Saeima takes into consideration the opinion of Supreme Court on amendments of Criminal Procedure law
20 April, 2007
Saeima on 19th of April has conceptually supported amendments of Criminal Procedure law, over which debates were aroused in recent time, admitting same time that before adopting in next readings more wide discussion about it is required as well as the analysis of other country experience.
The amendments state that, prosecutor general with its decision has the right to dismiss an criminal action against a person, that gave a sufficient help to in disclosing a serious crime or especially serious crime, that is as serious, more serious or more dangerous than criminal offence that was committed by that person. The conditions of mentioned section are not applicable to person that is held criminally liable for committing especially serious criminal offences that are stipulated in Criminal Law Sections 116, 117, 118, 125, 159, 160, 251, 252 and 253.1 – murder, intentional serious bodily injury, rape, forcible sexual assault, unauthorized manufacture, acquisition, storage, transportation and conveyance of narcotic and psychotropic substances.
Chief Justice of Supreme Court admits that in principle amendments are to be supported and are necessary to contribute to combating of crime, especially organized crime. He considers that amendments are not to be delayed, regardless of heated discussions that they have aroused. Nevertheless, in his opinion, there still is a necessity for serious discussion about to which criminal offences so called prosecutor agreement is applicable, what objecting against amendments Department of Criminal Cases has stressed out. A. Guļāns mentioned that possible consequences for such a crucial change in investigation and court practice has not been forecasted widely enough. In his opinion, information about how prosecutor agreement is fulfilled in other countries of European Union and to which criminal offences that is applicable is to be explored and analyzed. We also need the discussion about who will control these agreements between prosecutor and violator – general prosecutor’s office itself or may be still court.
Department of Criminal Cases of Supreme Court gave its resolution to Judicial Committee, that it does not support amendments to Criminal Procedure Law Section 410 conceptually and amendments that result of that to Criminal Law Section 60, for do not see the sufficient motivation for such amendments within the framework of draft law to be made. There are no such sound arguments at the disposal of Department that would explain why amendments that so substantially expand seals of prosecutor general to take decision to dismiss a criminal action against a person and expand circle of persons in regarding to whom prosecutor general can take such decision. Amendments prescribe that prosecutor general can take the decision to dismiss a criminal action not only against persons who committed less serious crime those persons crime that will be helped to disclose, but as well as persons whose committed crime is serious to the same extent. Secondly, amendments expand the circle of persons regarding to whom prosecutor general can take the decision to dismiss a criminal action. Revision prescribe that these rules are not applicable only to those, who are held criminally liable for committing serious crimes prescribed in nine sections of CL. However unlike to the law that is in power it is possible to release from criminal liability those persons that have committed such serious crimes as kidnapping persons in aggravating circumstances, taking of hostages, human trafficking, compelling minors to engage in prostitution, sending persons for sexual exploitation, robbery in aggravating circumstances, fraud, misappropriation and others that lead to punishment over 10 years and are prevalent.