Criminal Jurisdiction of the State and Recognition of Foreign Judgement in Lithuania
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Abstract
The article investigates the problems, related to the implementation of the State’s criminal jurisdiction, after a judgement for a criminal act committment has already been passed by foreign countries or International Court. In the investigation of the problem, the author of the article aims at answering the question of what is the significance of the court decision adopted outside Lithuania to the implementation of its own criminal jurisdiction based on the principles of Criminal Code?
Dogmatic, comparative, logic, historical and critical methods have been used to analyze the norms of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania excluding double responsibility. While examining Article 31, part 5 of the Constitution and Article 2, part 6 of the Criminal Code, more attention, however, is paid to Article 8, part 2 of the new Criminal Code, where it is provided that the fact of a judgment and its enforcement in a foreign country is a circumstance, preventing a person to respond to the Lithuanian Criminal Laws for the criminal acts committed outside the territory of Lithuania.
According to the author, this position is not well-grounded, because unconditional recognition of the foreign judgements is not the best way to ensure justice. The analysis of both international agreements and criminal laws of a variety of foreign countries show that the position of the Lithuanian legislative body should change on the issue.
Referring to the analysis carried out, a conclusion is made, that the application of the principle non bis in idem on the international and national levels should be different. Unconditional recognition of the principal on the international level would help a criminal to evade responsibility and deny the State’s right to realize its own criminal jurisdiction. For the reason mentioned it is suggested to define in the Criminal Code, that a court decision carried out in a foreign country can not be an obstacle to prosecute and judge a person in Lithuania for the same criminal act, with the exception of the following cases: a person was extradicted from Lithuania for the criminal act, Lithuania has passed the criminal prosecution for the criminal act; Lithuania has applied to judge a person according to the laws of the state, where the decision had been passed; Lithuania has agreed to carry out a foreign decision. After sentencing a person in Lithuania for the criminal act, for which a foreign judgement had been passed, the court should include the punishment given in a foreign country to the sentence passed.
Dogmatic, comparative, logic, historical and critical methods have been used to analyze the norms of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the new Criminal Code of the Republic of Lithuania excluding double responsibility. While examining Article 31, part 5 of the Constitution and Article 2, part 6 of the Criminal Code, more attention, however, is paid to Article 8, part 2 of the new Criminal Code, where it is provided that the fact of a judgment and its enforcement in a foreign country is a circumstance, preventing a person to respond to the Lithuanian Criminal Laws for the criminal acts committed outside the territory of Lithuania.
According to the author, this position is not well-grounded, because unconditional recognition of the foreign judgements is not the best way to ensure justice. The analysis of both international agreements and criminal laws of a variety of foreign countries show that the position of the Lithuanian legislative body should change on the issue.
Referring to the analysis carried out, a conclusion is made, that the application of the principle non bis in idem on the international and national levels should be different. Unconditional recognition of the principal on the international level would help a criminal to evade responsibility and deny the State’s right to realize its own criminal jurisdiction. For the reason mentioned it is suggested to define in the Criminal Code, that a court decision carried out in a foreign country can not be an obstacle to prosecute and judge a person in Lithuania for the same criminal act, with the exception of the following cases: a person was extradicted from Lithuania for the criminal act, Lithuania has passed the criminal prosecution for the criminal act; Lithuania has applied to judge a person according to the laws of the state, where the decision had been passed; Lithuania has agreed to carry out a foreign decision. After sentencing a person in Lithuania for the criminal act, for which a foreign judgement had been passed, the court should include the punishment given in a foreign country to the sentence passed.
##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.
