Compliance with the principle of equality of arms with regard to the expertise and findings made during the prosecution
Abstract
The paper addresses from a jurisprudential perspective the respect of the principle of equality of arms in the situation of administration, during the criminal investigation, of a specialized finding by a specialist working in the interests of the Public Ministry and the defendant disputes the conclusions of such a report. There are many situations in the judicial practice in which the defence challenges such reports even from the course of the criminal investigation and subsequently before the court of law, however, the judicial bodies do not administer technical expertise by independent experts to confirm or repel the findings of such a report. We appreciate that the criminal procedural law does not ensure the observance of the right to a fair trial of the defendant. Its possibility to challenge the contents of the specialized report is left during the criminal investigation at the discretion of the prosecutor, the defense being placed in an unfair situation. On the one hand, the subjectivism of the judicial body is noted in the assessment of the need to administer an expertise to confirm the issues contested by the defendant. Equally, by ordering the performance of a specialist finding, the defendant is deprived of the opportunity to formulate objectives or to benefit from the participation of a party expert. We believe that the exercise of the defendant's rights of defence during the criminal investigation cannot depend in a decisive way on the assessment of the case prosecutor. This paper includes proposals de lege ferenda to restore the balance between the prosecution and defense and ensure a fair trial for the defendant. The paper is addressed to professionals (judges, prosecutors, lawyers), as well as to theoreticians and litigants.
References
C.E.D.O., Judgment of 18 March 1997, Case Mantovanelli against France.
C.E.D.O., judgment of 27 October 1993, Case Dombo Beheer B.V. against the Netherlands.
C.E.D.O., Judgment of 8 October 2015, Korosec c Slovenia.
Dolj Court, Conclusion of the preliminary chamber judge on 11.05.2021.
Neamt Court, Conclusion of the meeting on 30.09.2022.
Gradinaru, Sandra (2014). Supravegherea tehnică în Noul Cod de procedură penală/Technical Supervision in the New Criminal Procedure Code. Bucharest: C.H. Beck.
Gradinaru, Sandra (2017). Utilizarea interceptărilor audio sau video cu titlu de mijloace de probă în procesul penal și compatibilitatea reglementării cu exigențele europene și internaționale/Use of audio or video interceptions as evidence in criminal proceedings and compatibility of regulation with European and international requirements. Cluj: Cluj University Press.
Gradinaru, Sandra (2019). Observaţii referitoare la expertizarea suporţilor ce conţin rezultatele activităţii de supraveghere tehnică/Observations regarding the expertise of the supports that contain the results of the technical surveillance activity. Penalmente Relevant no. 1, p. 35.
Gradinaru, Sandra (2021). Expertise on data resulting from technical supervision. Curierul Judiciar/Judicial Courier no. 10.
Udroiu, M. (2018). Fise de procedura penala. Partea generala/Criminal procedure files. The general part. Bucharest: C.H. Beck.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Sandra Gradinaru
![Creative Commons License](http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/4.0/88x31.png)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The author fully assumes the content originality and the holograph signature makes him responsible in case of trial.