POSEBNE DOKAZNE RADNJE U BALTIČKIM ZEMLJAMA
Apstrakt
U radu autori se bave posebnim dokaznim radnjama u baltičkim zemljama. Posebne dokazne radnje danas predstavljaju jednu od nezaobilaznih dokaznih mera u istragama teških krivičnih dela. Istovremeno, posebne dokazne radnje znatno više zadiru u ljudska prava u poređenju sa drugim, redovnim dokaznim radnjama. Njihova nepravilna upotreba ugrožava ljudska prava, a naročito pravo na privatnost i pravo na pravično suđenje. Rad je podeljen na tri dela. Nakon uvodnih razmatranja autori objašnjavaju litvansko zakonodavstvo, koje je u značajnoj meri uticalo na razvoj judikature Evropskog suda za ljudska prava u području prikrivenog islednika. Letonsko zakonodavstvo je obrađeno u drugom delu, a karakteriše ga veći broj posebnih dokaznih radnji. Na kraju, autori razrađuju zakonodavstvo Estonije u pogledu posebnih dokaznih radnji i daju zaključna razmatranja. Autori naročito ističu stavove Evropskog suda za ljudska prava koji su na ovom polju doneti protiv baltičkih zemalja. Širok dijapazon posebnih dokaznih radnji ukazuje na njihovu različitost, ali se može izvesti zaključak da su zakonski tekstovi pretežno u skladu sa standardima Evropskog suda za ljudska prava.
Reference
Aqubardia, I. 2020. Legal Grounds for Operative-Investigatory Activity and European Standards. Journal of Law, 1, pp. 208-218.
Ažubalyte, R. & Fedosiuk O. 2021. Legal Principles vs. Statutory Ambiguity in Criminal Justice: Lithuanian Court Experience. Criminal Law Forum, 32, pp. 435-457. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-021-09421-5.
Balsamo, A. 2018. The Content of Fundamental Rights. In: Costoris, R. (ed.), Handbook of European Criminal Procedure. Cham: Springer, pp. 99-168. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72462-1_3.
Banović, B., Bejatović, S., & Turanjanin, V. 2020. Međunarodno krivično pravo. Kragujevac: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Kragujevcu.
Brady, N. 2014. Evidence, Special Investigative Techniques and the Right to a Fair Hearing. ERA Forum, 15, pp. 37-49. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-014-0334-3.
Bronitt, S. & Roche, D. 2000. Between Rhetoric and Reality: Sociolegal and Republican Perspectives on Entrapment. International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 4(2), pp. 77-106.
Burda, E. & Trellova, L. 2019. Admissibility of an Agent Provocateur and anvAdvocate Acting as an Agent. Balkan Social Science Review, 14, pp. 55-80.
Constantinou, A. G. 2017. Harming the Very People Whom the Law Is Seeking to Protect: The Nexus between International, European Union and Domestic Law and Human Trafficking and Undercover Police Operations. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 8(4), pp. 476-495. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2032284417743145.
Čvorović, D. 2016. Implicit of Rights to a Fair Trial and Casuistry ofthe European Court of Human Rights. Zbornik Instituta za kriminološka i sociološka istraživanja, 35(3), pp. 43-53.
Deprez, C. 2017. The Gravity of International Crimes as a Challenge to the (Full) Protection of Human Rights before International Criminal Tribunals: A Strasbourg Perspective. Nordic Journal of International Law, 86, pp. 499-524. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-08604002.
Easton, S. 2014. Silence and Confessions: The Suspect as a Source of Evidence. Palgrave Macmillan. doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137333827.
Floinn, M. O. 2017. The Concept of Idem in the European Courts: Extricating the Inextricable Link in European Double Jeopardy Law. Columbia Journal of European Law, 24, pp. 75-110.
Glas, L. R. 2018. Translating the Convention’s Fairness Standards to the European Court of Human Right: An Exploration with a Case Study on Legal Aid and the Right to a Reasoned Judgment. European Journal of Legal Studies, 10(2), pp. 47-82.
