Spogoduvanje Za Vina

03. Plea Bargaining 01 MK [REV2] 25.02.
2011 12:05 Page 1

03. Plea Bargaining 01 MK [REV2] 25.02.2011 12:05 Page 2
CIP -
. ,
343.144 (497.71/035)
,
: [ ,
. , ], - : OBSE, 2010 - 197 . 21
. . , - -
. 105-108 ; 194 - 197, - Plea bargaining
ISBN 978-608-4630-09-8
1. K, . [] 2. , []
) - - -
COBISS.MK ID 86372618
:

www.osce.org/skopje
2010
:
.
* . .
. .
6 CHAPTER
- 7
CO
1.
............................................................................11
1. ? ......................11
1.1. ..........................................................................11
1.2. ........................................12
1.3. ......................................................................14
2. ................................................................15
3. ..............................16
3.1. ..........16
3.2. - ................................................18
3.3. - ....................................................20
3.4.
............................................................................23
4.
..........................................................25
4.1. ..................................................................26
4.2. ......................................28
5.
..............................................................31
6. ......................................................................32
8 CHAPTER
2. ..................35
1. ....................................................................................................35
2. ( ) ..................................39
2.1. ..............................................................................39
2.2. 42
2.3. ........................................43
2.4.
Newton ................................................................45
2.5.
,
........46
2.6.
Goodyear ......................................................................48
2.7.
......................................50
2.8. ....................................................................51
2.9. ......................................................................53
2.10.
........................................................................54
3. ................................................................................................54
3.1. ................................................................................................54
3.2.
..................................................................................57
3.3. ..............................................................58
3.4. ..................................................59
3.5. ........60
4. ......................................................................61
4.1. ..............................................................................61
4.2. ..................................61
4.3. ......................................................62
4.4. ......................63
- 9
5. ............................................66
5.1. ..............................................................................66
5.2. ()..67
5.3. ()..................................................71
5.4. () ......................................72
3. ..................................................77
1. ..............................77
2. ................................................80
3.
..................................................................................................86
4.
..................................................................................................88
5. ....................................................................................90
6.
......................................................................91
6.1. : ......................................................91
6.2. - ..................95
..............................................................................................99
10 CHAPTER
- 11
1. ?
1.1.
a 1 -
- -

, -
, -
,

.
-
, ,
common law -
. -
- ,

, ,
. 2
1. 1997
,
2010 .
2.
Franoise Tulkens, Negotiated Justice, European Criminal Procedures, (ed. Delmans-
Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002, . 643.
12 CHAPTER
- -
,
, , , .

.
, ,
, -
, -
,
( -
) ,
, , -
-
, ()
.
1.2.
-
-
,
,
3. -
-
, , .
-
( )
( )4.
-

-
3.
Timothy Sandefur, In Defence of Plea Bargaining, Regulation, 2003, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 28-31.
4.
Tulkens/van de Kerchove, La Justice Pnale, European Criminal Procedures, (ed. Del-
mans-Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002, .644.
- 13
-
. 5
,
, . (87) 18

6
-
.
,
. -
,
.

- , ,
, , , ,
-
.
-
,
,
-
-
.7 ,
-

,
, .
5.
Frank Easterbrook, Criminal Procedure as a Market System, Journal of Legal Studies, 1983,
12, . 289-332; Steven Shavell, Foundation of Economic Analysis of Law, Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 2004; Thomas Miceli, The Economic Approach to Law, Stanford University Press,
2004. N. Garoupa/F.H. Stephen, .7.
6.
R (87) 18 .
7.
//, o
, , . 1/2008.
14 CHAPTER
.
-

, ,
.
1.3.
-
, , , -

.
,
,
.8
-
.9
- -
: -
, ,
10.

, -

,
,
.11
8.
Franoise Tulkens, . 664.
9. Stephen J. Schulhofer, Plea Bargaining as Disaster, Yale Law Journal, 1992, 101, . 1979-
2009.Russell Christopher, The Prosecutorss Dilemma: Bargains and Punishment, Fordham
Law Review, 2003, 72, . 93-168.
10.
Andrew Ashworth/Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 2005, 3rd edition, Oxford Univer-
sity Press, 12, N. Garoupa/F.H. Stephen, . 9. Timoty Lynch, The
Case Against Plea Bargaining, Regulation,2003, Vol. 26, No. 3, . 24-27.
11.
Robert A. Carp/Ronald Stidham, Judicial Process in America, 2nd edition, Washington DC,
1993, . 169-170.
- 15
2.

,
common law -
.
-
- , (charge
bargaining),

(sentence bargaining).
-
,
1996 , - ,
,
.
-
- ,
,
,
.
-
:
charge bargaining -
,
fact bargaining -
,
:
nolo contendere pleas -
; ,
a

16 CHAPTER

;, 12
alford pleas - , -

,13
sentence bargaining -
,

.
3.
-
, ,
, ,
, ,
.
3.1.
:
-
, ;
12. ;
;
. -
,
.
( )
: )
)
, R.A. Carp/R.Stidham, . 165.
13.
, North Carolina v. Alford, 400
U.S. 25 (1970).
- 17
- -
,
, -
;
- -

. ,

( ) -
;
-
,

;
-
(sentence bargaining), -
. ,

, -
;
- -

,

;
- ,
-,
-
-
.

,
-
,
-
;
18 CHAPTER
-
- . -
-
, -
,
. -

- ;
-

.

, -
, ,

;
-
-
-

.
3.2. -
-
:
:
( -
, )

- ( -
);
:
( , ,
, -
); /
- 19
-
,
; 14
:
-
-

-
-;
,
:
,
-.
-

- .
-
, -
- -
.15
-
3 -
.
.
-,
.
:
-
14.
-
-
.
15.
,
,
, -,
.
20 CHAPTER
,
-

.
,
:

,
-

-

-.
-,
:
c -
-

- ,
-
-.
3.3. -
-
,
.
- ,
-

-.

( ) .
,
- 21
-
( -
) ( -
).
-,
. -
, 3 .
, -
, ,
- ,
.
-
, .

,
, , ,
.

- :

-
, -

- .
- .
- ,
,
-

, , .
22 CHAPTER

-
- .
- 23
3.4.
()

.

,
,
.
, ,
,
.

-
.
:
,

.16
-
, -
.
,

.
, -
, :
,
-
,
16. , /, , , . 221.
24 CHAPTER
-

-,
-

.

. ,

. , -
,

.

.

, ,

.
.

dominus litis -
.
-
.

-,
.

-.

-
- 25
. -
.
,
,
- ,
-, -

- .
.
, -
. ,
-
,
.
4.

-
-
.
-
,
.
-
- -
,
.
-
,

.
26 CHAPTER
4.1.
, -
-
.

, -

.

:
a -

-
-

-
-
-
.

-
.

,

. -
,
-
.
-
:
- 27
, ,

.
,
, -
15 -
-
.
-,
.
-
:
- - ,
-
-,
- - ,
-
-
. -
.
28 CHAPTER
4.2.
,
, -
.
- 29
(
, ,
, ,
, ),

.
-
.
, -
:
,
,
-

.
, , -

., (..
),

.
,

.
,
,

.
30 CHAPTER
,
,
. -

, -
.
- 31
5.

,
:
-
,
,

;
- -
,
;
-
,
,
-
, -

, , -
;
- -

,
-
, ,
, ;
- ,
, ,
;
-

.
32 CHAPTER
6.
?

,
-
, -

,

,
.,

,
,

,
, -

-,
- 33

, -

.
?
,

,

,
-
,

,

.
34 CHAPTER
- 35
2
KOM

1.

o -
. a a,
-
.
, -

,
. -
.17
,
o
,
,
.
o -

. -
.
17. , -
:
, II , 2006 , . 7.
36 CHAPTER
o -
,
.

.

-
. -

, , ,
, .
-
O ,
.

.
-
.
, ,
95%
.
, -
. , -

,
.
, . -
,
. -
( )
.

. ,
- 37
-
.
.

-
. 1988 ,
,
-
.

, .
.. ,
,
, .
,
, ,
.
, -
,

.
,
, ,
() -
. -

.

-
,
,
-

38 CHAPTER
, -
.
,

, . -
, , , , ,
, , .
,
-
, -
. 2004
.18
,
-
.
,
.
,
. ,
, -
, -

.
, -

.

. ,
.19
18.
455-2 11 .
19.
: -
, 49 Virginia Journal of International Law
651 (2008-2009).
- 39
2. ( )
2.1.
-
, -
.

.

-
, , ,
.
.
stare decisis , -

, -
. -
.
.
,
,
.
-
,
, -
, -
3 .
( , , .) ,

.
40 CHAPTER

.
(. plea bargaining)
, , , -
. , -
.
,
-
.

-
.20
2003
,

.21
. -
, , -
,
80%
.
,
.22
( ) -
. -

. -

(2007) .
,
20. . 14 Cr. App. R (S) 511,

-
,
.
21.
144 2003 .
22.
172 2003 .
- 41
, ,
.
, ,
-
,
.

,
(
), -
, -

. -
,
.
, 90% . -
98%
. ( -
) , 60%
, 14-15%
.
.

, .
,
.
-
,
.
,
. -
.
42 CHAPTER
, -
-
,23 ,
-
.

-
( ).

, -

.
:
, -
;
; -
,
.
2.2.

.
.
-

.24
23.
-
.
24.
, IV.45

- 43
-
, -
.
,
.
.

. -
. -
,
-
. -
,
-
,
. ,
.. .
,
( ).
2.3.

,
.
.
.
.

. , 2004 :25

-
. ,
;
25. . [2004] EWCA Crim 2256 [2005] 1 Crim. App. R. (S) 90.
44 CHAPTER
,

;

, -
;
;
-
.
, ,
-

.26 -
:

. -
-

. , -
-
.
, -

-
. -
.
:

(
)
,

.

26. C5 .
- 45
-
.
, ,
.

, -

. -
: ;-
-
; -
( ., , -
); - , ,

.
2.4.
Newton

,

.

. -
, . 1982 -
,27 .
-
, , -
,

.
27. . (1982) 77 Crim. App. R 13.

46 CHAPTER
.

, .
, ,
.

,
, -
.
. ,
.
2.5.
,

,
, -
.

.29

-
.29
, -

. ,
,

. .30
28. IV.45.18 .
29.
45 ; -
-
, 18. 3.2009 ;
-
.
- 47

,
,
.

, -

.
, .
, -
, , -

-
. -
.31

, 7
. : (1)
; (2) () -
; (3)
; (4) -
, , , -
; (5)
-
. .
,
,
, -
, -

30.
A5, A6 A7 -
.
31.
B1, B2, B3 B4 -
.
48 CHAPTER
.
. -
,

-
.

,
-
.
-
.
,
,
( ).
,
-
.

, -
()

.32

.33
2.6. Goodyear
, -

.
.
32. 39.3 .
33. 45.27 .
- 49
-
.
. 2005 .34
, ,
. , -
.
, -
. ,
, ()
.
, ,
. -

, -
.
, -
. .
-

. , , -
, -
.
,

.35
, -
,
, -
.
, .
34. . [2005] 2 Crim. App. R. 20 ( ), 3 All ER 117;

45.29-29.33 .
35. 67, . .
50 CHAPTER
.

, -
, .
:
-
36

.

,
. ,
.37
-
.38
2.7.

. -
.
-
,
.
, .39
2005
,

.40
36.
70 (d), . .
37.
76-77, . .
38.
. 40 1996 [1997] 1 Crim. App. R 357.
39.
. . [2006] EWCA Crim 1803 R. v. H, D, Chaudhury [2009] EWCA 2485.
40.
73 2005 .
- 51

.
. -
73
.41
-
, -
( .,
), -

.
,

.
,
.

, ,
. ,

, ,
. -
.42
2.8.

-
. -
, ,

. : -

,
41. . . [2007] EWCA Crim 2290.

42. 74 2005 .
52 CHAPTER
. -
.43

,
, -
-
.
.

. -

, -
.44

-
,
( , .)
.45
-
, -

.46
-
.
,
,
,
() ,
. 47
43. , 10.1.
44.
, , , , -
.
45.
10.6 .
46.
B4 .
47.
10.4 .
- 53
,
, -
.
, ,
, -
.
,
.48
,

:49
;

;
, , -

;

;
,
;
-
-
.
2.9.

, :50
-
. , - -
. ,
48.
E1 E20 .
49.
10.8
, VIII , 2004 .
50.
11.3 11.4. -
, VIII , 2004 .
54 CHAPTER

, .
2.10.

.
.51
,
-
. , , , ,
.
,
-
,
.52
3.
3.1.
1988 Code di Procedura Penale

-
.
, -

,
51.
B3 .
52. B4 , ( -
) ), (2002) 1 W.L.R. 2870; (2009) 1 W.L.R. 1396.
- 55
.53
-

,

.54
-
-
.
. ,
,
-
,
.
-
. , 111 (5) -
,
-
. : , -
(giudizio abbreviato) .

, ,
90%
. , , -
, -

.
(..,
) .
53.
. :
:
[1989-1990] 22,
, 215 at 215
1989 .
54.
: : , 48 Am. J. Comp.
L. 227 (2000) at 231.
56 CHAPTER
( ) -
, -
5 ,
-
. , , ,

.
-

. ,

, -
, -
.
,
, -
-
,
. ,
,
.
.
400 .
300 .
350 .55
, , , , -
, 30
( 60 ) -
.56
55. 2003 .
56. 229 1998 .
- 57
3.2.

patteggiamento,
.
3 . 2003 -

5 .57 -
-
, , ,
.58
-
. -
,

, -
. -
.
-
.59 , ,
-
( ) -
. .
-

129 ..
, .
,

.60
57.
444 448 1988 .
58.
446 600 bis quinquies 609 bis octies.
59.
444 1988 .
60.
69 (1) (2) ,
. , .
58 CHAPTER
. ,
.
-
. , -
.
.
,

.

, 15% .
, 1990 1998
17 - 21% 34 - 42%
.
3.3.
-

, , .
(il giudizio abbreviato).
-
, -
.61
-

.

. -
.62
-
, , .
61. 452 (2) 1988 .

62. 440 1988 .
- 59
, , -

.63
.
-
.
30 .64 10%
.
1988
. ,

.
,
,

.

,
, , , ,
.
3.4.
decreto penale di condanna ..

. , -
.
, .
-
-
.
.
. -
.
63. 438 (5) 1988

64. 442 (2) 1988
60 CHAPTER
3.5.
-
. ,
.
, ,
, -
.65 , . -
,
. , ,
, -
. . -

,
.66
-
-
,
- . ,
,
.67
65. 446 1988 .

66.
,
: ,
, , 2007 .
67.
, : -
; , , : -
:
, Intersentia 2009, . 133.
- 61
4.
4.1.
2003 ,
, , -

.
-
.
, .68
-
.
-
,
2008 .

, -

, -
,
.69
-

: ,
-
, , .
4.2.
2003
.
68.

, 2004 , . 1.
69.
. 3/2003.
62 CHAPTER
229, -
.
,
. ,
, :
,
;
-
;
;

- , -

,

, .
,
.70
4.3.
231
.

.
,
.
71,
,
, 20 , 5 . -
, -
,
. ,
70. 230 (3) 2003 .

71. 231 2003 .
- 63
, ,
, .
:

.
.

.72
,
. 231 (7) :
, -

.
, 30 .
,
.73 ,

, .
, , -
.
.
-
.
4.4.
2006
,

,
, .74
72. 231 (6) 2003 .

73. 231 (4) (c) 2003 .
74. , . 2, 8.
64 CHAPTER
-
, -
77% .75

,
,
. ,
5 10 20
.
-
, . , -
.76
-
.
231 ,
.

.

:
( ).

( ). -
-
. 11 13 .
13 .77
75. , . 12.
76.
, X-KR-06/180-1,
, 2.10.2008 , -
, -
.
, .
77.
X-KR-08/549-3, ,
18.03.2010 .
- 65
, . ,
. , -
. -
. ,

.
. 6 , -
,
.
7 10 .
. 8
.78
, ,

, 100 . -
.

(
). -
-
. 9 ,
8 . -
10 .

.79
-
,
-
. -

50 1,000 .
.80
78. X-KR-08/549-2, ,
10.09.2009 .
79.
X-KR-06/241, ,
29.04.2008 .
80.
X-KR-08/635, ,
22.01.2009 .
66 CHAPTER

100 (50 )
15 .
,

.81
5.
5.1.
ad hoc ,
(),
(), (),
(),
(ECCC), -
. -
. ()
, -
.
, , (.., -
) .
.
-
.
() -

, -

.
-
( )

. , ,
81. X-KR-07/474-8, ,
20.08.2009 .
- 67
, , -
,
-
. -
,
,
.82
( )
, -
62 ter
. 1994

, 2001
.
62 ter
.
-

. , -
.
,
( , 20 161 ).
, , -
-
.83
5.2. ()

. 30 , -
.84 -
,
82.
IT-92-22-A, 22.10.1997 , -
, 7-8.
83.
99 100 .
84.
62 (iv) .
68 CHAPTER
, -
, -

.85
62 ter . -
- -

, -
.
.
.86
.

,
,
,

.

. -
, .
-
.
.
. -
. ,
. ,
85.
62 bis .
86. IT-02-60/1-2 , 02.12.2002 -
( 15 - 20 , 23
); IT-94-2-S, , 18.12.2003
( 15 , 27 );
IT-03-72-S, , 29.06.2004
( 11 , 13 ).
- 69
,
,
.
, ,
-
. -
,
-
.87
, 20 -
.
:
200

1992 . 1200
X -
, .
200
-
. - -
, ,
,
.
-
.
. ,
-
.
,
(
).

,
. 15 20
, 15 .
87. , IT-95-9/1, ,
31.07.2001; IT-95-9/2, , 17.10.2002 .
70 CHAPTER
17 . .88
.

.
, , -
, , -
.
,
5 .
(),
. -
, - ,
, -
-
,
-
. 37 -
.
, -
. - 72 . -
15 25 , 8
.
, -
,
11 .
.89
,
, -

. , .
, -
, -
, .
, -
( ). , ,
. -
88. IT-02-59-S, , 31. 3.2004 .

89. IT-IT-00-39&40/1-S, ,
27.02.2003 .
- 71
15 . . ,
, . 23 -
, 15
.90 . -
20 , -

. -
-
.91
5.3. ()
admission of
guilt plea of guilty. -
-
1998 .
,
.92
65 .

,
.
.

. 65 (5)
,
. 139,
.

.93
90.
IT-94-2-S, , 18.12.2003 .
91.
IT-94-2-A, , 04.02.2005 .
92.
65 (8) (a) .
93.
65 (1) (b) .
72 CHAPTER
,
.
.94
, -

, ,
, 65 (4).
-
, -
.
, , -
. -
.
5.4. ()

. -
.

6 -
abbreviato.
.
, ,
,
. , ,

. 6 -

, .
.95
94. 65 (4) 139 .

95. (.2), . 10249/03, 17 2009 .
- 73
6
() -
-
.96

.
.
: ...

...97

. :98
,
-
. ,

. ,
-
, , ,
.

-
.
-
, -
.
, , -
-
,

.
96. , A-35, 27. 2.1980 , 46.

97. ... , A-27, 27.10.1993 , 33.
98. 2006 , . 10.
74 CHAPTER
, ,
. ,
.
, -
.99
, , -
.
6

, -
(
).100
99.
, A-35, 27. 2.1980 , 46.
100.
. . 5076/71 CD 64 at 67 (1972). , -
6 (1) : -

.
- 75
76 CHAPTER
- 77
1.
/ ,
,
.
, , -
, ,
j 29.
,
, ,
, -
(-
).101 ,
:
,
, ,
, -
,
.
,
102,
103.
104
-
105 .
101.
39(2),
, -
, .
102. j 21 .
103. j 22 . 206(1)(2).
104. 69(2).
105. 79.
78 CHAPTER
, -
, .
,
. , , , -
,
, e
. ,

, -
-

106. ,

, , -
,
.
,
, , ,
,
. , -
,
,
, .
.

. ,
: -
,
. ,
,
,

. ,

.
106.
484,
-,
- .
- 79
,
-
,
.
-
,
, -
.
,
: , -
, ,
, , ,
,
, .
( )
,
.
,
,
, , -

. ,

. , -
,

, , ,

. -
:
-

.
80 CHAPTER

, -
107. ,
335,
488. -
490, ,
489. -
,
.108
2.
.
-
, , -
,

, -
, , .

. -
,
: -
, ,
, ,
, (
), ,
()
. -
. , -
. ,
,
, ,
-
-
. ,
107. 487.
108. 488(5).
- 81

,
. ,
,
, -
, .
,
. -
, -

.
, -
, , ,
,
, , -
.109
,
,
, -
. , , -
, , .
, -

,
, ,
,
, ,
.

, ,
,
109.
,
, -
. , ,

, .
82 CHAPTER
, ,
, -
. -
:
-
: , -
.
,
,
,
, .110 -
, -
. ,
, -
.
,

:
. ;
. ;
. ;
.
;
. , ,
.
,
,
.
-
,
, -
-
. ,
, . -
,
110. 206(6), , , -

489 496 .
- 83
()
,
. , -
,
.
,
. -
, -
, ,
, , , .111
, -
, , ,

.
, .
,

. , , -
,
,
, ( -
/ , -

). , -
-
.
-

. , , -
.
,
,
.
, , .
111. 89(1),
,
, .
84 CHAPTER
,
,
, - , -

: -
. ,

. , -
-
. , ,
-
, .
, .
-
, , -

. ,
, , ,
, ,

.

,
,
-
, ,
, .

, ()
. , ,
. ( ),

, -
.
- 85
-
: ( )
, ,
,
( ). -
, ,
, , .
,
/
, , , -
.
,
( ), -
.
,
,
,
. ,
, ,
-
,
.

, .
,
,
, ,
. ,

-
. , -
,
, -
.
, -
86 CHAPTER
. ,
-
,
,

.
,

.112 ,
, ,

, , ,
, , .
,

, ,
(, ).
,
.
3.

,
-
. -

: -
, -
,
, ,
, .113
112.
485.
113.
484. , -
, , -
, ,
.
- 87

,
,
. , -
.

,
. -
: -
,
.
,
, ,
,
.
. ,
,
,

. ,

. ,
. ,
-
, ,
. -
.
, -
-
.
(-
),
-
.
88 CHAPTER
, -
.
,
, - ,
-
:
,
.
-
. :
. ,
, ;
.
, ,
;
. ,
, -
.
4.

, , -
,
.
,
( -
) , ,
/ . -

, -
(,
,
). -
,
- 89
( , actus
rea, mens rea, , .).
,
,

.
,
-
, -
,
-
. -
, ,
, ,
, -
. ,
,
, .
viva voce ,
,
. -
,

() .
,
, .
, ,
.

,
,
,
. , ,
e

90 CHAPTER
.

,
,
( ,
). , -

. ,
, .
:
. ;
. ,
, -
, ;
.
.
-
, -
.
5.

,
. , -

.

, ,
.
,
, -
. , : .
- 91
, -
; .
.
( ),
, -
.
6.

6.1. :
,
.
, -
, , , :
, ;
;
;
;
, /;
;
- , -
.
.114
,
:
,
:
- ;
- ,
,
; ()
,
, .
114. 79.
92 CHAPTER

,
, , ,
.
, , -
.
( )
.
,
; , ,
, .
, -
, .
-
, -
, .
:
(
);
;
;

.
,
. ,
,
,
.115
,
, -
. ,
:
. , -
( -
);
. .
115. , ,
-
, .
- 93

-
, -
,
. ,
, ,
.
-
,
, , .
-
, , ,
.
, -

.116 , :

,
;

; ()
- , -
.
, -
,
.
,
.117

,
,
.118

, -
,
116. 488 (1).

117. 89.
118. 489 (1).
94 CHAPTER
-
.
- 95
6.2. -
: ___________________
: ___________________
o ___________ ________
: ____________________
: ________ ________ _____________________
_________ ____________ ,
, ,
,
,
.
,

,

,
,
.

, ,

, .
, , ,
,
.
, , -
, , , -
.

