protectia martorilor

8/2/2019 protectia martorilor

1/24

Analele Universit ii Constantin Brncui din Trgu Jiu, Seria tiine Juridice, Nr. 1/2010

Annals of the Constantin Brncui University of Trgu Jiu, Juridical Sciences Series, Issue 1/2010

117

PROTECIA MARTORILOR CA DREPT

SUBIECTIV I ELEMENTELE SALE

Conf. univ. dr. Sneana BRKIFacultatea de Drept Novi Sad, Serbia

Rezumat:Ideea principal a cestei lucrri estec protecia martorilor este un drept subiectiv, public ieste rezultatul proteciei drepturilor umane fundamentale.Este un drept fundamental, public, individual, pozitiv,

direct relativ i indirect absolut. Urmtoarele drepturirezult din dreptul fundamental al martorului laprotecie: a) dreptul de a fi informat referitor la protecie;b) dreptul de a solicita sau renuna la dreptul laprotecie; c) dreptul de a reine detaliile personale,mrturia n totalitate sau rspunsurile la ntrebrileparticulare pn cnd se ia o decizie cu privire la

cererea de protecie; d) dreptul la o decizie din partea adou instane la cererea cuiva; e) dreptul de a aveareprezentant; f) dreptul de a se bucura de protecie.Analiza proteciei procedurale a martorilor n dreptulcomparat arat c martorul din uneleri nu are anumitedrepturi. Pe de alt parte, sunt n general recunoscute

alte drepturi. Unele diferene sunt de neles iacceptabile, dar nu toate. Este necesar s se lucreze la

realizarea tuturor drepturilor care pot fi derivate dindreptul subiectiv la protecia martorilor.

Cuvinte cheie: Protecia martorilor, proceduripenale, dreptul la via, drept subiectiv, dreptul laprotecie

De mult vreme, martorilor li s-agarantat o poziie n cadrul procedurilor penale

care s i protejeze de violena tribunaluluinsui (de ex. interdicia declarailor coercitivei aplicarea de intervenii medicale care s leafecteze cunotina i voina atunci cnd ofer).n opoziie cu aceasta, msuri speciale de

protecie a martorilor de la intimidare iviolen de ctre inculpaii sau alte persoane dinafara procedurilor au aprut numai la gndul cexist nevoia de msuri mpotriva formelorcontemporane de criminalitate, marcat de ocretere a numrului de acte de crim

WITNESS PROTECTION AS A

SUBJECTIVE RIGHT AND ITS

ELEMENTS

Assoc. Prof. PhD Sneana BRKIFaculty of Law in Novi Sad, Serbia

Abstract: The main idea of this paper is that thewitness protection is a subjective, public right and is aresult of protection of fundamental human rights. It isfundamental, public, individual, positive, directly relative

and indirectly absolute right. The following entitlementsstem from the fundamental right of witness to protection:a) entitlement to be informed about ones right toprotection; b) entitlement to demand or waive ones rightto protection; c) entitlement to withhold ones personaldetails, testimony in full or answers to particularquestions until the decision is made as to his request for

protection; d) entitlement to two-instance decision onones request; e) entitlement to have a proxy; f)entitlement to enjoy protection. The analysis ofprocedural witness protection in the comparative lawshows that the witness in some countries does not havecertain entitlements. On the other side, some entitlements

are generally recognized. Certain differencies areunderstandable and acceptable, but not all of them. It is

necessary to work on the realization of all entitlementsthat can be derived from subjective right to witnessprotection.

Key words: Witnesses protection, criminalproceedings, the right to life, subject right, right to

protection

For a long time, witnesses have beenguaranteed such a position in criminal

proceedings which shall protect them fromviolence of the court itself (ex. prohibition ofcoerced statements and application of medicalinterventions affecting their consciousness andwill when giving evidence). On the contrary tothis, special measures of witness protectionfrom intimidation and violence by defendantsor other persons outside proceedings emergedonly with ripening of the thought that there is aneed for measures against contemporary formsof criminality that would be more effective.


2/24



118

organizat, de nevoia de a adecva restructurareadreptului penal i a dreptului procedural.Mijloacele clasice de a lupta mpotrivacriminalitii sunt nepotrivite ca rspuns la

noile sale forme. Crima organizat secaracterizeaz prin folosirea sau prindisponibilitatea de a folosi violena iintimidarea mpotriva martorilor; dar n ciudaevoluiilor tehnico-tiinifice, mrturiamartorilor este nc de nenlocuit ca mijloc defurnizare de dovezi. innd seama de acestefapte, nevoia pentru o mai bun protecie amartorilor a rezultat din necesitatea de adescoperi, a acuza i a judeca infraciunile cuun nivel ridicat de eficien. n afar de

contientizarea nevoii de metode mai eficientepentru a lupta mpotriva formelorcontemporane de infraciuni, a mai existat unfactor care a contribuit la dezvoltarea protecieimartorilor o grij crescnd pentru victimelen special vulnerabile ale unor infraciuni.Aadar, din punct de vedere pragmatic,institutul de protecie a martorilor a venit ca omanifestare a nevoii Statului de a suprima noileforme ale criminalitii ntr-un mod maieficient. Este o consecin a responsabilitii

Statului de a proteja societatea de infraciuni.Exist de asemenea i un motiv formal-

legal care a contribuit la introducerea protecieimartorilor n dreptul contemporan i anumenevoia de a aduce legile naionale n armoniecu standardele legale internaionale. Mai ntis menionm Convenia ONU mpotrivaCrimei Organizate Transnaionale i aProtocoalelor sale. Aceasta angajeaz StateleParticipante s ia msurile adecvate pentru aasigura o protecie eficient mpotrivarzbunrii posibile sau intimidrii pentrumartorii din procedurile penale care depunmrturie referitoare la infraciunile acoperite deaceast Convenie, dup caz, pentru rudele lorsau alte persoane apropiate lor. n afara acestuistandard legal, exist un numr de recomandriale Consiliului Europei care ndeamn Stateles ia msuri pentru protecia martorilor ivictimelor, n general sau n ceea ce priveteanumite categorii de persoane sau infraciuni, n

termeni mai mult sau mai puin concrei.1

The changed structure of criminality, markedby an increase in the number of acts oforganised crime, necessitates a matchingrestructuring of criminal substantive and

procedural law. Classical means of fightingcriminality are inadequate as a response to itsnew forms. Organised crime is characterised byemployment or readiness to employ violenceand intimidation against witnesses; but in spiteof scientific-technical steps forward, witnessestestimony is still irreplaceable as a means of

providing evidence. Bearing these facts inmind, a need for a better protection of witnessesemerged from a necessity to discover,

prosecute and trial crimes with a higher level of

efficacy. Besides heightened awareness of aneed for more efficient ways of fightingcontemporary forms of crime, there was onemore factor contributing to the development ofwitness protection a rising care for

particularly vulnerable victims of some crimes.Therefore, pragmatically speaking, the instituteof witness protection came as a manifestationof the States need to suppress new forms ofcriminality more efficiently. It is a consequenceof the States responsibility to protect society

from crime.There is also a formal-legal reason that

contributed to the introduction of witnessprotection in contemporary law, and that is theneed to bring national laws into harmony withinternational legal standards. First, let usmention the UN Convention againstTransnational Organized Crime and ItsProtocols. It binds its State Parties to takeappropriate measures within their means to

provide effective protection from potentialretaliation or intimidation for witnesses incriminal proceedings who give testimonyconcerning crimes covered by this Convention,as appropriate, for their relatives and other

persons close to them. Besides this bindinglegal standard, there are a number ofrecommendations of the Council of Europe,which urge the States to take measures for the

protection of witnesses and victims, in generalor in regard to certain categories of persons or

crimes, in more or less concrete terms.58


3/24



119

Acest articol trateaz un argumentcomplet nou, de principiu pentru introducerea

proteciei martorilor, n esen bazat pe nevoiade protecie a drepturilor umane fundamentale

ale martorilor. Consecina major a acestuiaeste c protecia martorilor ar trebui tratat caun drept subiectiv al martorilor (Fr: droits

subectifs/Ger: subjektives Rechten). Logicadicteaz o nevoie de a pune lumin pe naturalegal a dreptului martorilori elementelor sale.

1. Dreptul la protecia martorilor camanifestare a proteciei drepturilor umanefundamentale

Condiia drepturilor i libertilorumane este de obicei dezvluit n procedurile

penale prin poziia inculpatului. Numai maitrziu aceast prism este folosit pentru aanaliza martorii care au de asemenea dreptul lao protecie adecvat n aceast privin.2 Mai

precis, rolul lor n proceduri poate da natereapariia de pericole a drepturilor lor umanefundamentale proclamate n documenteleinternaionale i constituionale majore.

Un punct de interes aici este c protecia

martorilor nu este de obicei tratat ca un dreptal martorilor, ci numai ca o nevoie sau ca odatorie a Statutului. Este greu s gsim

prevederi n legislaiile naionale care sprevad msuri de protecie a martorilor careproclam dreptul unui martor la protecie. Ar fitotui normal ca depunerea unei mrturii ca oobligaie civil general s aib dreptcorespondent un drept special al martorului la

protecia mpotriva intimidrii i violenei. Esteo mare nedreptate ca cetenii s fie obligai scoopereze cu autoritile n combatereainfraciunilor, fr s li se ofere proteciempotriva devenirii de victime la acte viitoarede infraciune. Aceasta nseamn c Statul, ntr-un fel, ncalc principiul egalitii cetenilor,deoarece i protejeaz numai pe unii dintre ei deinfraciuni, n timp ce i expune pe alii laacestea. Nu se poate afirma c cetenii ncalitate de martori trebuie s se expun la

pericol, ca n alte cazuri pedepsite de lege, care

rezult din angajarea, contractarea sau

This article deals with a completelynovel, principled argument for the introductionof witness protection, essentially based on theneed for the protection of fundamental human

rights of witnesses. The major consequencethereof is that witness protection should betreated as a subjective right of a witness (Fr:droits subectifs/Ger: subjektives Rechten).Logic dictates a need to shed some light on thelegal nature of this right of a witness and itselements.