Golichenko, M., Stolz, S. & Ezer, T. 2018. Addressing Human Rights Abuses against People Who Use Drugs: A Critical Role for Human Rights Treaty Bodies and Special Procedures. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 10, pp. 83-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jhuman/huy011.
Gorlitz, F., Hubert, J., Kucher, J., Scheffer, M., & Wieser, P. 2019. Tatprovokation - The Legal Issue of Entrapment in Germany and Possible Solutions. German Law Journal, 20(4), pp. 496-509. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.33.
de Hert, P. 2005. Balancing Security and Liberty within the European Human Rights Framework. A Critical Reading of the Court’s Case Law in the Light of Surveillance and Criminal Law Enforcement Strategies after 9/11. Utrecht Law Review, 1, pp. 68-96. doi: https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.4.
Kalin, W. & Kunzli, J. 2019. The Law of International Human Rights Protection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Keane, A. & McKeown, P. 2012. The Modern Law of Evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klimek, L. 2017. Mutual Recognition of Judicial Decisions in European Criminal Law. Cham: Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44377-5.
Levanon, L. 2016. The Law of Police Entrapment: Critical Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Criminal Law Forum, 27, pp. 35-73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-015-9271-2.
Meese, J. 2017. The Use of Illegally Obtained Evidence in Criminal Cases: A Brief Overview. ERA Forum, 18, pp. 297-309. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-017-0471-6.
Minervini, G. 2020. The Principle of Legality and the Crime of Genocide: Drelingas v. Lithuania. Human Rights Law Review, 20, pp. 810-828. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngaa031.
Moonen, T. 2010. Special Investigation Techniques, Data Processing and Privacy Protection in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Pace International Law Review Online Companion, 1(9), pp. 97-136.
Pajcic, M. & Valkovic, L. 2012. Judgments of the European Court for Human Rights against the Republic of Croatia for violation of the right to fair trial (article of the Convention for the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms). Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu, 19, pp. 751-794.
Pitcher, K. 2018. Judicial Responses to Pre-Trial Procedural Violations in International Criminal Proceedings. Hague: Asser Press and Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-219-4.
Potulski, J. 2011. Polish Model of Fighting Corruption: Success at All Costs. US-China Law Review, 8(6), pp. 605-616.
Puşcaşu, V. 2010. AAgenţi sub acoperire. Provocarea ilegală a infracţiunii. Consideraţii (II) [Undercover investigators; entrapment; considerations (II)]. Caiete de Drept Penal, 3, pp. 75-98.
Ramos, V. C. 2016. The Rights of the Defence according to the ECtHR: An Illustration in the Light of A.T. v. Luxembourg and the Right to Legal Assistance. New Journal of European Criminal Law, 7, pp. 397-417. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441600700403.
Schabas, W. 2015. The European Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skorupka, J. 2021. The Rule of Admissibility of Evidence in the Criminal Process of Continental Europe. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, 7(1), pp. 93-122. doi: https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.526.
Stanisavljević, J. 2021. DNK dokazi u krivicnom postupku [DNA Evidences in Criminal Procedure]. Faculty of Law: Kragujevac.
Stariene, L. 2009. The Limits of the Use of Undercover Agents and the Right to a Fair Trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Jurisprudence, 3(117), pp. 263-284.
Toney, R. J. 2002. English Criminal Procedure under Article of the European Convention on Human Rights: Implications for Custodial Interrogation Practices. Houston Journal of International Law, 24(3), pp. 411-474.
Torres Chedraui, A. M. 2010. An Analysis of the Exclusion of Evidence Obtained in Violation of Human Rights in Light of the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Tilburg Law Review, 15, pp. 205-234. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/22112596-90000013.
Turanjanin, V. 2022. Special Investigative Measures: Comparison of the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code with the European Court of Human Rights Standards. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 26(1), pp. 34-60. doi: https://doi. org/10.1177/13657127211055230.
Turanjanin, V. 2021. The Principle of Immediacy Versus the Efficiency of Criminal Proceedings: Do Changes in the Composition of the Trial Panel Violate the Right to a Fair Trial?. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 39(1), pp. 73-87. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/18918131.2021.1923242.
