Lietuvos Respublikos karinių teismų sistema (1919–1940 m.): sudėtis, procedūros ir praktika

LTStraipsnyje nagrinėjami Lietuvos Respublikos karinių teisminių institucijų probleminiai aspektai. Išsami šios tematikos analizė leidžia autoriui teigti, kad kariniai teismai pasižymėjo plačia kompetencija, greitais sprendimais ir griežtomis bausmėmis, o dėl beveik visą Pirmosios Lietuvos Nepriklausomybės laikotarpį veikusios nepaprastosios padėties ir ypač autoritarinio režimo metais buvo vieni svarbiausių ir režimą palaikančių teisminių institucijų. Jie rėmėsi recepuotais ir novelizuotais carinės Rusijos imperijos baudžiamosios teisės sąvadais, statutais, specialiaisiais baudžiamaisiais įstatymais, karinių teismų įstatais, jų vėlesniais pakeitimais ir papildymais, kitomis vietos teisės normomis, kurios buvo pakoreguotos karinių teismų organizacijos ir kompetencijos aspektais, neprieštaravo kitiems Lietuvos įstatymams, Konstitucijai ir kariuomenės organizacijai. Teismai daugiausia nagrinėjo įvairaus spektro, sudėtingas rezonansines baudžiamąsias bylas ir civilinius ieškinius jose. Straipsnyje siekiama išaiškinti karinių teisinių institucijų organizacinę struktūrą, ikiteisminio tyrimo ir bylų nagrinėjimo procedūras bei teisėtą jų veiklą.

ENIn 1919, the foundation for Lithuania’s military judicial system was laid following the approval of the Regiment Court Statute on 13 February, the Court-Martial Statute on 27 March, and the Interim Army (Military) Court Statute on 7 July. By 1928, the system was fully developed with the release of the Statute of the Military Court of Honour, which governed the functioning of a court of honour. Thus, the permanent justice institutions of the Lithuanian Army comprised the Army (Military) Court, the Regiment Court, the Military Court of Honour, with the later addition of a temporary institution, the (Field) Court-Martial. These courts were based on the military courts of the former Czarist Russian Empire and presided over justice, discipline and order, and the speedy resolution of cases and the application of strict penalties. A military state defender/the Military Prosecutor’s Office was established, together with the Army / Military court which acted alongside. The latter was similar to the Russian Military Prosecutor’s Office, in that it performed, organised, supervised and controlled pre-trial investigations, supported charges, and supplied advice to judicial institutions on matters of procedural actions. The High Tribunal was established before the military courts, although it commenced operations at the same time. The Tribunal was entrusted with the functions of the Military Court of Cassation, since there was no separate, specialised cassation institution of military courts in Lithuania. Initially, the High Tribunal handled appeals and cassation for the Army / Military court, but only cassation for the troop court. From 1928, the Tribunal acted only in cassation.The internal structure and composition of military courts were determined by specific principles of how it was deemed courts should be organized, their various activities and functions. Accordingly, the courts were staffed with military representatives who had received a military and legal education (usually at degree level), were in good health, of the right age, and had exceptional qualities of character and manner. They were appointed by the supreme political and military leadership for a permanent and temporary office in a court. Among all the military courts, that of the army was the best in terms of its composition. Military courts exercised their intended functions, and the administration of justice aligned closely with administrative and judicial activities, which followed internal documents of the courts and the law, while efficiency of work was in line with the level of a military court. The military courts relied heavily on existing case law relating to criminal law practiced by the former the Russian Empire (as well as recent legal precedent), the statutes of local military courts, and other criminal laws. Those who came before the courts were both serving and passive military officers, military clerks, rank and file soldiers, Ministry of Defence civil servants, riflemen, war prisoners, internees and civilian cases.The matters before the court related to general crimes, crimes against military discipline, good order, service, as well offenses associated with military honour, dignity, nobility, and customs and traditions. For certain crimes and offences, military representatives could be punished by the military authorities, civil administration bodies, churches, and courts of general jurisdiction. Military courts were characterised by extensive expertise, quick decisions and strict punishments, and in response to different emergency situations that existed almost during the entire period of independence, especially during the years of conservative authoritarian rule, they were one of the most important judicial organs that maintained the régime. They dealt mostly with criminal cases and civil actions. Of all the military courts, the army court examined the greatest number of cases, including a wide variety of urgent and important cases, and highprofile cases that attracted public attention. The troop court examined fewer cases of lesser importance, while the military field courts resolved straightforward cases that were easily resolved. The Military Court of Honour examined cases involving military honour and dignity, customs and traditions. A special commission that judged only high-ranking officers operated as an alternative to the latter.