1. The Right to Witness Protection as

Manifestation of the Protection ofFundamental Human Rights

The condition of human rights andfreedoms is normally revealed in criminal

proceedings through the position of thedefendant. It is only lately that this prism isused to look into the witnesses, who are alsoentitled to an adequate protection in thisrespect.59 Namely, their role in proceedings cangive rise to endangerment of their fundamentalhuman rights proclaimed in the majorinternational and constitutional documents.

A point of interest here is that witnessprotection is usually not treated as a witnesssright, but only as a need or duty of the State. Itis hard to find stipulations in nationallegislations providing for witness protectionmeasures which proclaim the right of a witnessto protection. It would be natural, though, thatgiving testimony as a general civil duty ismatched by a special right of a witness to

protection from intimidation and violence. It isa great injustice to obligate citizens tocooperate with the authorities in fighting crime,without offering them protection against

becoming a victim to further acts of crime. Thismeans that the State, in a way, violates the

principle of its citizens equality, since itprotects some of them from crime, whileexposing others to it. It cannot be said thatcitizens as witnesses must expose themselves todanger, like in some other cases grounded inlaw, arising from employment, contract or

performance of professional duty in case of


4/24



120

realizarea datoriilor profesionale n cazul unorpersoane (ex. membrii forelor armate, poliiei,doctori, etc.). Inculpatul nu este obligat scoopereze cu Statul cnd se stabilete

infraciunea i responsabilitatea sa; acesta sebucur de privilegiul de a refuza s depunmrturie pentru a nu-i compromite cazul. nafar de asta, institutele de incapacitate relativa martorilor, care scutesc un martor de obligaiade a depune mrturie i care scutesc un martorde obligaia de a rspunde unor ntrebri aratc depunerea mrturiei nu este considerat ca oobligaie absolut.

1.1. Obligaia statutului de a proteja

drepturile umane de ameninare i violare

Dac ar fi s furnizm o baz teoreticpentru dreptul la protecia martorilor, ne-ambaza pe obligaia Statului de a proteja drepturileumane fundamentale de ameninri i violri,chiar dac acestea sunt afiate n poziia unuimartor. Propunerea principal a acestui articoleste ca unui martor s i fie garantat dreptul la

protecie ca un drept public subiectiv care este oform sintetic ce protejeaz o serie de drepturi

umane fundamentale la sigurana persoanei ia proprietii,3 la inviolabilitatea integritiimentale, la intimitate i demnitate. Aceastadezvluie dreptul martorilor la protecie ca oform de protecie a drepturilor umanefundamentale.

La prima vedere, forat s derivm dindrepturile umane enumerate, obligaia Statuluide a oferi protecie martorilor ameninai. Maiexact, aceste drepturi aparin categoriei dedrepturi civile care sunt de obicei asociate cudou premize: a) c aceste drepturi se refernumai la relaia dintre individ i Stat, care poatefi nclcat numai de o persoan autorizat deStatul respectiv s exercite for n numele su;

b) c, contrar drepturilor economice i sociale,aceste drepturi presupun ca Statul s nu ncalcelibertile i drepturile cetenilor si, care auscopul de a mpiedica Statul s fac abuz deautoritatea sa, n loc s solicite aciunea saactiv pentru asigurarea justiiei sociale. Cu

toate acestea, exist autori care vorbesc despre

some persons (ex. members of armed forces,police, doctors, etc.). The defendant is notobligated to cooperate with the State when thecrime is being determined and his responsibility

established; he enjoys a privilege to refuse totestify not to compromise his case. Besides this,the institutes of relative incapacity of a witness,relieving a witness of the duty to givetestimony and relieving a witness of the duty toanswer certain questions show that witnessingis not taken as an absolute obligation.

1.1. The State Obligation to Protect

Human Rights from Threat and Violation

If we were to provide theoreticalfoundation for the right to witness protection,we would base it on the obligation of the Stateto protect fundamental human rights fromthreats and violation, even if they are displayedin the position of a witness. The main posit ofthis article is that a witness is to be guaranteedthe right to protection as a subjective publicright which is a synthetic form that protects aseries of fundamental human rights - to safetyof person and property,60 to inviolability of

mental integrity, to privacy and to dignity. Thisreveals the right of witness to protection as aform of the protection of fundamental humanrights.

At first sight, it seems far fetched toderive from the listed human rights the Statesobligation to offer protection to threatenedwitnesses. Namely, these rights belong to thecategory of civil rights, which are usuallyassociated with two premises: a) that suchrights deal with the relationship between anindividual and the State, which can be violatedonly by a person authorised by the same Stateto exercise force on its behalf; b) that, on thecontrary to economic and social rights, suchrights require from the State to refrain fromviolating freedoms and rights of its citizens,aimed to prevent the State from abusing itsauthority, instead of requiring its active action,aimed at ensuring social justice. However, thereare authors who speak of the non-State

violators of human rights.61

This follows from


5/24



121

non-violatori ai Statului n ceea ce privetedrepturile omului.4 Aceasta rezult din Art. 2Par. 3 Item a) al Conveniei Internaionale

privind Drepturile Civile i Politice, care

prevede o despgubire eficient pentru un dreptchiar dac violarea a fost comis de persoanecare acioneaz n mod oficial. Acelai Articolmenioneaz obligaia Statului de a respecta ide a asigura drepturile, precum i de a luamsurile necesare pentru adoptarea acestor legisau alte msuri necesare pentru a aplicadrepturile recunoscute n Convenie. Art. 1 dinConvenia European stipuleaz c Stateletrebuie s garanteze aceste drepturi. CurteaEuropean a Drepturilor Omului a luat atitudine

n mod repetat c Statele au obligaia explicitde a lua msuri pentru a asigura drepturilerecunoscute de Convenia European, nu numais nu le ncalce. Aceasta implic faptul clegislaia Statului trebuie s asigure o protecieadecvat a acestor drepturi att din parteaageniilor care aplic legea ct i din partea

persoanele fizice.

1.2. Un concept mai larg al dreptului

la via

3. Mai mult dect aceasta apare un sensmai larg al dreptului la via care merge dincolode conceptul su tradiional care l nelege ca ointerzicere a deprivrii arbitrare de via dectre autoritile Statului. Dac lum ca punctde plecare motivaia c Statul este obligat sincrimineze actele mpotriva vieii i c aceastaeste expresia proteciei penale-legale adreptului la via, atunci de ce acelai Stat ncadrul aceluiai drept, nu are obligaia de a luaalte msuri cu caracter preventiv pentru

protecia dreptului ameninat la via.5 nambele cazuri indiferent de unde provineameninarea asupra vieii. Dreptului la via,aadar, i corespunde obligaia fiecrui individde a nu amenina sau viola viaa celorlali.6Aceast poziie referitoare la obligaia Statuluide a proteja dreptul la via de violri nu estesingura. Se afirm c este greit s neconcentrm numai pe cazurile cnd se pierde

viaa din cauza aciunii imediate a ageniei de

Art. 2 Par. 3 Item a) of the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights, which

provides for a right to effective remedynotwithstanding that the violation has been

committed by persons acting in an officialcapacity. The same Article mentions theStates obligation to respect and to ensure therights, as well as to take the necessary steps toadopt such laws or other measures as may benecessary to give effect to the rights recognisedin the Covenant. Art. 1 of the EuropeanConvention stipulates that the States mustguarantee such rights. The European Court ofHuman Rights has repeatedly taken the positionthat the States have an explicit obligation to

take measures to ensure the rights recognisedby the European Convention, not only refrainfrom violating them. This further implies thatthe States legislation must ensure adequate

protection of such rights from both lawenforcing agencies and private persons.

1.2. A Broader Concept of the Right

to Life

3. Further along this line comes a

broader sense of the right to life, which goesbeyond its traditional concept whichunderstands it as a prohibition of arbitrarydeprivation of life by the State authorities. If wetake for a starting point our reasoning that theState is obligated to incriminate acts against lifeand that this is an expression of criminal-legal

protection of the human right to life, whywould then the same State within the same rightnot have an obligation to take other measures of

preventive characters aimed at protecting athreatened right to life.62 In both cases -regardless of where the threat to life comesfrom. The right to life, therefore, is matched byan obligation of each individual to refrain fromthreatening or violating of the life of other.63This position about the States obligation to

protect the right to life from violations is not theonly one. It is stated that it is wrong to focusonly on cases when life is lost due to animmediate action of the law enforcement

agency. Cases of negligence towards protection


6/24



122

aplicare a legii. Cazuri de neglijen n ceea ceprivete protecia cetenilor prin neasigurareaunor standarde adecvate de igien, protecie amediului i a unui minim de siguran public

constituie de asemenea o incapacitate a Statuluide a-i ndeplini obligaia.7 Aceasta este ipractica Curii Europene, potrivit creia un Statpoate fi tras la rspundere pentru neacordareaproteciei vieii umane mpotriva atacuriloraltora. A fost adoptat poziia conform creiaConvenia European Art. 2 Par. 1 n prima sa

propoziie s nu se adreseze numailegiuitorului, ci s se referea la o obligaiegeneral a autoritii de a lua msurile adecvate

pentru a proteja viaa,8 n ce mod nu poate

reprezenta o obligaie a autoritii de a asiguraun paznic pentru fiecare cetean.9 n favoareaacestei interpretri sunt formulrile acestuidrept aa cum sunt folosite n documenteleinternaionale i constituionale: Dreptulfiecruia la via va fi protejat de lege. Nimeninu va fi privat de viaa sa n mod intenionat (Convenia European Art. 2 Par. 1);Nimeni nu va fi privat de viaa sa n modarbitrar. (Convenia Internaional Art. 6 Par.1); Viaa uman este inviolabil (Constituia

