Oštećeni i standardi ljudskih prava u krivičnom postupku

Abstract

U radu su analizirani strazburški standardi o položaju oštećenog u krivičnom postupku, tačnije dva osnova pomoću kojih je oštećeni uveden pod njihovo okrilje. Prvi je pravo na pravično suđenje, a drugi 'tvrdo jezgro' ljudskih prava. Autor analizira i praksu Ustavnog suda Srbije, dajući ocenu u kojoj meri je ona na tragu strazburških stavova. Autor smatra da 'ulazak' oštećenog na teren pravičnog suđenja umanjuje delotvornost zaštite koju čl. 6, st. 1 Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima pruža licu protiv kojeg je podignuta krivična optužba. On ističe da bi prilikom ocene da li je oštećenom povređeno pravo na pristup sudu, trebalo voditi računa o njegovoj mogućnosti da građanski zahtev istakne u parnici. Kada je, pak, reč o oceni da li bi oštećeni mogao da se poziva na povredu prava na suđenje u razumnom roku, autorov stav je da bi osnovni kriterijum trebalo da bude odlučujući značaj ishoda krivičnog postupka za sudbinu građanskog zahteva. Pod ovim uslovima bi oštećenom mogle da budu priznate garancije iz čl. 6, st. 1 EKLjP, i to samo u postupku u kojem krivičnu optužbu zastupa javni tužilac, ali ne i u slučaju kada oštećeni ima svojstvo ovlašćenog tužioca. Prema autorovom mišljenju strazburška praksa o položaju oštećenog u svetlu 'tvrdog jezgra' ljudskih prava je ispravna.

This article considers issues relating to the position of the injured party in criminal proceedings and human rights standards that should be recognized to him/her in such a situation. The paper thereafter considers standards set by Strasbourg relating to the position of an injured party in criminal proceedings, namely the two grounds for the inclusion of an injured party within its jurisdiction. First pertains to the right to a fair trial, while the second relates to 'core' human rights. A civil claim submitted by an injured party in criminal proceedings represents a link between an injured party and the right to a fair hearing under Art. 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The author summarizes the analysis of numerous decisions rendered by the European Court of Human Rights, as well as cases handled by the European Commission of Human Rights, by concluding that a civil claim of an injured party has to pertain at least to a symbolic compensation for damages incurred or to protection of a certain civil right. It is also necessary that the outcome of criminal proceedings is decisive for the civil claim of the injured party. When speaking of 'core' human rights, the author emphasises the link between the said concept and the concept of the European public order. It has been particularly stressed that the European public order is of a limited scope in respect to an injured party because it pertains solely to persons who’s physical or psychological integrity (Art. 2, 3, and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights) had been violated or jeopardized by specific criminal offences. The article thereafter considers the practice of the Serbian Constitutional Court relating to the issue of the position of an injured party in criminal proceedings and human rights standards. Through analysis of relevant decisions the author sheds light on the development of the Constitutional Court practice and assesses its compatibility with positions taken by Strasbourg. In the concluding chapter the author presents a position that the 'entrance' of an injured party in the fair trial sphere diminishes the effectiveness of the protection provided by Art. 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights to a person charged. This partially stems from the strengthening of the position of an injured party in different legal systems, but is largely attributable to the European Court of Human Rights. After providing a reminder that an injured party has an interest in having his/her civil claim resolved in criminal proceedings, as well as an interest in the defendant being found guilty, the author states the position that Strasbourg case-law does not sufficiently address certain issues. When assessing whether the right of an injured party to have access to court has been violated one should also take into account a possibility of making a civil claim in litigation proceedings. On the other hand, when one speaks about an assessment of whether an injured party could invoke a violation of the right to trial within reasonable time, the author takes the position that the core criteria in that respect should be - the determinative character of the outcome of criminal proceedings to the fate of a civil claim. Under these conditions an injured party could have the guarantees deriving from Art. 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights recognized, albeit only in proceedings in which the criminal charge is represented by a public prosecutor. In cases where the injured party is acting in criminal proceedings in the capacity of an authorized prosecutor he/she could not invoke the right to a fair trial. In the author’s opinion, Strasbourg practice relating to the position of an injured party in the context of core human rights is right.