96 CHAPTER
. ,
,

, . ,
,
, .

, -
. -
-
,
,
. ,
, , -
. ,
, , -
, ,
.

,
, .
,
,
.
,
, .
,
/
.
, -
.
-
, .
- 97
, oj
.

,
, ,
.
, -
, . ,
.
, -
, / -
, , , ,
.
, -
,
.
, -
,
. -
,
.
___________________
xxx
98 CHAPTER
- 99
Alshuler, Albert, The Defense Attorneys Role in Plea Bargaining, The Yale
Law Journal, Vol. 84, No. 6. (May, 1975), pp. 1179-1314.
Alshuler, Albert, The Prosecutors Role in Plea Bargaining, The University of
Chicago Law Review, Vol. 36, No. 1. (Autumn, 1968), pp. 50-112.
Alshuler, Albert, The Trial Judges Role in Plea Bargaining, Part I, Columbia
Law Review, Vol. 76, No. 7. (Nov., 1976), pp. 1059-1154.
Baldwin J./McConville M., Negotiated justice: pressures on defendants to
plead guilty, London : Martin Robertson, 1977.
Bucy, Pamela H., Privatizing Law Enforcement, The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science (GANP), January 1996.
, ./, ./, ., o
,
, . 1/2008.
, /, , , , . 2/2009.
Carp, Robert A./Stidham, Ronald, Judicial Process in America, 2nd edition,
Washington DC, 1993.
`, , , , Twinning
Project Fight Against Organized Crime and Corruption Unit Public Prosecutors
Office, , 2009.
Dervieux, Valerie, The French System, in European Criminal Procedures, Ed.
by, Delmas-Marty, Mirreille and Spencer, J. R., Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Dubber, Markus Dirk, American Plea Bargains, German Lay Judges, and the
Crisis of Criminal Procedure, Stanford Law Review, Vol. 49, No. 3. (Feb.,1997).
Easterbrook, Frank, Criminal Procedure as a Market System, Journal of Legal
Studies, 1983.
Fisher, George, Plea bargainings triumph: a history of plea bargaining in
America, Stanford University Press, 2003.
Gail, Kellough/Wortley, Scot, Remand for Plea, Bail Decisions and Plea Bargaining
as Commensurate Decisions, British Journal of Criminology, No. 42, 2002.
Garoupa, N./Stephen F.H., Law and Economics of Plea Bargaining, www.ssrn.com
100 CHAPTER
Herrmann, Joachim, The Rule of Compulsory Prosecution and the Scope of

Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany, The University of Chicago Law Review,
Vol. 41, No. 3. (Spring, 1974).
Hood Roger, Conclusions and Recommendations, 20th Criminological
Research Conference: Psychosocial Interventions in the Criminal Justice
System, 1993.
Inciardi, James A, Criminal Justice, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc., 1987.
Ivievi, lizabeta, Plaider coupable - Nova alternative klasinom kaznenom
postupku u francuskom pravu.
Jones, David A.,Crime without punishment, Lexington, Mass. (etc.), 1979.
Juy- Birman, Rodolphe, The German system, European Criminal Procedures,
(eds. M.Delmas-Marty / J.R. Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Kamisar Y./LaFave W. R./Israel J. H./King N. J., Modern Criminal Procedure,
Cases, Comments and Questions, 9-th edition, American Casebook Series,
West Group, St. Paul, Minn. 1999.
Krapac, Davor, Engleski kazneni postupak, Pravni fakutlet Sveucilishtu u Zagreb,
Zagreb, 1995.
Ma, Yue, Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining in the USA, Germany,
France and Italy: A Comparative Perspective, International Criminal Justice
Review, 2002.
Maffei, Stefano, Negotiations on evidence, Negotiations on sentence,
(Adversarial exoeriments in Italian Criminal Procedure), Journal of International
Criminal Justice, 2 (2004), p. 1050-1069, Oxford University Press, 2004.
Mather, Lynn M, Plea bargaining or trial? he Process of Criminal-Case
Disposition, Lexington, Mass. (etc.), Teakfield Ltd, 1979.
McConville, Mike, Plea Bargaining: Ethics and Politics, pp. 562-587, Journal
of Law and Society, Vol 25, No. 4, 1998.
Miceli, Thomas, The Economic Approach to Law, Stanford University Press, 2004.
Michael M. OHear, Plea Bargaining and Procedural Justice, Marquette University,
April 2007, www.ssrn.com/
Neubauer, David W., Americas Courts and the Criminal Justice System, Duxury
Press, 1979.
Russell, Christopher, The Prosecutorss Dilemma: Bargains and Punishment,
Fordham Law Review, 2003.
Sandefur, Timothy, In Defence of Plea Bargaining, Regulation, 2003, Vol. 26,
No. 3, pp. 28-31.
- 101
avell, Steven, Foundation of Economic Analysis of Law, Harvard University

Press, 2004.
Schulhofer, Stephen J., Plea Bargaining as Disaster, Yale Law Journal, 1992.
Sprack, John, Criminal Procedure a Practical Approach, 10-th Edition, Oxford
University Press, 2005.
Stuart, Henry,Justice on the Margin: can Alternative Justice be Different?,
The Howard Journal, Vol. 28, 4/1989.
Tassi, Andrea, Posebna postupanja, Talijanski Kazneni Postupak (ed.
B.Pavii), Pravni Fakultet Sveucilita u Rijeci, 2002.
Tulkens, Franoise, Negotiated Justice, European Criminal Procedures, (ed.
Delmans-Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Tulkens/van de Kerchove, La Justice Pnale, European Criminal Procedures,
(ed. Delmans-Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Vogel, Mary. Plea Bargaining in the US and England: A Comparative-His-
torical Perspective Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Society of Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles, 31.10.2006,
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p161817_index.html.
Weitekamp, Elmar, From Instant Justice Till Restorative Justice: In Search
of New Avenues in Judicial Dealing with Crime, Changes in Society, Crime
and Criminal Justice in Europe, Vol. I, Crime and insecurity in the sity, Kluwer
law international, The Hague, 1995.
Yale, Kamishar, Wayne LaFave, Jerod Israel, Modern Criminal Procedure:
Cases-Comments-Questions, 2005, 11th edition, American Casebook Series.
03. Plea Bargaining 02 AL [REV2] 28.02.2011 11:28 Page 1
CIP -
. ,
343.144 (497.71/035)
,
: [ ,
. , ], - : OBSE, 2010 - 197 . 21
. . , - -
. 105-108 ; 194 - 197, - Plea bargaining
ISBN 978-608-4630-09-8
1. K, . [] 2. , []
) - - -
Prmbajtja e ktij publikimi nuk prfaqson medoemos kndvshtrimin apo

qndrimin e Misionit Vzhgues t OSBE-s n Shkup.
T drejtat e autorit:
Misioni Vzhgues i OSBE-s n Shkup
Oktomvriska Revolucija pn
Shkup
www.osce.org/skopje
MARRVESHJA PR
PRANIM T FAJIT
DORACAK PR
PROFESIONISTT
Dhjetor 2010
Autor:
Procedura pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit sipas Ligjit t Ri t Procedurs Penale*
Praktika komparative t marrveshjes pr pranim faji:

Dejvid Re
Udhzime mbi marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit:

Majkl G. Karnavas
*Prgatitur nga Prof. Dr. Gordana Buzharovska

n bashkpunim me Prof. Dr. Gordan Kalajxhiev
6 CHAPTER
MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT - DORACAK PR PROFESIONISTT 7
PRMBAJTJA
PJESA 1. MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT SIPAS LIGJIT T RI

T PROCEDURS PENALE ..........................................................11
1. PSE T KET MARRVESHJE PR PRANIM T FAJIT N

PROCEDURN PENALE?..........................................................................11
1.1. Vrejtjet hyrse ................................................................................11
1.2. Prparsit e t drejts konsensuale ..............................................12
1.3. Vrejtje kritike ..................................................................................14
2. FORMA T MARRVESHJES PR PRANIM T FAJIT ..............................14
3. MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT SIPAS DISPOZITAVE T LPP......16

3.1. Karakteristikat kryesore t procedurs pr marrveshje
pr pranim t fajit ............................................................................16
3.2. Elementet e propozim-marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit ..............18
3.3. Vlersim i propozim- marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit ..................20
3.4. Roli i subjekteve q marrin pjes n procesin e marrveshjes
pr pranim t fajit ....................................................................................23
4. STATUSI I DEKLARATS PR PRANIM T FAJIT GJEGJSISHT PRANIMI

I KRIMIT SIPAS LPP-S ............................................................................25
4.1. Vlersimi i akuzs..............................................................................26
4.2. Pranim i krimit i dhn n shqyrtimin kryesor................................28
5. IMPLIKACIONET NGA MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT

MBI DISPOZITA T TJERA T LPP-S ......................................................31
6. SFIDAT DHE RREZIQET............................................................................32

8 CHAPTER
PJESA 2. PRAKTIKA KOMPARATIVE PR MARRVESHJEN PR PRANIM

T FAJIT ......................................................................................35
1. HYRJE ....................................................................................................35
2. ANGLIA DHE UELLSI (MBRETRIA E BASHKUAR) ..................................38

2.1. Hyrje ..................................................................................................38
2.2. Pranimi i fajit pr t gjitha ose disa nga akuzat ............................41
2.3. Bazat e dakorduara t deklarimit t fajsis ..................................42
2.4. Dgjimi gjyqsor n lidhje me kontestimin e fakteve pr pranimin
e fajsis- Dgjimi i Newton-it ......................................................44
2.5. Rastet q prfshijn mashtrim t rnd deklarimi i fajsis sipas
bazs s, miratuar nga ana e prokuroris dhe mbrojtjes, e prcjell
nga paraqitjet e prbashkta pr dnimin ....................................45
2.6. Indikacion mbi dnimin q jepet paraprakisht - rasti Goodyear ..47
2.7. Zvoglimi i dnimit pr premtim pr asistimin e autoritteteve....49
2.8. Roli i prokurorit ................................................................................50
2.9. Roli i avokatit mbrojts ....................................................................51
2.10 Roli i viktimave dhe familjeve t tyre n procesin e deklarimit ....52
3. ITALIA ....................................................................................................52
3.1. Hyrje ..................................................................................................52
3.2. Marrveshja pr deklarim t fajit- Dnimi me krkes t palve
lapplicazione della pena su richiesta della parti ose
patteggiamento ose marrveshje ................................................55
3.3. Procedurat prmbledhseil giudizio abbreviato ........................56
3.4. Decreto penale di condamna ndjekje penale sipas dekretit
pr gjykim ........................................................................................57
3.5. Vlersim se si kjo funksionon n praktik ........................................58
4. BOSNJA E HERCEGOVINA ......................................................................59

4.1. Hyrje ..................................................................................................59
4.2. Deklarimi i fajsis............................................................................59
4.3. Marrveshja statusore e deklarimit ................................................60
4.4. Marrveshja pr deklarim t fajit n praktik ................................61
5. GJYKATAT DHE TRIBUNALT NDRKOMBTAR ..................................64

5.1. Hyrje ..................................................................................................64
5.2. Tribunali Penal Ndrkombtar pr ish-Jugosllavin - TNKJ ..........65
5.3. Gjykata Ndrkombtare pr Krime..................................................68
5.4. Gjykata Evropiane pr t Drejtat e Njeriut ....................................69
PJESA 3. UDHZIME MBI MARRVESHJEN PR PRANIM T FAJIT ............73
1. HYRJE ......................................................................................................73
2. PROCESI I MARRVESHJES MBI PRANIMIN E FAJSIS..........................75
3. PRGATITJA E KLIENTIT PR PROCESIN E MARRVESHJES

MBI PRANIMIN E FAJSIS........................................................................80
4. PRGATITJA E KLIENTIT PR SEANCN DGJIMORE T MARRVESHJES

MBI PRANIMIN E FAJSIS........................................................................82
5. PLANI REZERV ........................................................................................84
6. AGJENDA E AVOKATIT PR MARRVESHJEN MBI PRANIMIN E FAJSIS ..84

6.1. Elementet kyesore hap pas hapi jan..............................................84
6.2. Mostr memorandum pr marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis ..88
LITERATURA ................................................................................................91
10 CHAPTER
PJESA 1
MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT
SIPAS LIGJIT T PROCEDURS PENALE
1. PSE T KET MARRVESHJE PR PRANIM T FAJIT

N PROCEDURN PENALE?
1.1. Vrejtjet hyrse
Ligji pr procedur penale1 prmban dispozita q pr her t par n

legjislacionin penal-procedural maqedonas e rregullojn mundsin pr
marrveshje n mes t prokurorit publik dhe t dyshuarit pr llojin dhe
lartsin e sanksionimit penal, parashohin status tjetr t deklarats pr
pranim t fajit n fazn e kontrollit t akuzs dhe t pranimit t krimit t dhn
gjat shqyrtimit kryesor t procedurs s rregullt, si dhe gjat shqyrtimit n
procedurn e shkurtuar, pr dallim nga ajo q e kemi pasur deri tani sa i prket
pranimit t krimit q i akuzuari mund ta jepte para gjyqit.
Zgjidhjet e reja me t cilat n mnyr thelbsore reformohet veprimi

procedural, n bazn e tyre paraqesin institute anglosaksone t cilat kan
tradit shumvjeare n shtetet me t drejt zakonore (common law), me
prshtatjet e tyre t nevojshme dhe me praktikn legjislative evropiane. E
drejta tradicionale penale-procedurale dhe praktika gjyqsore q ishin
karakteristike pr tokn evropiane, e kundrshtonte t drejtn pr marrveshje
pr pranim t fajit, gjegjsisht t drejtn konsensuale, duke u bazuar n
parimin se reagimi ndshkues sht prcaktuar n mnyr t prer me ligj dhe
nuk njeh dialog, kompromis, as marrveshje, duke pasur parasysh faktin se
qllimi kryesor sht mbrojtja e vlerave fundamentale sociale.2
1
Ligji ekzistues i referohet Ligjit pr procedur penale t vitit 1997 me t gjitha ndryshimet
dhe plotsimet e mvonshme, ndrsa Ligji i ri pr Procedur Penale i referohet Ligjit pr
Procedur Penale i cili u soll n vitin 2010.
2
Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002, . 643.
12 CHAPTER
N literaturn penale-procedurale tanim nj koh t gjat mund t hasen

akuza se procedurn e przier penale e karakterizojn ngadalsia, formaliteti i
theksuar, jofleksibiliteti dhe, si rezultat i gjith ksaj, jo efikasiteti. Pritet q me
mundsin pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit, pjesrisht t tejkalohen kto vrejtje
dhe t mundsohet q t realizohet e drejta penale n afat sa m t shkurtr.
Duke e pranuar qndrimin se drejtsi penale efikase, pjesrisht, mund t

sigurohet edhe nprmjet veprimeve t cilat mundsojn dekriminalizim,
depenalizim, forma alternative t ndjekjes penale dhe thjeshtsim t
procedurs penale, duhet t bhet dallimi n mes t marrveshjes pr pranim
t fajit, si raport n mes t autorit t veprs (n cilsin e t dyshuarit apo t
akuzuarit dhe detyrimisht mbrojtsit t tij) dhe prokurorit publik, si padits
zyrtar, si alternativ e procedurs gjyqsore, nga negocimi me qllim t
kompensimit q mund t zhvillohen n mes t autorit t veprs dhe t
dmtuarit, t cilat i udhheq personi i tret i paprfshir n rast (mediatori)
dhe ka karakter t alternativs s ndjekjes.
1.2. Prparsit e t drejts konsensuale
E drejta konsensuale (me marrveshje pr pranim t fajit) duhet t kuptohet

si ridefinim i s drejts penale dhe pranim i formave t reja t veprimit si
prgjigje pr veprat m t lehta penale, si mnyr q t prmbushet ndjenja
e pasiguris dhe t mbahet llogari pr interesat e viktims, me rast kjo
praktik nuk i dmton garancit kushtetuese t t akuzuarit3. E drejta me
marrveshje pr pranim t fajit nxit iniciativ t palve dhe gatishmri t tyre pr
ta pranuar propozimin e pals tjetr, t negociohet, t gjendet zgjidhje kompromisi.
E drejta konsensuale paraqet model, q l hapsir pr pajtueshmri t palve n

konflikt, e dhn me fjal (t shprehurit e pajtimit) apo me heshtje (munges e refuzimit)4.
Insistimi q procedura penale t jet efikase dhe ekonomike ka uar n

studimin dhe analizimin e arsyeshmris ekonomike dhe t prparsive q e
karakterizojn marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit, e cila konsiderohet si
3
4
Tulkens/van de Kerchove, La Justice Pnale, European Criminal Procedures, (ed. Delmans-
Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002, fq.644.
5
12, . 289-332; Steven Shavell, Foundation of Economic Analysis of Law, Harvard
University Press, 2004; Thomas Miceli, The Economic Approach to Law, Stanford University
Press, 2004. N. Garoupa/F.H. Stephen, fq.7.
mekanizm i tregut pr prmirsim t kualitetit t ndjekjes penale n mnyr

zvoglohen harxhimet gjat procedurs penale.5
Roli ky pr pranimin e formave t ndryshme t marrveshjes pr pranim t
fajit, pjesrisht, i takon pranimit t Rekomandimit nr. R (87) 18 t Komitetit t
Ministrave t Kshillit t Evrops pr thjeshtsim t t drejts penale6, i cili e
rekomandon n mnyr t prer procedurn pr marrveshje pr pranim t
fajit, me qllim t prshpejtimit t procedurs kur i akuzuari e pranon fajin
nuk duhet t mbahet koh t gjat n pasiguri pr sanksionin q do t pasoj.
Kur i akuzuari e pranon fajin, rregullat e procedurs patjetr duhet t
thjeshtsohen. Prshpejtimi ka t bj me mosprezantimin e dshmive q
ndrlidhen me gjendjen faktike, me rast procedura sht e thjesht, e shpejt
dhe efikase, pasiq gjyqi duhet vetm ta shqiptoj dnimin.
Zgjidhjeve q u pranuan n LPP i parapriu nj analiz komparative e

legjislacionit penal-procedural t Gjermanis, Italis, Francs, Norvegjis,
Holands, Kroacis, Bosnjs dhe Hercegovins dhe t Serbis, sa i prket
procedurave t thjeshtsuara dhe t prshpejtuara, sipas s cils u pa se
tanim nuk ekziston nj procedur penale pastr kontinentale. U konstatua
se prpjekjet pr prshpejtim t s drejts penale prfshijn pranimin e
modeleve t veprimit m t thjesht, ku ka tendenc pr sjellje t aktgjykimit
n faz m t hershme t procedurs penale, si dhe insistohet q palt t
pajtohen pr sanksionin penal dhe ti iket shfrytzimit t mjeteve ligjore, n
mnyr n trsi do t prshpejtohej procesimi dhe sjellja e aktgjykimeve
prfundimtare dhe ekzekutive gjyqsore.7 Njkohsisht, vrehet nj trajtim i
ndryshm i procedurs pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit sa i prket dnimit,
sipas propozimit t palve dhe t mbrojtsit, dhe deklarats pr pranim t
fajit, varsisht nga stadi n t cilin gjendet procedura kur zbatohen kto
institute, kompetenca e gjyqit dhe procedura pr shqyrtimin, vlersimin dhe
sjelljen e vendimit prfundimtar.
Marrveshja dhe pranimi i fajit ojn drejt ridefinimit t plot t rolit t

subjekteve t procedurs, para s gjithash, t palve dhe t mbrojtsit. Pr
her t par mundsohet dispozita e vullnetit t palve dhe t mbrojtsit,
gjegjsisht gatishmria e t akuzuarit pr ta pranuar fajin, t jet kusht pr
shmangie nga procedura klasike penale, n `rast racionalizimi dhe
prshpejtimi i dukshm i saj, dhe e gjith kjo t mundsojn prmbushjen e s
drejts penale.
6
Recommendation No. R (87) 18 concerning the simplication of criminal justice.
7
Buzharovska/Nanev/Misoski, Hulumtim krahasues i zgjidhjeve pr prshpejtim dhe
thjeshtsim t procedurs penale, RMDPK, nr. 1/2008.
14 CHAPTER
1.3. Vrejtje kritike
Me qllim q t fitohet nj pasqyr e qart pr qndrimet q kan t bjn

me marrveshjen, prve prparsive, prfitimeve dhe anve t saj pozitive,
duhet t theksohen edhe kritikat dhe vrejtjet q i bhen t drejts me
marrveshje pr pranim t fajit.
Konsiderohet se dobi m t madhe nga ky sistem kan gjykatsit dhe avokatt,

zbutja e dnimit sht n kundrshtim me principin e proporcionalitetit t
sanksionit, ndrsa legjislacioni penal bhet sistem hibrid dhe multifunksional.8
Marrveshja pr pranim t fajit konsiderohet si katastrof n procedurn

penale dhe institut q mundson zbutje t pamerituar t dnimit t t
akuzuarit.9 Ajo ka mungesa kushtetuese-juridike pasiq i nnmon garancit
procedurale t t akuzuarit dhe sht n kundrshtim me t drejtat e tij: ti
marr n pyetje dshmitart, t gzoj mbrojtje n baz t supozimit se sht
i pafajshm, t drejtn pr gjykim t drejt dhe publik10.
Prve kritikave se sanksioni i shqiptuar q ndrlidhet me deklaratn pr

pranim t fajit, nuk mbshtetet mbi bazat penologjike pr dnim, vrejtje
serioze ka sa i prket rrezikut pr personin e pafajshm q ta pranoj fajin,
rrezikun q t propozohet dnim m i madh se sa ai q do ta shqiptonte gjyqi
pr rastin e njjt pas kryerjes s procedurs penale, si dhe padukshmrin
e rasteve ku ka deklarat pr fajsi dhe marrveshje pr pranim t fajit.11
2. FORMA T MARRVESHJES PR PRANIM T FAJIT
Edhe prkundr faktit se marrveshja pr pranim t fajit ka rrnj te e drejta

anglosaksone, duhet theksuar fakti se ekziston dallim i madh n mes t motivit pr
negociata pr fajsin n shtetet me t drejt zakonore (common law) dhe
shtetet evropiane.
8
Franoise Tulkens, fq. 664.
9
Stephen J. Schulhofer, Plea Bargaining as Disaster, Yale Law Journal, 1992, 101, . 1979-
2009. Russell Christopher, The Prosecutorss Dilemma: Bargains and Punishment, Fordham
Law Review, 2003, 72, fq. 93-168.
10
Andrew Ashworth/Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 2005, 3rd edition, Oxford
University Press, kapitulli 12, theksuar sipas N. Garoupa/F.H. Stephen, fq. 9. Timoty Lynch,
The Case Against Plea Bargaining, Regulation,2003, Vol. 26, No. 3, fq. 24-27.
11
1993, fq. 169-170.
Modeli anglosakson i marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit sht i orientuar kah

vllimi i akuzs numri, prshkrimi dhe kualifikimi juridik i veprs penale (charge
bargaining), ndrsa legjislacioni evropian e pranon konceptin ku tem e bisedimeve
dhe e negociatave sht lloji dhe lartsia e sanksionit (sentence bargaining).
Dallime ekzistojn edhe n mnyrn e prcaktimit gjegjsisht zbatimit n

