Investigator sub acoperire. Martor. Neconstituţionalitate
The undercover investigator. The witness. Unconstitutionality

Summary/Abstract: The authors address the undercover investigator's institution in terms of fair trial rights and the principles of the criminal trial, thus showing that limiting this right in certain circumstances and particularly in the case of hearing as a witness for the undercover investigator must be balanced by effective and efficient safeguards to ensure fairness and balance as appropriate. In their opinion authors criticize the current regulations of the hearing as a witness to the undercover investigator, in terms of constitutionality by actually showing some guarantees are lacking in this respect. It is claimed that witness protection should be effective and efficient but hiding the identity should be made only until the actual moment of the hearing and after the hearing by changing the residence, home, workplace, etc. The authors argue that the hearing should be made public and under real identity by ensuring the necessary and sufficient protection measures both physical and mental. Positive obligation of the state is truly achieved only if these conditions ensure the physical, physical and legal protection of the anonymous witness in line with the requirements of the other principles of law. In the case of the undercover investigator, he took some risks and is prepared and equipped to face them, including the case when hearing is made with the disclosure of the real identity and only in exceptional situations some protection is required. The authors make some interesting proposals de lege ferenda, bringing text connected arguments based on reason and on legal practice mainly of European Court but also of Romanian courts.

• Details
• Contents