ENGAGEMENT AND CONDUCT OF THE UNDERCOVER INVESTIGATOR - ETHICAL CHALLENGES OF LEGAL SOLUTIONS

  • Marija Ljubinković Kriminalističko-policijski univerzitet, Beograd
Keywords: undercover investigator, agent provocateur, special evidentiary actions, ethics, comparative legislation, moral responsibility, legal responsibility

Abstract


The challenge of proving the crimes of the 21st century lies largely with the constant progress and improvement of methods and ways of action of the perpetrators, which is especially characteristic of the most serious forms of crime that threaten the security of the state and all its citizens. Therefore, there is a need for specific state action both in the prevention of these crimes and in their repression. They include the use of special evidentiary actions provided by law. As the most complex one of them, in Serbian legislation there is the action of hiring an undercover investigator. The key feature of the undercover investigator's actions is contained in Art. 185, para. 4 of the CPC, which implies that it is prohibited and punishable for an undercover investigator to incite the commission of a criminal offense. However, other legislatures, such as U.S. law, are familiar with the institute of the agent provocateur. The question that arises is related to ethics, but also the efficiency of various legal solutions, and the aim of this research is a kind of scientific explanation of the relationship of both legal solutions to ethics in general, but also to numerous legal institutes that may be in danger in case of provocation. In conducting this research, in addition to analytical-synthetic and inductive-deductive methods, the statistical method also had an important place because a short survey questionnaire was used on the examined body of 82 random respondents.

References

1. Bacigal, R. J. (2009). Criminal Law and Procedure – An Overview, Delmar: Cengage Learning
2. Batler, K. (2012). Postmodernizam – sasvim kratak uvod. Beograd: Služeni glasnik.
3. Бејатовић, С. (2019). Кривично процесно право. Београд: Службени гласник.
4. Belsi, К. (2010). Poststrukturalizam – sasvim kratak uvod. Beograd: Služeni glasnik.
5. Бошковић, А и Кесић, Т. (2015). Кривично процесно право. Београд: Криминалистичко-полицијска академија.
6. Бошковић, Г. (2017). Организовани криминал. Београд: Криминалистичко-полицијска академија.
7. Bronitt, S. (2004). „The Law in Undercover Policing: A Comparative Study of Entrapment and Covert Interviewing in Australia, Canada and Europe“ in: Common Law World Review, Vol. 33, 1: 35-80.
8. Delibašić, V. (2016). „Prikriveni islednik“ u: Nauka, bezbednost, policija, Vol. 15, 1: 81-99.
9. Ilić, G. (2005). „Dokazna vrednost provociranih krivičnih dela u sudskoj praksi“ u: Bilten okružnog suda u Beogradu, Vol. 68.
10. Ilić, G. i Matić Bošković, M. (2015). Posebne mere tajnog prikupljanja podataka u krivičnom postupku: pregled iz pravosuđa. Beograd: Beogradski centar za bezbednosnu politiku.
11. Joh, E. (2009). „Breaking the Law to Enforce it: Undercover Police Participation in Crime“ in: Stanford Law Review, Vol. 62, 1: 155-199.
12. Liotar, Ž-F. (1988). Postmoderno stanje. Novi Sad: Bratstvo-Jedinstvo.
13. Marx, G. (1974). „Thoughts on a Neglected Category of Social Movement Participant: The Agent Provocateur and the Informant“ in: American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 80, 2: 402-442.
14. Маринковић, Д. (2004). „Прикривене операције навођења на кривично дело“ у: Наука, безбедност, полиција, Vol. 2, 2: 157-171.
15. Радисављевић, М. (2011). „Посебне доказне радње у новом Законику о кривичном поступку“ у: Нова решења у кривичном процесном законодавству – теоретски и практични аспект, Златибор: Intermex.
16. Stariene, L. (2009). „The limits of the use of undercover agents and the right to a fair trail under Article 6 (1) of the European Convention of Human Rights“ in: Jurisprudence, Vol. 117, 3: 263-284.
17. Škulić, M. (2014). „Osnovni kriminalistički i neki krivičnopravni/krivičnoprocesni aspekti angažovanja prikrivenog islednika“ u: Kaznena reakcija u Srbiji, Vol. IV: 38-69.
18. Шкулић, М. (2018). Организовани криминалитет. Београд: Службени гласник.


Коришћени законски текстови

1. Службени гласник РС“, бр. 72/2011, 101/2011, 121/2012, 32/2013, 45/2013, 55/2014 и 35/2019. – Законик о кривичном поступку Републике Србије
2. „Службени гласник РС“, бр. 85/2005, 88/2005 – испр. 107/2005 – испр. 72/2009, 121/2012, 104/2013, 108/2014, 94/2016. и 35/2019. – Кривични законик Републике Србије
3. „Службени лист СЦГ – Међународни уговори“, бр. 9/03, 5/05 и 7/05 – испр. и „Службени гласник РС – Међународни уговори“, број 12/10) – Закон о ратификацији Европске конвенције о људским правима и основним слободама.




Анализирани случај из праксе Европског суда за људска права

1. „Toran and Schymik vs. Romania“, доступно на: https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22toran%20and%20schymik%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-153769%22]}
Published
2021/07/06
Section
Originalni naučni rad