necessarily be examined by prosecution witnesses. Finally, it points to the inequality of the court practice of the lower courts with the highest court in Croatia, the unenforceability of certain court decisions and interpretations for which it is not possible to invest (regular) legal remedies and imposing obligations on criminal prosecution bodies that are not subject to a criminal procedural law