A POINT OF VIEW REGARDING THE ROLE OF INTERCEPTION IN THE PENAL PROCESS
A POINT OF VIEW REGARDING THE ROLE OF INTERCEPTION IN THE PENAL PROCESS

Summary/Abstract: Shortly before February 1, 2014, and after that date, too, there were a number of discussions both of lawyers, especially magistrates, and of other people with important positions in the state; in this respect we can mention the head of state’s public intervention that summoned the Prime Minister to adopt a certain conduct in relation to the text of the Article 138 paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP), on phone and communication tapping. Televised public debates were made, too, all started, as it seems, from the notification made by the chief prosecutor of the National Anticorruption Directorate, Laura Codruţa Kovessi, addressed the head of state. The magistrate raised the issue of the impossibility of achieving complete criminal prosecution activities under the provisions of the Code that would come into effect on February 1, 2014, and that are maintained in the form in which the document was published. Specifically, the chief prosecutor of the N.A.D. has claimed and still claims that, since the criminal prosecution body can use special techniques of surveillance and research only after the criminal prosecution against the suspect has begun and since, in accordance with the provisions of the Article 307 of the C.C.P., the suspect shall be informed about the respective criminal procedure; one cannot count on a result that reflects the truth in the respective cause. This happens, because it is natural, the same high magistrate claims, that the suspect will take precautionary measures to avoid falling under the incidence of the criminal law.

• Details
• Contents