2016, vol. 33, br. 1-3, str. 35-46
|
|
Mera zabrane napuštanja stana i njena (ne)primena u kontekstu opštih uslova za određivanje mera
Home detention and its (non)enforcement in the light of general conditions for determing measures
Sažetak
Stupanjem na snagu Zakonika o krivičnom postupku1 (u daljem tekstu: ZKP i Zakonik) mera zabrane napuštanja stana i mesta boravišta, koja je egzistirala u prethodnom Zakoniku, razdvojena je na dve posebne mere obezbeđenja prisustva okrivljenog. Zabrana napuštanja stana, uslovi za njeno određivanje i odlučivanje o meri predviđeni su članovima 208-209 ZKP-a. Krivičnim zakonikom2, u čl. 63, st. 1, određeno je da se vreme provedeno na izdržavanju mere zabrane napuštanja stana uračunava u izrečenu kaznu zatvora, novčanu kaznu i kaznu rada u javnom interesu. Zabrana napuštanja stana se smatra lišenjem slobode, što praktično znači, da u slučaju donošenja presude kojom se okrivljeni prema kome je bila određena mera, oslobađa optužbe ili se optužba u odnosu na njega odbija, kao i u slučaju odustanka javnog tužioca od daljeg progona, okrivljeni može podneti zahtev za naknadu štete zbog neosnovanog lišenja slobode. Pored činjenice da se radi o daleko humanijem vidu lišenja slobode u odnosu na pritvor, izuzetnu korist od primene ove mere ima i sama država, i to, pre svega, zbog direktnog smanjivanja smeštajnih kapaciteta u penalnim ustanovama, odnosno u pritvorskim jedinicama u sastavu tih ustanova. Iako, kućni pritvor sam po sebi deluje konfornije u odnosu na sam boravak u pritvorskoj jedinici, on je veoma restriktivna mera koja ograničava okrivljenog u mnogo čemu, pa mu se tako zabranjuje korišćenje mobilnog telefona, računara, zatim poseta od strane prijatelja i drugih lica kao i rodbine. Sam ambijent je mnogo prihvatljiviji kada je reč o samoj psihi pojedinca. Sprovođenje mere kontroliše Poverenička služba putem Poverenika za izvršenje alternativnih sankcija. Ovaj organ je zadužen za kontrolu sprovođenja mere i u stalnom je kontaktu sa licem u odnosu na koga se sprovodi mera. O svakom kršenju mere izveštava se postupajući sudija, policija i Poverenička služba, a kada je reč o elektronskom nadzoru, tada sam kontakt nije potreban jer je sistem kontrole još efikasniji samim tim. Sve navedeno nema smisla ukoliko ostaje slovo na papiru, odnosno norma koja je na snazi, a slabo se primenjuje. Upravo smo zbog toga u ovom radu prikazali neke od odluka sudova povodom procesnih pitanja vezanih za meru zabrane napuštanja stana.
Abstract
By coming into force of the Law on Criminal Procedure, the measure of imposing a ban on leaving the place of residence and home, which existed in the previous Law, is now separated into two different measures of assuring the presence of the accused person in order to carry out the whole procedure more easily. The ban on leaving home, the conditions for its determination are all prescribed in the Articles 208-209 of the Law on Criminal Procedure. In the paragraph 63, item 1 of the Criminal Code it is stated that the time sent on serving the sentence of the home detention is included into the conviction of prison, fine and voluntary work. The ban on leaving home is considered to be a deprivation of freedom, which actually implies that in the case of bringing the judgment by which the accused who was given the measure is free or the accusation is denied as well as in the case of Public Prosecutor has given up on further investigation, he/she can file a claim against the unfounded deprivation of freedom. In addition to a home detention being a more humane way of imprisonment compared to detention, the state itself can have remarkable benefits of applying this measure primarily due to a direct reduction of accommodation capacities in prison institutions and their detention units. Although a home detention seems to be more comfortable than staying in custody itself, it is also quite a restrictive measure, which limits the defendant in many ways. The defendant is forbidden to use a mobile phone, PC…, to be visited by his/ her friends, relatives and the other people. There is not much difference in an actual ambience, but there is a lot of difference concerning the human rights. It is evident that the ambience itself is a lot more acceptable in regard to a person's mental health. Implementing the measure is controlled by the Commissioner's service with the Commissioner for performing alternative penalties. This Body is in charge of monitoring the implementation of the measure and it is also in a constant communication with the individual sentenced to a home detention. The judge in charge, police and the Commissioner's service have been informed of any breach of the given measure. In the case of electronic monitoring such a contact is not required as the system is more efficient. All the previously stated facts have no point if they only remain on paper in a form of a norm being valid, but not enforced. That is why, in this paper, there are presented some of the court sentences in regard to processing issues connected to a home detention measure.
|