Turanjanin, V. 2020. Video Surveillance of the Employees Between the Right to Privacy and Right to Property After Lopez Ribalda and Others v. Spain. University of Bologna Law Review, 5(2), pp. 268-293.
Viebig, P. 2016. Illicitly Obtained Evidence at the International Criminal Court. Cham: Asser Press and Springer. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-093-0.
Wallace, D. 2009. Recent Legal Developments: Redress of Human Rights Abuses in Criminal Justice in International Human Rights Jurisprudence for 2008. International Criminal Justice Review, 19(4), pp. 507-523. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567709346256.
Youngs, R. 2014. English, French & German Comparative Law. London and New York: Routledge. doi: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315816791.
Žunić, T. & Dukić, T. 2012. Defence Rights and Police Investigations in the EU. Zbornik radova Pravnog fakulteta u Novom Sadu, 46(2), pp. 575-596. doi: https://doi.org/10.5937/zrpfns46-2012.
Legal Sources Lithuania
Republic of Lithuania, Law on Operational Activities Law No IX-965, 2002. Available at: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.179228?jfwid=j1u6bxs33.
Latvia
Law of Criminal Procedure (Kriminälprocesa likums). Latvijas Vestnesis, 74, 11.05.2005. Adopted: 21 April 2005, entry into force: 1 October 2005. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/1G782G-criminal-procedure-law.
Operational Activities Law. Latvijas Vestnesis, 131, 30.12.1993. Available at: https://likumi.lv/ta/en/en/id/57573-operational-activities-law.
Estonia
Code of Criminal Procedure. Passed 12.02.2003 (RT I 2003, 27, 166). Entry into force 01.07.2004. Available at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/530102013093/consolide.
Surveillance Act. Passed 22 February 1994 (RT1 I 1994, 16, 290), entered into force 18 March 1994. Available at: https://www.legislationline.org/download/id/4162/file/Estonia_Surveillance_Act_1994_am2GG4_en.pdf.
ECtHR case-law
Baltinš v. Latvia. app. 25282/07 (ECtHR, January 8, 2013).
Bannikova v. Russia. app. no. 18757/06 (ECtHR, November 4, 2010).
Bykov v. Russia, app. no. 4378/02 (ECtHR, March 10, 2009).
Constantin and Stoian v. Romania. app. no. 23782/G6 and 46629/G6 (ECtHR, September 29, 2GG3).
Gorgievski v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. app. no. 18002/02 (ECtHR, July 16, 2009).
Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, app. no 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09 (ECtHR, September 13, 2016).
Klass and Others v. Germany, app. no. 5029/71 (ECtHR, September 6, 1978).
Lalas v. Lithuania. app. no. 13109/04 (ECtHR, March 1, 2011).
Leas v. Estonia. app. no. 59577/08 (ECtHR, March 6, 2012).
Liblik and Others v. Estonia. app. nos. 173/15 and 5 others (ECtHR, May 28, 2019).
Malininas v. Lithuania. app. no. 10071/04 (ECtHR, July 1, 2008).
Malone v. The United Kingdom, app. no. 8691/79 (ECtHR, August 2, 1984).
Matanović v. Croatia. app. no. 2742/12 (ECtHR, April 4, 2017).
Meimanis v. Latvia, app. 70597/11, (ECtHR, July 21, 2015).
Miliniené v. Lithuania. app. no. 74355/01 (ECtHR, June 24, 2008).
Ramanauskas v. Lithuania (no. 2). app. no. 55146/14 (ECtHR, February 20, 2018).
Ramanauskas v. Lithuania. app. no. 74420/01 (ECtHR, February 5, 2008).
Tchokhonelidze v. Georgia. app. no. 31536/07 (ECtHR, June 28, 2018).
Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal. app. no. 44/1997/828/1034 (ECtHR, June 9, 1998).
Virgil Dan Vasile v. Romania. app. no. 35517/11 (ECtHR, May 15, 2018).
