Dominantne karakteristike osnovnih velikih krivičnoprocesnih sistema i njihov uticaj na reformu srpskog krivičnog postupka

Abstract

U radu se objašnjavaju dominantne karakteristike dva osnovna velika krivičnopro-cesna sistema - evropsko-kontinentalnog i adverzijalnog, pri čemu se izlaže sumarna analiza osnovnih karakteristika dva tipična predstavnika ovih sistema: 1) krivičnog postupka Ne- mačke, kao države koja ima klasičan kontinentalno-evropski krivični postupak i 2) krivičnog postupka SAD, za koje je karakteristično da im je krivični postupak ustrojen kao tipičan adverzijalni krivični postupak. Autor posebno analizira novi Zakonik o krivičnom postupku Srbije iz 2011. godine, koji se argumentovano kritikuje, jer sa jedne strane na pravno-tehnički prilično loš način istragu svrstava u nadležnost javnog tužioca, ali sasvim nepotrebno uz to uvodi i potpuno adverzijalnu konstrukciju glavnog pretresa, te s druge strane, eliminiše načelo istine u našem krivičnom postupku, što je inače, kontradiktorno u odnosu na brojna druga krivičnoprocesna pravila, jer je nelogično da se u novom Zakoniku o krivičnom postupku, kao i ranije, omogućava podnošenje žalbe protiv presude i zbog pogrešno ili nepotpuno utvrđenog činjeničnog stanja, drugim rečima, usled zasnovanosti presude na neistini, a da pri tom, sud uopšte i nema dužnost utvrđivanja istine, a da je izvođenje dokaza, što znači i stvaranje podloge za utvrđivanje činjeničnog stanja, primarno povereno strankama. U radu se konstatuje da novi Zakonik o krivičnom postupku Srbije nije nikakva 'amerikanizovana' krivična procedura, već on predstavlja veoma lošu mešavinu akuzatorskih elemenata krivičnog postupka sa nekim izrazito nedemokratskim inkvizitorskim elementima. On u stvari, najviše liči na 'haški' krivični postupak, odnosno pravila postupka koja se primenjuju u Haškom tribunalu. Potpuno adverzijalna konstrukcija glavnog pretresa, odnosno suđenja, nije adekvatna za naš krivični postupak i ona bi u praksi mogla dovesti do ogromnih problema. U takvom postupku bi stranke samo formalno bile ravnopravne, dok bi u praksi to bilo po pravilu, veoma nepovoljno po okrivljenog, naročito onda kada nema branioca, a u našem krivičnom postupku je samo za relativno ograničeni krug krivičnih dela, propisana obavezna stručna odbrana.

Author explains in the article the dominant characteristics of the major criminal procedure system and their impact on the reform of the Serbian criminal procedure. In the article there are analyses of to main so called great criminal procedure systems - European-continental and adversatorial, with summary analysis of to typical representatives of these systems: 1) criminal procedure of Germany, as a state with classical continental European criminal procedure and 2) criminal procedure of the USA, that characterized typical adversatorial criminal procedure. Author specially explains and analyses new Code of Criminal Procedure of Republic of Serbia from 2011. That Code is criticized very seriously, because of it consists many technical mistakes and besides the completely conception of the new CPC is wrong. Elimination of the principle of the truth in criminal procedure, i.e. in the new Criminal Procedure Code of Serbia, is very negative solution. It is without doubt that the truth is not a 'holly cow' in Serbian valid criminal procedure and also in criminal procedures in other states in continental Europe which legal systems know this vital principle. The truth is not achieving at any price and when it is objectively not possible, the principle in dubio pro reo has to be applied. It is not more the case in the new Criminal Procedure Code of Serbia, which is very bad solution that must be seriously criticized. Completely adversatorial construction of the main trial is not adequate for Serbian criminal procedure and that could be in the practice the cause of many serious problems. In this type of procedure the parties would be equal only in formal point of view. In the practice that could be very inconvenient and bad for the defendant, especially when he/she has not a defense counsel and in Serbian criminal procedure is mandatory defense counsel provides only for limited number of criminal offences. Completely elimination of the principle of the truth in criminal procedure is in a contradiction to many other vital criminal procedural rules. It is completely senseless and nonsense, that the new Code of Criminal Procedure provides appeal against the verdict because erroneous or incomplete finding of fact, i.e., when the judgment is ground on the incorrect or incomplete finding of fact or when the court has determined a relevant fact incorrectly and besides, the court officially does not have a duty to determine a truth. Elimination of the principle of the truth in criminal procedure is essentially unmoral, because the truth in criminal procedure can not be divided from general connectivity criminal law and moral. The majority of citizens expect the truth in and from criminal procedure. This truth has often historical significance too. If the fact is, that criminal offence principally is unmoral and if only in criminal procedure can be determined if the crime was committed, then this kind of question can not be only the mater of so called evidential duel between prosecutor and defendant with no active role of independent and impartial court. Author explained too, that the key provisions of the new CPC of Serbia are unconstitutional, while in accordance with the article 32 of the Serbian Constitution, the citizen has a right on the more active court in criminal procedure (the court has a duty to discuss the indictment and it is not the right of the discussion of the parties before the court); and on the another side, the court must decide of the suspicion which is the ground for the initiating the criminal prosecution.