Angli marrveshja pr pranim t fajit zbatohet nj koh t gjat, mirpo
formalisht sht ligjsuar n vitin 1996, ndrsa n shtetet me sistem t przier
penal-juridik, pr shkak t principit t legalitetit, hapi i par sht rregullimi
legjislativ i marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit, pas s cils pasojn jetsimi dhe
zbatimi praktik i saj.
Marrveshja pr pranim t fajit ndrmjet prokurorit publik dhe t dyshuarit

dhe mbrojtsit t tij ekziston n shum sisteme bashkkohore penale-
procedurale, me disa ngjashmri dhe dallime, varsisht nga vlersimi i
ligjvnsit, gjegjsisht praktiks, pr at se n mnyr dhe n form t
pranohet marrveshja pr pranim t fajit.
sht evidente ekzistenca e disa formave t marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit,

t cilat nuk prjashtojn njra-tjetrn dhe mund t kombinohen:
charge bargaining marrveshje pr prmbajtjen e aktit t prokurorit sa i
prket prshkrimit dhe kualikimit juridik t veprave penale;
fact bargaining pajtueshmri pr prezantim selektiv t fakteve, nse i
akuzuari jep deklarat pr pranim t fajit; dhe
forma t veanta t marrveshjes:
nolo contendere pleas sanksioni pranohet pa dhnie t deklarats pr
pranim t fajit n mnyr t qart; ka disa prparsi pr t akuzuarin, e
n fakt i shmanget krijimit t obligimeve pr kompensim t dmit e cila
do t mund t ndrlidhej n procedur civile, q do t pasonte pas
prfundimit t procedurs penale n t ciln i akuzuari sht deklaruar
si fajtor12;
12
I akuzuari as e pranon e as nuk e konteston akuzn; n shum legjislacione nuk parashihet
si e drejt e t akuzuarit; shrben si alternativ e deklarats pr pranim t fajit dhe
shfrytzohet gjat procedurs s marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit. Deklarata sipas s cils
i akuzuari nuk i konteston faktet e rastit, mirpo thot se assesi nuk ka kryer vepr penale,
mund t kuptohet se i akuzuari nuk i kupton akuzat ndaj tij. Kjo deklarat futet n
procesverbal me plqim t gjykatsit (n raste t veanta t prokurorit) dhe ka dy prparsi:
a) i akuzuari t thot se n aspektin formal nuk ka aktgjykim ndshkues edhe pse sht
shqiptuar dnimi, dhe b) kjo deklarat pamundson q ndaj t akuzuarit t ngritet padi
civile pr kompensim, R.A. Carp/R.Stidham, fq. 165.
16 CHAPTER
alford pleas paraqet rastin kur i akuzuari nuk e pranon fajin, por
deklarohet se prokuroria ka dshmi t mjaftueshme pr t prcaktuar
fajin jasht do dyshimi t arsyeshm13;
sentence bargaining pranimi i fajit on n drejtim t zvoglimit apo zbutjes
s dnimit, gjegjsisht n drejtim t prcaktimit t dnimit me kohzgjatje
m t shkurtr sesa q supozohet se do ta caktoj gjyqi, n rast se do t
organizohej procedur e rregullt gjyqsore.
3. MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT SIPAS DISPOZITAVE T LPP
Duhet t sqarohen n mnyr t detajuar kushtet pr marrveshje pr pranim

t fajit, t cilat i ka parapar ligjvnsi, veprimi i palve, parashtrimi i
propozim-marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit, prmbajtja e saj, aktivitetet e
gjyqit, sa i prket vlersimit t propozim- marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit dhe
roli i palve, mbrojtsit, t dmtuarit dhe gjyqit gjat procedurs s
marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit.
3.1. Karakteristikat kryesore t procedurs pr marrveshje

pr pranim t fajit
N LPP sht propozuar procedur pr sjellje t aktgjykimit n baz t

marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit n mes t prokurorit publik dhe t dyshuarit,
dhe pr her t par mundsohet marrveshja midis palve me qllim q t
arrihet zgjidhje e pranueshme nga t gjitha palt.
Kjo procedur i ka kto karakteristika themelore:

Pesha e veprs penale marrveshja pr pranim t fajit lejohet pr t gjitha
veprat penale, pa marr parasysh peshn e parapar t sanksionimit penal;
Zbutja e dnimit gjat prcaktimit t sanksionimit penal, gjykatsi
kompetent sht i obliguar q at ta prcaktoj sipas llojit dhe lartsis,
brenda kornizave t prcaktuara ligjore pr veprn konkrete penale, mirpo
jo nn kujt pr zbutje t dnimit t prcaktuara me Kodin penal;
Plqimi nga t dyja palt propozim-marrveshja pr pranim t fajit sht
shprehje e plqimit paraprak t t dyja palve dhe nuk lejohet q me kt
marrveshje t ngarkohet vetm njra pal. Gjat ksaj, aspak nuk sht me
rndsi nga cila pal ka ardhur iniciativa pr llim t procedurs pr marrveshje,
13
Emrin e ka marr sipas rastit n Gjyqin Suprem t SHBA-ve, North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S.
25 (1970).
por sht e rndsishme q te t dyja palt (palt dhe mbrojtsi) t ekzistoj

nj gatishmri pr tu kyur n procedurn e marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit.
Kur mund t bhet marrveshja pr pranim t fajit LPP nuk prcakton
kuzime sa i prket stadit t procedurs se kur lejohet t bhet marrveshja
pr pranim t fajit, prandaj marrveshja lejohet n do moment mbasi q
prokurori publik t sjell urdhr pr llim t procedurs hetimore e deri kur
kryhet vlersimi i aktakuzs.
Modeli i marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit ligjvnsi maqedonas ka pranuar
model t marrveshjes pr sanksionimin penal (sentence bargaining), e jo
pr veprat penale q do t prfshihen n akuz. N fakt, n propozim-
marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit mund t prfshihen t gjitha veprat penale
apo nj pjes e tyre, pr t cilat sht sjell urdhri pr procedur hetimore,
mirpo pr veprat q prmenden n urdhr pr t cilat nuk sht arritur
marrveshje, procedura patjetr duhet t vazhdoj.
A sht pranimi i krimit parakusht pr marrveshje deklarata pr pranim t
fajit nuk sht parakusht pr llim t procedurs pr marrveshje pr pranim
t fajit gjat procedurs hetimore, gj q nuk ndodh me marrveshjen pr
pranim t fajit n fazn e vlersimit t aktakuzs, kur pranimi i fajit sht
parakusht pr llim t procedurs s marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit.
Mbrojtja e t dmtuarit me qllim q t mbrohen interesat e t dmtuarit, sht
parapar nj obligim pr prokurorin publik q ka t bj me propozim-
marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit, q s bashku me t gjitha dshmit e
siguruara, detyrimisht t bashkangjes edhe deklarat me shkrim t
nnshkruar nga i dmtuari sa i prket llojit dhe lartsis s krkess pronsore-
juridike. Gjat marrveshjes sht e mundur q t arrihet pajtueshmri pr
nj pjes t krkess s t dmtuarit apo ajo aspak t mos jet shtje
diskutimi gjat procedurs pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit, me rast i
dmtuari nuk mbetet pa mbrojtje edhe n rast kur krkesa e tij pronsore-
juridike aspak nuk ka qen shtje diskutimi apo sht pranuar pjesrisht, ai mund
t thirret n aktgjykimin e sjell pr shkak t propozim-marrveshjes s pranuar,
si baz pr ti realizuar t drejtat e tij n kontest civil.
Subjekti i marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit lloji dhe lartsia e sanksionit q
parashihet n propozim-marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit, n mnyr t paevi-
tueshme sht subjekt i marrveshjes. N propozim-marrveshjen pr pranim
t fajit duhet t theksohet n mnyr t sakt sanksioni q propozohet, i
prcaktuar pr nga lloji dhe lartsia, n kuadr t kornizave t prcaktuara me
ligj pr veprn konkrete penale, mirpo jo nn kujt pr zbutje t dnimit t
18 CHAPTER
prcaktuara me Kodin penal. Krkesa pronsore juridike mund t jet

subjekt i marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit vetm kur i dyshuari ka dhn
plqim gjat procedurs pr marrveshje q t merret parasysh dhe t
negociohet pr krkesn pronsore-juridike t t dmtuarit.
Prezenca e detyrueshme e mbrojtsit q nga momenti i llimit t procedurs
pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit, i dyshuari patjetr duhet t ket mbrojts
t cilin do ta zgjedh vet apo do ti prcaktohet sipas detyrs zyrtare. N kt
mnyr zgjerohen mundsit pr mbrojtje t detyrueshme gjat procedurs penale,
q ka pr qllim t siguroj barazi t armve dhe t pamundsoj q i dyshuari, i
cili zakonisht sht laik i legjislacionit, t participoj n procedurn e marr-
veshjes pr pranim t fajit, pa pasur mundsi pr mbrojtje dhe vlersim t nj
procedure t ktill si trsi, q nga llimi e deri te rezultati prfundimtar.
Ndalesa pr pjesmarrje t gjyqit n marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit mospje-
smarrja e gjyqit n procedurn e marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit sht
prcaktuar n mnyr t prer, q ka pr qllim tia pamundsoj gjyqit q
n fardo mnyre t ndikoj mbi palt dhe mbrojtsin, sa i prket vendimit
se a tia llojn procedurs s marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit, si dhe sa i
prket zgjedhjes s llojit dhe lartsis s sanksionit penal.
3.2. Elementet e propozim-marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit
N LPP jan prcaktuar n mnyr decide elementet e propozim-marrveshjes

pr pranim t fajit, t cilat mund t ndahen n disa kategori:
t dhna hyrse:
t dhna pr pjesmarrsit n procedurn pr marrveshje pr pranim
t fajit (prokurori publik, i dyshuari dhe mbrojtsi i tij); dhe
prshkrim dhe kualikim juridik i veprave penale pr t cilat prgatitet
propozim- marrveshja pr pranim t fajit (mund t jet pr t gjitha apo pr
nj pjes t veprave penale pr t cilat zhvillohet procedura hetimore).
subjekti i marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit:
sanksioni i propozuar sipas llojit dhe lartsis (dnimi kryesor, dnimi
dytsor, masa e siguris, masa alternative dhe masa t tjera t parapara
n Kodin penal); dhe/ose
lloji dhe lartsia e krkess pronsore-juridike dhe mnyra e realizimit t
saj, nse i dyshuari ka dhn plqim q ajo t jet subjekt i marrveshjes
pr pranim t fajit14.
14
Krkesa pronsore-juridike prcaktohet sipas deklarats q ka dhn i dmtuari dhe futet
pajtueshmria q mund t arrihet, eventualisht, pr mnyrn e realizimit t ksaj krkese
n propozim-marrveshje.
deklaratat e palve:
deklarata e t dyshuarit se me vetdije dhe vullnetarisht e pranon
propozim-marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit dhe pasojat q dalin nga ajo; dhe
deklarata nga prokurori publik dhe i dyshuari se heqin dor nga e drejta
pr ankes nse sillet aktgjykim me t cilin do t pranohet propozim-
marrveshja pr pranim t fajit.
mnyra e kompensimit t shpenzimeve t procedurs;
pjesa prfundimtare:
nnshkrim i prokurorit publik, t dyshuarit dhe mbrojtsit t tij; dhe
data dhe vendi i nnshkrimit t propozim-marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit.
Kur gjyqit do ti dorzohet propozim- marrveshja pr pranim t fajit e

nnshkruar nga t dyja palt fillon faza e dyt e procedurs s marrveshjes
pr pranim t fajit q ka t bj me vlersimin gjyqsor t propozim-
marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit.
Duke pasur parasysh faktin se propozim- marrveshja mund t parashtrohet

qysh gjat procedurs hetimore, n procesin e vlersimit t propozim-
marrveshjes s parashtruar, rol aktiv dhe status t gjykatsit q sjell aktgjykimin
n fazn e hetimit ka gjykatsi pr procedur paraprake.15
Propozim- marrveshja shqyrtohet n seanc t veant, t ciln gjykatsi i

procedurs paraprake e cakton n afat prej 3 ditsh nga pranimi i propozim-
marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit. Nga afati i prcaktuar n kt mnyr rrjedh
se ligjvnsi insiston q procedura t zhvillohet shpejt dhe n mnyr efikase.
N seanc thirren parashtruesit e propozim- marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit,
gjegjsisht palt dhe mbrojtsi.
N seanc, gjyqi fillimisht i shqyrton kto rrethana:

vall propozim-marrveshja sht parashtruar pr pranim t fajit n mnyr
vullnetare;
vall i dyshuari sht i vetdijshm pr pasojat juridike t pranimit t saj;
vall i dyshuari sht i vetdijshm pr pasojat q ndrlidhen me krkesn
pronsore-juridike, dhe
a sht i dyshuari i vetdijshm pr shpenzimet e procedurs.
15
Veprimi i gjyqit n stadet tjera t procedurs, ku parakusht sht deklarata pr pranim t
fajit nga i dyshuari, gjegjsisht i akuzuari, me rast gjyqi fillimisht e vlerson deklaratn e
dhn, e pastaj propozim-marrveshjen e parashtruar, sht sqaruar m posht, n pjesn
ku bhet elaborimi i statusit t deklarats pr pranim t fajit.
20 CHAPTER
Pas shqyrtimit t rrethanave t lartprmenduara, gjykatsi i procedurs

paraprake sht i obliguar ti udhzoj palt dhe mbrojtsin:
se mund t heqin dor nga marrveshja e parashtruar pr pranim t fajit,
deri n sjelljen e vendimit nga ana e gjyqit, me rast do t konsiderohet
sikur ajo fare t mos ishte dorzuar dhe t gjitha aktet do t kthehen te
prokurori publik pr procedur t mtutjeshme; dhe
se pranimi i propozim- marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit konsiderohet heqje
dor nga e drejta pr ankes ndaj aktgjykimit t sjell me t cilin n trsi
pranohet propozim- marrveshja e parashtruar.
Palt mund t heqin dor nga propozim- marrveshja e parashtruar, me rast

heqja dor mund t jet:
eksplicite nse prokurori publik dhe i dyshuari dhe mbrojtsi i tij heqin
dor nga propozim- marrveshja e parashtruar deri n sjelljen e vendimit; apo
implicite nse prokurori publik dhe i dyshuari dhe mbrojtsi i tij gjat se-
ancs parashtrojn krkes pr prcaktim t sanksionit q sht i ndryshm
nga sanksioni q parashihet me propozim-marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit.
3.3. Vlersim i propozim- marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit
Vendimi i gjykatsit pr propozim- marrveshjen e parashtruar mund t jet

n form t aktvendimit, gjegjsisht n form t aktgjykimit, varsisht nga ajo
se gjykatsi a e ka vlersuar at si t pranueshme apo jo.
Nse propozim- marrveshja pr pranim t fajit vlersohet si e pranueshme,

gjyqi kompetent sjell aktgjykim i cili bazohet n propozim- marrveshjen pr
pranim t fajit dhe gjat sjelljes s ktij aktgjykimi gjyqi nuk duhet t shqiptoj
sanksion penal t ndryshm nga sanksioni penal q sht parapar n
propozim- marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit. Nga ky prcaktim del se gjyqi nuk
guxon t bj asnj lloj ndryshimi n sanksionin e propozuar (dnimi kryesor
dhe dnime apo masa dytsore) pr se jan dakorduar palt. Nse konsideroni
se sanksioni i propozuar nuk sht i pranueshm si trsi, sillet nj aktvendim
pr refuzim t propozim-marrveshjes, pas t cilit aktet kthehen te prokurori
(n rast se marrveshja pr pranim t fajit bhet gjat procedurs hetimore)
gjegjsisht vazhdohet me procedurn (nse marrveshja pr pranim t fajit
sht br n ndonj stad t mvonshm t procedurs).
Aktgjykimi q sillet n baz t propozim- marrveshjes, i prmban t gjitha

elementet e aktgjykimit ndshkues n prputhje me LPP-n. Ai shpallet menjher,
ndrsa prpilohet n form t shkruar n afat prej 3 ditsh pas shpalljes s aktgjykimit.
Aktgjykimi, pa vones, u jepet prokurorit publik, t dyshuarit dhe mbrojtsit

t tij, si dhe t dmtuarit, i cili nse nuk sht i knaqur me vendimin pr llojin
dhe lartsin e krkess s miratuar pronsore-juridike, t drejtn e tij mund
ta realizoj n procedur kontestimore.
Me aktgjykimin e sjell vendoset n mnyr meritore n rastin konkret penal, dhe

ai ka karakter t aktgjykimit t plotfuqishm dhe ekzekutiv. N kt mnyr
mundsohet prfundim i procedurs n fazn m t hershme t mundshme pas
fillimit t saj, ndrsa pamundsia pr tu ankuar ndaj aktgjykimit t sjell on n
rezultat prfundimtar t shpejt, efikas, t drejt dhe t pranueshm pr t dyja
palt, q konsiderohet si situat e jashtzakonshme n t drejtn penale procedurale.
Vendimi negativ i gjyqit sht n form t aktvendimit pr refuzim t

propozim- marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit t ciln gjyqi do ta sjell kur:
do t vrtetohet se dshmit e mbledhura pr faktet q jan t rndsishme
pr zgjedhje dhe peshim t sanksionit penal nuk e arsyetojn shqiptimin e
sanksionit t propozuar penal t parapar n propozim- marrveshjen pr
pranim t fajit, ose
prokurori publik, i dyshuari dhe mbrojtsi i tij gjat seancs kan br
krkes pr prcaktim t sanksionit penal q ndryshon nga ai q sht
parapar n propozim marrveshje.
Nuk lejohet ankes kundr aktvendimit me t cilin refuzohet propozim-

marrveshja pr pranim t fajit.
N rast t sjelljes s aktvendimit me t cilin refuzohet propozim- marrveshja

pr pranim t fajit, gjykatsi i procedurs paraprake ia dorzon aktet prokurorit
publik, ndrsa procesverbali nga seanca e mbajtur dhe propozim-marrveshja pr
pranim t fajit nuk mund t shfrytzohen gjat procedurs s mtutjeshme,
pr shkak se ato ndahen n zarf t veant, t mbyllur.
LPP nuk prmban asnj lloj kufizimi sa i prket mundsis q palt prsri t
parashtrojn propozim-marrveshje pr pranim t fajit deri n gjyq, pasi ai
22 CHAPTER
paraprakisht tua ket refuzuar propozim- marrveshjen q sht vlersuar si

e papranueshme.
3.4. Roli i subjekteve q marrin pjes n procesin e marrveshjes

pr pranim t fajit
Nga prokurori publik pritet veprim aktiv n kuptim t inicimit t procedurs pr

marrveshje pr pranim t fajit dhe angazhimit pr t arritur deri te nj
sanksion penal q sht i pranueshm nga t dyja palt pr veprn apo pr
veprat pr t cilat ai ka sjell urdhr pr fillim t procedurs hetimore. Prokurori
publik duhet q fillimisht ta vlersoj vlern e dshmive t mbledhura me t cilat
disponon n rastin konkret dhe n baz t tyre t sjell vendim se vall duhet
t inicioj marrveshje pr pranim t fajit, apo do t shfrytzoj ndonj
mundsi tjetr procedurale q ia ofron LPP-ja, si pr shembull, shtyrje t
kushtzuar t ndjekjes penale apo do t zhvillohet procedura e rregullt penale.
N kuadr t autorizimeve t prokurorit publik sipas LPP-s, n mes tjerash,
sht parapar edhe detyrimi q ai t negocioj dhe t merret vesh me t
akuzuarin pr pranim t fajit, n mnyr dhe n kushte t prcaktuara me LPP.
N drejtim t prcaktimit t rolit t prokurorit publik mund t kontribuojn
edhe aktgjykimet e Gjyqit Suprem t SHBA-ve, ku ekziston nj zbatim praktik
i suksesshm shumvjear i marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit. Nga aktgjykimet
mund t prfundohet se si obligimet kryesore t prokurorit gjat procedurs
s marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit veohen:
ndalesa e dshirs pr hakmarrje;
roli i garantit dhe i rojtarit t ligjshmris; dhe
vendosja e diskrecionit t plot e prokurorit sa i prket llojit t veprave
penale pr t cilat do t bhet ndjekja apo marrveshja pr pranim t fajit.16
I akuzuari sht njra nga palt q merr pjes n procedurn e marrveshjes pr

pranim t fajit, e i njjti mund t paraqitet n rolin e iniciatorit pr fillim t pro-
cedurs pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit. Sipas LPP-s, i akuzuari ka t drejt
q ta paraqes lirshm mbrojtjen e tij, t mos jet i detyruar t jap deklarat kundr
vetes, t afrmve t tij apo ta pranoj fajin, si dhe t ket mundsi t deklarohet
pr faktet dhe dshmit t cilat e ngarkojn dhe ti paraqes t gjitha faktet dhe
dshmit q jan n favor t tij. Nga i akuzuari pritet q t jet i njoftuar mir
me karakteristikat dhe mundsit q i ofron marrveshja pr pranim t fajit,
por edhe me implikacionet q dalin nga kjo procedur, si jan:
heqja dor nga e drejta pr ankes;
mundsia pr t hequr dor nga marrveshja e parashtruar pr pranim t
fajit deri sa t sillet nj vendim nga ana e gjyqit;
16
M detajisht te Buzharovska, G/Misoski, B, Marrveshja pr pranim t fajit dhe
ndrmjetsimi, fq. 221.
24 CHAPTER
pasojat t cilat do t ndodhnin, nse n seancn pr vlersimin e propozim-

marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit bn krkes pr prcaktim t sanksionit t
ndryshm nga ai q sht parapar n propozim-marrveshje;
mundsia q t jap plqim q krkesa pronsore-juridike t jet subjekt i
marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit; dhe
pasojat q kan t bjn me kompensimin e nj pjese t shpenzimeve t
procedurs.
Pjesmarrja e mbrojtsit n procedurn pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit q

nga fillimi i saj sht e obligueshme. Nga mbrojtsi pritet profesionalizm,
ndihm kualitative juridike dhe veprim n drejtim t mbrojtjes s interesave
t t akuzuarit. Mbrojtsi duhet t jet me prvoj, i zhdrvjellt dhe i aft q me
prokurorin t merret vesh pr sanksionin q sht i pranueshm n aspekt t
mbrojtjes, duke pasur parasysh faktin se far do t ishte sanksioni, n qoft
se do t realizohej procedura e rregullt penale. Duke i pasur parasysh kto pritje
nga mbrojtsi sht plotsisht e qart se ligjvnsi sht prcaktuar pr zgjidhje
ku nuk mund t realizohet procedura pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit pa
pranin e mbrojtsit. Me dispozitat q kan t bjn me procedurn pr
marrveshje pr pranim t fajit zgjerohen mundsit pr mbrojtje t
obligueshme, gjegjsisht nse i akuzuari vet nuk zgjedh mbrojts, atij ti
prcaktohet mbrojtsi sipas detyrs zyrtare nga ana e kryetarit t gjyqit
kompetent.
Ndalesa q gjyqi t marr pjes n procedurn pr marrveshje t pranimit t

fajit sht theksuar n mnyr t prer. Ky prcaktim ka pr qllim t
pamundsoj ndikim t gjyqit sa i prket przgjedhjes s llojit dhe lartsis s
sanksionit penal dhe t potencoj rolin q prokurori publik e ka si dominus litis
gjat procedurs hetimore. Me mospjesmarrje n procedurn pr marrveshje
pr pranim t fajit, gjykatsi e ruan paanshmrin e tij si arbitr, duke e
vlersuar propozim- marrveshjen e parashtruar pr pranim t fajit n baz t
dshmive t siguruara nga ana e prokuroris. Fakti q gjykatsi nuk ka qasje n
ecurin e procedurs pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit sht i dobishm,
meqense n kt mnyr, gjykatsi nuk ka njohuri pr procesin e negociatave
q i ka paraprir nnshkrimit t propozim- marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit, ai
nuk i di bisedat q jan zhvilluar n mes t prokurorit dhe mbrojtsit. N kt
mnyr potencohet roli i gjyqit n fazn e dyt t procedurs pr marrveshje
pr pranim t fajit. Marrveshja pr pranim t fajit mundson dhnie t
aktgjykimit n stad m t hershm t procedurs dhe n kt mnyr

aktgjykimi i bazuar n propozim- marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit mund t
sillet si n procedurn hetimore, po edhe n fazn e vlersimit t akuzs.
Dispozitat q kan t bjn me marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit zbatohen
edhe ather kur realizohet procedura e shkurtuar.
Edhe pse nuk merr pjes n mnyr t drejtprdrejt n procedurn pr

marrveshje pr pranim t fajit, me qllim q t mbrohen interesat e t
dmtuarit, pr t cilin me prioritet sht vendimi q ka t bj me krkesn
pronsore-juridike, sht parapar si obligim i prokurorit publik, q s bashku
me t gjitha dshmit e siguruara t parashtroj detyrimisht edhe deklarat
me shkrim t nnshkruar nga i dmtuari. N kt mnyr realizohet
pjesmarrje e trthort e t dmtuarit nprmjet prokurorit publik.
Megjithat, deklarata e dhn nuk sht garanci se krkesa pronsore-juridike
do t jet subjekt i marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit. Si u theksua edhe m
hert, kjo varet nga plqimi i t akuzuarit se krkesa pronsore-juridike a do
t jet subjekt i marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit. Megjithat mbetet mundsia
q t drejtat e tij i dmtuari ti realizoj n procedur kontestimore.
4. STATUSI I DEKLARATS PR PRANIM T FAJIT GJEGJSISHT PRANIMI

