Draft law unveiled: current detention measures will go through verification — procedures and phases revealed

Existing security measures will go through verification.

The proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code do not affect only the new security measures that will be imposed after the law enters into force. The draft provides that the measures imposed earlier and still in force will also be checked as to whether they comply with the new criteria.

This is set out in Article 105, ‘Transitional provision’, which gives persons who are under a security measure the right to request its revocation or replacement, if the measure does not comply with the conditions of the new law.

‘Persons who, at the moment of the entry into force of this law, are under security measures that do not comply with the criteria and conditions set by this law, have the right, after its entry into force, to submit a request for revocation or replacement to the court that imposed the measure,’ Article 105 provides.

But the review of existing measures is not left only in the hands of the person under a security measure. The court that imposed the measure also has the obligation to verify it on its own initiative.

‘Within 60 days of the entry into force of this law, the court that imposed the measure must verify ex officio the compliance of all security measures in force with the criteria and conditions set by this law,’ the transitional provision states.

This means that within 60 days all security measures in force will have to be checked, regardless of whether the person has submitted a request for their review or not.

Prison arrests, the first to be examined

Article 105 gives priority to the measure of prison arrest.

‘Priority in examination is given to the requests and ex officio verifications relating to the measure of prison arrest. These must be examined within three days of their submission or initiation,’ the draft provides.

The provision further specifies that this priority and the three-day deadline apply ‘to all cases where the legal basis for prison arrest is no longer permitted under this law’.

So, if a person is held in prison arrest on a legal basis that, under the new criteria, no longer permits this measure, his case must pass through examination as a priority.

This does not imply the automatic release of the person. The court must examine the measure and decide whether it will continue, be revoked or be replaced according to the new criteria.

30 days for the other security measures

For the other measures, apart from prison arrest, the draft sets another deadline.

‘Requests and ex officio verifications relating to security measures other than prison arrest are examined within thirty days,’ Article 105 states.

Thus, the transitional provision creates two levels of examination: priority for prison arrests and a deadline of up to 30 days for the requests and verifications relating to the other security measures.

The prosecutor must also request revocation or replacement

The obligation is not placed only on the court. If the prosecutor finds that a security measure no longer complies with the criteria of the amended Code, he must turn to the court.

‘Prosecutors who find that a security measure no longer complies with the criteria set by this Code must, without delay, submit to the competent court a request for its revocation or replacement,’ Article 105 provides.

The decision remains in the hands of the court, while the parties retain the right of appeal. ‘Against the decision of the court taken in accordance with this article, the parties may exercise the means of appeal in accordance with the provisions of this Code,’ the draft states.

Evidence gathered earlier does not become invalid

Unlike the security measures, which will be checked under the new criteria, the acts and evidence obtained before the entry into force of the amendments do not automatically lose their validity.

Article 105 provides that ‘acts and evidence obtained before the entry into force of this law retain their validity and may be used in any ongoing or subsequent proceedings’, provided they were collected in accordance with the law that was in force at the moment they were obtained. /Top Channel/