Традиција, кривично и међународно кривично право (2024) (стр. 60-85)
AUTHOR(S) / АУТОР(И): Гордана Лажетић
Download Full Pdf 
DOI: 10.46793/TKMKP24.060L
ABSTRACT / САЖЕТАК:
The main focus of the reform established by the 2010 Criminal Pro- cedure Code in North Macedonia was aimed at redefining the proce- dure by abolishing the investigating judge and increasing the powers of the public prosecutor’s office in the preliminary procedure. The evaluation of the indictment is a very important phase of the crimi- nal procedure but in practice it does not sufficiently fulfill the expec- ted purpose – to be a filter that will not allow the indictment, which is accompanied by insufficient evidence, to enter into force and shall prevent holding the main hearing. Within the framework of fair trial, the relations between judges and prosecutors are very important as well as how their collegiality affects the judicial decisions regarding the merits of the indictment. Their traditionally collegial relationship and complementarity of functions are relevant factors that must be correlated with proper assessment of the indictments and protection of individual rights. It is a matter of concern that almost every in- dictment has been assessed as well-founded, and there is an increa- sing trend of acquittals, that should not be ignored, bearing in mind that the main hearing is conducted even when the indictment does not meet the necessary criteria. The expectation that the court will issue a verdict with established guilt is a material prerequisite for filing an indictment. In this regard, the legal opinion of the Supreme Court of North Macedonia, where only reasonable suspicion is mentioned, in- troduces dilemmas and difficulties for the correct interpretation and application of the provisions of the CPC. It is necessary to improve the quality of the indictments, but also to raise the level of significance of the assessment of the indictment so that this important stage does not turn into a formalized procedure that can be to the detriment of the defendant’s human rights.
KEYWORDS / КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ:
indictment, assessment, independence of the judiciary, public prosecutors, criminal procedure
- REFERENCES / ЛИТЕРАТУРА:
- Закон за кривичната постапка, Службен весник на РСМ, бр. 150/10, 100/12, 142/16 и 198/18.
- Opinion No.12 (2009) of the Consultative Council оf European Judges (CCJE) and Opinion No.4 (2009) of the Consultative Council оf European Prosecutors (CCPE) on the relations between Judges and Prosecutors in a democratic society, 2010, https://rm.coe.int/1680747391.
- Recommendation No. R (94) 12 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Independence, Efficiency and Role of Judges, 13.10.1994.
- Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, 17.11.2010.
- Lorena Bachmaier, Report: Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 on Judges: Independence, Efficiency and Responsibilities – Follow-up action by member states, CDCJ(2016)2 final, Strasbourg, 13 March 2017, https:// rm. coe.int/1680702caa
- Challenges for judicial Independence and impartiality in the member States of the Council of Europe, 15.01.2016.
- State of Democracy, Human Rights and the Rule of Law in Europe – a shared responsibility for democratic security in Europe, 2015
- Recommendation Rec(2000)19 of the Committee of Ministers to Member States on the Role of Public Prosecution in the Criminal Justice System, 06.10.2000.
- Roberta K. Flowers, An Unholy Alliance: The Ex Parte Relationship Between the Judge and the Prosecutor, 79, Nebraska Law Review. (2000)
- Walter W. Steele, Jr., Unethical Prosecutors and Inadequate Discipline, 38 Southwestern Law Journal 965, 972 (1984).
- Коментар на ЗКП, Правен факултет „Јустинијан Први“ – Скопје и Мисијата на ОБСЕ во Скопје, 2018 година.
- Г.Лажетиќ и др., Казнено процесно право – учебно помагало, Скопје, 2015.
- T.Vasiljević, Komentar ZKP, Beograd, 1957.
- Priručnik za odlučivanje o optužnici (Guidelines for Deciding on Indictment), USAID, Sarajevo, april 2023.
- Zakon o kaznenom postupku, Narodne Novine, br. 152/08, 76/09, 80/11, 121/11, 91/12, 143/12, 56/13, 145/13, 152/14, 70/17 126/19, 126/19, 130/20, 80/22, 36/24
- Zakonik o krivičnom postupku Republike Srbije, Sl. glasnik RS, br. 72/2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013, 45/2013, 55/2014, 35/2019, 27/2021 – odluka
- US i 62/2021 – odluka US
- Zakon o krivičnom postupku Federacije Bosne i Hercegovine, Službene novine Federacije BiH, br. 35/2003, 56/2003 – ispravka, 78/2004, 28/2005, 55/2006, 27/2007, 53/2007, 9/2009, 12/2010, 8/2013, 59/2014 i 74/2020.
- Кривичен законик, Службен весник на РСМ, бр. 37/96, 80/99, 4/02, 43/03, 19/04, 81/05, 60/06, 73/06, 7/08, 139/08, 114/09, 51/11, 135/11,
- 185/11, 142/12, 166/12, 55/13, 82/13, 14/14, 27/14, 28/14, 41/14, 115/14,
- 132/14, 160/14, 199/14, 196/15, 226/15, 97/17, 248/18, 36/23 и 188/23.
- Erdagoz v. Turkey, 22.10.1997, § 51, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-VI; Fox, Campell and Hartly v. the United Kingdom, 30.08.1990, § 32, Series A no.182.
- Предлог Закон за кривичната постапка, https://ener.gov.mk/default. aspx?item=pub_regulation& subitem = view_reg_detail&itemid=76038