I KRIMIT SIPAS LPP-S
Ekzistojn dallime n mundsit pr dhnie t deklarats pr pranim t fajit

gjegjsisht t pranimit t krimit n stade t ndryshme t procedurs, pas
prfundimit t procedurs hetimore.
Deklarata pr pranim t fajit sht parakusht pr realizim t procedurs pr

marrveshje pr pranim t fajit n mes t palve n fazn e kontrollit t
akuzs, gj q nuk ndodh n procedurn hetimore.
N procedurn hetimore, drejtprsdrejti zbatohen dispozitat pr sjellje t

aktgjykimit n baz t propozim- marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit n mes t
palve pa pranim paraprak t krimit nga i akuzuari, poqe se nga cilado pal ka
ardhur iniciativa pr fillim t procedurs pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit.
Edhe prkundr faktit se nuk bhet pranim i fajit n mnyr t prer pr veprat
pr t cilat prokuroria ka sjell vendim pr fillim t procedurs hetimore, kjo
26 CHAPTER
bhet n mnyr implicite, me an t iniciativs pr fillim t procedurs pr

marrveshje pr pranim t fajit, gjegjsisht me fillim t bisedimeve pr
marrveshje pr pranim t fajit me propozim t prokuroris.
4.1. Vlersimi i akuzs
N fazn e vlersimit t akuzs deklarata pr pranim t fajit sht parakusht

pr realizim t procedurs pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit ndrmjet
prokurorit publik dhe t dyshuarit bashk me mbrojtsin e tij.
Pr dallim nga procedura hetimore ku iniciativa pr marrveshje pr pranim

t fajit mund t vij nga t dy palt, n stadin e akuzs iniciativa vjen nga
mbrojtja me shprehje t gatishmris pr t br pranim t fajit pr veprat e
prfshira n akuz.
Gatishmrin pr t br pranim t veprave i dyshuari mund ta bj n dy mnyra:

me parashtrim t deklarats me shkrim ku thekson gatishmrin pr dhnie
t deklarats pr pranim t fajit sa i prket t gjitha apo disa veprave penale
t prfshira n aktakuz me rast gjykatsi, n kshillin pr vlersim t
aktakuzs, sht i obliguar t caktoj seanc pr vlersim t pranimit t
krimit, apo
n seancn pr vlersim t akuzs t jap deklarat me goj se ndjehet
fajtor pr t gjitha apo pr disa vepra penale t prfshira n aktakuz me
rast procedura vazhdon sipas dispozitave pr ecurin e seancs kur ka
deklarat pr pranim t fajit.
Parakusht pr fillim t procedurs pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit sht

vendimi i gjykatsit kompetent, gjegjsisht i kshillit pr vlersim t akuzs
pr at se a sht deklarata e pranueshme apo jo.
Nse gjykatsi apo kshilli pr vlersim t aktakuzs nuk e pranon deklaratn

pr pranim t fajit, kt duhet ta konstatoj me procesverbal, i njofton palt
e pranishme me vendimin e tij dhe vazhdon me realizim t seancs pr
vlersim t aktakuzs. Deklarata e parashtruar pr pranim t fajit, gjegjsisht
procesverbali n t cilin sht prfshir ajo, nuk mund t shfrytzohen si
dshmi n procedurn e mtutjeshme penale, kshtu q ato mbyllen n
mbshtjellse t veant dhe ndahen nga aktet e lnds.
Gjykatsi, gjegjsisht kshilli do t sjell vendim se deklarata e dhn sht e

pranueshme pasi t kontrolloj:
vall ajo sht e dhn n mnyr vullnetare, me vetdije dhe pasi t jen
kuptuar pasojat e saj, duke prfshir edhe pasojat e ndrlidhura me krkesn
pronsore-juridike dhe shpenzimet e procedurs penale, dhe
vall ekzistojn dshmi t mjaftueshme pr fajin e t dyshuarit.
Pr dallim nga marrveshja pr pranim t fajit gjat procedurs hetimore, ku

nuk ekziston kufizim kohor pr arritje t marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit, n
stadin e akuzimit, palt kan afat kohor prej 15 ditsh q t merren vesh pr
sanksion penal t pranueshm pr t gjith dhe t parashtrojn propozim-
marrveshje pr pranim t fajit deri te gjykatsi, gjegjsisht kshilli kompetent
pr vlersim t akuzs.
Nse n kt afat kohor palt nuk parashtrojn propozim-marrveshje pr

pranim t fajit, vazhdohet me seancn pr vlersim t akuzs s parashtruar.
Nse propozim- marrveshja pr pranim t fajit sht parashtruar pason

vlersimi i saj i cili mund t jet:
pozitiv : propozim- marrveshja pr pranim t fajit t pranohet, me rast
gjykatsi apo kshilli pr vlersim t aktakuzs sjell aktgjykim sipas
dispozitave pr sjellje t aktgjykimit n baz t propozim-marrveshjes, apo
negativ: propozim- marrveshja pr pranim t fajit t mos pranohet, me
rast gjykatsi apo kshilli pr vlersim t aktakuzs sjell aktvendim pr
mospranim t propozim- marrveshjes dhe vendos sa i prket aktakuzs.
Propozim- marrveshja e cila nuk sht e pranuar nuk mund t shfrytzohet
si dshmi n procedurn e mtutjeshme penale.
28 CHAPTER
4.2. Pranim i krimit i dhn n shqyrtimin kryesor
Sipas dispozitave t LPP-s ekziston mundsia pr pranim t krimit n fazn

e shqyrtimit kryesor pas fjalimeve hyrse t palve, mirpo para fillimit t
procedurs dshmuese.
Pas udhzimit pr t drejtat q i ka i akuzuari (t drejtn pr t heshtur apo

pr t dhn deklarat, pr ta ndjekur me kujdes ecurin e shqyrtimit kryesor,
pr mundsin e prezantimit t dshmis n mbrojtje t tij, pr t drejtn tu
parashtroj pyetje t bashkakuzuarve, dshmitarve dhe ekspertve, dhe pr
t drejtn t jap vrejtje sa i prket deklaratve t tyre), kryetari i kshillit do
ta ftoj t akuzuarin q t deklarohet se a ndihet fajtor pr t gjitha apo pr
disa vepra penale t prfshira n akuz.
I akuzuari mund ta pranoj fajin n mnyr vullnetare sa i prket njrs apo

m shum veprave penale nga akuza.
Pranimi i krimit nuk sht i kufizuar as me natyrn e as me peshn e veprs

penale pr t ciln zhvillohet procedura.
Pas marrjes s pranimit t krimit me vullnet t lir, gjykatsi individual ose

kryetari i kshillit sht i obliguar ti shqyrtoj kto rrethana:
vall pranimi i krimit sht br me vullnet t lir;
vall i akuzuari sht i vetdijshm pr pasojat juridike t pranimit t fajit;
vall i akuzuari sht i vetdijshm pr pasojat q kan t bjn me krkesn
pronsore-juridike; dhe
vall i akuzuari sht i vetdijshm pr shpenzimet e procedurs penale.
Nse pranimi i krimit vlersohet si i papranueshm, i dhn n gjendje hutie,

si rezultat i moskuptimit t mjaftueshm t pasojave q ndrlidhen me to dhe
t ngjashme, gjyqi vazhdon me realizimin e shqyrtimit kryesor (d.m.th. fillon
procedura dshmuese), me rast procesverbali pr pranimin e krimit ndahet
nga aktet dhe konsiderohet sikur t mos ishte dhn asnjher dhe, si i till,
nuk do t mundet t shfrytzohet n pjesn e mtutjeshme t procedurs.
Nse pranimi i krimit pranohet, gjyqi e fillon procedurn dshmuese n kuadr

t s cils prezantohen vetm dshmit q kan t bjn me vendimin pr
sanksionin penal. Risit q lidhen me pranimin e krimit mundsojn nj
racionalizim t veprimeve q e prbjn shqyrtimin kryesor, me rast pesha
e rrethanave q i prkasin fajit, prgjegjsia penale e t akuzuarit dhe gjendja
faktike barten n rrethana q kan t bjn me llojin dhe lartsin e sanksionit
penal sipas dispozitave pr vlersimin e dnimit t KP-s.
30 CHAPTER
N rast se deklarata pr pranim t krimit sht pranuar, edhe at pas

prezantimit t dshmive q jan t rndsishme pr sanksionin penal, gjyqi
sjell aktgjykim q i prmban t gjitha elementet e aktgjykimit ndshkues.
Duhet theksuar se kundr aktgjykimit, apo pjess s aktgjykimit q sht sjell
si rezultat i pranimit t krimit t dhn pas fillimit t shqyrtimit kryesor, i
akuzuari nuk mund t parashtroj ankes pr shkak t gjendjes faktike t
vrtetuar gabimisht apo mosvrtetimit t saj n trsi.
5. IMPLIKACIONET NGA MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT MBI DISPOZITA

T TJERA T LPP-S
Marrveshja pr pranim t fajit dhe deklarata pr pranim t fajit kan ndikimin

e tyre edhe mbi dispozita t tjera t LPP-s, gjegjsisht mbi institucione t
tjera procedurale, si p.sh.:
Ndarja e procedurs n rast se pranohet faji pr nj pjes t veprave
penale t prfshira n akuz, gjegjsisht faji t pranohet nga disa t
bashkakuzuar, gjyqi mund t vendos, deri n prfundim t shqyrtimit
kryesor, q procedura pr disa vepra penale apo ndaj disa t akuzuarve t
ndahet dhe t prfundohet n mnyr t veant apo ti dorzohet ndonj
gjyqi tjetr kompetent.
Mbrojtja e detyrueshme gjat procedurs pr negociata dhe asaj pr t
br marrveshje pr pranim t fajit me prokurorin, i akuzuari duhet,
patjetr, t ket mbrojts.
Bazat pr t prcaktuar paraburgim nse i akuzuari ka dhn deklarat
me t ciln e ka pranuar fajin nuk do ti prcaktohet mas paraburgimi, edhe
pse ekziston dyshim i arsyeshm se ai ka kryer vepr penale, pr shkak t
ekzistimit t nj frike t arsyeshme se do ti fsheh, falsikoj apo do ti
shkatrroj gjurmt e veprs penale ose nse rrethana t veanta kuptohet
se ai do ta pengonte procedurn penale duke ndikuar mbi dshmitart,
ekspertt, bashkpjesmarrsit si dhe mbi fshehsit.
Ndrprerja e paraburgimit paraburgimi do t ndrpritet me aktvendim
dhe i akuzuari do t lshohet n liri nse paraburgimi sht prcaktuar pr
shkak t friks s arsyeshme se do ti fsheh, do ti falsifikoj apo do ti
shkatrroj gjurmt e veprs penale ose, n rrethana t veanta, vihet n
dijeni se ai do ta pengoj procedurn penale me ndikim mbi dshmitart,
ekspertt, bashkpjesmarrsit apo fshehsit, ndrsa i akuzuari ka dhn
deklarat pr pranim t fajit.
Udhzim pr t drejtat e t akuzuarit para do marrjeje n pyetje, i
akuzuari detyrimisht do t informohet dhe do t udhzohet, n mes tjerash,
edhe pr t drejtn pr t br marrveshje pr pranim t fajit me
prokurorin publik.
Sjellja e aktgjykimit Marrveshja pr pranim t fajit, gjegjsisht pranimi i
krimit mundson rigjykim n stade (faza) t ndryshme t procedurs duke
lluar qysh nga hetimi.
32 CHAPTER
SJELLJA E AKTGJYKIMIT
STADI I STATUSI I PRANIMIT EFEKTI SUBJEKTI KOMPE-
PROCEDURS T KRIMIT PRFUNDIMTAR TENT PR SJELLJE T
AKTGJYKIMIT
procedura hetimore Nuk sht parakusht Aktgjykim n baz t Gjykatsi i

marrveshjes pr procedurs
pranim t fajit n paraprake
mes t palve
vlersimi i aktakuzs sht parakusht Aktgjykim n baz t Gjykatsi gjegjsisht

marrveshjes pr kshilli pr vlersim
pranim t fajit n t aktakuzs
mes t palve
fillimi i shqyrtimit sht parakusht Aktgjykim pas pre- Gjykatsi individual

kryesor zantimit t dshmive gjegjsisht kshilli i
q kan t bjn me cili udhheq me
sanksionin penal shqyrtimin kryesor
6. SFIDAT DHE RREZIQET
pritet nga marrveshja pr pranim t fajit dhe deklarata pr pranim t krimit?

Shkarkim t gjyqeve nga nj pjes e lndve ku palt do t arrijn t merren
vesh?
Pr shkak se nuk ekziston kufizim sa i prket natyrs dhe peshs s veprave
penale pr t cilat sht e lejuar marrveshja pr pranim t fajit, palt mund
ta zbatojn marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit doher kur t vlersojn se
ajo sht n dobi t t dyja palve;
Gjykatsit do t ken m shum koh tu kushtojn lndve komplekse
penale me gjendje faktike t komplikuar, numr t madh dshmish dhe
autorsh e t ngjashme;
Zvoglim t shpenzimeve t procedurave gjyqsore pr shkak se zvoglohet
n mas t konsiderueshme kohzgjatja prej fillimit t procedurs penale
deri n sjelljen e aktgjykimit;
Rol proaktiv t palve;
Prfundim t procedurs n faz m t hershme me sjellje t vendimit meritor;
Rezultat t qart prfundimtar i cili mbshtetet mbi konsultime, biseda dhe

kompromise n mes t palve dhe mbrojtsit t cilat rezultojn me
nnshkrim t propozim- marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit;
Aftsi t mbrojtsit pr t vlersuar se sa sht e volitshme pr klientin e
tij q t shpreh gatishmri pr pranim t fajit, gjegjsisht t bj pranim
t krimit para gjyqit, prkundrejt rezultatit prfundimtar t procedurs t
ciln e prbjn veprimet e zakonshme procedurale npr stadet e saja t
ndryshme.
Cilat jan rreziqet e mundshme respektivisht vshtirsit praktike?

Korniza t gjera t sanksioneve t parapara n KP-s;
Politika ndshkuese e cila sillet rreth minimumit ligjor t parapar t
sanksioneve;
Nevoja pr ndryshime n KP sa i prket zbutjes s dnimeve n rast t
procedurs pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit, gjegjsisht dhnies s
deklarats pr pranim t krimit;
Vshtirsi pr palt q t vlersojn vall u konvenon m shum marrveshja
pr pranim t fajit apo procedura e rregullt penale;
Praktika e pabarabart gjyqsore n shqiptimin e sanksioneve penale pr
vepra t njjta apo t ngjashme penale;
Mosekzistimi i sanksionit t llogaritur mesatar pr vepra t ndryshme
kriminale sipas praktiks gjyqsore gjat disa viteve t kaluara etj.
34 CHAPTER
PJESA 2
PRAKTIKA KOMPARATIVE PR
MARRVESHJEN PR PRANIM T FAJIT
1. HYRJE
Marrveshja pr pranimin e fajit tradicionalisht sht par si pjes e sistemit t s

drejts penale t Shteteve t Bashkuara t Ameriks dhe t shteteve tjera me ligj zakonor.
Shpesh prdoret si term i prgjithshm pr t prshkruar negocim mes proku-

roris dhe mbrojtjes pr tu deklaruar i fajshm n kushte t negociuara. N kuptim
teknik, megjithat, kjo ndodh vetm ather kur i pandehuri ndrron deklarimin
prej nga i pafajshm n t fajshm n kmbim t dnimit t zvogluar.
Nj raport i fundit i OSBE-s e definoi at si nj proces marrveshjeje mes t

pandehurit dhe prokurorit n t cilin i pandehuri pranon se ka kryer krim dhe
prokurori pajtohet pr disa lshime n kmbim. Marrveshja pastaj dorzohet
n gjyq me qllim q t shmanget seanca gjyqsore.17
Teknikisht, nj marrveshje pr akuzn ndodh kur prokuroria pajtohet t hedh

posht nj akuz m t rnd n kmbim pr deklarim t fajsis pr
kundrvajtje m t leht ose i pandehuri deklarohet fajtor pr s paku nj
akuz n kmbim q prokurori t hedh posht s paku nj akuz. Marrveshja
pr faktin sht kur prokuroria prezanton nj version m t favorshm t
fakteve t supozuara lidhur me veprn penale n kmbim pr deklarim fajtor.
Marrveshja pr dnimin zakonisht referon rastet n t cilat gjykatsi ka dhn
indikacion pr dnim t mundshm nse i pandehuri deklarohet fajtor.
Procesi n t cilin i pandehuri bashkpunon me prokurorin ose me gjykatn

nganjher referohet si drejtsi e negociuar sepse rezultati prfundimtar
sht arritur n baz t nj lloj negociate.
17
Misioni i OSBE-s n Bosnj e Hercegovin, Marrveshjet e Deklarimit n Bosnj e
Hercegovin: Praktikat para Gjykats dhe prputhja e tyre me standardet ndrkombtare pr
t drejtat e njeriutBotimi i 2-t maj 2006, faqe 7 (Raporti i OSBE-s pr marrveshjet pr
pajtimin e fajit).
36 CHAPTER
N sistemet e ligjit zakonor kundrshtues i pandehuri duhet t hyj n nj

deklarim formal t fajsis ose pafajsis pr akuzat para gjyqit.
Ky koncept sht i huaj pr sistemet e s drejts civile inkuizitore n t cilat

krkohet nga gjykatsi t bj prcaktimin ligjor t fajsis pas shqyrtimit t,
t gjitha dshmive pavarsisht nse i pandehuri pranon fajsin. Koncepti ku
i pandehuri formalisht t deklarohet fajtor ose jo fajtor sht futur n disa
sisteme t s drejts civile q prdorin procedura gjyqsore kundrshtuese,
si sht Bosnja e Hercegovina, por jo edhe n vende tjera si Italia.
Sistemet e ligjit zakonor kundrshtues paraqesin nj dgjim kontestues mes

prokuroris dhe mbrojtjes, q t dyja duke prezantuar raste t ndryshme.
Shumica drmuese e rasteve t sjella para gjyqit n sistemet e ligjit zakonor
nuk kontestohen me at q i pandehuri deklarohet fajtor. Ekzistojn dallime
t prera mes sistemeve t ligjit zakonor n mnyrn e deklarimit t fajsis
dhe arrihet (dnimi m i lart).
N Shtetet e Bashkuara ku marrveshja pr pranimin e fajit sht e gjith-

pranishme, vlersohet se sht prdor n gati 95% t rasteve t ndjekura
penalisht. Atje palt mund t merren vesh edhe pr akuzn edhe pr dnimin
dhe dnimi i arritur mund t sugjerohet n gjyq. N Angli dhe n Uells, pr
dallim, negociatat bhen pr akuzn dhe pr faktet q mbshtesin akuzn
(akuzat) por jo edhe pr dnimin dhe gjykata mund t mbaj nj dgjim pr
faktet e kontestuar. Sistemi kundrshtues italian prmban ujdi pr dnimin,
por jo edhe marrveshje pr akuzn. Sistemi kundrshtues i Bosnjs mundson
marrveshje pr dnimin por n praktik palt, gjithashtu, negociojn edhe
pr akuzat dhe faktet. TNKJ (Tribunali Ndrkombtar pr Krime n Ish
Jugosllavi) prmban marrveshje edhe pr akuz edhe pr dnimin. N Itali
dhe n Bosnj e Hercegovin gjyqi, nse pranon marrveshjen pr pranimin e
fajit, lidhet pr dnimin nga marrveshja. N TNKJ dhe n Shtetet e Bashkuara
gjykata nuk obligohet pr kt. Statuti dhe Rregullorja e Gjykats Ndrkom-
btare pr Krime heshtin n lidhje me marrveshjen pr pranimin e fajit.
Sistemet e ligjit zakonor kundrshtues mbshteten n negociatat pr deklarim me

qllim t funksionimit efikas t sistemeve t tyre t drejtsis penale.
Reformat italiane t vitit 1988, duke shfuqizuar gjykatsin hetues dhe duke
futur n fuqi seancat gjyqsore kundrshtuese, gjithashtu, zgjodhn
marrveshjen pr pranimin e fajit meq e njjta shihet si pjes e domosdoshme

e sistemit kundrshtues.
Marrveshja pr pranimin e fajit mund t jet kontroverse dhe t trheq edhe

mbshtetje t fort si edhe kritik t ashpr.
Prfitimet e drejtsis s negociuar t cilat ojn n dnime m t ulta

prshkruhen n aspektin e uljes s harxhimeve t drejtsis publike dhe n
asistimin e t pandehurit dhe t dshmitarve. Dshmitart dhe viktimat
kursehen nga dhnia e dshmis n gjykat, rastet gjyqsore jan m t
shkurta dhe shum m shpejt zgjidhen, po edhe zvoglohet numri i punve
q ndrlidhem me vet rastin. Negociatat pr deklarim po ashtu ndihmojn
n mundsimin e mbylljes ose rivendosjes s drejtsis, pr shembull, n
rastet e krimeve t lufts ku mund t bihet n ujdi pr dhnie t informacionit
si sht lokacioni i varrezave dhe informacioni lidhur me personat e humbur.
Politika publike pr zbulimin e krimit dhe pr sjelljen e t pandehurve para
drejtsis sht prparuar gjithashtu, meq t pandehurit mund t pajtohen
t japin informacion ose inteligjenc ose t dshmojn n raste t tjera pr
kmbim t nj dnimi t zvogluar. Ithtart tjer vrejn se kjo i lejon t
pandehurit t shpreh pendimin n lidhje me krimin dhe ndikimin q ka pasur
n t prekurit nga krimi.
Kritikt pohojn se kjo mundson nj shtytje pr tu deklaruar i fajshm gj q

shkakton q njerzit e pafajshm t deklarohen fajtor dhe, kjo uzurpon
autoritetin gjyqsor pr tì dhn m shum kompetenc prokurorit, kshtu
q prokurort mbingarkohen dhe me kt detyrojn t pandehurit t
negociojn pr deklarim t fajsis edhe pr kundrvajtje m t lehta gjithnj
me shpres t marrjes s dnimit m t vogl dhe se t pandehurit mund t
japin informacion t rrejshm kundr t tjerve pr kmbim t marrveshjes
pr pranimin e fajit.
Prkundr ktyre kritikave, marrveshja pr pranimin e fajit, n nj form apo

tjetr, po e rrit popullaritetin e vet n sistemet e ligjit zakonor kundrshtues
dhe ato t s drejts civile. N koh t fundit, pr shembull, Franca, Rusia,
Argjentina, Afrika e Jugut dhe India, mes shteteve tjera, prhapin kt
marrveshje edhe n mnyr formale.
38 CHAPTER
Si shembull t nj sistemi q nuk sht shqyrtuar m posht, prvoja e para

