DISCLOSURE OF EVIDENCE IN PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS AND INVESTIGATION

Authors

  • Natalija M. Živković doktorand, Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, Srbija

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5937/spz64-25035

Keywords:

disclosure of evidence, access to files, investigation, defense issues

Abstract

Disclosure of evidence to the defendant and defense counsel during pre-trial proceedings and investigations is important for the defendant to be able to devise a defense strategy and to suggest the taking of other evidentiary actions during the investigation. In European Continental States, where an investigation is conducted by a public authority, the defendant is introduced to the evidence collected by examining the case files. In the Anglo-Saxon legal system, where there is no formal investigation, there are rules governing when a party is required to disclose evidence and other information to another party.

Serbian Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that in pre-trial proceedings and investigations the defendant can not inspect the case files before the hearing. It can be concluded that the intention of the legislator was to give priority to the public prosecutor over the defense at the first hearing and to prevent the defendant from “adjusting” his testimony in accordance with the evidence that prosecutor has. Formally, the public prosecutor has an obligation to inform the defendant of the case files within a sufficient time to prepare the defense. However, it is a matter for the prosecutor’s discretion as to how long that time limit should be. When it comes to familiarizing the prosecutor with the material and evidence gathered by the defendant in the course of the investigation, such imposition of the defendant’s “cooperation” is contrary to the right to a defense by silence, the rule on the burden of proof and the presumption of innocence.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Literatura

Bajović, V. 2013. Teret dokazivanja u krivičnom postupku. U: Ignjatović, Đ. (ur.), Kaznena reakcija u Srbiji III deo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu, pp. 246-264.

Bajović, V. 2018. O položaju oštećenog u krivičnom postupku. Pravni život, 9, pp. 543-562.

Brown, D. 2018. Evidence Disclosure and Discovery in Common Law Jurisdictions. Public Law and Legal Theory Research Paper Series, 25, pp. 1-25.

Daggett, D. 1967. Doctrine of Discovery in Criminal Law Procedure. North Dakota Law Review, 43(2), pp. 333-350.

Damaška, M. 1973. Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 121(3), pp. 506-589.

Damaška, M. 1986. The Faces of Justice and State Authority: a comparative approach to the legal process. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Damaška, M. 2007. O nekim učincima stranački oblikovanog pripremnog postupka. Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu (Zagreb), 14(1), pp. 3-14.

Goldstein, A. 1960. The State and the Accused: Balance of Advantage in Criminal Procedure. Yale Law Journal, 69(7), pp. 1149-1199.

Ilić, G. et al. 2018. Komentar Zakonika o krivičnom postupku. Beograd: JP Službeni glasnik.

Ivičević Karas, E. 2007. Okrivljenikovo pravo da ispituje svjedoke optužbe u stadiju istrage kao važan aspekt načela jednakosti oružja stranaka u kaznenom postupku (u povodu presude Europskog suda za ljudska prava u predmetu Kovač protiv Hrvatske). Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu (Zagreb), 14(2), pp. 673-694.

Norton, J. 1970. Discovery in the Criminal Process. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 61(1), pp. 11-38.

Pajčić, M. 2009. Otkrivanje informacija i dokaza između stranaka u kaznenom postupku. Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu (Zagreb), 16(1), pp. 61-98.

Pajčić, M. 2010. Pravo okrivljenika na uvid u spis predmeta tijekom prethodnog kaznenog postupka u pravnim sustavima nekih europskih država i praksi Europskog suda za ljudska prava. Hrvatski ljetopis za kazneno pravo i praksu (Zagreb), 17(1), pp. 25-52.

Škulić, M. 2018. Krivično procesno pravo. Beograd: Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Beogradu.

Škulić, M. & Ilić, G. 2012. Novi Zakonik o krivičnom postupku Srbije: Reforma u stilu „jedan korak napred – dva koraka nazad”. Beograd: Udruženje javnih tužilaca i zamenika javnih tužilaca Srbije.

Trechsel, S. 2005. Human Rights in Criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press.

Vasiljević, T. 1964. Sistem krivičnog procesnog prava SFRJ. Beograd: Naučna knjiga.

Yaroshevsky, E. 2011. Prosecutorial Disclosure Obligations. Hastings Law Journal, 62(5), pp. 1321-1347.

Internet izvori

Tintor, J. 2015. Novi ZKP - Osnovni problemi odbrane. Dostupno na: https://blog.aks.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/osnovni-problemi-odbrane.pdf, (30.09.2019).

Pravni izvori

Ustav Republike Srbije, Službeni glasnik RS, br. 98/2006.

Zakonik o krivičnom postupku, Službeni list SRJ, br. 70/2001 i 68/2002 i Službeni glasnik RS, br. 58/2004, 85/2005, 115/2005, 85/2005 - dr. zakon, 49/2007, 20/2009 - dr. zakon i 72/2009.

Zakon o kaznenom postupku Republike Hrvatske, Narodne novine, br. 152/2008, 76/2009, 80/2011, 121/2011, 91/2012, 143/2012, 56/2013, 145/2013, 152/2014, 70/2017, 126/2019 i 126/2019.

Zakon o krivičnom postupku Republike Srpske, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 53/2012, 91/2017 i 66/2018.

Zakonik o krivičnom postupku, Službeni glasnik RS, br.72/2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013, 45/2013, 55/2014 i 35/2019.

Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66 (1967).

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).

Jasper v. United Kingdom, Application no. 27052/95, 2000, 16 February 2000.

Edwards&Lewis v. United Kingdom, Application no. 39647/98, 40461/98, 3 November 2004.

Rowe&Davis v. United Kingdom, Application no. 28901/95, 16 February 2000.

Garcia Alva v. Germany, Application no. 23541/94, 13 February 2001.

Guy Jespers v. Belgium, Application no. 8404/78, 14 December 1981.

Lamy v. Belgium, Application no. 10444/83, 30 March 1989.

Lietzow v. Germany, Application no. 24479/94, 13 February 2001.

Schöps v. Germany Application no. 25116/94, 13 February 2001.

Downloads

Published

21-04-2020

Issue

Section

Review scientific papers