Procesinės prievartos priemonės, kuriomis ribojamos asmenų teisės ikiteisminio tyrimo metu ar bylą nagrinėjant teisme yra leistinos ir netgi būtinos. Priešingu atveju nebūtų pasiekti proceso tikslai ir įvykdytas teisingumas. Šių priemonių įvairovė yra didelė. Jos skiriasi prievartos įgyvendinimo būdu, žmogaus teisių suvaržymo pobūdžiu ir kitais aspektais. Įvairios valstybės baudžiamąjį procesą reglamentuojančiuose įstatymuose gali numatyti skirtingas prievartos priemonių sistemas ir taikymo tvarką, tačiau demokratinėms valstybėms būdinga tai, kad numatant ir taikant prievartos priemones, paisoma proporcingumo principo. Lietuvos, kaip ir daugelio valstybių, buvusių SSRS sudėtyje, baudžiamajame procese iš bendros procesinių prievartos priemonių sistemos yra išskirtos kardomosios priemonės, kurios taikomos įtariamajam, kaltinamajam ar nuteistajam siekiant užtikrinti jo dalyvavimą procese, netrukdomą tyrimą ir užkertant kelią naujoms nusikalstamoms veikoms. Kardomųjų priemonių sistemoje yra išskiriama grupė priemonių, kurios vadinamos specialiosiomis kardomosiomis priemonėmis. Pagrindinis jų skiriamasis bruožas yra tai, kad jos taikomos ne bet kuriam, tačiau tik specialius ypatingus požymius turinčiam subjektui. Tradiciškai teisinėje literatūroje šioms priemonėms priskiriamas nepilnamečių atidavimas prižiūrėti ir karinio dalinio vadovybės stebėjimas, kurios taikomos tik nepilnamečiams ir kariams. Jas numato ir kitų buvusių SSRS respublikų baudžiamojo proceso įstatymai. Šios... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / Of procedural measures that restrict the rights of persons with pre-trial or during court proceedings is permitted and even necessary. Otherwise, the process would not achieve the objectives of justice and executed. Diversity of these measures is high. They are different ways of implementing the abuse of human rights restrictions on the nature and other aspects. Various state laws governing criminal procedure may provide different coercive measures, systems and procedures for the application, but democracies characterized by the fact that the planning and application of coercive measures to respect the proportionality principle. Lithuania, like many states, former Soviet Union, the criminal process from the general procedural abuse of the system of supervision measures are identified that apply to the suspect, accused or convicted person in order to ensure its participation in the process, unhindered investigation and prevention of further offenses. Preventative measures, the system is isolated by a group of measures known as special preventive means. Their main distinguishing feature is that they do not apply to any, but only the special features of having a specific subject. Traditionally, the legal literature, these measures include the release of juvenile supervision and monitoring of the leadership of the military, which apply only to minors and soldiers. Provides them and other former Soviet republics of Criminal Procedure Act. These measures were not provided for 1961... [to full text]

Constitution provides inviolability of human rights and freedoms as fundamental value of modern civilization. Human rights and freedoms, however, should not be treated as absolute or immovable category. What should be realized and always emphasized is that any person has not only rights, but also obligations, which means that interests of individual can be lawfully defended only with due regard to the relevant rights of another person. If someone fails to respect and violates human rights of another person, then he renounces relevant part of his rights. And this may become a legitimate ground for restriction of the rights of offender. This paper doesn’t refer to restriction of human rights as a result of the effective judgment of conviction, but to situations, where the person is in detention, under arrest or his other rights are restricted because of being reasonably suspected of the criminal offence or there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person who committed criminal offence might flee or impede investigation, i.e. refers to measures of compulsion exercised by the State. One of such measures of compulsion are measures of constraint. This is the strictest form of compulsion exercised by the State in respect of individual, on whom punishment has not yet been imposed. This paper doesn’t make any detailed analysis of the grounds for or procedure of infliction thereof, as they are thoroughly and clearly regulated by the law on criminal procedure. This paper seeks... [to full text]