ca kohe e Tajvanit tregon se si nj sistem i prparshm, i pastr i t drejts
civile, fut n prdorim disa procedura kundrshtuese, prfshir ktu edhe
marrveshjen pr pranimin e fajit. Reformat e vitit 2004 dhan marrveshje
pr pranimin fajit t kufizuar nn titullin procedurat pr negocim.18 Sistemi
i prparshm shprehte karakteristika inkuizitore me nj hetim t kontrolluar
nga prokurori q onte deri te nj aktakuz dhe shqyrtim t dosjes s rastit
nga ana e gjyqit. M par seanca gjyqsore ishte nj marrje n pyetje nga ana
e gjykatsit me pak pjesmarrje t prokuroris dhe mbrojtjes. Sistemi i ri sht
nj kontest i udhhequr nga palt kundrshtuese mes prokuroris dhe
mbrojtjes para gjykatsit neutral edhe pse gjykatsi prap pranon dosjen para-
gjyqsore. Negociatat pr kundrvajtjet jo t rnda mund t fillojn pas
aktakuzs dhe t prqendrohen n kohzgjatjen e dnimit edhe pse i
pandehuri mund t pajtohet t krkon falje ose t paguan pr kompensim t
viktims ose ndonj shum parash pr ndonj organizat. Gjykatsit nuk mund
t marrin pjes n negociata por duhet patjetr t konfirmojn se t
pandehurit kan kuptuar se kan hequr dor nga disa t drejta t caktuara.
Gjykatsi mund t pranoj marrveshjen dhe t dnoj t pandehurin n
kushtet e caktuar me marrveshje, ose mund ta refuzoj at dhe t krkoj
seanc gjyqsore. Gjykatsi patjetr duhet t refuzoj marrveshjen n
rrethana t saktsuara19.
2. ANGLIA DHE UELLSI (MBRETRIA E BASHKUAR)
2.1. Hyrje
Sistemi i t drejts penale n Angli dhe n Uells pr koh t gjat kan

shfrytzuar principin e ligjit zakonor kundrshtues pr deklarim formal t
pafajsis ose t fajsis pr nj akuz t sjell para gjykats. Nga i pandehuri
krkohet q t futet n deklarim formal t pafajsis ose fajsis pr akuzn
e sjell para gjykats.
Ligji dhe praktika n lidhje me dnimin dhe deklarimin e fajsis prfshihet n

nj przierje t rastit t s drejts zakonore, legjislaturs, udhzimeve t
praktiks gjyqsore, udhzuesve ligjor, dhe kodeve t avokatve. Ajo sht
objekt i amendamenteve t shpeshta nga ana e legjislatorit dhe interpretimit
18
Nenet 455-2 deri -11nga Kodi i Procedurs Penale t Tajvanit
19
Shih, Margaret K. Lewis Sistemi i Ri Kundrshtues i Tajvanit dhe Sda e Neglizhuar per
Reforma Drejtuar Ekasiteti 49 Zhurnali i Virgjinias pr Ligjin Ndrkombtar 651 (2008-2009).
nga ana e gjykatave m t larta. Doktrina e stare decisis ose e precedentit, nj

nga karakteristikat themelore dalluese t sistemit t s drejts zakonore q
detyron n gjykatat m t ulta me vendimiet e gjykats m t lart n
hierarkin e gjykatave e ka Gjykata e Apelit q n vazhdimsi lshon vendime
t freskta n lidhje me precedentin juridik obligues.
Policia sht fillimisht prgjegjse pr hetimin e krimit. Zyra e Prokuroris (ZP)

i drejtuar nga Drejtori i Prokuroris Publike tani sht prgjegjs pr
udhheqjen e akuzave pr shumicn e krimeve t sjella para gjykats.
Policia tani ka rol shum m t kufizuar n procesin e akuzs formale, n

prgjithsi e kufizuar n kundrvajtje t veanta si jan shkeljet e vogla n
komunikacion, kundrvajtjet n rrug dhe kundrvajtjet e prishjes s rendit
publik, si dhe do kundrvajtje q i takon Gjykats pr kundrvajtje t
dnueshme deri n tre muaj burgim, e cila sigurisht q on n numr t
konsiderueshm t rasteve. N t gjitha rastet tjera, Prokurort prcaktojn
akuzn q sillet para gjyqit dhe informojn policin pr mnyrn e akuzimit.
ZP ka nj rol statusor formal n procesin e negociatave pr deklarim t

fajsis. Ky proces nuk referohet si marrveshje pr pranim faji n kuptim t
asaj se si kuptohet, si pr shembull, n Shtetet e Bashkuara, n tribunalett
ndrkombtare dhe n Bosnj e Hercegovin. Megjithat, efekti praktik n
kuptim t negocimit t marrveshjes pr pr pranim faji sht mjaft i ngjashm.
Historikisht, ata t cilt deklarohen fajtor n prgjithsi kan marr dnime

m t ulta n krahasim me dnimet e aplikueshme nse vrtetohet fajsia
pas mbajtjes s seancs s dgjimit gjyqsor. Praktika e prgjithshme tregon
se pranimi i fajit n koh ka br q dnimi t ulet pr gati nj t tretn, n
krahasim me dnimin me t cilin, pr ndryshe, do t ngarkohej.20
Akti pr Drejtsi Penale i vitit 2003 parasheh se i akuzuari mund t marr

zvoglim statusor t dnimit n rast t deklarimit t fajsis dhe se gjykata
duhet patjetr t marr parasysh kur i pandehuri shfaq qllimin pr tu
deklaruar fajtor si dhe rrethanat n t cilat nj shenj e till sht dhn. 21
Kjo nuk siguron kurrfar t drejte statusore apo t pasurit t drejt pr
przvoglim dnimi. Akti pr Drejtsi Penale, po ashtu, nuk e rregullon tarifn
20
N R . kundr Buffrey 14 Cr. App. R (S) 511: Gjykata e Apleit vendosi kur nuk kishte asnj
rregull absolute pr at se si duhej t ishte zvoglimi i dnimit, meq si udhzim i
prgjithshm pr zvoglim t prshtatshm ishte nj e treta
21
Seksioni 144, Akti pr Drejtsi Penale 2003
40 CHAPTER
apo zvoglimin e dnimit, duke cekur vetm se asgj nuk ndalon gjykatn
pr t dhn nj dnim q nuk sht m pak se 80 pr qind nga kundrvajtjet
e veuara t cilat bartin kushte minimale statusore pr burgosje.
Gjat dhnies s dnimit gjykata duhet t ket parasysh fardo direktiva t

cilat jan relevante pr rastin e t pandehurit22. Kshilli pr Dhnie Dnimi i
formuar sipas legjislaturs ka botuar nj numr t madh t direktivave n
lidhje me dhnien e dnimit. Funksioni i tij t promovoj konsistenc n
dnim sht pr t vendosur direktiva pr parimet e dhnies s dnimeve
dhe pr kundrvajtjet e veanta. Direktiva definitive e kshillit pr dnime
Zvoglimi i dnimit pr pranim t fajsis (2007) veon nj shkall rrshqitse
t dnimeve. Kto prfshijn prej zvoglimeve t rekomanduara pr nj t
tretn pr deklarata t dhna, me mundsin m t par t mundur, deri te
nj e dhjeta pr deklarata t dhna n pragun e gjykats. Direktiva parasheh
rrethana t kufizuara, ndryshe nga koha kur bhet pranimi, kur zvoglimi mund
t refuzohet ose t ulet, si sht rasti n nj rast t pakalueshm t ndjekjes
t jashtzakonshme penale.
Direktiva thekson si princip se ulja e dnimit sht e prshtatshme pr shkak

se pranimi i fajsis shmang nevojn pr seanc gjyqsore (kshtu
mundsohet q rastet e tjera t zgjidhen n mnyr m ekspeditive), ngushton
mosprputhjen mes akuzs dhe dnimit, kursen harxhime t konsiderueshme
dhe, n rast t pranimit t hershm, kursen viktimat dhe dshmitart nga
brenga se duhet t dshmojn. Principi i uljes s dnimit buron nga nevoja pr
administrim efikas t drejtsis dhe jo si nj aspekt i lehtsimit.
N prgjithsi, mbi 90% e t pandehurve n Angli dhe n Uells deklarohen

fajtor. Shumica e kundrvajtjeve rreth 98% ndiqen penalisht nga Gjykata
pr kundrvajtje pa juri. Madje edhe n Gjykatat t shkalls s par (pr seanca
gjyqsore pr aktakuz pr krcnime m serioze) n Angli dhe n Uells mbi
60% t rasteve rezultojn me deklarim t fajsis, ndrsa vetm rreth 14-15%
ojn n shqiptim dnimi nga ana e juris. Gjykatat pr Kundrvajtje i drgojn
rastet me kundrvajtje m t rnda n Gjykatat themelore pr shqiptim t
dnimit ose pr seanc gjyqsore. Pr shkak se n Gjykatat themelore
procedura q prdoret sht m e afrt me marrveshjen pr pranim t fajsis,
ky doracak prshkruan procedurat e prdorura n kto gjykata.
22
Seksioni 172, Akti pr Drejtsi Penale 2003
Kur kalohet rasti tek Gjykata themelore i pandehuri deklaron fajsin, pik s
pari, n tri faza.
E para sht deklarimi fajtor pr t gjitha ose pr disa nga akuzat sipas rastit
t ndjekjes penale t shtruar n dokumentacionin e gjykats. E dyta sht
deklarimi fajtor n baz t deklarimit t negociuar mes palve ose n baz t
deklarimit t parashtruar nga ana e mbrojtjes, por i pakontestuar nga ana e
prokuroris. Kjo sht e njohur si deklarim i bazuar n marrveshje. E treta
lidhet n veanti me raste t rnda ose komplekse t mashtrimit ku pranimi i
fajsis, i marr vesh mes palve dhe i prcjell me paraqitje t prbashkt, i
prket dnimit.
N negocimin e deklarimit t fajsis me mbrojtjen, prokurort i prmbahen

direktivave t sjellura nga Ministria e Drejtsis nga Prokurori Publik, 23 Drejtori
i Prokuroris Publike, Kodit t Prokurorve, si dhe Udhzimit t Praktikave t
Bashkuara Kriminale nga Rregullat e Procedurs Penale.
Principet e politiks publike n lidhje me deklarimet e fajsis n gjykata n

mnyr t prgjithsuar jan t caktuara n direktivat e Prokurorit Publik (t
ndryshueshme) udhzime n lidhje me kundrvajtjet e mashtrimeve t rnda
(shih m posht). Direktivat cekin se qllimi i diskutimit pr pranim sht t
ngushtohen shtjet e prfshira n rast me synim q t arrihet nj zgjidhje e
drejt n koh sa m t shkurtr t mundshme, prfshir edhe mundsin e
arritjes s marrveshjes pr pranim t fajsis dhe prgatitjes s paraqitjes s
prbashkt n lidhje me dnimin.
Dobit potenciale jan t prshkruara si: zgjidhje e shpejt e rastit q mund t

zvogloj ankthin dhe pasigurin te viktimat dhe dshmitart dhe t mundsoj
nj sqarim m t hershm pr personat e akuzuar t cilt pranojn fajin e tyre dhe
zvoglimin e fardo shtjeve n kontest ashtu q rasti t mund t menaxhohet
me m shum efikasitet n rast se ai prcillet n seanc gjyqsore.
2.2. Pranimi i fajit pr t gjitha ose disa nga akuzat
I pandehuri mund t deklarohet fajtor pr t gjitha akuzat n baz t fakteve

t pretenduara nga prokuroria. Po ashtu, si alternativ, i pandehuri mund t
deklarohet fajtor pr disa nga akuzat. Gjykatsi duhet t gjykoj nse deklarimi
23
Udhzime t Ministrit t drejtsis pr pranim faji dhe roli i prokurorit n prcaktimin e
dnimit.
42 CHAPTER
sht me vend n baz t fakteve t pretenduara. Gjykatsi mund t vazhdoj

dhe t ndaj dnimin nse sht i knaqur me faktin se deklarimi sht i bazuar
si duhet.24
Palt mund t pajtohen q i akuzuari t deklarohet fajtor pr nj pjes t

aktakuzs dhe prokurori t mos ofroj dshmi pr t mbshtetur pjest tjera
ose pretendimet e aktakuzs. Pas pranimit t deklarimit pr t lehtsuar
akuzat prokurori mund t ftoj gjykatsin pr t miratuar propozimin.
Gjykatsi mund ta refuzoj kt.
Si alternativ, prokurori mund t vazhdoj pa krkuar miratimin e gjykatsit.

Gjykatsi mund t shpreh mospajtim dhe t ftoj prokurorin t rishikoj
rastin. Gjykatsi mund t pezulloj procedurn gjyqsore nse mendon se
rruga e propozuar nga ana e prokurorit mund t oj deri n padrejtsi t
rnd. Pastaj prokurori duhet, patjetr, ta diskutoj kt me prokurort e
lart t caktuar dhe n rrethana ekstreme gjykatsi mund t refuzoj t
vazhdoj deri sa autoriteti pr ndjekje konsultohet me Prokurorin Publik.
Para se t futet n deklarim t fajsis i pandehuri mund t krkoj para kohe

nj t dhn pr dnimin (shih m posht).
2.3. Bazat e dakorduara t deklarimit t fajsis
Prokuroria dhe i pandehuri mund t pajtohen pr bazat faktike n t cilat i

pandehuri do t deklaroj fajsin, e njohur si baza t dakorduara t
deklarimit t fajsis. Ky sht fundi i procesit t negociatave n mes t
prokuroris dhe t pandehurit. Gjyqi duhet patjetr t miratoj deklaratn e
dorzuar n kt baz. Gjyqi duhet t mendoj nse pranimi i saj sht i drejt
dhe n interes t s drejts.
Principet jan ligj zakonor i pastr dhe jan t vendosur n vitin 2004 n rastin
e Gjykats s Apelit pr R kundr Underwood 25:
Prokuroria mund t pranoj dhe t dakordohet me shpjegimin e t
pandehurit pr faktet e diskutueshme ose ti refuzoj ato n trsi. Nse
pranohen, prokuroria duhet t siguroj se ato n fakt jan t sakta;
24
Udhzimi i praktikave t bashkuara kriminale, paragra IV.45 Udhzime t tjera q
aplikohen n Gjykatn e Lart.
25
R. kundr Underwood [2004] EWCA Crim 2256 [2005] 1 Crim. App. R. (S) 90.
Detyrim primar i Prokuroris sht ndaj gjyqit, prandaj ajo nuk duhet t
pajtohet pr marrveshje me elemente kontestuese n pjesn e fakteve dhe
t drejts materiale;
Marrveshja duhet detyrimisht t jet me shkrim dhe e nnshkruar nga
prokuroria dhe si etill ti dorzohet gjyqit;
Marrveshja nuk duhet t prmbaj elemente kontestuese; dhe
Marrveshja lidhur me pranimin e fajit mes palve nuk duhet t ket
elemente kontestuese.
Prokurori patjetr t siguroj se avokati mbrojts sht n dijeni pr bazn

mbi t ciln sht pranuar deklarimi dhe mnyrn n t ciln prokuroria do t
prezantoj rastin e vet n gjyq.26 Direktiva e Prokurorit Publik pr pranimin e
deklarimit t fajsis thot se:
Baza e deklarimit pr fajsi nuk guxon t miratohet n baz t nj sr
faktesh t pavrteta dhe mashtruese dhe patjetr t merren n konsiderat
t duhur interesat e viktims. Nj baz jo logjike ose e pambshtetur e
deklarimit t fajsis, pashmangshm do t rezultoj me imponim t nj
dnimi t pavend dhe sht n gjendje t dmtoj besimin e publikut n
sistemin e t drejts penale. N rastet q prfshijn m shum t pandehur
bazat e deklarimit pr secilin t pandehur duhet t prputhen faktikisht me
njra tjetrn.
Pavarsisht a jan apo jo t t miratuara deklarimet, gjykatsi nuk sht i

obliguar me kt marrveshje dhe ai mund t insistoj q fardo dshmie q
sht relevante lidhur me ndonj fakt t kontestit, ose pr t cilin gjykatsi
mund t krkoj informacion shtes, ato t shqyrtohen.
Gjyqi duhet t jet i informuar nse kontesti faktik nuk mund t zgjidhet. Sipas
Direktivs s Prokurorit Publik:
Kur baza e deklarimit nuk mund t miratohet dhe mosprputhja mes dy
palve sht aq sa t ket mundsi t ket efekt t konsiderueshm n
shkalln e dnimit, detyr e avokatit mbrojts sht t informoj gjyqin, para
se t filloj procesi i shqiptimit t dnimit. Mbetet nj detyr thelbsore
pr avokatin e prokuroris q t siguroj vall gjykatsi q shqipton dnimin
sht i njoftuar pr mosprputhjen ekzistuese dhe se a duhet marr n
konsiderat at se patjetr t mbahet dgjimi Newton pr t zgjidhur rastin.
Gjykats duhet ti tregohet kur nuk sht i pranueshm nj referim
26
Pika C5 e Udhzimeve t Ministrit t Drejtsis pr pranim faji.
44 CHAPTER
nnmues ndaj viktims, dshmitarit apo pals s tret, edhe pse kjo mund
t mos ndikoj n dnimin e shqiptuar.
N t gjitha rastet ku sht e mundshme t ndihmohet gjyqi n rastet kur

shtjet e shqiptimit t dnimit jan komplekse ose jo t njohura,
prokuroria duhet t shtoj nj prmbledhje t vshtrimeve kryesore n
planin me shkrim t rasteve t cilat i dorzohen gjykats.
Kjo duhet t ket formn e shnimeve t shkurtra pr: - do kufizim statusor
relevant emrat e autoriteteve pr shqiptim t dnimit ose direktivat
diapazoni i ndonj urdhri ndihms (p.sh. n lidhje me sjellje kundr shoqris,
konfiskim ose deportim) duhet t merret n konsiderat. Plani gjithashtu
duhet t prfshij moshn e t pandehurit dhe informacione lidhur me
ndonj kundrvajtje t veant.
2.4. Dgjimi gjyqsor n lidhje me kontestimin e fakteve pr pranimin

e fajsis- Dgjimi i Newton-it
N rast se palt nuk mund t zgjidhin nj kontest faktik gjat tentimit t

arritjes s marrveshjes pr deklarim t fajsis, prokuroria duhet t vendos
vall rasti duhet t vazhdoj n seanc gjyqsore ose t ftohet gjyqi t mbaj
nj dgjim sipas nevojs. Gjyqi mund t mbaj nj dgjim pr t zgjidhur
kontestin lidhur me faktet q rezultojn nga deklarimi i fajsis. Kjo sht
procedur e ligjit zakonor pa origjin statusore, q buron nga rasti i vitit 1982
R.kundr Newton-it 27 dhe i njohur si Dgjimi i Newton-it. Kur prokurorit i
mungojn dshmit pr t kontestuar pozitivisht shpjegimin e t pandehurit,
pr shembull n rast se i pandehuri pohon nj shtje jasht njohuris s
prokuroris, ajo mund t krkoj t testoj dshmin e t pandehurit me
krkim t dgjimit- Newton.
Gjykata ka t drejt t sjell konkluzion t vetin pr faktet e bazuara n dshmi

kur as prokurori as mbrojtja nuk kan ftuar Gjykatn t mbaj nj dgjim
Newton dhe kontesti faktik ka mundsi t ket ndikim material n dnim. Kur
shtja e kontestuar ka t bj me faktet q jan n dijeni ekskluzive t t
pandehurit dhe kur i pandehuri dshiron t jap dshmi, ather i pandehuri
duhet t bj kt gj. N rast se i pandehuri nuk dshiron t jap dshmi dhe
nga fardo shpjegimi q mund t jepet gjykatsi mund t nxjerr
konkluzione adekuate gjat dhnies s dnimit.
27
R kundr Newton (1982), R.13
Kur i pandehuri deklarohet fajtor, por kundrshton faktet e prokuroris, bazat

e deklarimit e t pandehurit duhet br me shkrim, duke br identifikimin e
kundrshtimit. Gjykata mund t ftoj palt t shprehen, nse kontesti sht i
rndsishm pr dnimin. Nse gjykata vendos se ai sht i rndsishm, ajo
pastaj fton prezantim t mtejm t dshmive dhe vendos lidhje me
kontestin n baz t principit Newton.
2.5. Rastet q prfshijn mashtrim t rnd deklarimi i fajsis sipas

bazs s, miratuar nga ana e prokuroris dhe mbrojtjes, e prcjell
nga paraqitjet e prbashkta pr dnimin
Kjo sht kategoria e tret e identifikuar n Udhzimin e praktikave t

bashkuara kriminale dhe aplikohet, kur prokuroria dhe i pandehuri n nj rast
t mashtrimit t rnd ose kompleks jan pajtuar pr nj baz t deklarimit
dhe krkojn t bjn nj paraqitje n gjykat n lidhje me dnimin. N kto
raste, baza me shkrim e deklarimit t fajsis e arritur ndrmjet prokurorit dhe
avokatit mbrojts n fakt quhet marrveshje pr pranimin e fajsis 28
Udhzimit t praktikave t bashkuara kriminale bn definimin e zbatueshm-

ris s saj. Prokurori Publik edhe drejtori i Prokuroris Publike kan publikuar,
po ashtu, udhzime t zbatueshme29 pr kto raste Mund t mbahen diskutime
gjat fazs s hetimeve para se t shqiptohen akuzat q mund t rezultojn
n akuza t ndryshme nga ato t preferuara pa marrveshje,. do marrveshje
duhet t jet e arsyeshme, e drejt dhe korrekte dhe se duhet t ket sigurim
pr t siguruar se t pandehurit nuk jan nn ndonj presion t padukur pr
t br pranimin. Duhet t mbahen shnimet nga kto diskutime.30
Marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit duhet t pasqyroj rndsin dhe shkalln e

kundrvajtjes, tì jap gjykats kompetencat adekuate pr shqiptim t dnimit,
dhe ti mundsoj gjykats, opinionit dhe viktimave t ken besim n rezultatin
prfundimtar. Prokurori duhet me kujdes ta merr n konsiderat ndikimin e
deklarimit apo t bazs s deklarimit t propozuar n komunitet dhe n vikti-
m, dhe n t perspektivn e ndjekjes penale t suksesshme t ndonj personi
28
Shih paragra IV 45, Udhzimi i praktikave t bashkuara kriminale
28
Paragra 45, Udhzimi i praktikave t bashkuara kriminale Udhzimet e Prokurorit Publik
pr Bisedat pr deklarim n rastet e mashtrimeve t rnda dhe komplekse, me 18 mars
2009, Udhzuesi i Drejtorve pr t shoqruar Udhzimet e Prokurorit Publik pr Bisedat
pr deklarim n rastet e mashtrimeve t rnda dhe komplekse.
30
Paragra A5, A6 dhe A7, Udhzimet e prokurorit publik lidhur me bisedat pr deklarim t
fajit n rastet e mashtrimeve t rnda dhe komplekse.
46 CHAPTER
tjetr t implikuar n kundrvajtje. Prokurori nuk guxon t pajtohet me bazn

e zvogluar t deklarimit e cila sht orientuese, jo e vrtet dhe jo-logjike:
Pr m tepr prokurori duhet patjetr t mos ushtroj presion t gabuar tek

i pandehuri gjat bisedave pr deklarim t fajit, pr shembull me ekzagjerim
t rastit me qllim q t bindet i pandehuri pr deklarim t fajsis ose t
deklarohet fajtor n baza t veanta. I pandehuri duhet t ken informacion
t mjaftueshm pr ta mundsuar at t luaj nj rol me njohuri t plot gjat
bisedave pr deklarim.31
Procedurat n kto raste dallojn n aspektin se palt duhet t sigurojn

shum m tepr materiale pr gjykatsin, edhe at, s paku, shtat dit para
paraqitjes s par t pandehurit n Gjykatn e lart. Kjo prfshin (I)
marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit, deklarim; (II) paraqitjet pr dnimin; (III) tr
materialin e siguruar gjat biseds pr deklarim nga ana e prokuroris pr t
pandehurin; (iv) materiale relevante t siguruara nga ana e t pandehurit, pr
shembull dokumentet n lidhje me lehtsimet personale; dhe (v) procesverba-
lin e do takimi mes palve dhe do korrespondenc q buron nga bisedat pr
deklarim t fajit. Gjykatsi mund t krkoj materiale shtes.
Pr shkak t natyrs s ktyre llojeve t kundrvajtjeve, gjykata duhet t marr

