Search

The subject of our research is the evolution of the principle of immediacy in general criminal proceedings in Serbian law, with the aim of observing the basic tendencies in that development. In this article, the results of the first part of the research were published, in which the analysis and comparison of the principle of immediacy in our first two procedural codes was carried out: The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Kingdom of Serbia from 1865 and The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia from 1929. Both codes generally respected the structural, personal and temporal segments of the principle of immediacy, allowing for a number of exceptions from it. These exceptions were much more radical in the reactionary Code of Criminal Procedure from 1865, of a moderately inquisitorial type. Not only is the principle of immediacy not implemented in it with all its consequences, but it is also made illusory. The adoption of the principle of positive legal evaluation of evidence and the dominance of the inquisitorial principle contributed to that. The main trial was only a facade, behind which there was a significant possibility of penetration of investigative materials, regardless of whether it came from judicial or police authorities. In contrast, the Criminal Procedure Code of 1929 was based on procedural principles, such as accusatory, immediacy, publicity, orality, adversary, material truth and free evaluation of the criminal proceedings. The principle of immediacy was consistently implemented, with some reasonable and mostly acceptable exceptions in the structural and personal party segment. In some cases, the judgment could be based on investigative materials, but they were always CORT records. That code consistently adhered to rhe rule that no one could be tried and convicted in absentia. Its provisions aimed at preserving the continuity of the main trial are to be commended.

The paper presents some general theoretical settings about the principle of immediacy in criminal proceedings. It should serve as a theoretical platform for developing further research in this area. The author gives a definition of the principle of immediacy and sees his place in the classification of procedural principles, linking it to the judicial function. The principle of immediacy is one of the implicit procedural principles, which also have international legal roots in Art. 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms. The paper emphasizes and analyzes the following important features of the principle of immediacy: instrumentality, complexity, relativity (susceptibility to gradation) and connection with other procedural principles.

The paper highlights some of the deterioration of the defendant, s position in the 2011 Code of criminal procedure of Serbia. On the other hand, it points to some relatively new institutions that go behind the traditional role of the defendant, which is reflected in the opposition to the charges. These are three types of defendant, s agreement with the public prosecution. The first form is a diversionary model, which is applied in the pre-trial procedure. The second is the plea agreement. Both forms were introduced before the confluence to relieve criminal justice, but the defendant himself benefits. The third form is the conclusion of an agreement between the defendant and the sentenced person on testimony in other to successfully detect, prove or prevent the criminal acts referred to in article 162, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Code of criminal procedure.

This paper is the result of a mini empirical research on the duration of judicial and public prosecutorial investigations before the High Court in Novi Sad. A total of 100 cases were analyzed, of which 50 cases from 2008 and 50 cases from 2015 and 2016. The first 50 cases were conducted during the validity of the Criminal Procedure code from 2001, while the other 50 cases were conducted during the validity of the Criminal Procedure Code from 2011. In order for the result to be as comparable as possible, we tried to have the same structure of criminal acts represented in both groupes. The author came to the conclusion that a prosecutorial investigation is not faster than a judicial investigation. The search for the suspect, the search for the injured party, the impediment of the lawer, the strike of the lawers, the preoccupation of the public prosecutor, etc. contributed to the somewhat longer duration of the public prosecutorial investigation.

In the focus of this paper is a critical review of certain legal solutions related to the initiation and completion of the procedure for pronouncing the security measures of compulsory psychiatric treatment. The relationship between this special procedure and the general and simplified criminal procedure is reexamined and finds that issue of their transformation is not adequately solved. It is noted that main causes of the problem are inadequate legal terminology, a new concept of acquittal, as well as the wrong attitude about legal nature of the special procedure for pronouncing security measures of psychiatric sharacter.

In the focus of this paper are some issues of the role of an authorized prosecutor in the pre-criminal and criminal proceedings. For the purpose of calling the prosecutor, s activity, the function of the charge or the function of prosecution, the author reverses in favor of this last. One part of the paper is devoted to the analysis and riticism of some unacceptable definitions of the prosecution function. The author states that the prosecution function consists of a pre-processing and process part. The prosecution function was also considered through the prism of certain historical types of criminal proceedings, as well as through the prism of certain authorized prosecutors.

In the focus of this paper are considerations about procedural functions. The author first gives an overview of the ruling concepts about this issue and notes that the theory of criminal procedural law did not sufficiently address the general problems of criminal procedural functions. The author concludes that is not reasonable to distinguish between basic and secondary criminal procedural functions. There are also the reasons for which there is a need for theoretical processing of criminal procedural functions.