Republicii Serbia Art. 24). In acest context nusunt de acord cu negarea caracterului accesoriual dreptului penal n ceea ce privete proteciavieii.10 Viaa este valoarea legal suprem alcrei coninut poate fi acoperit i de alte ramuriale dreptului. Scopul acestui articol este sindice unele dintre aceste posibiliti n ceea ce

privete protecia martorilor.Probabil unul dintre motivele unei

interpretri reduse a dreptului la via se afl nasocierea sa tipic cu (ne) justificarea pedepseicapitale, care are conotaii legale evidentereferitoare la stat. Ceea ce trebuie reinut, totui,este faptul c pedeapsa capital nu este cel maimare pericol asupra vieii. Un pericol mult maimare se afl n rzboi, foamete, epidemie,genocid, dezechilibru ecologic, etc. Comitetul

pentru Drepturile Omului interpreteaz art. 6 dinConvenia Internaional n acelai sens:protecia acestui drept necesit ca Statul sadopte msuri pozitive. n aceast privin,

Comitetul consider c ar fi de dorit ca statele

of its citizens by failure to provide adequatestandards of hygiene, environment protectionand a minimum of public safety also constitutethe States failure to fulfil its obligation.64 This

is also the course of the practices of theEuropean Court, according to which a State canbe held liable for a lack of protection of humanlife from attacks by others. The position has

been taken that European Convention Art. 2Par. 1 in its first sentence does not addresslegislator alone, but refers to a generalobligation of the authority to take appropriatesteps to safeguard life,65 whereby it cannot beconstrued as an obligation of the authority toensure a bodyguard for each citizen.66 Speaking

in favour of this interpretation are formulationsof this right as used in international andconstitutional documents: Everyones right tolife shall be protected by law. No one shall bedeprived of his life intentionally (EuropeanConvention Art. 2 Par. 1); No one shall bearbitrarily deprived of his life. (InternationalCovenant Art. 6 Par. 1); Human life isinviolable (Constitution of the Republic ofSerbia Art. 24). In this context I would notagree with denying accessory character of

criminal law in regard to the protection of life.67Life is the ultimate legal value whose contentcan be covered by other branches of law aswell. This articles purpose is to point to someof these potentials in regard to the protection ofwitnesses.

Perhaps one of the reasons for a narrowinterpretation of the right to life lies in itstypical association with (non)justification ofcapital punishment, which has an obvious state-legal connotations. What should be born inmind, however, is the fact that capital

punishment is not the greatest danger to life. Amuch greater danger lies in war, hunger,epidemics, genocide, ecological unbalance, etc.The Committee for Human Rights interpretsInternational Covenant Art. 6 in the samesense: the protection of this right requiresthat States adopt positive measures. In thisconnection, the Committee considers that itwould be desirable for States parties to take all

possible measures to reduce infant mortality


7/24



123

participante s ia toate msurile posibile pentru areduce mortalitatea infantil i pentru a cretesperana de via, n special prin adoptareamsurilor de reducere a malnutriiei i

epidemiilor. Comitetul a mai subliniat iobligaia Statelor de a preveni rzboiul,genocidul i alte forme de violen n mas.11Ameninarea vieii demonstreaz de asemeneaincapacitatea Statului de a lupta mpotrivainfraciunilor indiferent de cine comite crimele grupuri criminale sau indivizi.12 Diverse formede violen din anumite sfere ale vieii dintr-osocietate prezint o ameninare a dreptului lavieii, implicnd nevoia pentru o prevenire maieficient a lor. Este momentul ca Statul s ia

msuri dincolo de abolirea pedepsei cu moarteactre alte domenii care amenin viaa i carenecesit aciunea sa pozitiv. CurteaConstituional a Poloniei a afirmat c protejareadreptului la via este unul dintre elementelefundamentale n exercitarea principiilordemnitii umane inerente i inalienabile.13 Inaceast privin, vocile care susin un conceptmai larg al dreptului la via sunt auzite din ce nce mai des. Un concept mai larg ar include, nafar de dreptul la via n sens biologic, dreptul

la via de o anumit calitate, n special pentruanumite categorii de oameni care se afl n

pericol n aceast privin. Exist totui, aceiacare vd un pericol n aceast diluare adreptului la via, avertiznd c ar duce laslbirea proteciei sale legale.14

Alte drepturi umane ale martorilor carepot fi ameninai ar trebui nelese n acelaimod. Chiar dac argumentarea de mai sus nueste acceptat, putem porni de la faptul catunci cnd Statul a stabilit obligaia cetenilorde a depune mrturie, l-a lsat pe individ lamila acelora mpotriva crora depune mrturie,astfel nct statul este o cauz intermediar a

posibilelor ameninri asupra drepturilor umaneale martorilor din partea acestor persoane.

1.3. Interzicerea discriminrii ca uncontext general de aplicare a drepturiloromului

Contextul general de aplicare a

and to increase life expectancy, especially inadopting measures to eliminate malnutritionand epidemics. The Committee has alsoemphasised the obligation of the States to

prevent war, genocide and other forms of massviolence.68 A threat to life also demonstratesthe States inability to fight crime, regardless ofwho commits murders criminal groups orindividuals.69 Various forms of violence incertain spheres of life in a society present athreat to the right of life, implying a need fortheir more efficient prevention. It is high timethe State took steps beyond abolishing death

penalty towards other fields that are potentiallylife-threatening and require its positive action.

Constitutional Court of Poland has affirmedthat the protection of the right to life is one ofthe fundamental elements in exercising the

principles of the inherent and unalienablehuman dignity.70 In this respect, voicesadvocating a wider concept of the right to lifeare heard more and more often. A broaderconcept would include, besides the right to lifein biological sense, the right to life of a certainquality, particularly for certain categories of

people who are endangered in this respect.

There are, however, those who see a danger inthis dilution of the right to life, warning that itcould lead to weakening its legal protection.71

Other human rights of witnesses whichcan be threatened should be understood in thesame way. Even if the above argumentation isnot accepted, we can start from the fact thatwhen the State established the citizensobligation to give testimony, it left anindividual at the mercy of those he givestestimony against, so the State is anintermediate cause of the potential threats tohuman rights of witness by such persons.

1.3. Prohibition of Discrimination as

General Context of the Application HumanRights

The general context of the applicationof the said human rights is the principle ofequality, that is, the prohibition of

discrimination. If human inequality is accepted,


8/24



124

drepturilor umane menionate este principiulegalitii, adic interzicerea discriminrii. Daceste acceptat inegalitatea uman, ntregulconcept al drepturilor omului ca drepturi

inerente oamenilor deoarece acetia sunt fiineumane se prbuete. Acest principiu esterecunoscut n Declaraia Universal aDrepturilor Omului Art. 2 care prevede:Oricine are dreptul la toate drepturile ilibertile cuprinse n aceast Declaraie, frvreo distincie, cum ar fi rasa, culoarea, sex,limb, religie, orientare politic sau de alt fel,origine naional sau social, proprietate,natere sau alt statut. Articolul 7 din Declaraie

prevede: Toi suntem egali n faa legii i avem

dreptul fr discriminare la protecie egal alegii. Toi avem dreptul la protecie egalmpotriva discriminrii n nclcarea acesteiDeclaraii i mpotriva oricrei incitri laaceast discriminare. n final, Articolul 8

prevede: Toi au dreptul la o compensareeficient din partea tribunalelor naionalecompetente pentru actele care ncalc drepturilefundamentale acordate de constituie sau lege.

Similar, Art. 14 din ConveniaEuropean prevede c posedarea drepturilori

libertilor prevzute de aceast Convenie va fiasigurat fr discrimare de sex, ras, culoare,limb, religie, opinii politice sau de alt tip,origine naional sau social, asociere cu ominoritate naional, proprietate, natere sau altstatut.

Articolul 7 din Declaraia ONUreferitor la Eliminarea tuturor formelor dediscriminare rasial prevede c toi, frdistincie de ras, culoare sau origine etnic, aredreptul la securitatea persoanei i la proteciedin partea statului mpotriva violenei i rniriicorporale, fie c sunt cauzate de oficiali aiguvernului sau de un individ, grup sauinstituie.

Actele citate nu ofer totui o listexplicit. Aadar, este important s stabilim ceau n comun motivele enumerate. n primulrnd, acestea sunt caracteristici ale fiineiumane pe care le obine fr voina sa i princare aparine unui grup mai larg. Pe de alt

parte, discrimanarea nu este permis pe baza

the entire concept of human rights as rightsinherent in humans because they are human

beings collapses. This principle is recognised inthe Universal Declaration on Human Rights

Art. 2 which reads: Everyone is entitled to allthe rights and freedoms set forth in thisDeclaration, without distinction of any kind,such as race, colour, sex, language, religion,

political or other opinion, national or socialorigin, property, birth or other status. Article 7of the Declaration says: All are equal beforethe law and are entitled without anydiscrimination to equal protection of the law.All are entitled to equal protection against anydiscrimination in violation of this Declaration

and against any incitement to suchdiscrimination. Finally, Article 8 states:Everyone has the right to an effective remedy

by the competent national tribunals for actsviolating the fundamental rights granted him bythe constitution or by law.

Similarly, European Convention Art. 14prescribes that the enjoyment of the rights andfreedoms set forth in this Convention shall besecured without discrimination on any groundsuch as sex, race, colour, language, religion,

political or other opinion, national or socialorigin, association with a national minority,

property, birth or other status.Article 7 of the UN Declaration on

Elimination of All Forms of RacialDiscrimination states that everyone, withoutdistinction as to race, colour or ethnic origin,has the right to security of person and

protection by the State against violence orbodily harm, whether inflicted by governmentofficials or by any individual, group orinstitution.