parasysh kohzgjatjen nga momenti i kryerjes s kundrvajtjes, kohn e
shpenzuar pr intervistimin e t pandehurit, datn e akuzs dhe datn e
seancs gjyqsore n perspektiv, me qllim q t siguroj koha e duhur pr
shqyrtimin e marrveshjes s deklarimit dhe paraqitjeve pr dnim mos t
shkaktojn shtyrje t panevojshme kohore. Palt mund t dorzojn paraqitjen
e tyre t prbashkt. Gjykata mund ti refuzoj ato n trsi dhe gjykatsi
mund t refuzoj t pranoj marrveshjen pr deklarim dhe t caktoj dnimin
ndryshe nga ajo e miratuara n paraqitjet pr dnim t br sipas Udhzimeve
t Prokurorit Publik n bisedat pr deklarim.
Paraqitjet pr dnim duhet t trheqin vmendjen e gjykats pr do shkall

t aplikueshme t dnimit n fardo udhzimi relevant dhe t fardo urdhri
plotsues, i cili mund t jet i aplikueshm. Paraqitjet pr dnim nuk duhet t
prfshijn ndonj dnim t veant ose ndonj shkall t miratuar ndryshe
nga shkallt e dnimit t parapara n direktiva apo nga autoritetet.
31
Paragraft B1, B2, B3 dhe B4, Udhzimet e prokurorit publik lidhur me bisedat pr deklarim
t fajit n rastet e mashtrimeve t rnda dhe komplekse.
Para se t deklarohet fajtor n prputhje me marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit,

i pandehuri mund t krkoj t dhna pr dnimin pr t pasur dijeni pr
dnimin maksimal t mundshm (shih mposht). Marrveshja pr pranim t
fajit ngel obliguese, madje edhe ather kur gjykatsi jep shenja pr dnimin
ose miraton dnim q nuk sht n prputhje me paraqitjen e br pr dnim.
N rast se i pandehuri nuk deklarohet fajtor n prputhje me marrveshjen

pr deklarim ose nse i pandehuri i cili deklarohet fajtor n prputhje me
marrveshjen pr deklarim me sukses aplikon pr trheqje t deklarimit t vet,
marrveshja e firmosur pr deklarim mund t trajtohet si dhnie rrfimi pr
dshmi dhe mund t prdoret kundr t pandehurit n ndonj faz t mvonshme
n kt seanc gjyqsore apo ndonj tjetr32. Gjykata ka t drejt diskrecioni
t mos e pranoj at n dosje t dshmive, e nse e bn kt, ather mundet
n mnyr t pafavorshme t ndikoj n paansin e seancs gjyqsore.33
2.6. Indikacion mbi dnimin q jepet paraprakisht - rasti Goodyear
Para se t deklaroj fajsin i pandehuri mund t krkoj nga gjykata nj

paralajmrim pr dnimin maksimal q mund ti shqiptohet nse ai ose ajo
deklarohet fajtor n at faz t procesit gjyqsor. Paralajmrim pr dnimin
mund t krkohet vetm nga Gjykata e Lart.
Paralajmrimi i dnimit sht nj procedur e ligjit zakonor i cili nuk sht i

rregulluar me statut. Udhzimet burojn nga rasti i vitit 2005 i Gjykats s
Apelit R. kundr Goodyear.34 Direktivat e Prokurorit Publik gjithashtu sigurojn
udhzime. Kur sht e prshtatshme, duhet patjetr t ket nj baz pr
deklarim t shprehur me shkrim.
Pasi q t dgjoj palt, gjykatsi mund t jap nj paralajmrim duke treguar

pr dnimin q do t shqiptohet n baz t deklarimit t fajsis. Gjykatsi
gjithashtu mund t informoj t pandehurin se lloji dhe kohzgjatja e dnimit
mund t ishin t njjta po q se rasti shkonte n seanc gjyqsore.
Gjykatsi, gjithashtu, mund t refuzoj ose t shtyj pr tjetr her krkesn.

Gjykata zakonisht nuk duhet t jap paralajmrim kur ekziston ndonj kontest
n baz t deklarimit, prve se n rast se gjykatsi sjell prfundim se ai ose
32
Rregulla 39.3 n Rregullat e procedurs penale
33
Paragra 45.27, Udhzimi i praktikave t bashkuara kriminale
34
R. Kundr Goodyear [2005] 2 Crim. App. R. 20 (Gjykata e Apelit), 3 All ER 117, shih gjithashtu
paragraft 45.29-29.33 t Udhzimit t Praktikave t Bashkuara Kriminale.
48 CHAPTER
ajo mund t merren me rastin n mnyr adekuate pa pasur nevoj pr

dgjimin Newton. N rast se ekziston kontest me faktet, ather duhet
prcjell procedurn, si referohet m lart n rastin e R. kundr Underwod-it
para se gjykata t paralajmroj dnimin.
Direktiva e Prokurorit Publik thot se paralajmrimet lidhur me dnimet nuk

duhet t krkohen nga gjykatsi i lnds, prve rasteve kur shtjet mes pro-
kuroris dhe mbrojtjes jan adresuar dhe jan zgjidhur. Prokurort, po ashtu,
nuk duhet t pajtohen pr bazn e deklarimit, nse nuk i kan br konsultimet
e nevojshme me viktimn dhe me familjen e tij. Gjykata e Apelit konsideron
se gjykatsinuk duhet t trajtoj procesin si marrveshje pr pranimin e fajit
ose t jet e involvuar n fardo forme t marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit.35
Kur t jepet deklarimi ather ai sht obligues pr gjykatsin dhe pr secilin

gjykats tjetr i cili do t jet prgjegjs pr rastin kur i pandehuri vendos t
deklarohet fajtor. Pas paralajmrimit t dhn pr dnimin, n rast se i pande-
huri nuk deklarohet fajtor, paralajmrimi nuk sht ende obligues pr gjykatn.
Prokurori ka nj rol aktiv n kt proces. Kur sht e prshtatshme ai ose ajo

duhet t ndihmojn gjykatn n shqiptimin e dnimit, pr referenca n
kompetenca relevante statusore t gjykats, udhzime dhe autoritete
relevante pr shqiptim t dnimeve, si dhe t gjitha ndihmat t cilat gjykata
mund ti krkoj.
Prokurori e ka t ndaluar t thot fardo q do t mund t krijonte prshtypjen

se paralajmrimi i dnimit ka mbshtetjen ose miratimin e gjykats s Lart36 si
dhe mund t mos jap plqim pr miratim t dnimit edhe ather kur
prokuroria ka br paraqitje pr dnimin t prbashkt me mbrojtjen.
Paralajmrim si i Goodyear-it duhet t jepet n gjykat t hapur n pranin e

t pandehurit, por fardo reference pr dgjimin nuk do t jet e pranueshme
n asnj proces gjyqsor pasues. N kt kuptim gjykata duhet t vendos
restrikcione pr raportim nga mediat.37
Paralajmrimi nuk obligon Gjykatn e Apelit nse prokuroria ankohet kundr

uljes s dnimit.38
35
Paragra 67 R. kundr Goodyear
36
Paragra 70 (d) R. Kundr Goodyear.
37
Paragraft 76-77 R. kundr Goodyear
38
Referenca e Prokurorit Publik nr. 40 e vitit 1996 [1997] 1 Crim. App. R 357
2.7. Zvoglimi i dnimit pr premtim pr asistimin e autoritteteve
T pandehurit t cilt deklarohen fajtor dhe asistojn autoritetet kan t

drejt t fitojn zvoglim t dnimeve t tyre. Ky sht rezultat i zakonshm
i nj negocimi pr deklarim. Kjo justifikohet n baz t interesit publik pr
zvoglimin e dnimit t atyre q japin dshmi pr prokurorin, n veanti, duke
ditur q ato mund t jen n rrezik fizik. I pandehuri mund t fitoj zbritje t
dnimit edhe ather kur ai ose ajo nuk jan deklaruar fajtor.39
I pandehuri i cili hyn n marrveshje t shkruar me prokurorin pr t dhn

asistenc hetuesit ose prokurorit mund t fitoj zbritje t dnimit me kusht
q ai ose ajo t deklarohet fajtor para Gjykats s Lart.40 I pandehuri nuk e
ka patjetr t deklarohet fajtor para se t hyn n fazn e marrveshjes me
shkrim me prokurorin. Asistenca mund t jet n form t dhnies dshmi
ose informacion tjetr si sht inteligjenca. Gjykata e Apelit ka lshuar
udhzim pr interpretim t ktij seksioni.41
Prokurori duhet ti jap gjykats raport q cek sasin dhe cilsin e asistencs
s dhn, rezultatet q dalin nga ajo (p.sh. arrestimet ose ndjekjet penale q
drejtprdrejt i atribuohen informacionit s t pandehurit) dhe nj vlersim
t rrezikut me t cilin ballafaqohen i pandehuri dhe familja e tij ose saj si
rezultat i bashkpunimit.
Zvoglimi i dnimit nuk sht i detyrueshm, dhe gjat caktimit t dnimit

adekuat gjykata mund t marr parasysh shkalln dhe natyrn e asistencs s
dhn ose t ofruar. Zvoglimi mund t jet si shtes n zvoglimin q
normalisht jepet pr deklarim t hershm t fajsis, prfshir ktu dnimet
minimale statusore.
Prokurori mund t kthen rastin prapa n gjykat pr rishqyrtim t dnimit n

rast se i pandehuri me qllimisht dshton (n fardo shkalle) t jap
asistencn e premtuar dhe gjykata mund t rrit dnimin. Edhe anasjelltas,
prokurori mund t kthej rastin prapa, nse i pandehuri ofron asistenc shtes
pas dnimit ose nse nuk sht ofruar kurrfar asistence, e m pas jep ose
ofron asistenc. Gjykata mund t zvogloj dnimin origjinal.42.
39
R kundr A(2006) EWCA Crim 1803 dhe kundr H, D, Chaundhury (2009) EWCA 2485
40
Seksioni 73 nga Akti policor dhe pr krime t organizuara t rnda 2005.
41
R. Kundr P dhe Blackburn [2007] EWCA Crim 2290.
42
Sekcioni 74 i Ligjit mbi Krimin e Organizuar dhe Policin, 2005.
50 CHAPTER
2.8. Roli i prokurorit
Prokurori duhet ti bindet Direktivave t Prokurorit Publik pr pranimin e

deklarimit dhe Roli i Prokurorit n Dhnien e Dnimit. Drejtori i Prokuroris
Publike po ashtu duhet ti bindet Kodit pr Prokurort e Lart Pranimi i Dekla-
ratave t Fajsis. Ai cek se Prokurort duhet t pranojn deklaratn e t
pandehurit vetm n rast kur mendojn se gjykata sht e aft t shqipton nj
dnimi i cili prputhet me seriozitetin e kundrvajtjes, n veanti kur ekzistojn
tipare rnduese. Prokurort kurr nuk duhet t pranojn nj deklarim t fajsis
vetm pr arsye se ajo sht e volitshme.43 Gjat vendosjes nse t pranohet apo
jo deklarimi pr disa kundrvajtje ose pr disa m t lehta pr arsye se i pandehuri
pranon vetm nj pjes t krimit prokurori duhet t siguroj q interesat dhe
pikpamjet e viktims jan marr n konsiderat gjat vendosjes nse pranimi
i deklarimit sht n interes t publikut. Vendimi i takon vetm prokurorit.
Prokurori mund t pajtohet t dnohet i pandehuri n baz t asaj se disa

kundrvajtje jan marr parasysh para se ato t shqyrtohen vemas, q do t
thot se kundrvajtjet jan hedhur posht. Procedura e gjykats pr marrje
parasysh t kundrvajtjeve gjat dhnies s dnimit nuk ka baz statusore por
pr koh t gjat sht pjes e regjimit t dhnies s dnimit.44
Prokurort duhet t jen vigjilent ndaj t pandehurve t cilt krkojn t

deklarojn fajsin pr kundrvajtje m t lehta t cilat mund t mos trheqin
detyrimisht dnim minimal, n veanti pr shkak t urdhresave ndihmse
(dmshprblim, kompensim, etj.) nj gj e till nuk mund t bhet me disa
kundrvajtje.45 Nga prokurori krkohet q t trheq vmendjen e gjykats
pr fardo deklarate personale t viktims ose informacion pr ndikimin e
kundrvajtjes ndaj viktims, ndikimin n komunitet (kur sht e prshtatshme),
pr dispozitat statusore relevante pr t pandehurin dhe kundrvajtjet, dhe
pr do faktor rndues ose lehtsues.46
Prokurori duhet t ia bn t qart gjykats n far baze ndonj deklarim ka

kaluar dhe sht pranuar. N rastet kur i pandehuri deklarohet fajtor pr
akuzat, por n baz t fakteve t cilat dallojn nga rasti i prokuroris, dhe kur
kjo mund t ndikoj me plot kuptim dnimin, gjykata duhet t ftohet pr t
43
Paragra 10.1, Kodi i Prokurorve t Lart Pranimi i Deklarimeve t Fajsis
44
N juridiksionet tjera t ligjit zakonor, si sht Australia, kjo sht e pranuar dhe e
rregulluar me statut.
45
Paragra 10.6 nga Kodi i Prokurorve t Lart Pranimi i deklarimeve t fajsis.
46
Paragra B4 e Udhzimeve t Ministrit t Drejtsis.
dgjuar dshmin q t prcaktoj se far ka ndodhur, dhe pastaj t jep

dnimin n baz t saj. 47
Nse i pandehuri refuzon t pranoj nj kundrvajtje n gjykat pr t ciln ai

ose ajo m par kan thn se duhet t merret n konsiderat gjat shqiptimit
t dnimit, prokurori patjetr duhet t shqyrtoj nse prokuroria sht e denj
pr at kundrvajtje.
Po ashtu krkohet nga prokurori q t sfidoj do pohim t mbrojtjes pr

zbutjen nnmuese t karakterit t personit edhe nse sht i rrejshm apo
jo relevant pr procedurn gjyqsore t dhnies s dnimit. Krkohet nga
mbrojtja t bj njoftim paraprak me shkrim pr nj qllim t till, pr ti lejuar
prokurorit koh pr ta hetuar dnimin, si jan. 48
Prve ktyre udhzimeve dhe kodeve, Kodi pr veprim i avokatve gjithashtu pa-
rashtron detyrat e kshillit t prokuroris n gjykat n lidhje me dnimin, si jan,49
t mos tentohet q prmes mbrojtjes t ndikohet n Gjykat sa i prket dnimit;
t informohet Gjykata pr do rrethan lehtsuese pr t pandehurin e
paprfaqsuar;
t asistohet n Gjykat nse nj gj e till krkohet sipas dispozitave
relevante pr kundrvajtjen apo t pandehurin dhe udhzime relevante pr
dnimin;
t informohet Gjykat pr kto shtje nse zotron nj opinion se Gjykata
ka gabuar;
t informohet Gjykata pr do shtje t kompensimit, konfiskimit apo
dmshprblimit t prshtatshm;
t informohet mbrojtja pr do pohim t faktit material t br pr lehtsim
pr t cilin prokuroria beson t mos jet i vrtet dhe, nse mbrojtja
insiston, t ftohet Gjykata t mbaj nj dgjim Newton.
2.9. Roli i avokatit mbrojts
Roli i avokatit mbrojts sht i prcaktuar n Standardet e shkruara t Kodit

pr veprim t avokatve i cili thot, 50
47
Paragra 10.4 nga Kodi i Prokurorve t Lart Publik Pranimi i Deklarimeve t Fajsis.
48
Paragraft E1 dhe E20 nga Direktivat e Prokurorit Publik pr pranimin e deklarimit.
49
Paragra 10.8 i Kodeksit pr Etik i prfaqsuesve ligjor nga Anglia dhe Uellsi, standarde
t puns profesionale, botimi VII, 2004.
50
Paragra 11.3 dhe 11.4 nga Kodi pr veprim
52 CHAPTER
Nj avokat i cili punon pr t pandehurin duhet t kshilloj klientin n

prgjithsi n lidhje me deklarimin e tij. Duke br kt ai, po ashtu, mundet,
nse ka nevoj, t shpreh kshilln e tij n form t kushteve rigoroze.
Megjithat, ai duhet t bj t qart se klienti i tij ka liri t plot t zgjedhjes
dhe se prgjegjsia pr deklarimin ngel te klienti.
Nj avokat q ushtron detyrn pr t pandehurin duhet t kshilloj klientin

e vet nse duhet ose jo t jap dshmi pr mbrojtje t vetvetes, mirpo
prap vendimin duhet ta marr vet klienti.
2.10. Roli i viktimave dhe familjeve t tyre n procesin e deklarimit
Prokurori duhet t bisedoj me viktimn ose familjen e tij pr t shpjeguar

vendimin pr pranimin e deklarimit ose pr t ofruar dshmi pr aktakuzn ose
ndonj pjese t saj. Prokurori duhet t informoj viktimn ose familjen e tij tr
kohn. 51 Viktima mund t jep deklaratn personale t viktims e cila iu lejon
atyre t tregojn ndikimin q ka br kundrvajtja n ta. N disa rrethana, si
jan vdekja e viktims, ather dikush nga familja mund t jap deklarat.
Gjat procesit t shqiptimit t dnimit prokurori duhet t trheq vmendjen

e gjykats pr do deklarat personale t br nga viktima ose informacion
pr ndikimin e kundrvajtjes ndaj viktims, e n momente t prshtatshme
edhe ndikimin kundrvajtjes n komunitet. 52
3. ITALIA
3.1. Hyrje
Kodi i procedurs penale i vitit 1988 (Code di Procedura Penale) formalisht e

paraqet sistemin e marrveshjes pr deklarim n sistemin italian e drejtsis
penale.
N kohn kur kodi i ri u paraqit ai ishte prshkruar si nj revolucion edhe pr

shkak t zvendsimit t gjykatsit hetues me nj korniz t re procedurale
dhe pr paraqitjen e proceseve kundrshtuese n nj sistem t s drejts civile
51
Paragra B3 nga Direktivat e prokurorit publik.
52
Paragra B4 nga Udhzimet e Prokurorit Publik, Udhzim nga Praktika (Ndjekja Penale:
Prmbledhje) [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2870; [2009] 1; W.L.R. 1396.
tradicionale. 53 Komentuesit sqarojn thon se si model akuzues/kundrshtues

ishte par si nj rrug pr hapjen e sistemit t drejtsis penale t Italis pr
t pasqyruar statusin e vet si nj sistem bashkkohor, nj shoqri demokratike
dhe ta furnizoj at me procedura t reja dhe efikase pr prmirsimin e
problemit t vet t mbingarkimit gjyqsor. 54
Megjithat, nj sistem i tipit kundrshtues madje edhe gjat mbajtjes s

veorive inkuizitore n praktik nuk mund t funksiononte pa shmangur nj
prqindje t konsiderueshme t rasteve nga seancat gjyqsore. Seancat
kundrshtuese mund t jen t gjata dhe t shtrenjta. Pr kt arsye, n linj
t procedurave t ligjit zakonor jan paraqitur alternativa t seancave
gjyqsore pr t tentuar t zvoglohen shpenzimet e gjykimeve kundrshtuese
t kushtueshme, meq pr shkak t kohzgjatjes dhe harxhimit shumica e
rasteve jan lshuar n vend se ti nnshtrohen nj gjykimi t plot.
Edhe Kodi i Procedurs Penale edhe Kushtetuta e bjn t obligueshm

procesin gjyqsor kundrshtues. Sidoqoft, neni 111 (5) i Kushtetuts lejon
largimin nga procesi kundrshtues n rast se i pandehuri pajtohet pr nj gj
t till dhe, ligji lejon disa mnyra pr vendosjen e fajsis dhe arritjen deri te
dhnia e dnimit n mnyr m t shkurtr se nj gjykim i plot kundrshtues.
Kto jan marrveshjet pr pranimin e fajit, seanca t prmbledhuragiudizio
abbreviato dhe seanc sipas dekretit gjyqsor.
Procesi i marrveshjes s prezantuar pr pranim t fajit dallon mjaft nga ai n

Shtetet e Bashkuara, pr shembull, ather kur llogaritet se deri n 90% t
rasteve n disa juridiksione zgjidhen me ndonj nga format e marrveshjes pr
deklarim. N Itali, pr dallim nga Shtetet e Bashkuara, marrveshja pr
deklarim t fajit ndodh gjat fazs s dgjimit preliminar, dhe kur mbrojtja ka
pasur mundsin t shqyrtoj dosjen e hetimit duke mundsuar kshtu nj
zbulim t plot t rastit n ndjekje penale. I pandehuri kshtu n baz t
informacionit q ka marr mund t bie nj vendim nse do t krkoj t bhet
nj marrveshje pr deklarim t fajit.
53
Shih p.sh. Miller, Jeffrey J. Marrveshja pr deklarim dhe analogjit e saj sipas ligjit t ri
italian,Kodi i Procedurs Penale n SHBA: drejt nj kuptimi t ri t procedurs penale krahasuese
[1989-1990] 22, Zhurnali i Ligjit dhe Politikave Ndrkombtare i New York University, 215
n 215, cituar nga raportet e mediave prezantuar n vitin 1989.
54
Elisabetta Grande Italian Criminal Justice: Borrowing and Resistance, 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 227
(2000) n 231.
54 CHAPTER
Tipare tjera t rndsishme (dhe dallime) jan ato se palt nuk bien n ujdi pr
natyrn e krimit, zvoglimi maksimal i dnimit sht deri n 5 vjet burgim,
kshtu q n mnyr domethnse zvoglohet mundsia e ksaj. I pandehuri
mund poashtu t krkoj zvoglim n shkall t nj t trets s dnimit, madje
edhe ather kur prokuroria nuk i bashkngjitet krkess. Kshtu i pandehuri,
n t vrtet, nuk deklarohet i fajshm n mnyr t sistemeve kundrshtuese
t ligjit zakonor.
Sistemi italian, gjithashtu, dallon me shfaqjen e nj kombinimi t shtyrjeve t

rndsishme gjat sjelljes s rasteve para gjyqit dhe me kufizime kohore
rigoroze statusore pr fillimin dhe mbarimin e rasteve. Prokurort amerikan,
pr dallim, kan ndikim shum m t madh n rezultatin e procesit, meq
sistemi nuk ndalon mbi-akuzimin, e pr kt jep inkurajim pr marrveshje
deklarim t fajit.
Kshtu, n Itali, pr dallim nga Shtetet e Bashkuara, interesimi i t pandehurit

mundet m mir t plotsohet me drgimin e rastit n procedur gjyqsore
deri sa sht i liruar me depozitim dhe t pres pr mbarimin e kufizimit kohor
statusor pr sjelljen e aktakuzs se sa t hyj n negociata pr deklarim t fajit
me prokurorin. Sidoqoft, pasi dnimet me m pak se dy vjet ne prgjithsi
jan ndrprer, ekzistojn disa shtytje q t shmanget burgosja duke aplikuar
marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit.
Shtyrjet e seancave gjyqsore n Itali mund t jen shum t vshtira. Nj rast

tipik kalon afr 400 dit n zyrn e Prokurorit. Dgjimi preliminar mbahet, m
s paku, pas 300 ditve. Pr seanca gjyqsore para tribunalit nevojiten edhe
350 dit t tjera. 55
Pr dallim nga pr shembull Bosnj e Hercegovina e cila gjithashtu ka

marrveshje deklarimi t fajit n kushtetut - seanca kryesore duhet patjetr
t filloj brenda 30 ditve (ose 60 dit me zgjatje) prej kohs s hyrjes s
deklarimit.56
55
2003: Raporti i Prokurorit Kryesor t Gjykats Supreme
56
Neni 229 nga Kodi i Procedurs Penale 1998.
3.2. Marrveshja pr deklarim t fajit- Dnimi me krkes t palve

lapplicazione della pena su richiesta della parti ose patteggiamento
ose marrveshje
Dnimi me krkes t palve prshkruhet si nj form e but e marrveshjes

