Apsūdzība un tiesas spriešana kriminālprocesā: stabilais un mainīgais Kriminālprocesa likumā

The concept of accusation in the Latvian Criminal Procedure Law is applied inconsistently, encompassing multiple and functionally distinct meanings. It refers, at once, to a procedural function, a fundamental principle of criminal procedure, a party to the proceedings, an assumption regarding a person’s conduct, and a procedural document. This terminological ambiguity justifies both a broader reassessment of the terminology used in the Criminal Procedure Law and a more cautious, context-specific interpretation of the term “accusation”. To enhance terminological clarity and ensure internal consistency within the Criminal Procedure Law, both general and specific propositions are warranted. General recommendations include aligning the terminology to reflect coherent conceptual use across the statute. Specific propositions may involve replacing the term “state prosecutor” simply with “prosecutor”; abandoning the expression “withdrawal of the accusation”; avoiding the interchangeable use of the terms “bringing an accusation”, “filing charges”, and “accusation imputation”. An accusation should be understood as an assumption based on a defined body of evidence, serving as the basis for initiating prosecution. It is not a declaration of fact nor a statement of guilt, and it must not be interpreted as undermining the presumption of innocence. In this light, it is advisable to avoid the expression “bringing to criminal liability” in cases where a person has only been accused and criminal prosecution has merely been initiated. In order for the accusation to fulfil its delimiting and informative functions, the following aspects should be observed: the accusation should be clearly and substantively formulated, structured as a distinct, accessible, and self-contained document. Accordingly, it is proposed that the Criminal Procedure Law should explicitly require drafting of a new accusation whenever the original is amended or clarified. The maintenance of the accusation – a specific prosecutorial function performed during trial – is part of the broader function of prosecution. While the former occurs before the court, the latter also encompasses pre-trial stages. The exclusive right to formulate, modify, and maintain criminal charges lies with the prosecutor, and may not be transferred to, or exercised by, any other party, including the court. The court’s role is the administration of justice, which includes the evaluation of whether the accusation is substantiated. Under the current Latvian legal framework, courts are permitted to recognize factual circumstances that differ from those stated in the accusation and apply a different legal qualification to the proven conduct, provided it is not detrimental to the accused (in either first instance or appeal), and if it is detrimental, only at the first instance. However, the court may not adjudicate conduct or events that have not been the subject of pre-trial investigation. It may only reconceptualize the same event through a different legal or factual perspective. The legal amendments allowing courts to diverge from the original accusation in their factual or legal evaluation can be regarded as fragmentary, as they were not accompanied by corresponding changes elsewhere in the Criminal Procedure Law. As a result, internal inconsistencies remain, raising concerns about the systemic coherence of the criminal procedure framework. The limits and procedural safeguards surrounding the court’s authority to examine matters beyond the scope of the original accusation are grounded in fundamental principles of criminal procedure, including the right to defence, the separation of procedural functions, judicial neutrality and objectivity, and the presumption of innocence. To ensure that the accused can adequately defend themselves, the court is obligated to properly inform the defendant when the evidentiary proceedings raise the possibility of different factual circumstances or an alternative legal classification. Importantly, this information does not constitute the formulation of a new accusation, nor does the court assume prosecutorial functions. The authority to adjust or maintain the accusation remains exclusively with the prosecutor. Whenever a court identifies the possibility of diverging from the accusation in its factual or legal interpretation, such action must be carried out in a manner that strictly adheres to the principles of functional separation, judicial impartiality, and the presumption of innocence.