"Balkanski bojevnik"

problem nezakonitih oziroma nedovoljenih dokazov

Špela Lampe (Author), Sabina Zgaga (Mentor)

Abstract

Zloglasni primer »Balkanski bojevnik« je za zdaj nekoliko potihnil, vendar ne za dolgo. To je eden izmed najbolj odmevnih primerov v zgodovini Slovenije, ki je veliko pozornosti zahteval tudi mednarodno. Državno tožilstvo je 17 oseb obtožilo, da naj bi trgovali s prepovedanimi drogami (kokainom) in orožjem ter vodili in sodelovali v hudodelski združbi. 4 obtoženci so bili spoznani za krive, ostalih 13 – domnevne vodje in večje ribe – pa je bilo deležnih oprostilne sodbe, ker so jim bile v predkazenskem postopku kršene temeljne človekove pravice. Dokazi so se zbrali z uporabo prikritih preiskovalnih ukrepov. V diplomskem delu smo se zato najprej lotili razlage predkazenskega postopka, kjer smo pojasnili naloge policije in razmerja med protagonisti ter pojasnili dokazne standarde, ki so še kako pomembni za celoten nadaljnji kazenski postopek. Nato smo obravnavali preiskovalna dejanja, pomembna za primer »Balkanski bojevnik«, ter načela dokazovanja. Potem smo se lotili perečega problema pri tem primeru, to je slovenska ureditev izločanja dokazov, kjer je 83. člen Zakona o kazenskem postopku (v nadaljevanju ZKP) (2014) zakonska podlaga za izločitev dokazov. Ta naj bi bil v neskladju z Ustavo Republike Slovenije (2013), zato se tukaj pojavi jasno neskladje, ki pa gre v dobrobit nepravim osebam. Sodba se ne sme opreti na nedovoljene dokaze, prav tako pa se sodba ne sme opreti na dokaze, ki so bili pridobljeni na podlagi nedovoljenega dokaza¬ – sadež zastrupljenega drevesa. Nato smo obravnavali še dokaze, pridobljene iz tujine, saj so bili, kot vemo, v tem primeru pridobljeni dokazi iz Srbije, Italije in Urugvaja. Dokaze, pridobljene v tujini, je treba obravnavati enako, zato tudi za njih velja ekskluzijsko pravilo – 18. člen ZKP (2014). Pojavlja se vprašanje, kako presojati, ali je dokaz nedovoljen ali ne. Dotaknili smo se teme visoke pomembnosti sodelovanja med državami. Na koncu pa smo predstavili slovenske, srbske, italijanske in urugvajske dokaze ter različna mnenja o primeru »Balkanski bojevnik«. V diplomski nalogi smo postavili 3 hipoteze. Prva je bila, da bi se preiskovanje kriminalitete in rezultati izboljšali, če bi kriminalistična policija in državni tožilci bolje sodelovali. Hipotezo potrjujemo, saj je sodelovanje ključnega pomena. Druga hipoteza je, da so prikriti preiskovalni ukrepi v Republiki Sloveniji trenutno v neskladju z Ustavo (2013), ker posegajo v ustavne pravice, ki varujejo osebno dostojanstvo, osebnostne pravice, zasebnost in varnost posameznika. To hipotezo zavračamo. Ta dejanja so pravno dopustna s strani države. Zadnja hipoteza pa je, da primer »Balkanski bojevnik« prikazuje državno tožilstvo Republike Slovenije v negativni luči, kar delno potrjujemo. Glede na vse skupaj ocenjujemo, da je slabih kritik na državno tožilstvo in policijo preveč, nenazadnje tudi zato, ker dokazi, ki so bili pridobljeni v tujini, niso krivda slovenskega državnega tožilstva. Višje sodišče je dokaze lansko leto ponovno vrnilo v spis, sedaj pa se primer počasi premika naprej. Pred časom je višje sodišče odločalo o pritožbi zoper sklep okrožnega sodišča o zavrnitvi zahteve za izločitev dokazov. Veliko večino dokazov so potrdili.

Keywords

kazensko pravo;kazenski postopek;predkazenski postopek;dokazi;nedovoljeni dokazi;izločitev dokazov;balkanski bojevnik;diplomske naloge;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2015
Typology:	2.11 - Undergraduate Thesis
Organization:	UM FVV - Faculty of Criminal Justice
Publisher:	Š. Lampe]
UDC:	343.1(043.2)
COBISS:	3035370
Views:	1570
Downloads:	230
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	The Balkan warrior case: exclusion of illegal evidence
Secondary abstract:	The infamous court case of the “Balkan Warrior” is now somewhat muted, but not for long. This is one of the most high-profile cases in the history of Slovenia, while it also demanded a lot of attention internationally. The state prosecutor´s office has indicted 17 people with trade in illicit drugs (cocaine) and weapons who supposedly led and participated in a criminal organization. 4 defendants were found guilty, the other 13, who are allegedly heads and larger fish, were acquitted because their fundamental human rights were violated in the pre-trial proceedings. The evidence was gathered through the use of covert investigative measures. In the thesis, I have therefore first embarked on the interpretation of the pre-trial proceedings, where I explain the tasks of the police, the relationship between the protagonists and supporting standards considering their importance for the whole future criminal proceedings. Then I dealt with the investigative acts relevant to the case of the “Balkan Warrior” and the principle of proof. Then I tackled an urgent problem in this case – the Slovenian system of evidence exclusion, where the Article 83 of the Criminal Procedure Act (hereinafter CPA) (2014) is a legal basis for the exclusion of evidence. This would be inconsistent with the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, and here there appears a clear discrepancy that goes in favor of the accused. Judgment should not rely on illegal evidence or on evidence which has been obtained on the basis of unauthorized proof – fruit of the poisonous tree. Furthermore, I discussed the evidence obtained from abroad, because as we know, in this case, the evidence was obtained from Serbia, Italy and Uruguay. Evidence obtained abroad must be treated equally and is therefore subject of the exclusion rule – Article 18 of the CPA. The question arises of how to assess whether the evidence is unfair or not. I addressed the question of extreme importance of the cooperation between the countries. In the end, I presented the Slovenian, Serbian, Italian and Uruguayan evidence and different opinions on the case of the “Balkan Warrior”. In this thesis, I set three hypotheses. The first was that investigating crime and the results of it would improve if the criminal police and prosecutors cooperated better. I confirmed this hypothesis, since cooperation is essential. The second hypothesis is that the undercover methods in Slovenia are currently in conflict with the Constitution (2013), since they prejudice the constitutional rights that protect personal dignity, personal rights, privacy and security of individuals. This hypothesis was refuted. These actions are legally permitted by the state. The last hypothesis is that the case of the “Balkan Warrior” shows the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Slovenia negatively, is partly confirmed. All in all, I consider that the negative criticism of the Prosecutor's Office and the police goes too far, especially in the light of the evidence that has been obtained abroad and is not the fault of Slovenian state prosecutor's office. Last year, the High Court returned to file evidence, now the case is moving slowly forward. The High Court also ruled on the appeal against the decision of the District Court rejecting the request for the exclusion of evidence. The vast majority of the evidence was confirmed.
Secondary keywords:	Balkan warrior;illegal evidence;criminal organization;fruit of the poisonous tree;fundamental human rights;
URN:	URN:SI:UM:
Type (COBISS):	Bachelor thesis/paper
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Mariboru, Fak. za varnostne vede, Ljubljana
Pages:	60 str.
ID:	9061618