The Implementation of Participants‘ Equal Procedural Rights during the Process of Pre-Trial Investigation
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
One of the most significant goals of the criminal procedure is the determination of material truth ensuring the security of rights and legally protected interests of people taking part in this procedure. Several means of defining the various ways of truth cognition could be singled out, the most effective of which is granting the participant parties, namely the defendant and the accused, the equal rights to be engaged in the averment process of the criminal procedure.
The object∗ of this article is the implementation of participants’ equal procedural rights during the process of pre-trial investigation, as procedural equality of parties is considered to be one of the most relevant constituent features of the competing principle and can be characterised in the broader and narrow senses.
The characteristic of the aforementioned feature and its subject matter is dependent on the customary legal system prevailing in particular country.
Equal procedural rights of the parties, i.e. procedural equality, are extensively disclosed during the judicial procedure. However, it should be taken into account that manifestation of this is not identified during the pre-trial investigation. Before handling the case at court, the application of this feature is restricted, though is functional in certain cases of investigation.
This article aims at analysing specific problems of the implementation of parties’ equal procedural rights arising during the pre-trial investigation.
The objectives of this article are as follows:
- Define the concept of procedural rights of parties;
- Examine the historical development of parties’ equal procedural rights, and on this basis, clarify the contemporary essence of the object being investigated;
- Review a variety of problems arising during the implementation of parties’ equal procedural rights in pre-trial investigations.
During the investigation carried out in this article several theoretical methods have been applied. The key ones are the systematic analysis, comparative historical and comparative methods.
Systematic analysis applied has helped to identify the relation of parties’ equal procedural rights with the criminal procedure in the general sense, as well as to elucidate the truth and the presumptions and guarantees of participants’ procedural protection rights.
The comparative historical method has been used for the purpose of comparing the forms of analysed object manifestation applied at various periods in Lithuania and disclosing the interrelated impact while improving the criminal procedure.
The comparative analysis has disclosed the juxtaposition of criminal procedural laws of the Republic of Lithuania, scientific research and opinions by different authors in comparison with instances from foreign countries.
The object∗ of this article is the implementation of participants’ equal procedural rights during the process of pre-trial investigation, as procedural equality of parties is considered to be one of the most relevant constituent features of the competing principle and can be characterised in the broader and narrow senses.
The characteristic of the aforementioned feature and its subject matter is dependent on the customary legal system prevailing in particular country.
Equal procedural rights of the parties, i.e. procedural equality, are extensively disclosed during the judicial procedure. However, it should be taken into account that manifestation of this is not identified during the pre-trial investigation. Before handling the case at court, the application of this feature is restricted, though is functional in certain cases of investigation.
This article aims at analysing specific problems of the implementation of parties’ equal procedural rights arising during the pre-trial investigation.
The objectives of this article are as follows:
- Define the concept of procedural rights of parties;
- Examine the historical development of parties’ equal procedural rights, and on this basis, clarify the contemporary essence of the object being investigated;
- Review a variety of problems arising during the implementation of parties’ equal procedural rights in pre-trial investigations.
During the investigation carried out in this article several theoretical methods have been applied. The key ones are the systematic analysis, comparative historical and comparative methods.
Systematic analysis applied has helped to identify the relation of parties’ equal procedural rights with the criminal procedure in the general sense, as well as to elucidate the truth and the presumptions and guarantees of participants’ procedural protection rights.
The comparative historical method has been used for the purpose of comparing the forms of analysed object manifestation applied at various periods in Lithuania and disclosing the interrelated impact while improving the criminal procedure.
The comparative analysis has disclosed the juxtaposition of criminal procedural laws of the Republic of Lithuania, scientific research and opinions by different authors in comparison with instances from foreign countries.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Section
Articles
Authors contributing to Jurisprudence agree to publish their articles under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Public (CC BY-NC-ND) License, allowing third parties to share their work (copy, distribute, transmit) and to adapt it, under the condition that the authors are given credit, and that in the event of reuse or distribution, the terms of this licence are made clear.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
Authors retain copyright of their work, with first publication rights granted to the Association for Learning Technology.
Please see Copyright and Licence Agreement for further details.
