In March 19, 2004, That day was before the presidential election day, when The presidential campaign was in full swing, the President Chen and the Vice President was shot by a shooter. This criminal act shocked the whole world, and even the opposition parties argued this event had already changed the result of the presidential Election. After the presidential election, the KMT legislators and the PFP legislators are in the majority in The Legislative Yuan, and they passed ¡ythe Act of the Special Commission on the Investigation of the Truth in Respect of the 319 Shooting¡z(hereinafter the ¡§SCITA¡¨) without considering controversial issues. According to the law, the Special Commission on the Investigation of the Truth in Respect of the 319 Shooting (hereinafter the ¡§SCIT¡¨) was set up. December 15, 2004, J.Y. Interpretation NO.585 recognized the ¡¨SCIT¡¨ was the organization responsible for the exercise of investigation, and admitted the ¡¨SCIT¡¨ to be no violation of the Constitution. But the ¡§SCIAT¡¨ provided the power to ¡§SCIT¡¨ for ordering prosecutors and retrial, etc. There was in violation of the Constitution. The Legal Profession¡Bjurists and political scientists had different opinions with the character of ¡§SCIT¡¨¡Aand it also meant that the legislators of KMT and PFP challenged the independence of Taiwan¡¦s prosecutor system. Accordingly, they hoped the character of ¡§SCIT¡¨ can be similar with the¡¨ WARREN COMMISSION¡¨ in America. They even hoped to legislate for establishing the Independent Counsel System. Because they believe the prosecutor system in Taiwan cannot avoid intervention from politics or administrative organizations, so when a prosecutor investigates crimes, he might ignored some kinds of crime involving with high-position administrators. April 12,2004, a part of prosecutors from Shihlin District Prosecutors Office¡BTaoyuan District Prosecutors Office, and etc. They cosigned a public statement. It meant that ¡§Begin the independent prosecutor system, solve the crisis of the 319 truth and the innovation of prosecutor system to win-win situation¡¨. Their suggestion is establishing the independent prosecutor system to investigate some crimes involving with high-position administrators. Those prosecutors asserted that establishing the independent prosecutor System would be better than leading in the Independent Counsel System. And making the prosecutor a categoric judicatory position¡Battorney general substitutes the minister of Ministry of Justice to be the chief of the prosecutor system¡Ball prosecutor personnel matters decided by the prosecutor personnel committee, and etc. These methods will improve the independence of the prosecutor system, and avoid intervention from any illegitimate reasons. For the character of the Independent Counsel in America, it belongs to administration. United States Congress pass a law (Ethics in Government Act of 1978) to assure the Independent Counsel can exercise his power without interference. So the Independent Counsel in America is different from the prosecutor in Taiwan. Some constitutionalists claim that the Independent Counsel was in violation of constitution, and this contention was a key point of many reasons to make the law become void. According to these reasons, what is the difference between the Independent Counsel and the independent prosecutor system? Whether we must lead in the Independent Counsel System to solve the defect of the prosecutor system in Taiwan or not? Whether the power of control (one of the five powers of the government specified in the Constitution of the Republic of China) is analogous to the Independent Counsel System? Above-mentioned questions would be the topics of debate.

Magistro baigiamajame darbe aptariamas Lietuvos teisinėje sistemoje įtvirtintas apkaltos procesas – aukščiausių valstybės pareigūnų konstitucinės atsakomybės forma. Darbe nagrinėjami įvairūs apkaltos proceso elementai: aptariamas teisės pažeidimas kaip konstitucinės atsakomybės taikymo pagrindas, apkaltos proceso eiga ir jos reglamentavimo raida Lietuvoje, apkaltos proceso teisinių pasekmių klausimai. Darbe aptariama tiek konstitucinė apkaltos proceso samprata, tiek ir ordinarinėje teisėje įtvirtintas reguliavimas, taip pat praktinio pobūdžio problemos bei klausimai, kilę apkaltos procesą reglamentuojančias normas taikant praktikoje. Nagrinėjama, ar ordinarinėje teisėje įtvirtintas reguliavimas visada atitinka konstitucinę apkaltos sampratą, kokių priemonių vienu ar kitu metu turėjo imtis įstatymų leidėjas, siekdamas užtikrinti Seimo statute ar kituose teisės aktuose išdėstytų apkaltos proceso elementų atitiktį Konstitucijai. Darbo pabaigoje, atsižvelgiant į Europos Žmogaus Teisių Teismo sprendimą byloje Paksas prieš Lietuvą bei šio sprendimo įgyvendinimo problematiką, aptariami įvairių subjektų pateikti pasiūlymai, kaip turėtų būti keičiami vidaus teisės aktai, susiję su apkaltos proceso teisinių pasekmių klausimu. / This master thesis concentrates on impeachment procedures as it is a form of constitutional liability of highest state officials in Lithuania. There is a number of aspects of the impeachment procedure that are analysed in this paper: a violation of a law as a ground for applying constitutional liability, elements of impeachment procedure and the evolution of them through the years since Constitution of Lithuania was adopted in 1992, the questions concerning legal consequences of impeachment. In this paper it is analysed both the constitutional concept of impeachment and it‘s regulation in ordinary law and also the problems and questions that arose in practice when the legal norms regulating imeachment have been applied. Part of the research concentrates on whether the regulation in ordinary law is always compatible with the constitutional provisions and also what steps legislative had to make to make sure that Statute of Seimas or other acts are in accordance with Constitution. As European Court of Human Rights declared in it‘s verdict of the case Paksas v. Lithuania that Lithuania violated Article 3 of Protocol 1 of European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms by establishing unconditional and permanent prohibition to participate in parliamentary elections for a person guilty of breach of oath and thus removed from office, the proposals made to amend the Lithuanian legal system are also investigated.