The cited acts do not give an explicitlist, though. Therefore, it is important todetermine what the stated reasons have incommon. Primarily, these are characteristics ofa human being which he attains without hisown volition and by which he belongs to awider group. On the other hand, discriminationis not allowed based on some acquireddistinctions either (such as political and other

opinions, property), as they come as a result of


9/24



125

unor distincii dobndite (cum ar fi opiniilepolitice sau de alt natur, proprietatea),deoarece acestea sunt un rezultat al exercitriidreptului uman la libertatea de a alege.

Formulrile altor stri similare, alt statutsau distincie personal includ toate celelalteclasificri iraionale, care nu au nicio bazfuncional n raionalitatea teleologic.15Aspectul unei persoane n calitate de martor la

proces poate intra ntr-o astfel de clasificare,din moment ce o persoan devine martor prindecizia unei autoriti legale fr voia sa; maimult, aceast capacitate impus unei persoane

poate fi o surs de ameninare pentru martorulcare i ndeplinete obligaia legal de a da o

mrturie adevrati complet.

2. Caracterul i elementele dreptuluisubiectiv al martorilor la protecie

Fr a porni o discuie referitoare lanumeroasele interpretri ale conceptului dedrept subiectiv,16 n scopul acestui text, vom

porni de la definiia sa clasic de drept la oaciune (a sa) sau la o solicitare de aciune (dela altcineva). Elementul de baz din structura

unui drept subiectiv este dreptul legal. Acestase poate manifesta fie ca un drept la libertate,fie ca un drept de apel, n timp ce ambele suntde forma aciunii i non-aciunii. Un dreptsubiectiv poate include unul sau mai multedrepturi.

Dreptul unui martor la protecie este undrept public subiectiv individual, aa cum esteexercitat de un individ n relaia sa cu Statul.Este unul dintre drepturile de baz, deoarececoninutul su l face esenial pentru oexisten fericit a individului n stat i numanitate, pentru o existen a omului ca ofiin nzestrat cu raiune.17 Acesta aparinegrupului de drepturi pozitive, care suntcaracterizate de o obligaie legal pozitiv din

partea Statului ca entitate pasiv, o obligaie dea realiza o aciune. Din moment ce acest drepteste exercitat ca un drept de solicitare de la o

persoan legal, n acest caz Statul, dreptulmartorilor la protecie se manifest direct ca un

drept relativ; indirect, totui, acesta are caracter

exercising the human right to freedom ofchoice. The formulations of other similarstates, other status or personal distinctioninclude all other irrational classifications,

which have no functional base in teleologicalrationality.72 The appearance of a person in thecapacity of a trial witness can come under sucha classification, since a person becomes awitness by a decision of a legal authority notout of his own volition; furthermore, such acapacity imposed on a person can be a sourceof a threat to the witness who is fulfilling hislegal obligation to give a truthful and completetestimony.

2. Character and Elements ofSubjective Right of Witness to Protection

Without venturing into a discussionabout the numerous interpretations of theconcept of subjective right,73 for the purposesof this text we shall start from its basicdefinition as an entitlement to an action (onesown) or to claim an action (from somebodyelse). The basic element in the structure of a

subjective right is the legal entitlement. It canbe manifested as either a liberty right or a claimright, while both can come in the form of actionand non-action. One subjective right canenvelop one or more entitlements.

The right of a witness to protection is anindividual subjective public right, as it isexercised by an individual in his relation to theState. It is one of the basic rights as its contentmakes it essential for a happy existence of anindividual in his State and humanity, for an

existence of a man as a being endowed withreason.74 It belongs to the group of positiverights, which are characterised by a positivelegal obligation on the part of the State as

passive entity, an obligation to perform anaction. Since this right is exercised as a right ofclaim from a legal person, in this case the State,the right of witness to protection is manifesteddirectly as a relative right; indirectly, however,it has a character of an absolute right, as allothers are legally bound to recognise it.


10/24



126

de drept absolut, deoarece toate celelalte seangajeaz din punct de vedere legal s lrecunoasc.

Urmtoarele drepturi rezult din dreptul

fundamental al martorului la protecie: a)dreptul de a fi informat referitor la protecie; b)dreptul de a solicita sau renuna la dreptul la

protecie; c) dreptul de a reine detaliilepersonale, mrturia n totalitate sau rspunsurilela ntrebrile particulare pn cnd se ia odecizie cu privire la cererea de protecie; d)dreptul la o decizie din partea a dou instane lacererea cuiva; e) dreptul de a avea reprezentant;f) dreptul de a se bucura de protecie.

Dreptul subiectiv al unui martor la

protecie necesit o obligaie legalfundamental a biroului de proceduri penaleautorizate de a oferi o asemenea protecie dacsunt ndeplinite condiiile legale. Drepturile

particulare incluse n dreptul subiectiv necesitobligaii speciale din partea oficialilor de

procedur penal: de a informa martoriireferitor la dreptul lor la protecie, de a decidereferitor la protecia martorilorex officio sau lacerere, de a amna procedura de motivare ncazul n care un martor i retrage mrturia n

timp ce ateapt o decizie referitor la moiuneapentru protecie, de a permite o decizie dinpartea a dou instane referitor la proteciamartorilor, de a permite martorilor s aib unreprezentant sau s numeasc unul ex officioide a asigura protecie.

2.1. Dreptul de a fi informat

referitor la dreptul la protecie

Printre drepturile secundare care rezultdin dreptul unui martor la protecie se afldreptul de a fi informat referitor la posibilitateade protecie. Cu toate acestea, legea nu

proclam acest drept.18 Sistemul de protecie amartorilor va fi mai eficient dac un potenialmartor este contient de opiunile legale ale

proteciei sale. Aceasta are o importandeosebit n acele ri n care martorii audreptul s cear protecie. Apare ntrebareacine, cnd i cum va informa martorul. Este n

mod sigur recomandabil s se fac acest lucru

The following entitlements stem fromthe fundamental right of witness to protection:a) entitlement to be informed about ones rightto protection; b) entitlement to demand or

waive ones right to protection; c) entitlementto withhold ones personal details, testimony infull or answers to particular questions until thedecision is made as to his request for

protection; d) entitlement to two-instancedecision on ones request; e) entitlement tohave a proxy; f) entitlement to enjoy protection.

The subjective right of a witness toprotection requires a fundamental legalobligation of the authorised criminal proceduresoffice to offer such protection if the legal

conditions are fulfilled. The particularentitlements incorporated in the subjective rightrequire particular obligations of the criminal

procedure officials: to inform witnesses of theirright to protection, to decide about witness

protection ex officio or on request, to adjournthe evidence procedure in case a witnesswithholds testimony while waiting for adecision on the motion for protection, to enabletwo-instance decision on the witness protection,to enable the witness to have a proxy or appoint

one ex officio and to provide protection.

2.1. Entitlement to Be Informed of

the Right to Protection

Among other consequentialentitlements stemming from the subject right ofa witness to protection there is the witnesssentitlement to be informed of the possibility of

protection. However, the law is reluctant to

proclaim this right.

75

The witness protectionsystem will be more efficient if a potentialwitness is aware of the legal options of his

protection. This is of a particular importance inthose countries where witnesses are entitled torequire protection. The question arises of who,when and how is supposed to inform thewitness. It is certainly recommendable to do itas early as possible in the process, since only atimely witness protection can be purposeful. Itwould be best if potential witnesses were

informed about this right before the


11/24



127

ct mai devreme n timpul procesului, deoarecenumai o protecie oportun poate fisemnificativ. Ar fi cel mai bine dac

potenialii martori ar fi informai cu privire la

acest drept nainte de nceputul procedurilorpenale. n unele ri aceasta se realizeazafind n locuri vizibile n seciile de poliie onotificare cuprinznd prevederile legalereferitoare la protecia martorilor. Conform

politicii de ncurajare a cetenilor s raportezeinfraciunile i s depun mrturie, trebuiestabilit o obligaie din partea poliiei i a

procurorului de a informa cetenii referitor ladreptul la protecie special cnd aduninformaiile. Independent de o asemenea

notificare n procedura penal, autoritile deprocedur penal ar trebui de asemenea s aibobligaia de a informa martorul referitor lamsurile de protecie. Aceasta ar include n

primul rnd tribunalul, dari procurorul dacbiroul su se ocup de o parte a acestuiproces.19 n final, unii ia n considerare cobligaia de a informa i revine personaluluiexecutiv, de acuzare i din nchisori.20

O alt dilem este dac un martor va fiinstruit referitor la citaie, n scris, sau oral la

audiere. Prima soluie ar fi evident mai bun,deoarece implic, ca martorii s i asume unrisc mai mic. Unele legislaii opteaz pentruaceasta,21 n timp ce altele se mulumesc s

proclame obligaia curii de a informa martorulreferitor la acest drept, fr a specifica cnd icum se va face acest lucru.22

2.2. Dreptul de a solicita i renuna laprotecie

Din moment ce depinde de posesoruldreptului subiectiv dac va fi exercitat sau nu,dreptul unui martor la protecie ar trebui sinclud dreptul acestuia de a solicita protecie23

precum i de a renuna la ea. Aadar, logicadicteaz ca protecia s fie stabilit la aciuneamartorului n acest sens sau ex officio cuaprobarea sa sau la aciunea unei pri din

proces. Dei aceste drepturi subiective care suntn acelai timp obligatorii din punct de vedere

legal pentru posesorii lor nu sunt necunoscute

commencement of criminal proceedings. Insome countries this is achieved by posting invisible positions in police stations a notificationon legal stipulations regarding witness

protection. In accordance to the policy ofencouraging citizens to report crimes and givetestimony, a duty should be established on the

part of the police and public prosecutor toinform citizens of the right to special protectionwhen collecting information. Independently ofsuch a notification in the precriminal procedure,criminal procedure authorities should also needto have an obligation to advise a witness on the

protection measures. Primarily this wouldinclude the court, but public prosecutor if his

office is in charge of a part of the process aswell.76 Finally, some envisage that theobligation to inform rests with the executive,

prosecuting and prison personnel.77A further dilemma is whether a witness

is to be instructed in the subpoena, in writing,or orally at the hearing. The first solution woulddefinitely be better, as it implies that thewitness takes less risk. Some legislations optfor that,78 while others stop at proclaiming theobligation of the court to inform a witness

about this right, leaving it unspecified as towhen and how this should be done.79

