Procesnopravni značaj opštepoznatih činjenica i činjenica utvrđenih u pravosnažnim sudskim odlukama

Abstract

Doktorska disertacija pod nazivom ''Procesnopravni značaj opštepoznatih činjenica i činjenica utvrđenih u pravnosnažnim sudskim odlukama'' prevashodno se bavi činjeničnim pitanjima u krivičnom postupku kako sa aspekta decenijama zastupljenog mešovitog modela postupka, tako i sa aspekta raspravnog ili stranačkog modela, prihvaćenog Zakonikom o krivičnom postupku Republike Srbije iz 2011. godine. Osnovni cilj istraživanja je da pruži određene praktično primenjive odgovore na pitanja iz navedene ''činjenične sfere'' koja su se i do sada pokazivala problematičnim u sudskoj praksi, a koja zahtevaju drugačije rešavanje u skladu sa novousvojenim procesnim modelom. Predmet istraživanja je i detaljna obrada instituta sudske konstatacije odnosno pojma i dejstva opštepoznatih i pravnosnažno utvrđenih činjenica u unutrašnjem, komparativnom i međunarodnom krivičnom pravu. U tom cilju detaljno je analizirana praksa međunarodnih krivičnih tribunala za bivšu Jugoslaviju i Ruandu vezana za pravilo 94 Pravila o postupku i dokazima, koja reguliše formalno primanje na znanje opštepoznatih i pravnosnažno utvrđenih činjenica. Analiza je pokazala da su osnovni problemi kod primene ovog instituta proizilazili iz nerazlikovanja činjeničnog i pravnog, nekonzistentnosti prakse posebno u pogledu česte promene i različitog tumačenja kriterijuma prihvatljivosti, konstatovanja pravnosnažnih činjenica i mimo stranačke saglasnosti, prebacivanja tereta dokazivanja tj. osporavanja na odbranu, čime su dovedeni u pitanje osnovni postulati pravičnog suđenja. Ova pitanja nisu mogla biti analizirana odvojeno od problematike činjenica uopšte i njihovog utvrđivanja u različitim procesnim modelima. Krivični postupak Srbije, oduvek zasnovan na istražnoj maksimi koja je podrazumevala dokazno aktivan sud, poslednjih godina doživeo je korenite reforme prelaskom na stranački model u kome sva dokazna aktivnnost prelazi na stranke.

Doctoral dissertation about ‘’Generally Known and Adjudicated Facts in Criminal Procedure- Judicial Notice’’, mostly deals with facts and factual issues in criminal procedure, both in terms of mixed and inquisitorial model of procedure, traditionally represented in the countries of continental Europe, and from the perspective of adversarial model, that was introduced in Serbia by the CPC of 2011. Basic purpose of the research was to provide certain, practically implemented answers on these ‘’factual issues’’, that were showed as the most problematic in the practice of the courts, and which require a different answers, in accordance with the newly adopted procedural model. In addition, the subject of research is the institute of judicial notice, related to generally known and adjudicated facts in Serbian, comparative and international criminal law. Regarding this, case-law of the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, related to Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence is matter of detailed analysis. The research showed that the main problems in the application of the Rule 94 emerged from unclear distinction between factual and legal categories, uncertain Tribunal’s jurisprudence that frequently changed and differently interpreted the admissibility requirements, that judicially noticed adjudicated facts without the consent of the parties, what resulted in transfer of the burden of the proof on the defendant, and put under the question the other principles of the fair trial. The issue of judicial notice, adjudicated and generally known facts could not be analyzed separately from the issue of the facts in general and their determination in different procedural models. Serbian criminal procedure traditionally based on the ‘’principle of truth’’ that implies the active judge and passive parties, recently experienced the radical reforms, transferring to the adversarial model where the parties have the ‘’main word’’ in collection and presentation of evidence. Therefore, the old procedural dilemmas like differentiation between facts and law, identity of the indictment and judgment, burden of proof and presumptions, etc, are analyzed through the lens of recently adopted adversarial model, adjusted to Serbian circumstances.