The article first looks into two problem areas separately: the examination of the defendant's personality and the principle of procedural economy. Thereafter, they are opposed as two contradictory demands that the juvenile criminal proceedings are to satisfy simultaneously. In order to determine whether these conflicting requirements can be fulfilled at the same time, the author conducted an empirical research on a sample of 100 of final juvenile cases conducted in the High Court in Novi Sad in the period from 2012 to 2015. The research results have confirmed the following hypotheses: a) the court thoroughly examines the personality of minors using different data sources; b) the opinion of the guardianship authorities has an important influence on the court's decision on the choice of criminal sanctions; c) the court usually renders the sanction of special duties. However, the hypotheses on the appropriate duration of juvenile proceedings have not been confirmed. Therefore, the physiognomy of juvenile proceedings should be re-examined, together with the organisational and personnel requirements for an improved operation of the guardianship authorities.

At first, the author presents the arguments in favor of judicial and prosecutorial model of investigation. The main subject-matter of this paper is critical analysis of the prosecutorial model of investigation in Code of criminal procedure of Serbia from 2011. The main conclusion of this analysis is that legislator made two fundamental errors: a) investigation is the part of the general criminal procedural form; b) some exceptions from the principle of directness allow evidentiary actions taken in the investigation stage or pre-investigation proceedings to be considered equal to the actions undertaken in trial. In addition, some other provisions on investigation are also subjected to criticism: person who has been subject to investigation has the status of suspect; there is a possibility that public prosecutor opens investigation against unknown perpetrator of a crime; low evidentiary standard and its inadequate definition; inadequate formulation of investigation aims; absence of control of prosecutorial order of conducting the investigation; inadequate determination of time for opening the investigation; absence of duty to information the suspect about prosecutorial order of conducting the investigation; ineffective providing for evidence in favor of defense; a danger of distortion the prosecutorial investigation in police investigation; transmission of investigating function to organ which is submited to executive power.

In this paper there are firstly some general observations about stress (the concept of stress, stressors, stress responses, consequences of stress). Then, the author examines the effect of stress on giving testimony, that is on two most important psychic functions of the importance for giving testimony: perception and memory. The impact of stress, on perception is discussed in the framework of the importance of affective tone of perception. The lower doses of stress can improve attention and perception, but with intense stress, attention rapidly decreases. Stress often causes erroneous perception of time and other errors in observation and can lead to illusions and hallucinations. The errors in face recognition are also possible in view of 'the phenomenon of focusing attention on weapon '. In relationship with memory, the author firstly gives some general considerations about this function. Then follows brief overview of memory for emotionally colored events. The negative influence of stress on memory is reflected in the possibility of psychogenic amnesia, which are often the escort of psychological trauma. Further, some events will be remembered with a lot of gaps, distortions and overemphasis. The paper points to a number of studies on (in)accuracies and (in)complete memories for traumatic events. Summarizing the main results of these studies it is concluded that memory for traumatic events has similar sharacteristics as memory for normal, nontraumatic events. Memory for traumatic events also follows the same cognitive principles. In that sense, both traumatic and nontraumatic memories can be equally powerful on the one hand, and on the other hand, there may be gaps or errors in memory as well as for the positive and negative life events.

The subject of this article is the category of especially vulnerable witnesses in criminal procedure. The article is divided into sixth parts. The first part offers a review of various definitions of especially vulnerable witnesses in comparative law. The second focuses on the procedural protection of especially vulnerable witnesses in Serbian legislation. The third is concerned with the tactical rules of questioning of especially vulnerable witnesses. In the fourth part the author points to the importance of special services for providing assistance and support to especially vulnerable witnesses. The fifth part presents similarities and differences between protection of especially vulnerable witnesses and other forms of witness protection. The sixth part reflects on conclusions.

The article points to the discordance of the new 2011 CPC with other regulations of our judicial system: The Constitution, practices of the European Court of Human Rights, Criminal Code, Law on Public Prosecution, Law on Police, Law on Contracts and Torts. On the other hand, the laws which have not yet been terminologically or essentially harmonized with the new CPC are presented. All these are sources of discord in our legal system and require introducing changes to the CPC.

In this paper the author presents the evolution of the simplified procedure in Serbia from 2001 to 2011. He points to some legal innovations in this field during that decennium. He compares old and new legal provisions about simplified procedure and finds some differences. There is a constant tendency to expanding the area of criminal offences which can be judged in this procedural form. Some new legal provisions result from new model of investigation or from new concept of trial. Some innovations are more consistent and precise. But, there are also illogical and contradictory provisions in code of criminal procedure from 2011.

Witnesses are important and very frequent sources of evidence in criminal trial. The correct estimate the credibility of witneses is of great significance. Therefore the judge must obtain some psychological knowledge. He must know some essential things about psychological processes and psychological features which are in relation to witness testimony. The author brings into focus such processes as. Memory, thinking, speech and emphasizes the speciality of those psychological processes by children. The author also point to some psychological features of children witnesses as suggestibility.