Kriminālprocesa likumam – 20: attīstības tendenču raksturojums

The development of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Law as a whole is characterised by numerous amendments. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that the intensity of these amendments – both in terms of frequency and scope – has decreased during the past five years. The introduced amendments have more often been of a smaller scale. Certain changes can also be observed in the reasons why such amendments are adopted. Understandably, the number of amendments aimed at eliminating internal contradictions or gaps in the original version of the law has decreased. At the same time, this has not prevented the adoption of systemically insufficiently considered changes, which have led and may continue to lead to the need for repeated legislative revisions. More vividly and openly than during the previous periods, the past five years have demonstrated that amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law can be and are adopted in the context of specific cases – and, when politically expedient, very rapidly. This was clearly illustrated by the so-called Vīlipsons amendments, when, in response to a situation widely covered by the media and due to the public recognition of the person involved, amendments to the law were adopted, promulgated, and entered into force within only a few days in order to protect the rights of a bona fide acquirer. Unfortunately, no systemic improvements in addressing the underlying problem followed. The last decade has been characterised by amendments which, although limited in scope, have significantly affected individual procedural institutions of systemic importance. This observation applies, for example, to the introduction of electronic monitoring in criminal proceedings; the court’s ability to establish unfavourable factual circumstances for the accused or to provide their legal assessment; the implementation of the electronic case management system (e-file); and the possibility to terminate criminal proceedings when the potentially liable person has not been identified. Equally, amendments defining the procedural specificities of domestic violence cases, strengthening the procedural immunity of defence counsel, and legalising machine translation can all be regarded as substantively significant. Recognising that the period to date has been sufficiently dynamic and diverse in substance, the outlook for the future appears somewhat calmer. It may be expected that the intensity of legislative amendments will continue to subside. However, given that several systemically important issues remain unresolved, it is reasonable to predict that while amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law may occur less frequently, they are likely to concern matters of a more fundamental nature – such as the restriction of property rights during criminal proceedings and the protection of affected persons, the reassessment or modification of the principle of legality, the re-examination of the court’s role and functions, and the use of artificial intelligence tools. At the same time, the modernisation of criminal procedure is expected to continue rapidly, particularly in the field of technological innovation and procedural simplification, which may, paradoxically, be accompanied by a renewed interest in more “traditional” approaches – such as in-person hearings and the principle of trial continuity.