2.2. Entitlement to Require or WaiveProtection

Since it depends on the subjectiveright holder if it shall be exercised or not, awitnesss right to protection shouldincorporate his entitlement to require

protection

80

as well as to waive it. Therefore,logic would dictate that the protection isestablished upon a witnesss motion for it orex officio with his approval or upon themotion by a party in the trial. Although suchsubjective rights which are at the same timelegally binding for their title holders are notunknown in law, this is not the case with theright to witness protection. The requirementthat protection must be approved by thewitness in cases when he is not the one

requesting it is necessary, since he could, at


12/24



128

n drept, acesta nu este cazul dreptului laprotecia martorilor. Cerina ca protecia s fieaprobat de martor n cazurile n care nu el esteacela care o solicit este necesar, deoarece

acesta ar putea, cel puin teoretic, s aib unmotiv pentru care s nu doreasc s fie protejat.Aceasta rezult din principiul c un institutstabilit n beneficiul persoanei nu ar trebui s setransforme n daune aduse acelei persoane. Cutoate acestea, legislaiile care prevd aceast

posibilitate sunt rare.24Pe de alt parte, din perspectiva

intereselor martorilor i din punctul de vedereal interesului general, este mai bine dac

protecia nu depinde numai de cererea

martorilor. Iniierea proteciei poate atrage oprocedur formal de care un nespecialist arputea fi confuz. Este de dorit s se permitintroducerea proteciei la tribunale la cererea exofficio.25 Faptul c tribunalul poate stabili

protecia martorilor ex officio nu neagexistena dreptului subiectiv al martorului la

protecie. Ca parte a dreptului subiectiv uniisavani disting dreptul la proces.26 Cu toateacestea, nu este crucial pentru existenadreptului subiectiv dac dreptul la proces este

disponibil posesorului de drept subiectiv sauautoritii de stat. Ceea ce este important este ca

posesorul dreptului subiectiv s aib un dreptlegal, ceea ce implic o opiune a proteciei sale

prin actul autoritii sau actele altora. Aceastadeoarece chiar dac dreptul la proces este nminile autoritii statului, acesta poate fiexercitat numai pentru protecia dreptului iintereselor unui posesor de drept subiectiv.

n final, n afara martorului n sine,prile la procedur trebuie s cunoascntotdeauna opiunea de a folosi aceast metodde dovedire. Dei este normal ca un martor

protejat s apar de obicei de partea acuzrii, nuse poate exclude ca un martor al aprrii sapar n acelai rol. Aadar, iniierea msurilorde protecie nu ar trebui s se limiteze laacuzarea public, aa cum este cazul unoranumite legislaii.27 Sunt mult mai multelegislaii care autorizeaz ambele pri s cauteaceste mijloace.28 Unii afirm c protecia

martorilor poate fi solicitat de partea

least theoretically, have a reason not to wantto be protected. This follows from the

principle that an institute established tobenefit a person should not turn into such

persons harm. However, legislationsproviding for this possibility are rare.81On the other hand, from the

perspective of a witnesss interests, and fromthe point of view of the general interest, it is

better if protection is not solely bound by awitnesss request. Initiating protection can

pose a rather formalised procedure a laymancan be confused by. It is desirable to allowintroduction of the protection at courts exofficio request.82 The fact that the court can

establish witness protection ex officio doesnot negate the existence of the subjectiveright of a witness to protection. As anintegral part of subjective right somescholars distinguish the right to lawsuit.83However, it is not crucial for the existenceof subjective right if the right to lawsuit isavailable to the subjective right holder or aState authority. What is important is for thesubjective right holder to have a legalentitlement, which implies an option of its

protection, by act of authority or acts ofothers. This is because even if the right tolawsuit is in hands of a State authority, it can

be exercised only for the protection of theentitlement and interests of a subjective rightholder.

Finally, besides the very witness,parties in the proceedings too shall alwayshave the knowledge of the option to use thismethod of evidence. Although it is naturalthat a protected witness usually appears onthe side of the prosecution, it cannot be ruledout that a defence witness might appear in thesame role. Therefore, initiation of protectionmeasures should not be limited to public

prosecution, as the case is with somelegislations is.84 There are much morelegislations that authorise both parties to seekthis means.85 Some envisage that witness

protection can be requested by injuredparty,86 defence,87 private and subsidiary

plaintiff.


13/24



129

vtmat,29 de aprare,30 de partea civil.

2.3. Dreptul de a reine informaiipersonale, declaraii complete sau

rspunsuri la anumite ntrebri pn ladecizia asupra aciunii

1. Executarea eficient a dreptului laacuzare implic dreptul unui martor, frimpunitate, s rein informaii personale,declaraii complete sau rspunsuri la anumitentrebri pn cnd Curtea ajunge la o deciziereferitoare la aciune. Aceasta este un fel deauto-asisten permis n dreptul de procedur

penal. Totui, principiul de libertate de la

obligaia de a rspunde unor ntrebri nupermite aceste cazuri. Mai exact, un martorpoate exercita libertatea de a reine rspunsurila ntrebri dac rspunsul la acele ntrebri ar

putea cauza dezonoare sever, daune materialesemnificative sau acuzare mpotriva sa sau amembrilor familiei sale. De fapt, aceste motive

pot fi folosite pentru a scuti un martor srspund numai dac proprietatea sa esteameninat de daune grave sau distrugere, ntimp ce foarte multe cazuri n care sigurana

personal este ameninat de atacuri la viaa,sntatea, persoan, libertatea sa, etc nu suntrezolvate. Aadar, instituia existent a libertiide la obligaia de a rspunde la anumitentrebri trebuie lrgit pentru a includecazurile n care un martor a pus n pericolsigurana sa personal sau sigurana persoanelorapropiate lui. Aceasta i-ar permite martorului sse protejeze pe el i pe persoanele apropiate luimai eficient de ameninri, dar un asemeneadrept radical acordat unui martor ar putea,evident, s pun n pericol interesele

procedurilor penale n multe cazuri. Corpurilede aprare penale ar putea fi lsate fr probecruciale.

2. Din acest motiv, ar fi de preferat osoluie diferit o proclamaie exprimat adreptului amintit al unui martor, limitat la unasemenea moment n care tribunalul a ajuns lao decizie referitor la protecia martorilor. Cutoate acestea, sunt rare legislaiile care prevd

un drept aa limitat.31

Poate c aceasta este

2.3. Entitlement to Withhold

Personal Information, Statement in Full orAnswers to Certain Questions until the

Decision on the Motion

1. Efficient execution of the right toprotection would imply the entitlement of awitness to, with impunity, withhold personalinformation, statement in full or answers tocertain questions until the Court has reached adecision on the Motion. This would be somekind of an allowed self-assistance in criminal

procedure law. However, the existing instituteof the freedom from the obligation to answercertain questions does not allow for such cases.

Namely, a witness can exercise the freedom towithhold answers to questions if answeringsuch questions would potentially bring severedisgrace, significant material damage or

prosecution against him personally or membersof his family. Actually, these grounds can beused to excuse a witness from answering only ifhis property is threatened with grave injury ordestruction, while the whole lot of the caseswhen his personal safety is threatened byattacks against his life, health, body, freedom,

etc. are left unaddressed. Therefore, the existinginstitute of freedom from the obligation toanswer certain questions would need to bewidened to include the cases in which a witnesswould put at risk his personal safety or thesafety of persons close to him. This wouldallow a witness to protect himself and personsclose to him from threats most efficiently, butsuch a radical right given to a witness could,obviously, jeopardise the interests of criminal

proceedings in many cases. The criminaldefence bodies could be left without crucialevidence.

2. For this reason a different solutionwould be preferable an expressed

proclamation of the said right of a witness,limited to such a time when the court hasreached a decision on witness protection.However, rare are the legislations which

provide for even such a limited entitlement.88Perhaps this is inspired by the fact that witness

protection should be ensured before a witness


14/24



130

inspirat de faptul c protecia martorilor artrebui asigurat nainte ca un martor s depunmrturie. Cu toate acestea, este nevoie deflexibilitate pentru o situaie potenial cnd un

martor dovedete c deine informaii vitale ntimpul procesului i arat indicii c se afl subameninare din aceast cauz.