pr deklarim dhe zakonisht quhet patteggiamento, ose ujdi ose marrve-
shje n anglisht. Fillimisht kjo ishte e kufizuar vetm pr krime t dnueshme
pr jo m shum se tre vjet. N vitin 2003 nj amendament legjislativ e zgjeroi
kt edhe pr krime t dnueshme me deri n pes vjet burgim.57
Marrveshja pr deklarim t fajit mund t mos prdoret n t gjitha rastet q

trheqin dnime deri n pes vjet, pr shembull, kundrvajtjet q prfshijn
pornografi, pedofili, ngacmim seksual, dhe krime t rndomta ose profe-
sionale, apo ato q kan tendenc kriminale. 58
Kjo procedur mund t shfrytzohet n seancn paraprake pas prmbylljes s

fays s hetimit. N shqyrtimin para seancs paraprake, gjykatsi giudice per
ludienza preliminare (gup) dhe para parashtresave prmbyllse, mbrojtja dhe
prokurori mund t krkojn nga gjykatsi t aplikoj zvoglim t negociuar t
dnimit n jo m shum se pes vjet burgim, e cila prfshin nj t tretn e
zvoglimit t dnimit normal. Kohzgjatja e zvoglimit sht shum e
rndsishme pr t pandehurin kur kihet parasysh se dnimet nn d vjet mund
t hiqen.
Palt duhet t dakordohen pr dnim para prezantimit t marrveshjes para

gjykatsit.59 N praktik, palt, prfshi t pandehurin, mund t negociojn
dnimin n prezenc t gup-it (n zyrn e tij), i cili poashtu mund t marr pjes
n mnyr joformale, I pandehuri mund t heq dor nga obligimi pr t marr
pjes me shkrim.
Pas pranimit t krkess, gup e shqyrton dosjen e hetimit dhe vendos nse i
pandehuri sht i pafajshm ose do t mund t lirohet sipas nenit 129 (nuk sht
kryer kurrfar kundrvajtje, ose i pandehuri nuk e ka kryer at, ose kundrvaj-
tja sht e mbyllur me koh sipas statutit). Nse jo, gjykatsi verifikon nse
rasti sht trajtuar n mnyr t prshtatshme me marrveshje pr deklarim
t fajit dhe nse palt kan aplikuar principet n mnyr t sakt pr
57
Nenet 444 deri 448 nga Kodi i Procedurs Penale 1988.
58
Nenet 446 dhe Art 600 bis quinquies dhe 609 bis octies
59
Neni 444 nga Kodi i Procedurs Penale 1988
56 CHAPTER
baraspeshimin e rrethanave lehtsuese dhe rnduese gjat krkimit t dnimit

t negociuar 60.
Kjo bhet pa marrveshje formale pr deklarim t fajsis. N Shtetet e

Bashkuara, pr dallim, palt mund t pajtohen pr nj dnim por, gjithmon
me deklarim t fajsis.
Gjykatsi nuk mund t ndryshoj dnimin bashkrisht t miratuar dhe t

shqiptoj dnimin e dakorduar mes palve , por nuk mund t ndryshoj
dnimin bashkrisht t miratuar dhe t shqiptoj nj tjetr m t leht apo
m t rnd.
N rast se gjykatsi refuzon krkesn dhe e drgon rastin n seanc gjyqsore,

palt mund t aplikojn prsri pr nj patteggiamento n fillim t seancs.
Prkundr synimit fillestar parlamentar se kjo procedur duhet shpesh t

shfrytzohet,vetm rreth 15% t rasteve jan zgjidhur sipas ksaj metode t
marrveshjes pr deklarim. Sa pr ilustrim, mes vitit 1990 dhe 1998, 17 deri
21% t rasteve n gjykatat pr kundrvajtje dhe mes 34 dhe 42% n gjykatat
e nivelit t dyt e kan prdorur kt metod.
3.3. Procedurat prmbledhse il giudizio abbreviato
I pandehuri mundet gjithashtu t heq dor nga e drejta n gjykim dhe t

krkoj shqyrtim para gup duke u bazuar n argumentin n dosjen e hetimit
t prokuroris. Kjo njihet si procedur prmbledhse ose gjykim i shkrtuar il
giudizio abbreviato. Kur rasti shqyrtohet nga gjykatsi i vetm pa prfshirjen
e gip apo gup, para se t filloj shqyrtimi, i pandehuri mund t krkoj nj
abbreviato para gjykatsit t rastit.61
I pandehuri mund t mirret n pyetje gjat nj abreviato dhe mund t

prezantoj argument t ri q do t mirret parasysh n dosjen e hetimit.
Mbrojtja mundet poashtu t angazhohet me kusht t pranoj konkluzionet
nga dosja e hetimit, por vetm pasi prokuroria ka zhvilluar hetime t veanta
plotsuese. Prokurori mund vetm t krkoje q dshmit t ballafaqohen me
ato t mbrojtjes62.
60
N nenet 69 (1) dhe (2) t dy jan t barabart dnimi nuk mund t rritet ose t zbutet.
Prndryshe ai mund ose t rritet ose t zbutet.
61
Neni 452 (2) nga Kodi i Procedurs Penale 1988.
62
N procedurn pateggiamento, gjykatsi duhet n mnyr t pavarur t

vlersoj fajsin ose pafajsin e t pandehurit, n abbreviatokjo bhet n
baz t prmbajtjes s dosjes s hetimit. Pas shqyrtimit t sodjes, dhe fardo
prove tjetr t parashtruar, gjykatsi ose mund t liroj t pandehurin, or t
shappl at fajtor dhe t imponoj zvoglim t dnimit pr nj t tretn63
Zvoglimi i dnimit pr nj t tretn krkohet me kushtetut n kmbim t
parashtrim para abbreviato. Secila pal mund t ankohet ndaj dnimit. Kjo
procedur sht n disponim pr fardo krimi, pavarsisht nga serioziteti.
Pr raste t dnimit t prjetshm, dnimi mund t zvoglohet n 30 vjet64.
Llogaritet se rreth 10 % e rasteve t pashqyrtuara trajtohen n kt mnyr.
Kodi i vitit 1988 ishte i dizajnuar pr t fuqizuar seancn kundrshtuese dhe pr

t eliminuar dosjen e hetuesis nga dhoma e seancs gjyqsore. Kjo procedur,
megjithat, ka efektin e kundrt, meq i pandehuri mund t zgjedh nj gjykim
me shkrim n kthim pr zvoglim t dnimit pr nj t tretn.
N sistemet e ligjit zakonor n seancn e dgjimit t dnimit i cili vjen pas

deklarimit t fajsis gjykatsi penal ose ai pr kundrvajtje mund t
furnizohet me dokumentacion t ngjashm nj informacion t plot t
dshmive ose nj prmbledhje t fakteve ose nj przierje e t dyjave. Dallimi
sht se n sistemet e ligjit zakonor procesi sht akoma kundrshtues pr
at se secila pal mund t prezantoj dshmi, si sht thirrja e dshmitarve,
edhe pse kjo nuk sht e zakonshme n shtjet prmbledhse t dgjuara n
gjykatn pr kundrvajtje ose n at m t ult pr kundrvajtje t vogla.
3.4. Decreto penale di condamna ndjekje penale sipas dekretit pr gjykim
Mundsia e tret sht decreto penale di condanna ndjekja penale sipas

dekretit pr gjykim. Prokurori mund t krkoj nga gip dhe pa plqimin e
t pandehurit, q t vendos rastin n zyrn private t gjykatsit, n baz t
materialit n regjistrin e hetimit. Mbrojtja mund t mos flas por mund t
shfaq dshmi.
Kjo procedur aplikohet pr kundrvajtje t vogla t klasifikuara si keqbrje,

q trheqin ose gjob ose dnim me burg i cili mund t zvendsohet me
gjob. Prdoret n prpjekjet pr zvoglimin e ngarkimit t rasteve pr
prokurort dhe gjykatat.
63
64
58 CHAPTER
Gjykatsi mund t zvogloj dnimin deri n gjysm, por vetm t shqiptoj

gjob. Gjykatsi ka diskrecion t plot n shqiptimin e dnimit t duhur
Mbrojtja mund t kontestoj vendimin brenda pesmbdhjet ditve dhe t
zgjedh gjykimin prmbledhs ose t krkoj marrveshje pr deklarim t
fajsis.
3.5. Vlersim se si kjo funksionon n praktik
Sistemi italian i marrveshjes pr deklarim dallon shum nga, fjala vjen, ai

amerikan. Prandaj, prokurori ka m shum gjasa t jap ofertn m lehtsuese
mjaft para se t prfundojn prgatitjet e gjykimit.
Pr dallim, n Itali, i pandehuri mund t bie n ujdi, madje edhe me gjykatsin,

pa pajtimin ose pjesmarrjen e prokurorit n ditn e gjykimit65. Kjo n praktik
do t thot se nuk ekzistojn stimulime q t pandehurit t vendosin pr
rastet, dhe n veanti nse ato jan liruar me kaucion. Avokati mbrojts nuk
ka stimulim pr t zgjidhr rastin para se t filloj gjykimi, prve nse ata jan
t emruar pr n gjykat. Italia nuk ka zyr t mbrojtsit publik. Vetm kur
t pandehurit kapen n vepr dhe kur ballafaqohen me nj dnim t caktuar,
ather ekziston stimulim i vrtet pr marrveshje pr t marr zvoglim t
nj t trets.66
Shpjegim i arsyeshm i prezantimit t ktyre procedurave ishte shpjeguar se

sht pr t br sistemin e t drejts penale m efikas dhe t ndihmoj n
eliminimin e shtyrjeve n koh t sjelljes s rasteve n gjykat, gj q
shqetsonte shum sistemin italian. Megjithat, kto procedura jan
shfrytzuar vetm n nj t tretn e rasteve q do t thot se ndikimi nuk ka
qen dramatik67.
65
66
Kritika e reformave italiane n praktik n Marco Fabri, Reformat e procedurs dhe t ndjekjes
penale n Itali: nj kthim mbrapa, Punim i Konzorciumit Evropian pr Hulumtim Politik, Pisa
shtator 2007.
67
Shih Giulio Illuminati dhe Michele Caianello Faza hetimore e procesit penal n Itali n Ed
Cape, Jacqueline Hodgson, Ties Prakken dhe Taru Spronken, (botimet) T dyshuarit n Evrop:
t drejtat procedurale n fazn e hetimit t nj procesi penal n Unionin Evropian, Intersentia
2009, faqe 133.
4. BOSNJA E HERCEGOVINA
4.1. Hyrje
Para prezantimit t Kodit pr Procedur Penale t vitit 2003, Bosnja e

Hercegovina, si edhe shtetet tjera t ish Jugosllavis prdorte nj procedur
t pastr t s drejts civile pr zgjidhjen e rasteve kriminale n gjykat.
Propozim kodi penal ishte i prpiluar nga grup punues i ekspertve ligjor nga
Bosnja e Hercegovina. Nj raport i OSBE-s e prshkruan sistemin e ri si nj
hibrid, kundrshtues ose przierje68.
Kodi prezantoi konceptet e deklarimit t fajsis dhe t marrveshjes pr

deklarim t fajsis. Edhe pse u shfrytzua me sukses n gjykatat e tjera dhe
n departamentet e gjykats pr krime ekonomike dhe t organizuara,
marrveshja e par pr deklarim nuk erdhi n dhomn e Gjykats s Bosnje e
Hercegovins pr krime lufte para muajit shkurt t vitit 2008.
Me vendosjen e kodit n nivel nacional dhe t etnitetit, prfaqsuesi i lart

shpjegoi nevojn pr nj kod t procedurs penale n nivel shtetror, i cili ishte
n prputhje me standardet e pranuara moderne ndrkombtare n fushn
e procedurs penale dhe e cila do t prputhej me garancit e parapara me
Konventn Evropiane pr t Drejtat e Njeriut69.
Disa arsye pr prezantimin e metodave kundrshtuese t gjykimit n sistem

civil n nj sistem ligjor t pas konfliktit prfshinte dshirn pr t pasur nj
prokuror t pavarur, i cili do t sillte vendime publike, dhe prshpejtim t
procesit gjyqsor me futjen n fuqi t limiteve kohore rigoroze pr aktakuzn,
fillimin e gjykimit, dgjimin pr depozitim dhe apelimet.
4.2. Deklarimi i fajsis
Kodi i Procedurs Penale i vitit 2003 prezantoi konceptin e deklarimit t

fajsis n sistemin ligjor t Bosnjs. Me nenin 229, nj i akuzuar duhet t
deklarohet fajtor ose i pafajshm pr nj aktakuz gjat dgjimit preliminar.
Nse dshton deklarimi i fajsis gjykatsi hyn n deklarim si jo fajtor nga
68
Raporti i OSBE-s nga Vzhgimi i gjykimit n implementimin e Kodit t Ri pr Procedur
Penale n Gjykatat e BeH, dhjetor 2004, faqe 1.
69
Vendimi i Prfaqsuesit t Lart nr 3/2003.
60 CHAPTER
pozita ex officio. Para se t hyj n kt deklarim i akuzuari duhet, patjetr, t

kshillohet pr pasojat q dalin nga vendimi i tij, q do t thot se:
deklarimi i fajsis sht br vullnetarisht, me vetdije dhe me mirkuptim;

i akuzuari ka qen i informuar dhe e ka kuptuar refuzimin e t drejts pr
gjykim
se ekzistojn mjaft dshmi pr fajsin e t akuzuarit;
i akuzuari ishte i informuar dhe ka kuptuar pasojat e mundshme n lidhje me
krkesn e mundshme pr pron dhe konfiskimin e mundur; dhe
ligji dhe konfiskimi i prons s fituar jan mundsuar nga provizionet prej
kundrvajtjes kriminale dhe pagesa t mundshme.
Gjykata duhet t jet e knaqur nga t gjitha kto t numruarat dhe mund
t refuzoj deklarimin70.
4.3. Marrveshja statusore e deklarimit
Neni 231 i Kodit pr Procedur Penale me titull marrveshja pr deklarim

rregullon procedurn. Nj i dyshuar apo i akuzuar dhe avokati mbrojts mund
t negociojn me Prokurorin pr kushtet lidhur me pranimin e fajsis pr
kundrvajtjen penale me t ciln i dyshuari ose i akuzuari sht i ngarkuar. Ata
mund ta bjn kt para prfundimit t gjykimit kryesor ose t seancs n
gjykatn e apelit, por nuk mund t bjn pas dhnies s deklarimit t fajsis.
Prokurori mund t sugjeroj dnim m t vogl se ai obligues71 si sht pr

shembull zvoglimi i burgimit afatgjat q zakonisht sht 20 vjet, deri n
minimum 5 vjet. N kuptimin kushtetues rregulli i till duket se parashikon
marrveshjen pr akuzim. Pr shembull, palt mund t negociojn pr t
akuzuarin q t paditet pr nj kundrvajtje m t leht se ajo q sht nn
hetime, pr shembull nj aktakuz e cila bhet pr krime kundr njerzimit
n vend t asaj pr gjenocidit.
Praktika tregon se palt duhet ti qasen Gjykats me nj marrveshje t

shkruar pr deklarim duke vendosur kshtu baza faktike pr deklarimin dhe
pr marrveshjen lidhur me faktet.
70
Neni 230 (3) nga Kodi i Procedurs Penale 2003
71
Gjykata mund t refuzoj ose t pranoj marrveshjen dhe duhet patjetr t

mendoj pr marrveshjen e deklarimit t fajit dhe n t njjtn mnyr
mendon, nse pranohet deklarimi i fajsis.72
Gjykata duket se nuk ka kurrfar diskrecioni dhe se obligohet me dnimin e

sugjeruar. Neni 231 (7) siguron, N rast se Gjykata pranon marrveshjen pr
deklarim, ather deklarata e t akuzuarit do t futet n regjistr dhe Gjykata
do t vazhdoj me dgjimin pr shpalljen e dnimit t parapar me
marrveshje. N rast se gjykata e refuzon at, rasti drgohet pr gjykim
brenda 30 ditve.
Me deklarim t fajsis i pandehuri heq dor nga e drejta pr apelim t

dnimit q vendoset sipas marrveshjes pr deklarim73. Megjithat, Gjykata,
duket se mund t vendos nj dnim m t lart se ai i parashikuari me
marrveshjen pr deklarim, dhe kshtu t akuzuarit i jep t drejtn pr apelim
kundr dnimit.
Gjithashtu krkohet nga gjykata t informoj do pal t dmtuar pr

rezultatet e marrveshjes pr deklarim. Kodi nuk mundson pjesmarrjen e
viktimave apo t palve t dmtuara n procesin e marrveshjes pr deklarim.
Megjithat, pasoja e deklarimit sht n plotsimin e krkesave pronsore t
bra nga viktimat kundr t pandehurit.
4.4. Marrveshja pr deklarim t fajit n praktik
Nj raport i OSBE-s i vitit 2006 analizoi prdorimin marrveshjes pr deklarim

t fajit npr gjykata t ndryshme t Bosnj e Hercegovins. N t thuhet se
gjyqsia ka prvetsuar marrveshjet pr deklarim t fajit duke vrtetuar
prdorimin e tyre n t gjitha rastet e ndryshme, nga m t voglat pr
kundrvajtje t hyrjes pa leje e deri te rastet e krimeve kundr njerzimit74.
Raporti konkludoi se Marrveshjet pr deklarim m s shpeshti negociohen

pas dgjimit gjyqsor t deklarimit, por para gjykimit kryesor ky ishte rast
n 77% t deklarimeve t vzhguara75.
Pr arsye se legjislacioni nuk lejon diskrecion n lidhje me dnimin (n

prputhje me marrveshjen pr deklarim) n `rast sht zhvilluar nj praktik
72
73
Neni 231 (4) (c) nga Kodi i Procedurs Penale 2003.
74
Raporti i OSBE pr marrveshjet e deklarimit t fajsis, faqe 2, 8.
62 CHAPTER
kur palt i sugjerojn Gjykats s Bosnj dhe Hercegovins, nj shkall t

dnimit, duke i dhn kshtu pranimit t marrveshjes nj shans m t madhe
pr sukses. Pr shembull, palt mund t sugjerojn nj shkall dnimi mes 5
dhe 10 vjetve pr nj kundrvajtje e cila mundet, prndryshe, t sanksionohet
me nj dnim prej 20 vjetve.
Skema legjislative duket se nuk ka parashikuar marrveshje pr akuz, prandaj

edhe duket se kufizohet n marrveshje pr dnim. Megjithat, marrveshja
pr akuz nuk prjashtohet n mnyr t veant dhe ajo sht shfrytzuar76.
Vlersimi paraprak i OSBE-s n Bosnje dhe Hercegovin ka qen pozitiv lidhur

me pranimin nga ana e gjykatave t marrveshjes pr deklarim t fajit. Po
prdoret me t madhe neni 231 dhe ekuivalentt e tij pr t gjitha krimet,
ndrsa prdorimi i tij pran Gjykats s Bosnj dhe Hercegovins po rritet n
rastet e krimeve t lufts.
Tre rastet e prfunduara pr krime lufte ilustrojn se si kjo ka funksionuar n

praktik:
Ljubisha etiq (Masakra n Koriqanske Stijene). I pandehuri dhe shtat t
tjer ishin t akuzuar pr pjesmarrje n vrasje masive q ishte objekt i rastit
t Darko Mrgjs n TNKJ t prshkruar m posht. Ai e ndrroi deklarimin e
vet fillestar nga i pafajshm n fajtor pr kryerjen e krimeve kundr
njerzimit. Marrveshja pr deklarim t fajit propozonte nj dnim mes 11
dhe 13 vjet. Gjykata e pranoi marrveshjen dhe e dnoi at me 13 vjet
burgim77.
I bashkakuzuari i etiq-it, Gordan Gjuriq-i, u deklarua i pafajshm dhe shkoi
n gjykim. N mes t gjykimit ai hyri n marrveshje pr deklarim t fajit
me t ciln ai u pajtua t dshmoj kundr t tjerve dhe t pranoj fajsin
e vet. Ai dha dshmi por disa nga dshmit e tij nuk ishin n pajtim me
pretendimet n aktakuzn kundr tij. Gjykata refuzoi marrveshjen pr
deklarim t fajit dhe e bashkngjiti rastin e tij me t bashkakuzuarit e tjer.
Pas gjasht javve ai u fut n marrveshjen e dyt pr deklarim t fajit dhe
prsri dshmoi, kt radh n pajtim me pretendimet e deklaruara.
75
Raporti i OSBE pr marrveshjet e deklarimit, faqe 12.
76
Shih, pr shembull Zyra e Prokurorve t BeH kundr Vaso Todoroviqit X-KR-06/180-1, vendimi
gjyqsor i shkalls s par, 2 tetor 2008, prokuroria e ndryshoi aktakuzn llestare pr t
zvogluar akuzat e gjenocidit n llogari t krimeve kundr njerzimit. I pandehuri deklaroi
fajsin dhe u pajtua t ndihmoj hetimet dhe gjykimet tjera sipas nevojs.
77
Zyra e Prokurorve t BeH-s kundr Ljubisha etiqit X-KR-08/549-3, Vendimi gjyqsor i
shkalls s par 18 mars 2010.
Marrveshja sugjeronte dnim ndrmjet 7 dhe 10 vjetve burgim. Pastaj

gjykata e pranoi marrveshjen pr deklarim dhe e dnoi at me 8 vjet
burgim n baz t asaj se ai ka mbajtur roj dhe nuk ka shtir personalisht
kundr t burgosurve78.
Pashko Lubiiq, nj komandant ushtarak n Kshillin kroat t mbrojtjes u
padit nga Tribunali Ndrkombtar i Krimeve n ish-Jugosllavi (TNKJ) pr
pjesmarrjen e tij n sulmin ndaj fshatit Ahmii q rezultoi me vdekjen e
m shum se 100 civilve dhe shkatrrimin e shtpive dhe xhamive. Rasti i
tij u transferua n Gjykatn e Bosnjs dhe Hercegovins. Ai arriti t bj nj
marrveshje pr deklarim n baz t s cils prokuroria ndryshoi akuzat prej
krimeve kundr njerzimit n krime lufte kundr popullats civile (sulme
dhe shkatrrim t paprmbajtur t prons). Marrveshja saktsonte se ai
duhej t shpaloste para Zyrs s Prokurorve t BeH-s dhe t TNKJ-s do
gj q ai kishte dijeni pr disa sulme t caktuara ushtarake. Prokuroria
dorzoi se nj dnim prej 9 vjet sht adekuat, ndrsa mbrojtja sugjeroi 8
vjet. Gjykata pranoi marrveshjen pr deklarim t fajit dhe e dnoi t
pandehurin me 10 vjet burgim. Gjykata vrtetoi se pranimi i tij i fajsis dhe
pendimi i tij i sinqert mund t ket ndikim pozitiv n rehabilitimin e
viktimave dhe n pranimin e fakteve79.
Muadin Emrulai u deklarua i fajshm sipas marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit
pr pjesmarrjen n organizimin e kontrabandimit t njerzve, duke u
dakorduar n dnim deri n dy vjet burgim me kusht q t mos kryej asnj
vepr penale brenda tri viteve. I pandehuri ka pranuar se ka marr pjes n
lvizjen ilegale t njerzve prtej kufirit t Bosnj dhe Hercegovins pr n
Kroaci dhe Mal t Zi pr pages me veler prej 50-1000 Euro. Gjykata pranoi
marrveshjen dhe e dnoi at n nj vit dhe nnt muaj burgim80.
Sead Adilovi u deklarua i fajshm sipas marrveshjes pr pranim t fajit
pr prdorimin me dije t banknots s falsifikuar prej 100 KM (50 euro)
pr blerjen e ilaeve me vler prej 15 KM. Marrveshja theksonte se ai mund
t dnohej me burgim prej nj deri tre muaj dhe gjykata pranoi
marrveshjen dhe e dnoi me dy muaj burgim, duke pasur parasysh gjendjen
e familjes s tij dhe se kishte kryer kundrvajtje pr her t par. 81
78
Zyra e Prokurorve t BeH-s kundr Gordan Gjuriqit X-KR-08/549-2, Vendimi gjyqsor i
shkalls s par, 10 shtator 2009.
79
Zyra e Prokurorve t BeH-s kundr Pashko Lubiiqit X-KR-06/241, Vendimi gjyqsor i shkalls
s par, 29 prill 2008.
80
Zyra e Prokurorve t BeH-s kundr Muadin Emrulai X-K-08/635, Vendimi gjyqsor i shkalls
s par, 22 janar 2009.
81
Zyra e Prokurorve t BeH-s kundr Sead Adilovi X-K-07/474-8, Vendimi gjyqsor i shkalls
s par, 29 gusht 2009.
64 CHAPTER
5. GJYKATAT DHE TRIBUNALT NDRKOMBTAR
5.1. Hyrje
Tribunalt ndrkombtar ad hoc dhe hibrid, TNKJ, Tribunali Ndrkombtar

