Case regarding familiarisation by a detained person with the materials of the criminal proceedings
On 1 July 2013 the 1st Panel of the Constitutional Court initiated case “On the Compliance of Section 246(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law with the first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia.”
The Contested Norm
Section 246(2) of the Criminal Procedure Law provides: “Prior taking a decision on application of the security measure which is related to the deprivation of liberty, the person directing the proceedings shall issue a copy of the proposal where the selection of a security measure is justified to a person, who has the right to defence.”
The Norm of Higher Legal Force
The first sentence of Article 92 of the Satversme provides: “Everyone has the right to defend his or her rights and lawful interests in a fair court.”
The Facts
In the framework of criminal proceedings detention as a coercive measure was applied to the applicant Igors Jegorovs. The request of the applicant’s attorney to familiarise him with all those materials of the criminal proceedings, which had served as the basis for applying detention, was rejected, since during the criminal proceedings all the materials of the criminal case are investigative secret.
Later the criminal proceedings against Igors Jegorovs were terminated.
It is noted in the application that the contested norm defines a person’s right to receive a copy of the proposal made by the person directing the criminal proceedings, which substantiates the selection of security measure, however, it does not envisage the right to familiarise oneself with those materials of criminal proceedings, which the person who directs the criminal proceedings considers to be the grounds for applying detention. This situation does not comply with the adversarial principle and, thus, violates the applicant’s right to fair court. In criminal cases the adversarial principle means that the prosecution and the defence sides must have equal access to information and both parties should have the possibility to comment upon evidence attached to the case. In this case the attorney was denied access to those documents, which are essential for making an effective appeal regarding the legality of a person’s detention.
Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has asked the Saeima to provide a written reply on the facts of the case and legal substantiation by 1 September 2013.
The term for preparing the case is 1 December 2013.
Linked case: 2013-11-01