Legile care recunosc acest drept prevdde obicei c este posibil ca un martor s reininformaiile pn cnd este asigurat proteciamartorilor.32 Aceast formulare pareinadecvat, deoarece genereaz dreptul unuimartor de a continua s i rein declaraia cuimpunitate pn n momentul cnd esteasigurat protecia. Deoarece dreptul su

nceteaz numai n momentul cnd esteasigurat protecia, rezult c acesta i meninedreptul de a-i reine declaraia chiar dac

protecia nu este acordat deloc! Aadar,rezultatul unei asemenea prevederi vine dinfaptul c nu stipuleaz cazurile n care martoriirein informaii fr motiv. Aa cum amsubliniat anterior,33 soluia pentru aceast

problem ar putea fi n autorizarea curii, dacaceasta nu gsete motive pentru reinereadeclaraiei, s avertizeze martorul despre

pedeapsa potenial conform legii provondmartorii care nu coopereaz.

n legislaia comparabil, exist cazuride soluii specifice pentru acest drept almartorului. Mai exact, exist legi care prevdexact contrariul c un asemenea drept de areine anumite rspunsuri de teama ameninriiasupra vieii, persoanei sau proprietii de oimportan mare poate fi solicitat numai de aceimartori care nu se pot bucura de msurile de

protecie a martorilor.343. Mecanismele de iniiere a procedurii

de protecie a martorilor au fost dejaidentificate. Acestea ar putea fi completate cunc unul, asociat cu exercitarea dreptului de areine informaii, declaraia complet saurspunsurile la anumite ntrebri. Mai exact,legea ar putea porni de la presupunerea cmartorul care solicit dreptul a depus o aciune

pentru protecie. ntr-un asemenea caz, curteava amna audierea i va instrui martorul sau

partea n interesul creia va depune mrturie35

takes stand. However, flexibility is needed toprovide for a potential situation when a witnessproves to hold vital information during the trialand shows signs of being under a threat in this

respect..The laws which recognise this rightregularly state that it is possible for a witness towithhold information until witness protection is

provided.89 This formulation seems inadequate,since it engenders a witnesss right to keep onwithholding his statement with impunity untilsuch time when the protection is provided. Ashis right ceases only once the protection is

provided, it follows that he maintains the rightto withhold statement even if such protection is

not granted at all! Therefore, the shortcomingof such a stipulation lies in the fact that it doesnot provide for cases where witnesses withholdinformation without grounds. As I emphasisedearlier,90 the solution to this problem might liein authorising the court, if it finds no groundsfor withholding statement, to warn the witnessof the potential penalty provided for under thelaw for uncooperative witnesses.

In comparable legislation there arecases of specific solutions for this entitlement

of a witness. Namely, there are laws providingquite the opposite - that such an entitlement towithhold certain answers for fear of threats tolife, body or property of great value can beclaimed solely by such witnesses who cannotenjoy witness protection measures.91

3. The mechanisms of initiating awitness protection procedure have already beenidentified. They could be supplemented withyet another one, that goes without saying,associated to exercising the entitlement towithhold information, statement in full oranswers to certain questions. Namely, lawcould start from a supposition that witness whoseeks the entitlement has submitted a Motionfor protection. In such a case, the court wouldadjourn the hearing and could instruct thewitness or the party in whose interest he is totestify92 to submit a written Motion stating thegrounds for such a request and all theinformation otherwise required for such

Motions to contain within a certain (short)


15/24



131

s depun o aciune scris n care s prezintemotivele pentru o asemenea solicitare i toateinformaiile necesare pe care trebuie s leconin aciunea ntr-o anumit perioad

(scurt) de timp. Dac termenul limit nu esterespectat i devine evident c nu sunt motivepentru a solicita acest drept, dreptul va firefuzat i curtea ar putea dispune o pedeaspsconform prevederilor legale fr avertizareanterioar. Unele legi nu permit judectorilor sia o decizie negativ n asemenea cazuri dactermenul limit nu este respectat, dar afirm cvor cuta o decizie la Consiliul extra-

procedural, care trebuie s decid n termen detrei zile.36

2.4. Dreptul la decizia dat de douinstane pentru aciune

S-a afirmat c dreptul subiectiv al unuimartor la protecie este manifestarea protecieidrepturilor sale umane fundamentale.Convenia European preveder n Art. 13 c toicei ale cror drepturi i liberti enunate nConvenie sunt nclcate vor avea dreptul la osoluionare eficient n faa autoritii naional

indiferent dac nclcarea a fost comis depersoane care acioneaz n calitate oficial.Aadar, decizia curii referitor la proteciamartorilor poate deveni definitiv numai cnd oalt instan analizeaz chestiunea. Aceasta se

poate face n trei moduri.1. Primul i cel mai frecvent mod este

s se asigure o compensaie legal la deciziaCurii. Acest drept, n afara martorului, esteacordat i prilor.37 Compensaia legal poatefi folosit pentru a anula att decizia negativct i decizia pozitiv a Curii, n cazul unei

posibile insatisfacii pentru msurile acordatede protecie a martorilor.

Apelul de acest tip nu este frecventmenionat n legislaiile comparabile. Uniiacord un termen special pentru apel, deexemplu dousprezece ore n Croatia; trei ore nPolonia; 14 zile n Olanda; jumtate din duratasa obinuit n Portugalia.38 Apelul este deobicei decis de Consiliul Extra-procedural al

aceleiai Curi i n unele cazuri la acuzare este

period of time. If the deadline is not met and itbecomes obvious that there are no grounds forclaiming the entitlement in the fist place, theentitlement would be denied and the court

could prescribe the punishment as provided forunder the law without previous caution. Somelaws do not allow triers to make a negativedecision in such cases by alone if the deadlineis not met, but prescribe he id to seek a decision

by Extra-procedural Council, which has toreach the decision within three days.93

2.4. Entitlement to Two-instance

Decision on the Motion

It has been stated that the subjectiveright of a witness to protection is themanifestation of the protection of hisfundamental human rights. The EuropeanConvention proclaims in its Art. 13 thateveryone whose rights and freedoms as setforth in the Convention are violated shall havean effective remedy before a national authoritynotwithstanding that the violation has beencommitted by persons acting in an officialcapacity. Therefore the courts decision onwitness protection can only become final whenanother instance looks at the matter. This can

be achieved in three ways.1. The first and most frequent way is to

provide legal remedy against the Courtsdecision. This right, besides the witness, isgranted to the parties as well.94 The legalremedy can be used to annul both negative and

positive decision of the Court, in case of apossible dissatisfaction as to the granted

witness protection measures.The appeal of this kind is not frequentlymentioned in comparable legislations. Some

provide for a special deadline of the appeal, forexample twelve hours in Croatia; three hours inPoland; 14 days in Holland; half of its typicalduration in Portugal.95 The appeal is usuallydecided upon by the Extra-procedural Councilof the same Court, and in some cases uponindictment is legally enforced by the Court ofAppeals.96 Time limitation on making the

decision vary: 24 hours, three days, eight days,


16/24



132

aplicat legal de Curile de Apel.39 Limitele detimp pentru luarea deciziei variaz: 24 ore, treizile, opt zile, 15 zile.40 Dac aciunea pentru

protecie este decis de procuror, decizia sa este

revizuit de Curte.41

Apelul, ca regul, are efectde suspendare, dar unele legi prevd o excepiedac interesele investigaiei prevd altfel.42Dac decizia Curii prevede msuri de proteciecare au fost reclamata cu nesuspendare, legeanecesit procese-verbale pentr a fi exclus dindosarele de caz referitoare la audiereamartorilor protejai i distrugerea lor ulterioar,cu o not despre acest lucru n document.43Unele legi permit apelul numai mpotriva uneidecizii care refuz s acorde msuri de

protecie, nu mpotriva deciziei pozitive aCurii.44

Unele legi permit un apel independentmpotriva deciziei Curii referitoare la Aciunea

pentru protecie numai pn la un anumitmoment n dezvoltarea cazului: pn lancheierea investigaiei, formularea acuzaiilorsau data de intrare n vigoare a acuzaiei. Dupun asemenea timp, apelul este posibil numai ca

parte a apelului la verdict. O astfel de soluieare scopul de a preveni abuzurile procedurale,

deoarece posibilitatea unui apel independent arputea foarte uor s se transforme ntr-uninstrument pentru prelungirea procedurii penalen mod intenionat.

2. Al doilea mod pentru a se asiguradecizia dat de dou instane este s se acceptemodelul clasic n n rezolvarea deciziilorconflictuale dintre judectori procuror. Unelelegi aplic acelai model i n acest domeniu.Dac judectorul nu este de acord cu Aciunea

pentru msuri de protecie a martorilor, nupoate lua o decizie negativ numai n aceastprivin, dar solicit o decizie Consiliului extra-procedural.45 Acest mecanism i are originean momentele anterioare cnd nu existancredere n judectori. Pare c acest mod de a

privi problema este mai degrab nvechit nzilele noastre.

3. Al treilea mod de a se asigura cexist dou autoriti care decid referitor la

protecia martorilor este regimul de aprobare

care este de obicei emis de Preedintele Curii.

15 days.97 If the Motion for protection isdecided upon by public prosecutor, his decisionis reviewed by the Court.98 The appeal, as arule, has an effect of suspension, but some laws

provide for an exception if interests ofinvestigation dictate otherwise.99 If the Courtdecision grants protection measures which havesuccessfully been appealed against with a non-suspension, the law requires minutes to beexcluded from the case records about the

protected witness hearing and their subsequentdestruction, with a note about it ondocument.100 Same laws allow for an appealonly against a decision refusing to grant the

protection measures, not against the Courts

positive decision.101Some laws allow an independent appeal

against the Court decision on the Motion forprotection only until a certain moment in thedevelopment of the case: until the conclusion ofinvestigation, bringing charges or indictmenteffectiveness date. After such designated time,an appeal is possible only as part of appeal toverdict. Such a solution is aimed at preventing

procedural abuses, as the possibility of anindependent appeal could easily turn into an

instrument for prolonging the criminalprocedure on purpose.

2. The second way to secure two-instance decision is to accept the classicalmodel in solving conflicting decisions betweenthe trier and the public prosecutor. Some lawsapply the same model to this field as well. If thetrier disagrees with the Motion for witness

protection measures, he cannot make a negativedecision about this issue alone, but seeks adecision of Extra-procedural Council.102 Thismechanism originates from earlier times whenthere was no confidence in the triers. It seemsthat this way of looking upon the matter israther obsolete today.

3. The third way of ensuring that thereare two bodies deciding about witness

protection is the regime of approval which isusually rendered by the President of the Court.This model has been adopted by some countriesin cases full anonymity of witnesses is needed.

