Департман за правне науке, Државни универзитет у Новом Пазару Ајсела Ћоровић, јавнобележчнички сарадник Јавни бележник Хафиз Хајровић у Новом Пазару Кривично дело принудног закључења брака из члана 187а 327 КРИВИЧНО ДЕЛО ПРИНУДНОГ ЗАКЉУЧЕЊА БРАКА ИЗ ЧЛАНА 187а КРИВИЧНОГ ЗАКОНИКА СРБИЈЕ Сажетак: Република Србије је 2013. године ратификовала Конвенцију Савета Европе о спречавању насиља над женама и насиља у породици (тзв. Истанбулска конвенција). Тиме је преузела обавезу да своје законодавство усклади са овом Конвенцијом. Између осталог, под утицајем ове Конвенције у српско кривично законодавство је уведено кривично дело прунудног закључења брака, које је регулисано у члану 187а Кривичног законика. У овом чланку се разматрају обележја овог кривичног дела, као и његово однос са другим кривичним делима која постоје у нашем законодавству. Кључне речи: Истанбулска конвенција, Кривични законик, кривично дело, принудно закључење брака.

Life imprisonment was introduced to Serbian Criminal legislation with the amendments of Criminal Code from 2019. These amendments replaced the former penalty of imprisonment from 30 to 40 years. Special attention was drawn by the fact that the new legislation allows the possibility of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for committing certain crimes. This legal solution is considered not to be in accordance with the Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Still, the prohibition of parole was introduced to Serbian criminal law in 2013, with the adoption of the Law on the special measures for the prevention of crimes against sexual freedom towards minors. However, at that time the academic community did not give the attention it deserved to the justification of this prohibition, which by itself generates many concerns. That is why, when discussing the problematics of life imprisonment and parole, and its prohibition, one has to bear in mind the previously structured legal frame, as well as the concerns that such a prohibition creates, regardless of whether it not it relates to life imprisonment or timely limited imprisonment.

Purpose: the aim of this paper is to analyze the efficiency of the public prosecutor’s conduct in the reformed criminal procedure legislation of Serbia. Methods: in the analysis of the subject matter in question, in addition to the theoretical and normative method, a statistical method was also used to collect and analyze statistical indicators of the number of filed charges, initiated investigations and filed indictments based on the Report of the Republic Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. Results: the process of reforming the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Serbia began with the adoption of the Criminal Procedure Code in 2001, and the latest result of that process is the now valid Criminal Procedure Code from 2011, which has already been amended seven times. The results of the practical application of these amendments are increasing the efficiency of criminal proceedings in the Republic of Serbia as a key goal of the process of reforming its criminal procedure legislation in general, strengthening the capacity of the public prosecutor in detecting and proving criminal acts, but also the need to continue working on reforming criminal procedure legislation of Serbia with the aim of achieving international legal standard. Discussion: the reform of the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Serbia, which began in 2001, brought about numerous novelties, primarily in the Criminal Procedure Code as its key representative. The novelties are such that it can be said that the previous concept of criminal procedure, which was based on the classical institutes of the continental legal system, has been almost completely abandoned (such as, for example, judicial investigation). The most important novelties brought by the reform process concern the procedural position of the public prosecutor, which has changed so much that it can be freely said that he has become a key subject of criminal proceedings. This is the case not only due to the fact that through the use of new institutes (the principle of opportunity of criminal prosecution and plea agreements which have not existed before) he can almost independently solve an extremely large percentage of criminal cases (now over 20% of all filed criminal charges annually), but also for the reason that he got other new powers. In a word, his position is now based on key institutes of the Anglo-Saxon legal system, which was not the case before.

No abstract

Sa že tak: U si ste mu za štit nih me ra srp ski Za kon o pre kr ša ji ma re gu li še i dve me re me di cin skog ka rak te ra: oba ve zno le če nje za vi sni ka od al ko ho la i psi ho aktiv nih sup stan ci (čl. 59) i oba ve zno psi hi ja trij sko le če nje (čl. 60). Ovu po sled nju za štit nu me ru ni je po zna va lo na še ra ni je pre kr šaj no za ko no dav stvo, ta ko da je ona uve de na va že ćim Za ko nom o pre kr ša ji ma iz 2013. go di ne. Oba ve zno le če nje za vi sni ka od al ko ho la i psi ho ak tiv nih sup stan ci je na me nje no uči ni o ci ma pre krša ja ko ji su za vi sni ci od na ve de nih sred sta va, dok je oba ve zno psi hi ja trij sko leče nje pred vi đe no za ne u ra čun lji ve i bit no sma nje no ura čun lji ve uči ni o ce pre krša ja. Na ve de ne za štit ne me re ima ju slič no sti sa me di cin skim me ra ma bez bed nosti iz Kri vič nog za ko ni ka, kao što su oba ve zno psi hi ja trij sko le če nje i ču va nje u zdrav stve noj usta no vi (čl. 81), oba ve zno psi hi ja trij sko le če nje na slo bo di (čl. 82), oba ve zno le če nje nar ko ma na (čl. 83) i oba ve zno le če nje al ko ho li ča ra (čl. 84). Nji ho va slič nost ima i le gi sla tiv no po kri će, jer je u čl. 233 Za ko na o iz vr še nju kri vič nih sank ci ja Sr bi je pro pi sa no da se od red be tog za ko na o iz vr še nju me ra bez bed no sti shod no pri me nju ju na iz vr še nje za štit nih me ra iz re če nih za pre kr šaj.Bez ob zi ra na kon cep cij sku slič nost iz me đu me di cin skih za štit nih me ra i me di cin skih me ra bez bed no sti, po sto je i od re đe ne zna čaj ne raz li ke u nji ho voj re gu la ti vi. Pr vo, svr ha me ra bez bed no sti se sa sto ji u ot kla nja nju "sta nja" ili "uslo va" ko ji mo gu uti ca ti da uči ni lac po no vi kri vič no delo (čl. 78 Kri vič nog zako ni ka), dok se svr ha za štit nih me ra ogle da u ot kla nja nju "uslo va" ko ji mo gu uti ca ti na po na vlja nje vr še nja pre kr ša ja (čl. 51 st. 1 Za ko na o pre kr ša ji ma). Ni je ja sno zbog če ga za ko no da vac i kod za štit nih me ra ni je pro pi sao da se nji ma otkla nja ju "sta nja", jer upra vo se tim iz ra zom uka zu je na osnov pri me ne me di cinskih me ra bez bed no sti, što bi se tre ba lo od no si ti i na me di cin ske za štit ne me re. Dru go, Kri vič ni za ko nik je for mal no odvo jio tret man za vi sni ka od opoj nih dro ga Keywords: mis de me a nor law, me di cal pro tec ti ve me a su res, me di cal se cu rity me a su res.