http:\/\/teise.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Maslauskaite_Khatsernova.pdf<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n[:]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
[:lt] Lietuvos teis\u0117s instituto (LTI) mokslinink\u0117s konstatavo, kad teismo ekspertiz\u0117 ir objekto tyrimas, atliekamas specialisto, yra lygiaver\u010diai ir atliekami t\u0173 pa\u010di\u0173 speciali\u0173 \u017eini\u0173 turin\u010di\u0173 teismo ekspert\u0173, tod\u0117l turi i\u0161 esm\u0117s vienod\u0105 \u012frodom\u0105j\u0105 gali\u0105 nagrin\u0117jant baud\u017eiam\u0105j\u0105 byl\u0105 teisme. Tokia i\u0161vada pateikta mokslinink\u0173 Giedr\u0117s Maslauskait\u0117s bei Sofios Khatsernovos mokslo studijoje \u201eTeismo ekspertiz\u0117s ir objekt\u0173 tyrimo reglamentavimo baud\u017eiamajame procese Lietuvoje pakankamumas, atsi\u017evelgiant \u012f Europos S\u0105jungos (ES) standartus\u201c. Mokslo studija atlikta \u012fgyvendinant Teisingumo ministerijos program\u0105. Mokslinink\u0117s atkreipia d\u0117mes\u012f, kad objekt\u0173 tyrimas, skiriamas ikiteisminio tyrimo pareig\u016bn\u0173, yra i\u0161 esm\u0117s vienintel\u0117 jiems prieinama priemon\u0117 panaudoti specialias \u017einias, taigi logi\u0161ka, kad, siekiant surinkti pakankamai duomen\u0173 \u012ftarimui ar kaltinimui pagr\u012fsti, toki\u0173 objekt\u0173 tyrim\u0173 ikiteisminio tyrimo metu skiriama kur kas daugiau nei ekspertizi\u0173. Be to, objekto tyrimo skyrimas specialistui yra greitesn\u0117 ir paprastesn\u0117 proced\u016bra, padedanti u\u017etikrinti operatyvumo principo \u012fgyvendinim\u0105. Tuo tarpu teismo ekspertiz\u0117, skiriama bylos nagrin\u0117jimo metu, kai i\u0161 esm\u0117s visi reik\u0161mingi duomenys, susij\u0119 su nusikalstamos veikos padarymu, jau surinkti, yra labiau skirta teismo poreikiams tenkinti, siekiant i\u0161siai\u0161kinti objektyvi\u0105 ties\u0105 byloje. Teismo ekspertiz\u0117s reglamentavimas Lietuvos Respublikos baud\u017eiamajame procese, atsi\u017evelgiant \u012f ES standartus, anot mokslininki\u0173, yra tinkamas, ai\u0161kus ir pakankamas. Speciali\u0173 \u017eini\u0173 subjekt\u0173 atskyrimo problematika nedaro \u012ftakos Lietuvos teis\u0117s akt\u0173 atitik\u010diai ES reikalavimams, kadangi nurodytas skirstymas neb\u016bdingas regioniniam ES ir tarptautiniam reglamentavimui. Autori\u0173 nuomone, specialisto ir eksperto, kaip speciali\u0173 \u017eini\u0173 subjekt\u0173, atskyrimas baud\u017eiamajame procese nedaryt\u0173 didesn\u0117s \u012ftakos rungtyniavimo principui baud\u017eiamajame procese, jei d\u0117l jau atlikt\u0173 objekt\u0173 tyrimo gynybai b\u016bt\u0173 suteikta galimyb\u0117 pateikti papildomus duomenis ir d\u0117l j\u0173 b\u016bt\u0173 atliekamas papildomas objekto tyrimas, kaip pirminio papildymas ar koregavimas, atsi\u017evelgiant \u012f naujai pateiktus duomenis. Mokslinink\u0117s teigia, kad, atsi\u017evelgiant \u012f dabartines technologines galimybes d\u0117l baud\u017eiamojo proceso skaitmenizavimo, specialisto fig\u016bra baud\u017eiamajame procese n\u0117ra perteklin\u0117. Objekt\u0173 tyrimo, kur\u012f atlieka specialistas, paskyrimo tvarka, lyginant su ekspertiz\u0117s paskyrimu, baud\u017eiamojo proceso operatyvumo aspektu u\u017etikrina spartesn\u012f nusikalstam\u0173 veik\u0173 tyrim\u0105. \u00a0 Vis\u0105 mokslo studijos tekst\u0105 galima rasti Lietuvos teis\u0117s instituto interneto svetain\u0117je: http:\/\/teise.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Maslauskaite_Khatsernova.pdf [:en] The Law Institute of Lithuania (hereinafter \u2013 LIL) researchers have concluded that a forensic examination and an examination of an object performed by a specialist are of equal value and carried out by forensic experts with the same specialised knowledge, so in principle, they have equal probative value in criminal proceedings. Such was the conclusion given in the scientific study \u201cSufficiency of Regulation of Legal Expertise and Investigation of Subjects in the Criminal Proceedings in Lithuania, in Accordance with the European Union Standards\u201d by researchers Giedr\u0117 Maslauskait\u0117 and Sofia Khatsernova. The scientific study was conducted as part of the Ministry of Justice\u2019s programme. The researchers point out that examination of objects assigned by pre-trial investigation officers is essentially the only tool available to them to use special knowledge, so it is logical that in order to gather sufficient data to substantiate a suspicion or accusation, these examinations of objects are assigned considerably more frequently than forensic examinations during the pre-trial investigation. In addition, assigning examination of an object to a specialist is a faster and simpler procedure, which helps ensure implementation of the principle of expeditiousness. Meanwhile, forensic examinations assigned during hearing of the case when all relevant data related to commission of the criminal offense have already been collected is more for meeting the needs of the court in order to clarify the objective truth in the case. According to the researchers, regulation of forensic examination in the criminal proceedings of the Republic of Lithuania is, in respect to EU standards, adequate, clear and sufficient. The problem of separation of persons of special knowledge does not affect the compliance of Lithuanian legal acts with EU requirements, as the indicated distinction is not specific to regional EU and international regulation. In the opinion of the authors, the separation in criminal proceedings of a specialist and an expert as persons of special knowledge would not have any significant impact on the principle of competition in criminal proceedings if, due to the investigation of objects already carried out, the defence would be given the opportunity to submit additional data due to which an additional object examination would be conducted as an addition to or correction of the initial one, having regard to the newly submitted data. The researcher state that given the current technological possibilities for digitisation of the criminal process, the presence of a specialist in criminal proceedings is not superfluous. In terms of expeditiousness of the criminal process, the procedure for assigning an object examination that is conducted by a specialist ensures speedier investigation of criminal acts than that of assigning an expert examination. The full text of the scientific study can be found on the Law Institute of Lithuania website: http:\/\/teise.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/01\/Maslauskaite_Khatsernova.pdf [:]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2785,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,261],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2784","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-naujienos","category-2018-naujienu-irasu-metai"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2784","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2784"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2784\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":6820,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2784\/revisions\/6820"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2785"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2784"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2784"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/teise.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2784"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}