The paper deals with certain aspects of the interpretation and application of the law pertaining to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which are related to a person’s right to question the possibility of criminal prosecution as well as to the impossibility of execution of criminal prosecution in respect of a person who was not surrendered to the Republic of Lithuania. It is observed that the procedures of the execution of the EAW in legal practice, as distinct from their delineation in (...) the provisions of the legal acts of the European Union, are being inadmissibly misinterpreted in the national law. It conditions infringements of the right of a person to be brought to criminal account to know what he/she is suspected of. A person’s right to question the possibility and the limits of criminal prosecution is a constitutional guarantee towards the legitimacy of criminal proceedings. (shrink)

The present article is aimed at substantiating the differentiation of the criminal procedure involving the disabled persons as well as at assessing some standards of protection of rights of the latter participants of the procedure, established in the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. The provisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania, given in the present article, enabled generalizing the following two aspects. The first aspect covers the substantiation of the criminal procedure relating to (...) the criminal acts that the physically or mentally disabled persons are suspected (accused) of and application of compulsory medical measures. Specific form of criminal procedure – procedure of application of compulsory medical measures – institution of criminal procedure, covering several closely interdependent legal norms, establishing particular legal specifics of investigation of criminal act and hearing, is established in the separate structural part (Chapter XXIX) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. Moreover, though the criminal procedure relating to the acts that the physically or mentally disabled persons are suspected (accused) of is not governed in one place of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is deemed to be a specific form of criminal procedure, since it constitutes particular related legal norms of criminal procedure, determining the exceptions of the general criminal procedure. The second aspect, related to the constitutional doctrine concerning the equality principle, enabled substantiating the specific legal regulation, established and applied to the disabled participants (suspected persons, accused persons, witnesses, aggrieved persons) in the Law on Criminal Procedure. (shrink)

The parties of the criminal process, possessing the same procedural status (the suspects, indictees), must also have the same rights and obligations; however, if such “differences” as mental disability exists between them, discrimination of the rights and obligations is objectively justifiable. Otherwise, deviation from the constitutional principles of equality between the lawful state and the persons would occur.The article is aimed at substantiating the suspect’s (indictee’s) procedural capability, which is predetermined by the person’s psychic condition. The article starts with an (...) analysis of the category of the general procedural legal subjectivity, which is composed of the procedural legal capacity and the procedural capability. It is stressed that the problem with the suspect’s (indictee’s) procedural subjectivity is related to the items on acquisition of the party’s possibility (permission) to act and on the realization of this possibility (making use of the subjective rights and implementation of the legal obligations) in the course of the process. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania has noted that, generally speaking, legal subjectivity is to be considered as a tool for defending one’s rightful interests. The criminal procedural capability, which is not legally consolidated in Lithuania, contrariwise to the civil procedural capability, is investigated further on in the article. The author submits several scientific provisions, with the help of which she reveals the content of the suspects’ (indictees’) procedural capability via the criteria of his/her intellect and will. Certain points of contact of substantiation of such procedural capability, with the doctrine of the countries, which practice both general and continental law, are indicated. (shrink)