Slaptųjų tyrimo veiksmų procesinės formos darnos aspektai
The Aspects of Harmonization of Undercover Investigative Actions’ Procedural Forms

Summary/Abstract: Straipsnyje analizuojami Lietuvos baudžiamajame procese taikomų slaptųjų tyrimo veiksmų procesinių formų darnos aspektai, susiję su šių veiksmų vienodumo ir skirtingumo požymiais bei jų įtaka įrodinėjimo procese. Diskutuojama, ar slaptiesiems tyrimo veiksmams būdingi požymiai yra pakankami siekiant konkretizuoti kai kurių slaptųjų tyrimo veiksmų procesines formas ir išvengti pastarųjų painiavos. Aptariami slaptųjų tyrėjų veiksmų ir slapto sekimo procesinių formų santykio probleminiai klausimai, bandoma įžvelgti šių dviejų procesinių prievartos priemonių esminius skirtumus lemiančius aspektus. The article focuses on the procedural problems of the undercover investigation actions‘ (UIA) procedural form, i.e. its harmonisation to others. The author discusses whether the features of UIA, that are making these procedural actions as one-way standing actions in the system of all over procedural actions in Lithuanian criminal procedure, could be sufficient in order to clarify distinction between UIA and other so-called public investigation actions. In other words, the author is making efforts to theoretically establish the concretized (individual) procedural forms for current undercover actions.The next question is whether the specific features, that are describing all the UIA, are clear and exact to identify the principle difference between the actions of undercover officers (Art. 158 of CPC) and secret surveillance (Art. 160 of CPC). One could say, that the judicial practice is facing the problems of law interpreting and application while those two legal provisions of the CPC must be applied. Any legal interpretation mess of the application of procedural forms is taking the law enforcement and judicial bodies to the confusion of the aim of criminal procedure – speedy and detailed detection of criminal acts and a proper application of the law in order to ensure that any person who has committed a criminal act is given a fair punishment and that no one who is innocent is convicted.The author has distinguished two criteria to differentiate the undercover actions, set in the Articles 158 and 160 of CPC. Author concludes that there are two major reasons to make a proper difference between the actions of undercover officers and secret surveillance. First, secret surveillance could only be applied strictly from distance, while actions of undercover officers could be applied directly and indirectly in the contact with a target person (for instance, suspect). There is no legal possibility and permission at all to use the intermediate persons in order to implement secret surveillance in spite of the tactics of the analysed procedural action. Any attempts to use intermediate persons according to Article 160 of CPC cause procedural violation of the Law and, definitely, negatively influence the admissibility of evidence. Second, only the actions of undercover officers could be carried out not only by the investigation body officers. There is an exception that should be mentioned: the persons, not acting as investigation officers, can also carry out a procedural action in the case of urgency. It is strictly defined in CPC that only in special cases, when there are no other possibilities to detect the persons committing criminal offences, investigation may be conducted by persons who are not officers of a pre-trial investigation.

• Details
• Contents