Since the appeal against prescribed protection


17/24



133

Acest model a fost adoptat de unele ri n cazuln care este necesar anonimatul complet almartorilor. Deoarece apelul mpotrivamsurilor de protecie prescrise este o

procedur n cadrul unei alte proceduri, aceastaprelungete procesul i exist riscul caidentitatea martorilor s fie dezvluit. Aadar,a fost substituit controlului PreedinteluiCurii, a crui decizie este consideratdefinitivi nu poate fi amendat sau revocat.Dac o asemenea aprobare nu este dat ntr-o

perioad de 30 de zile sau a fost respins,probele prezentate nu pot fi folosite n caz:acestea sunt scoase din dosare i distruse lafinalizarea efectiv a procesului.46

2.5. Dreptul la reprezentant

n mod tradiional, dreptul de a avea unreprezentant poate fi exercitat de parteavtmat, partea vtmat n calitate dereclamant i de un reclamant privat. De curnd,acest drept este acordat i martorilor.47 Oterminologie diferit este folosit pentru aceastinstituie: reprezentant, avocat,48 consiliu,49

persoan de ncredere.50 Legislaia german

recunoate instituia aa-numitei anwaltlichenBeistand. Martorii care nu au Beistand potprimi un avocat (Rechtsanwalt) n timpulaudierii cu aprobarea procurorului dac esteevident c nu i pot exercita propriul drept idrepturi n timpul audierii i c interesele lor nusunt protejate.51 Dac se desfoar proceduri

pentru o crim (Verbrechen) sau infraciuniprecizate explicit (Vergehen) sau alteinfraciuni de importan major, comise de unmembru al unei bande sau organizate n oricealt mod, numirea unui avocat se realizeaz lasugestia martorului sau a procurorului, dacsunt ndeplinite condiiile anterioare. Deciziareferitoare la numirea unui avocat nu poate ficontestat.52 Se crede c n 17% dintre cazurimartorii dau declaraii n prezena uneiasemenea persoane.53 Potrivit legislaieiaustriece, prezena unei persoane de ncredere(eine Person seiner Vetrauens) este permis lacererea martorului n timpul audierii. Exclui de

la apariia n rolul unei persoane de ncredere

measures is a procedure within a procedure, itprolongs the process and there is a risk that thewitnesss identity might be revealed. Therefore,it has been substituted by President of Courts

control, whose decision is considered final andcan be neither amended nor revoked. If such anapproval is not motioned for within a period of30 days or has been denied, the evidence

presented cannot be used in the case: they areremoved from the records and destroyed uponthe effective finalisation of the trial.103

2.5. Entitlement to Proxy

Traditionally, the entitlement to have a

proxy can be exercised by the injured party,injured party as claimant and a private plaintiff.Since recently, this entitlement is granted towitnesses as well.104 Different terminology isused for this institute: proxy, attorney,105council,106 person of trust.107 The Germanlegislation recognises the institute of the socalled anwaltlichen Beistand. Witnesses whohave noBeistandcan be appointed an attorney(Rechtsanwalt) during the hearing with theapproval of public prosecutor if it is obvious

that they are unable to exercise their ownentitlement and rights during the hearing andthat their interests are otherwise not

protected.108 If the proceedings are led for acrime (Verbrechen) or explicitly listed offences(Vergehen) or other offences of greatimportance, committed out of craft or habit or

by a gang member or organised in any otherway, the appointment of an attorney is carriedout upon the witnesss or public prosecutorssuggestion, if the previously mentionsconditions are fulfilled. The decision on theappointment of an attorney cannot becontested.109 It is believed that in 17% of thecases witnesses give statement in the presenceof such a person.110 According to the Austrianlaw, the presence of a person of trust (eine

Person seiner Vetrauens) is allowed at thewitnesss request during the hearing. Excludedfrom appearing in the role of a person of trustare those who are crime suspects or persons

who have taken part in the proceedings or there


18/24



134

sunt aceia care sunt suspeci de crim saupersoanele care au luat parte la proceduri sauexist teama c prezena lor ar putea influenamartorul s dea o declaraie complet i

liber.54

Exist cazuri care subliniaz faptul cmartorii sub ameninare sau martorii vulnerabiliau dreptul la ajutor legal conform legii.55Posibilitatea de a fi nsoit n timpul procesuluide un Rechtsbeistandeste asigurat pentru unmartor protejat de legea elveian i n cazurispecifice poate primi unul din oficiu.56

2.6. Dreptul de a se bucura de

protecie

Drepturile la protecia martorilor pot fifolosite n dou moduri: prin msuri

procedurale i extra-procedurale. Aadar,criteriul de baz al distinciei lor este caracterulmsurilor de protecie luate, i/sau metoda deacordare a proteciei. Protecia procedural amartorilor se bazeaz pe msurile caracterului

procedural, care pot fi msuri de pstrare aconfidenialitii referitor la identitatea unuimartor (detalii personale i/sau imagine i voce)fa de public, n special de acuzare, precum i

msuri de prevenire a contactului fizic ntremartor i acuzat. Msurile extraproceduraleinclud msuri de protecie fizic i tehnic amartorului, a unui poliist, care sunt incluse naa-numitul program de protecie a martorilor.Aceste diferene vin ca o consecin logic aobiectivelor lor diferite imediate.

Criterii suplimentare sunt: subieciiactivi i pasivi, durata de acordare a proteciei,durata msurilor de protecie, precum iautoritile concrete i obligaiile entitilorlegale. In protecia extraprocedural, scopul

proteciei se extinde pentru a includepersoanele apropiate martorilor. Subiecii pasividin cazurile de protecie procedural suntautoritile de procedur penal, care, ca regul,iau decizii referitor la msurile de protecie i leexecut. n cazurile de protecieextraprocedural, aceast categorie includecorpuri de autoritate specializate, n specialcorpuri decidente (Comitetul pentru Protecie),

n special corpuri executive (membri ai

is a fear that their presence could influence thewitness in giving a full and free statement.111There are cases emphasising that witnessesunder threat or vulnerable witnesses have a

right to legal aid as provided for under thelaw.112 The possibility of being accompaniedduring the trial by aRechtsbeistandis providedfor a protected witness under Swiss law, and inspecific cases he can be appointed one free ofcharge.113

2.6. Entitlement to Enjoy Protection

Witness protection rights can beenjoyed in two ways: through procedural and

extra-procedural measures. So, the basiccriterion of their distinction is the character ofthe protection measures taken, and/or themethod of rendering protection. The proceduralwitness protection counts on measures of

procedural character, which can be measures ofpreserving confidentiality as to the identity of awitness (personal details and/or image andvoice) from the public, especially the defence,as well as measures of preventing physicalencounter between the witness and thedefendant. Extra-procedural measures includethe measures of physical-technical protection ofa witness, of a police character, which areincorporated in the so-called witness protection

programme. These differences come as alogical consequence of their differentimmediate objectives.

Additional criteria of distinction are:active and passive subjects, time of rendering

protection, duration of protection measures, as

well as concrete authorities and obligations oflegal entities. In extra-procedural protection thescope of protection widens to include to

persons close to witnesses. Passive subjects inprocedural protection cases are criminalprocedure bodies, who as a rule, makedecisions on the protection measures andexecute them. In extra-procedural protectioncases, this category includes specialisedauthoritative bodies, especially the decisionmaking bodies (Protection Committee), the

executive bodies in particular (protection unit


19/24



135

unitilor de protecie). Msurile de protecieprocedurale sunt luate n timpul unui procespenal, n timp ce msurile extraprocedurale suntluate cnd este necesar n timpul procedurilor,

precum i nainte i dup acestea. Aadar estegreit s se decid asupra distinciei pe bazacursului procedurilor. n timpul unui proces,ambele forme sunt posibile, procedurale (ex.excluderea audierii publice principale) iextraprocedural (ex. escort armat pentrumartorii pe drumul spre Curte i n timpulederii lor acolo). Msurile de protecie

procedurale sunt n vigoare pe perioadaprocesului i de obicei pn la finalizare sa celmai trziu.57 Msurile extraprocedurale sunt

msuri pe termen lung i pot dura civa ani, deex. pn la independena economic complet aunei persoane relocate. n final, naturalucrurilor dicteaz un grup de drepturi concretei obligaii att pentru subiecii activi ct i

pentru cei pasivi. Acest articol, totui, se refernumai la protecia martorilor procedurali.

3. Concluzie

Protecia martorilor este un drept public

subiectiv al martorilor care ar trebui vzut caexpresie a proteciei drepturilor umanefundamentale ale martorilor. Acest dreptsubiectiv pozitiv individual atrage anumitedrepturi legale ale unui martor ameninat cuobligaii corespunztoare din partea statului.Analiza proteciei procedurale a martorilor nlegile comparate a dezvluit c drepturile legaleale martorilor nu sunt recunoscute n mod egal

peste tot (ex. dreptul de a fi informat referitor ladreptul la protecie, dreptul de a solicita irenuna la protecie, dreptul de a reine odeclaraie, dreptul la reprezentant, etc.). Totui,unele titluri sunt n general acceptate, darmetoda de implementare variaz (ex. dreptul ladecizia dat de dou instane referitor laaciunea de protecie). Unele diferene sunt deneles i acceptabile, altele nu. Ar trebui scutm realizarea tuturor drepturilor legale care

pot fi derivate dintr-un drept subiectiv al unuimartor la protecie.

members). Procedural protection measures aretaken during a criminal trial, while extra-

procedural measures are taken when it isrequired during the proceedings, as well as

before and after it. Therefore it is wrong todecide upon their distinction based on thecurrency of the proceedings. During a trial bothforms are possible, procedural (ex. exclusion of

public main hearing) and extra-procedural (ex.armed escort for witnesses on the way to theCourt and during their stay in it). The

procedural protection measures are effective fora period during the trial and as a rule by the endof its finalisation latest.114 The extra-proceduralmeasures are long-term measures and can last

several years, ex. until a complete economicindependence of a relocated person. Finally, thenature of things dictates a group of concreteentitlements and obligations of both active and

passive subjects. This article, however, dealsonly with the procedural protection ofwitnesses.

