Tarptautinio baudžiamojo teismo prokuroro diskrecijos ribų probleminiai aspektai

LTStraipsnyje analizuojami pagrindiniai Tarptautinio baudžiamojo teismo prokuroro diskrecijos sampratos, teisinio reglamentavimo ir praktinio įgyvendinimo aspektai. Straipsnis skiriamas sričiai, kuri 1998 metų Romos diplomatinėje konferencijoje sukėlė bene daugiausiai diskusijų, - prokuroro proprio motu galioms, jų riboms ir įgyvendinimui. Autorė straipsnyje analizuoja proprio motu sampratą, Romos statuto 15, 18,53 straipsnio nuostatų turinį ir santykį, kuris reikšmingas apibūdinant prokuroro diskrecijos ribas ir turi lemiamos įtakos jurisdikcijos aktyvinimo, situacijos priimtinumo proceso sėkmei, taigi ir visam procesui Tarptautiniame baudžiamajame teisme. Be to, straipsnyje apžvelgiamos prokuroro veiksmų teisminės kontrolės galimybės ir analizuojami praktiniai prokuroro neveikimo atvejai.

ENThe introduction o f the proprio molu powers possessing Prosecutor within the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) was intended to provide ICC with certain level of independence and ensured effectiveness. The goal of the relatively strong Prosecutor was both to guarantee the proper execution of the international justice and to rely on the inviolability of the State sovereignty. This task was fulfilled in the form of the checks and balances system enshrining wide prosecutorial discretion with the clearly stated control mechanism. In comparison with the ad hoc tribunals where Prosecutor faces judicial checks only on confirmation of charges, ICC Prosecutor's judicial control steps in earlier - in the pre-investigative stage, when the Prc-Trial Chamber has to authorise the commencement of the investigation under the Article 15 of the Rome Statute. Prosecutorial discretion is mainly regulated by the Articles 13, 15, 18, 53 and 54 of the Rome Statute. These provisions should be analyzed together, because the relatively clear links among them indicate peculiarities of the ICC procedure, for example, articles 15, 18, 53 are using the same wording of Investigation", „reasonable ground" and therefore raises question whether those articles should be applied simultaneously.The remarkable attention paid to the preservation of the sovereignty of the States, preclusion of the politically motivated procedures and procedural limits of the prosecutorial discretion resulted in the lack of the regulation of the prosecutorial inactivity. So far under the Rome Statute there is no clear duty for the Prosecutor to inform about the status of the preliminary investigation until the decisions under the Article 53 of the Rome Statute is taken. Political context of the international criminal law should not be forgotten, since the ignorance of the political realities would result in the isolation of the ICC in seeking state support.