3. Conclusion

Witness protection is a subjective

public right of witnesses which should be seenas an expression of the protection offundamental human rights of witnesses. Thisindividual positive subjective right engenderscertain legal entitlements of a threatenedwitness, with corresponding obligations on the

part of the State. The analysis of the proceduralwitness protection in comparable laws hasrevealed that the witnesss legal entitlementsare not equally recognised everywhere (ex.entitlement to be informed about ones right to

protection, entitlement to demand and waiveprotection, entitlement to withhold statement,entitlement to proxy, etc.). Some entitlements,however, are generally accepted, but themethod of their implementation varies (ex.entitlement to two-instance decision on themotion for protection). Some differences areunderstandable and acceptable, some are not.We should seek realisation of all legalentitlements that can be derived from the

subjective right of a witness to protection.


20/24



136

Bibliografie

Brki, Sneana Zatita svedoka u krivinompostupku [Protecia martorilor n procedurile

penale],Novi Sad, 2005Obradovi Konstantin, Poetnica za ljudskaprava [ABC-ul Drepturilor Omului], Belgrad,1998Stojanovi Zoran,Pravo na ivot kao prirodno

pravo oveka [Dreptul la via ca un drept

natural al omului], Pravni ivot 9/1997Dimitrijevi Vojin et al., Ljudska prava udbenik [Drepturile Omului Manual],Belgrad, 2004Paunovi Milan, Jurisprudencija Evropskog

suda za ljudska prava [Jurisprudena CuriiEuropene a Drepturilor Omului], Belgrad,1993

Nowak Manfred, Pravo na ivot [Dreptul lavia], Pravni ivot 9/1996Lopatka Adam, Pravo na ivot [Dreptul lavia], Pravni ivot 12/2001Zupani Botjan, Pravo na ne-

samooptuivanje kao ljudsko pravo [Dreptul

mpotriva autoincriminrii ca drept al omului],in: Primena medjunarodnih krivinih standarda

u nacionalnim zakonodavstvima, Tara, 2004See ivanovi Toma, Sistemsintetike pravne

filozofije [Sistemul Filosofiei Sintetice al

Dreptului], Belgrad, 1959, p. 168; PopoviMilijan, Elementi teorije prava [Elemente deteorie a dreptului], Belgrad,

Brki Sneana, Zatita svedoka premaprocesnom zakonodavstvu Srbije i Crne Gore i

opteprihvaeni pravni standardi [Protecia

martorilor n dreptul procedural n Serbia i

Muntenegru i standardele legale general

acceptate]

Bibliography

Brki, Sneana Zatita svedoka u krivinompostupku [Wintess Protection in Criminal

Proceedings],Novi Sad, 2005Obradovi Konstantin, Poetnica za ljudskaprava [ABC of Human Rights], Belgrade, 1998Stojanovi Zoran,Pravo na ivot kao prirodno

pravo oveka [The Right to Life as a Natural

Right of Man], Pravni ivot 9/1997Dimitrijevi Vojin et al., Ljudska prava udbenik [The Human Rights A Textbook],Belgrade, 2004Paunovi Milan, Jurisprudencija Evropskog

suda za ljudska prava [Jurisprudence of the

European Court of Human Rights], Belgrade,1993

Nowak Manfred,Pravo na ivot [Right to Life],Pravni ivot 9/1996Lopatka Adam,Pravo na ivot [Right to Life],Pravni ivot 12/2001Zupani Botjan, Pravo na ne-

samooptuivanje kao ljudsko pravo [The Right

against Self-incrimination as a Human Right],in: Primena medjunarodnih krivinih standardau nacionalnim zakonodavstvima, Tara, 2004

See ivanovi Toma, Sistemsintetike pravnefilozofije [The System of Synthetic Philosophy

of Law], Belgrade, 1959, p. 168; PopoviMilijan, Elementi teorije prava [Elements ofthe Theory of Law], Belgrade,

Brki Sneana, Zatita svedoka premaprocesnom zakonodavstvu Srbije i Crne Gore i

opteprihvaeni pravni standardi [Witness

Protection in Procedural Law of Serbia and

Montenegro and the Generally Accepted Legal

Standards]

1 Vezi Brki, Sneana Zatita svedoka u krivinom postupku [Protecia martorilor n Procedurile Penale],Novi Sad, 2005, p.21.2 Aceasz zon a fost neglijat, aa cum se poate observa din faptul c cel de-al 12-lea Congres Internaionalde Drept Penal (Hamburg, 1979), a crui Seciune a III-a s-a referit la Protecia Drepturilor Umane nProcedurile Penale, nu a fcut nici mcar o meniune referitoare la dreptul martorilor la protecie (vezi:Revue international de droit penal 3/1978).3 Ca sintez a dreptului la via, dreptul la inviolabilitatea integritii corporale, dreptul la sntate, dreptul lalibertate, dreptul la proprietate.4 De exemplu, Obradovi Konstantin, Poetnica za ljudska prava [ABC-ul Drepturilor Omului], Belgrad,

1998, pp.41-42.


21/24



137

5 Legislaiile penale contemporane adesea incrimineaz incapacitatea unei persoane de a acorda ajutor unei

persoane a crei via este ameninat, dac este posibil fr riscuri pentru aceasta sau pentru alii. (VeziArt.127 Codul Penal al Serbiei). Ar fi absurd s se stabileasc o obligaie a unui individ de a ndeprta oameninare asupra vieii altcuiva, fr a institui aceeai obligaie din partea Statului.6 Stojanovi Zoran, Pravo na ivot kao prirodno pravo oveka [Dreptul la via ca un drept natural alomului], Pravni ivot 9/1997, p. 6.7 Dimitrijevi Vojin et al., Ljudska prava udbenik [Drepturile Omului Manual], Belgrad, 2004 sub II5.1.6.8 Vezi Aplicaia 7154/75, Asociaia X v. Regatul Unit, D&R 14 (1979), p. 31, citat de Paunovi Milan,Jurisprudencija Evropskog suda za ljudska prava [Jurisprudena Curii Europene a Drepturilor Omului],Belgrad, 1993, p. 50.9 Vezi Aplicaia 9348/81, W. v. Regatul Unit, D&R 32 (1983) p. 190.10 De exemplu Stojanovi Zoran, op. cit., pp. 11-12.11 Gen C 6/16 and 5, citat de Nowak Manfred,Pravo na ivot [Dreptul la via], Pravni ivot 9/1996, pp. 6-7.12 De exemplu Lopatka Adam,Pravo na ivot [Dreptul la via], Pravni ivot 12/2001, p. 620.13 Decizia K. 2/98 din 23.03.1999, citat conform lui Lopatka Adam, ibid., p. 620.14 Stojanovi Zoran, op.cit., p. 715 Zupani Botjan, Pravo na ne-samooptuivanje kao ljudsko pravo [Dreptul mpotriva auto-incriminriica drept uman], in: Primena medjunarodnih krivinih standarda u nacionalnim zakonodavstvima, Tara, 2004,

p. 41.16 Vezi ivanovi Toma, Sistemsintetike pravne filozofije [Sistemul filozofiei sintetice a dreptului], Belgrad,1959, p. 168; Popovi Milijan,Elementi teorije prava [Elemente de teorie a dreptului], Belgrad, 1980, p. 64.17 ivanovi Toma, op. cit., p. 451.18 O excepie este Declaraia Drepturilor Victimelori Martorilor Statutului Utah, care proclam explicit acestlucru (Declaraia Drepturilor, www.livepublish.le.state.ut.us, accesat la 13.05.2005).19 De exemplu Art. 5 Par. 1 din Legea referitoare la Protecia Martorilor sub ameninare i a martorilorvulnerabili din Bosnia i Herzegovina, de la 01.03.2003 (ZOZSPUS BbiH); Art. 5 Par. 1 din Legea referitoarela Protecia Martorilor din procedurile penale ale Republicii Srpska, Monitorul Oficial al Republicii Srpska10/03 (ZOZS RS).20 Declaraia Drepturilor, Statul Utah.21 Vezi de exeemplu Art. 48 din Codul German de Procedur Penal.22 For example Art. 120 Par. 4 of the CPC of Montenegro.23 Prevzut n Art. 226a din Codul de procedur penal al Olandei, Art. 240a Par. 2 Codul de procedur

penal al Sloveniei; Art. 122 Par. 1 Codul de procedur penal al Montenegrului; Art. 97a Par. 1 Codul deprocedur penal al Bulgariei; Art. 109b Par. 1 Codul de procedur penal al Serbiei.24 Conform Art. 299 Par. 1 LPP din Croatia, un martor protejat are dreptul s declare c nu mai vrea protecien timpul procedurilor. Declaraia sa va fi reinut i decizia iniial de metod special de audiere va firevocat. Declaraia anterioar a martorului va rmne la dosar i va fi disponibil pentru a fi folosit ca

prob.25 Vezi Art. 13. LPIW B&H (ZOZIS); Art. 2 Par. 1 LPWTVW (ZOZSPUS) FB&H; Art. 226a Codul de

procedur penal al Olandei; Art. 240a Par. 2 Codul de procedur penal al Sloveniei; Art. 4 Par. 1 Act no.93/99 Portugalia; Art. 160 Par. 1 Vorentwurf zu einerr Schweizerischen Strafprozessordnung, Berna, Iunie2001 (Vorent. Elveia).26 Pentru mai multe informaii vezi Popovi M, op. cit., p. 146-152.27 Art. 29

protectia martorilor

Documents