pr Krime n Ruand (TNKR), Tribunali Special pr Libanin (TSL), Gjykata
Speciale pr the Siera Leone (GjSSL) (me prjashtim t Dhoms s Jasht-
zakonshme t Gjykatave t Kamboxhias (DhJGjK)), t gjitha mundsojn ujdi
ose marrveshje pr deklarim. T gjitha kto tribunal shfrytzojn metod
t gjykimit kundrshtues. Statuti dhe Rregullorja e Gjykats Ndrkombtare
pr Krime (GjNK) nuk e prmendin me saktsi termin marrveshje pr deklarim
t fajit, mirpo, si duket, nuk parandalojn marrveshjet pr deklarim.
TNKJ, TNKR, GjSSL dhe TSL prdorin konceptin e ligjit zakonor ose kundr-
shtues t deklarimit t fajsis. I akuzuari s pari duhet t deklaroj se sht
fajtor para se t dnohet.
Statuti i TNKJ-s prezantoi konceptin e deklarimit t fajsis n t drejtn penale

ndrkombtare. Gjykatsi Cassese vrejti se sistemi i deklarimit t fajsis ose i
pafajsis ishte i nxjerr nga sistemet e ligjit zakonor, duke vrejtur se kjo praktik
nuk kishte shembull t drejtprdrejt n traditn e t drejts civile ku nj
pranim i fajsis sht, thjesht, nj pjes e dshmive q duhet t merren n
konsiderat dhe t vlersohen nga ana e gjykats. Ai vrejti se shpjegim i
arsyeshm pr kt qasje duket se ishte tì mundsohet t akuzuarit (po edhe
Prokurorit) ti shmanget nj gjykimi i gjat me t gjitha vshtirsit e veta t
gjitha t rndsishme pr n seancat ndrkombtare. Kto prfshijn aktivitet
tejet t lodhshm q merr koh t grumbullimit t dshmive, mbrojtjes s
viktimave dhe dshmitarve, kostoja e seancave ishte e madhe pr shkak t
prkthimeve me shkrim e me goj, transportit ndrkombtar i viktimave dhe
dshmitarve si dhe asistencs s tyre pr n gjykim. Deklarimi i fajsis sht n
favor t publikut, ai mund t jet i dobishm edhe pr t akuzuarin duke e kursyer
at nga paraqitja n gjykim dhe t ekspozimit n publik. Plus ksaj t akuzuarit i
mundsonte t shlyej fajin dhe t merr nj dnim t zvogluar82.
Ky mendim ishte shkruar para se Rregullorja e TNKJ-s t aprovonte konceptin e

marrveshjes pr deklarim me nj amendament n Rregullore, q i shtohej
rregulls 62 ter dhe duke kodifikuar procedurn. Raporti i par vjetor i TNKJ-s
82
Prokurori kundr Drazhen Erdomoviq -92-22-A, 22 tetor 1997, Opinion i ndar dhe i kundrt
i gjykatsit Cassese, n paragraft 7-8.
n vitin 1994 madje me saktsi shnon se praktika e marrveshjes pr deklarim

nuk gjendet n rregullore, madje jo para dhjetorit t vitit 2001. Gjykatsit
arritn t aprovojn zyrtarisht rregullat pr marrveshje pr deklarim. Teksti i
Rregulls 62 ter kryesisht buron nga Rregullat Federale t Procedurs Penale t
Shteteve t Bashkuara.
Nj nga dallimet kryesore n deklarimet e fajsis n mes t drejtsis ndrkom-

btare dhe sistemeve vendore t cilt prdorin deklarimin e fajsis qndron n
prdorimin e tij. N juridiksionet e ligjit zakonor deklarimet e fajsis zakonisht
ndodhin, gati, n t gjitha rastet e sjella n gjykat. N t drejtn penale ndrkombtare
n marrveshje t fajsis hyn nj prqindje shum e vogl e t pandehurve
(n TNKJ deri m sot 20 prej 161 t akuzuarve jan deklaruar t jen fajtor).
Veanrisht, n TSL, n tribunalin m t ri hibrid ndrkombtar, i cili shfrytzon

nj przierje ligjesh penale ndrkombtare dhe atyrve Libaneze ka miratuar
nj procedur t ngjashme83.
5.2. TNKJ
TNKJ ka nj procedur pr marrveshje deklarimi t rregulluar me rregullore.

Brenda 30 ditve nga paraqitja e par pas arrestimit, i akuzuari duhet t hyj n
deklarim t fajsis apo t pafajsis84. Para se t pranoj deklarimin, Dhoma
gjyqsore duhet t jet e bindur se deklarimi i fajsis sht br vullnetarisht,
n baz t informimit, i qart, dhe me baz t mjaftueshme faktike pr krimin
dhe pr pjesmarrjen e t akuzuarit n te85.
Rregulla 62 ter siguron procedur pr marrveshje deklarimi. Kjo i mundson

Prokurorit dhe mbrojtjes t pajtohen se n baz t pranimit t marrveshjes pr
deklarim nga ana e t akuzuarit, Prokurori mund t aplikoj ndryshimin e aktakuzs
dhe t dorzoj krkes pr nj dnim ose shkall dnimi t caktuar. Dhoma gjyqsore
nuk obligohet nga asnj marrveshje. Ajo ka dnuar tre t akuzuar me kushte
83
Shih rregullat 99 dhe 100 n Rregullat e procedurs dhe t dshmive t TNKJ-s.
84
Rregulla 62 (IV) nga Rregullat e procedurs dhe t dshmive.
85
Rregulla 62 bis Rregullat e procedurs dhe t dshmive.
86
Prokurori kundr Momir Nikoliqit -02-60/1-2; Vendimi i dnimit, 2 dhjetor 2002 (marrveshja
saktsonte 15 deri 20 vjet, dnimi ishte 23 vjet); Prokurori kundr Dragan Nikoliqit -94-2-S,
Vendimi i dnimit, 18 dhjetor 2003 (marrveshja ishte15, ndrsa dnimi 27 vjet); Prokurori
kundr Milan Babiqit -03-72-S, Vendimi i dnimit, 29 qershor 2004 (marrveshja saktsonte
11 vjet, dnimi ishte 13 vjet).
66 CHAPTER
burgimi m t larta n krahasim me ato t siguruara me marrveshjen pr

deklarim86. Kjo parasheh marrveshje edhe pr akuzn edhe pr dnimin.
Ligji i Tribunalit kt e arsyeton me krkesn se para pranimit t deklarimit t
fajsis Dhoma duhet t jet e sigurt se i akuzuari n aspekt psikik sht i aft, se
e kupton natyrn e akuzave dhe pasojat e deklarimit, se nuk ka qen i krcnuar
ose i joshur gabimisht pr t pranuar fajsin, se deklarimi i tij ka baz faktike t
mjaftueshme juridike dhe se deklarimi i fajit pasqyron n trsi veprn penale.
Marrveshjet pr deklarim t fajit duhet t jen t shkruara dhe t zbardhura

para gjykats n mnyr publike. Negocimet pr deklarim prfshijn vetm
prokurorin dhe mbrojtjen, por jo edhe gjykatsit. Prokuroria mund t
dorzoj ndryshime t aktakuzs me t cilat ofron akuza pr t cilat i akuzuari
do t deklarohej i fajshm sipas marrveshjes pr deklarim t fajit.
Nuk ekzistojn procedura apo praktika t caktuara. Prokuroria nuk e ka

medoemos t ndryshoj aktakuzn. I akuzuari nuk e ka medoemos t ofroj
asistenc pr prokurorin. Gjat dgjimit t dnimit palt mund t krkojn
dshmit. Pr shembull, prokuroria mund t krkoj dshmit e viktims ose
t ekspertit, mbrojtja mund t thrret dshmit e t akuzuarit ose t individit,
ndrsa Dhoma gjyqsore mund t krkoj dshmin e ekspertit t vet.
Ndryshe nga, t themi Bosnja e Hercegovina, nuk ka heqje dor ligjore nga e
drejta pr t kundrshtuar dnimin e shqiptuar sipas marrveshjes pr
deklarim t fajit. Prokuroria mund t negocioj nj heqje dor t ktill si pjes
t marrveshjes pr t saktsuar se i akuzuari nuk do t kundrshtoj dnimin
nse ai shqiptohet brenda shkalls s saktsuar n te87.
Deri m sot, 20 t akuzuar kan hyr n marrveshje pr deklarim t fajit me

prokurorin. Pr t ilustruar se si TNKJ-ja merret me marrveshjet pr deklarim
tregojn tre shembujt n vijim,
Rasti i Darko Mrgjs i prket vrasjes t m shum se dyqind meshkujve
mysliman afr vendit Koriqanske Stijene, pran malit Vlashiq n Bosnj e
Hercegovin n gusht t vitit 1992. Rreth 1200 civil kroat dhe mysliman
t Bosnjs u morn me autobus nga kampet e burgimit pasi q iu kishin
thn se do tì drgonin pr kmbim. M shum se 200 meshkuj u zbritn
prej autobusve dhe me autobus tjer u drguan n nj lugin ku ata u
vran duke shtir n ta n cep t nj shkmbi. Mrgja, nj oficer policie, i
87
Pr shembull, n Prokurori kundr Stevan Todoroviqit -95-9/1 Vendimi i dnimit, 31 korrik
2001; Prokurori kundr Milan Simiqit -95-9/2 Vendimi i dnimit, 17 tetor 2002.
cili kishte marr pjes n vrasjet, ishte akuzuar pr asgjsim si krim kundr
njerzimit, pr vrasje si shkelje t ligjeve ose zakoneve t lufts dhe pr
vepra jonjerzore dhe krime kundr njerzimit. Ai hyri n nj marrveshje
me shkrim pr deklarim t fajit me prokurorin dhe, n baz t ksaj, ai u
deklarua se pranon fajsin pr dy prej tre akuzave. Ai pranoi pjesmarrjen
e tij n masakr. N seancn e shqyrtimit t dnimit dshmit e veta i dhan
i akuzuari, nj i mbijetuar nga masakra dhe prfaqsuesi i shoqats t
viktimave. Marrveshja pr deklarim t fajit obligonte Mrgjn q t
bashkpunoj me prokurorin, dhe prokurori u pajtua se ai kishte siguruar
bashkpunim t dukshm (n nj shtojc t futur n skedar t sekret).
Dhoma gjyqsore pranoi se bashkpunimi dhe deklarimi i fajsis jan
rrethana lehtsuese dhe se deklarimi ka ndihmuar q t prcaktohet e
vrteta pr krimin dhe me kt mund t inkurajohet pajtimi. Prokuroria
rekomandoi nj dnim mes 15 dhe 20 vjetsh, ndrsa mbrojtja rekomandoi
dnim prej 15 vjet. Dhoma gjyqsore vendosi dnim prej 17 vjet burgim.
Dnimi nuk u kundrshtua88. Ndjekje tjera penale u paraqitn n Gjykatn
e Bosnjs dhe Hercegovins n lidhje me t njjtin krim.
Biljana Plavshiq gjat konfliktit ishte antare e Presidencs s Republiks
Serbe n Bosnje e Hercegovin. Ajo ishte e akuzuar s bashku me Radovan
Karaxhiqin pr, pjesmarrje n gjenocid dhe persekutim, shfarosje dhe
vrasje, deprtim dhe akte johumane si krime kundr njerzimit. Ajo
nnshkroi marrveshje pr deklarim t fajit me prokurorin, pjes e s cils
ishin pes faqe t bazs faktike t deklarimit. Ajo hyri n deklarim t fajsis
pr akuzn e persekutimit dhe Dhoma gjyqsore i lejoi prokuroris t
trheqin akuzat tjera. Bazat faktike t shkruara t deklarimit t saj pranonin
se, mes tjerash, jan ftuar dhe inkurajuar paramilitart nga Serbia t
asistojn forcat Serbe t Bosnjs, t ndikojn n ndarjen etnike me forc
dhe t mbshtesin persekutimin prmes pjesmarrjes s saj n strukturat
udhheqse. Aktakuza numronte 37 komuna n Bosnj e Hercegovin n
t cilat ndodhn persekutimet. Prokurori paraqiti se n munges t
deklarimit nj dnim me burgim t prjetshm do t ishte adekuat. At koh
ajo ishte n mosh 72 vjee. Prokuroria krkoi nj dnim mes 15 dhe 25 vjet
ndrsa mbrojtja paraqitn se dnimi me 8 vjet heqje lirie do t ishte
adekuat.
Dhoma gjyqsore konkludoi se deklarimi i saj pr fajsi, dorzimi i saj
vullnetar n Tribunal, mosha dhe sjellja e saj pas konfliktit ishin t gjitha
88
Prokurori kundr Darko Mrgjs -02-59-S Vendimi i dnimit 31 mars 2004.
89
Prokurori kundr Biljana Plavshiqit -00-39&40/1-S, Vendimi i dnimit, 27 shkurt 2003.
68 CHAPTER
rrethana lehtsuese dhe e dnuan at me 11 vjet burg. Asnjra pal nuk e

kundrshtoi dnimin89.
Shembull tjetr sht rasti i Dragan Nikoliqit, komandantit t qendrs pr

burgim afr Vlasenics n Bosnj e Hercegovin n t ciln qindra civil
mysliman dhe jo-serb ishin t burgosur n kushte johumane pr jetes.
Ndodhn vrasje, dhunime dhe tortura. Ai u akuzua pr persekutim si krim
kundr njerzimit. Disa vjet pas paraburgimit t tij, mu n ditn e fillimit t
nj seance dgjimi t depozitimeve, ai arriti t bj marrveshje pr
deklarim t fajit me prokurorin n t ciln u pajtua me pretendimet e
aktakuzs (si baz faktike e deklarimit). Ai, po ashtu, i dha nj asistenc
prokuroris. Prokuroria rekomandoi nj dnim prej 15 vjet heqje lirie.
Mbrojtja u pajtua me kt. Dhoma gjyqsore, megjithat, nuk e pranoi kt
dhe e dnoi me 23 vjet burg, duke vlersuar se nj dnim prej 15 vjetsh
nuk do t ishte i drejt. 90 Nikoliqi e kundrshtoi dnimin. Dhoma e Apelit e
zvogloi dnimin n 20 vjet n baz t asaj se Dhoma gjyqsore kishte
gabuar n prcaktimin e sakt t kohs q ai do duhej ta mbante para se t
lirohej. Ajo nuk pranoi t shqyrtoj bazn e apelimit se Dhoma gjyqsore
ka vendosur nj piknisje tepr t lart pr burgim.91
5.3. Gjykata Ndrkombtare pr Krime
Statuti i GjNK-s nuk e preferon shprehjen deklarim t fajsis, por m shum

si nj pranim t fajsis. Kjo rezultoi nga kompromiset e bra mes delegaci-
oneve t ligjit zakonor dhe t drejts civile gjat negociatave t vitit 1998.
N fillim t gjykimit, i akuzuari mund t deklarohet jo fajtor ose t bj nj

pranim t fajsis.92
Neni 65 rregullon seancn e pranimit t fajsis. Nga Dhoma gjyqsore

krkohet t prcaktoj vall i akuzuari e kupton natyrn dhe pasojat e
pranimit, akuzat dhe materialin e prezantuar q mbshtesin pranimin. Ajo
pastaj shqyrton vall faktet kryesore jan t vendosura n mnyr t
nevojshme pr t vrtetuar se krimi sht kryer. Ajo mund t krkon m shum
dshmi ose t prcjell rastin n gjykim. Neni 65 (5) parasheh se do diskutim
mes Prokurorit dhe mbrojtjes n lidhje me modifikimin e akuzave, pranimin
e fajsis ose t dnimit q duhet t shqiptohet, nuk duhet t jet obligues
90
Prokurori kundr Dragan Nikoliqit -94-2-S, Vendimi i dnimit, 18 dhjetor 2003
91
Prokurori kundr Dragan Nikoliqit 94-2-A, Vendim pr Apelin kundr dnimit, 4 shkurt 2005.
92
Neni 65 (8) (a) Statuti i GjNK-s.
pr Gjykatn. Sipas rregulls 139, Gjykata pastaj merr vendimin e vet n lidhje
me pranimin e fajsis.
Gjykata duhet, patjetr, t konfirmoj se i pandehuri ka marr konsultime t

mjaftueshme nga avokati para se t pranoj nj pranim t fajsis93.
Nse refuzon marrveshjen ajo duhet t jap arsyet. Gjykata mund t refuzoj
pranimin e fajsis dhe t prcjell rastin n gjykim94. Gjykata mund t
miratoj pranimin e fajsis, por edhe t krkoj prokuroria t prezantoj
dshmi shtes n rast se beson se nj prezantim m i plot i fakteve t rastit
do t ishte i nevojshm n interes t drejtsis, e n veanti n interes t
viktimave Neni 65 (4). Statuti dhe Rregullorja e GjNK-s nuk parashohin
saktsisht se nj pranim i fajsis sht rrethan lehtsuese pr dnimin, por
bashkpunimin me Gjykatn e konsiderojn si rrethan lehtsuese.
Marrveshja pr deklarim t fajit, edhe pse nuk sht e parapar n mnyr t

qart, prapseprap nuk sht e ndaluar dhe duket se sht e parapar me
Rregullore. Gjykata deri m sot nuk ka asnj shembull t pranimit t fajsis.
5.4. Gjykata Evropiane pr t Drejtat e Njeriut
Praktika e dnimit sht e rregulluar nga ana e gjykatave nacionale dhe n

pak raste drejtprdrejt t lidhura me marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit kan
arritur deri n Gjykatn Evropiane.
Nj fush e ligjit pr t drejtat e njeriut sht heqja dor nga neni 6 -e drejta
pr gjykim t drejt e cila nnkupton dakordimin pr procedur t ngjashme
me at t sistemit italian abbreviato.
Gjykata Evropiane ka konsideruar kt shtje n mnyr direkte. Ajo ka

njohur prparsit e t pandehurit, nse dnohet, lidhur me zvoglimin e
dukshm t dnimit dhe pamundsin e prokuroris t kundrshtoj dnimin
e cila nuk ndryshon karakteristikn ligjore t kundrvajtjes. Sidoqoft, n te
njejtn koh, gjykata ka theksuar se kjo prbnte zvoglim t mbrojtjes
procedurale duke hequr dor nga e drejta pr seanc publike dhe sjelljen e
provave t reja dhe thirrjen n gjyq t dshmitarve. Neni 6 i Konvents nuk
parandalon personin t heq dor nga kto t drejta t veanta me dshir t
93
Neni 65 (1) (b) Statuti i GjNK-s.
94
Neni 65 (4) dhe Rregulla 139.nga Statuti dhe Rregullorja e Gjykats ndrkombtare pr krime.
95
Rasti i Scoppola kundr Italis (nr.2), aplikimi 10249/03, 17 shtator 2009.
70 CHAPTER
veten, por heqja dor duhet t jet e qart. Kjo heqje dor nga t drejtat nuk
mund t luftohet me asnj shtje t veprimit publik. 95
Nj aspekt tjetr i rndsishm sht parimi i s drejts s barabart ndrmjet

prokuroris dhe mbrojtjes. T drejtat e garantuara me nenin 6 t Konvents
Evropiane pr t Drejtat e Njeriut fillojn ather kur nj person njoftohet pr
ngritjen e akuzs nga ana e prokurorit pavarsisht se ajo sht sjell apo e
konfirmuar n gjykat96. Kjo ndikon n procesin e negocimit mes prokuroris
dhe mbrojtjes dhe parimit t s drejts s barabart n seancn gjyqsore.
Ky parim, obligon trajtim t barabart pr t gjith personat q gjenden para

gjyqit. Gjykata Evropiane e interpreton kt n kuptimin se ...do pale duhet
patjetr ti mundsohet ta prezantoj rastin e vet n mnyr t arsyeshme,
prfshir ktu edhe dshmit e veta, t cilat nuk e vn at n pozit dukshm
t pafavorshme vis--vis kundrshtarit t vet.... 97
N negociatat pr deklarim prokurori duket se ka s paku nj prparsi

fillestare. N raportin e OSBE-s thuhet98.
N kontekst t negocimit pr deklarim, ky princip ka implikacione pr
shkalln e ekzistimit t barazis n fuqin e negocimit mes prokurorit dhe
t t dyshuarit apo t akuzuarit. N praktik, mnyra m e mir pr t
barazuar pozitn e palve, sht q i akuzuari t ket ndihmn e avokatit
mbrojts n procesin e negocimit. M tej, me rrumbullakimin e marrveshjeve
t deklarimit, vetm pas konfirmimit t aktakuzs, por para se t bhet
deklarimi i fajsis, gjithashtu bhet barazimi i fuqis t negocimit mes palve.
I pandehuri mund t jet n situat t pafavorshme me hyrjen e tij n

marrveshje pr deklarim para konfirmimit t aktakuzs ose t akuzave t
drguara n gjykat. Kjo sht kshtu pr arsye se n at faz i pandehuri
mund t mos jet i njoftuar me dshmit e prokuroris dhe kshtu nuk sht
n gjendje t marr nj vendim t bazuar n informim se si duhet t deklarohet
pr akuzat ndaj tij.
I pandehuri po ashtu mund t jet n pozit t pafavorshme duke hyr n

marrveshje pr deklarim, pa hapje nga ana e prokurorit, e cila sht e
nevojshme q ti mundsoj atij ose asaj t marr nj vendim t bazuar n
informacion dhe n kshill t duhur juridike.
96
Rasti Deweer kundr Belgjiks, A-35, 27 shkurt 1980, parag. 46
97
Dombo Beheer B.V. kundr Holands, A-27, 27 tetor 1993 para. 33.
98
Raporti i OSBE-s pr marrveshjet e deklarimit 2006, f. 10.
Po ashtu, ujdia pr deklarim t fajsis ose pranimi i fajsis sht thelbsore

pr heqje dor nga e drejta pr gjykim n seanc gjyqsore. Kjo, detyrimisht,
duhet t jet e vlefshme n mnyr t qart. Nj person mund t heq dor
nga e drejta pr t dal para gjykats, por heqja dor nuk mund t njolloset
me detyrim99.
Prandaj, sipas ligjit pr t drejta t njeriut, vetdshira sht nj shtje e

rndsishme pr marrveshjen pr deklarim.
Gjykata Evropiane vlerson se neni 6 nuk sht shkelur n sistemet ku i

akuzuari deklaron fajsin e vet n fillim t ndjekjes penale dhe nuk mbahet
kurrfar dgjimi gjyqsor pr fajsi apo pafajsi, por vetm se pr t dhn
dnimin, po qe se ekzistojn mbrojtjet adekuate pr t parandaluar
keqprdorimin n veanti n Mbretria e Bashkuar100.
99
Deweer kundr Belgjiks, A-35, 27 shkurt 1980, parag. 46.
100
Rasti X kundr Mbretria e Bashkuar nr. 5076/71 CD 64 n 67 (1972). N at rast mbrojtjet
adekuate u konsideruan t jen n pajtim me nenin 6 (1) dhe ishin pr rastin kur gjykatsi
ishte i knaqur se i akuzuari kuptonte efektin e deklarimit t tij dhe se rrmi i tij po
regjistrohet.
72 CHAPTER
PJESA 3
UDHZIME MBI MARRVESHJEN
PR PRANIM T FAJIT
1. HYRJE
Ligji i ri mbi procedurn penale (LPP) ka futur n zbatim procedura dhe

mekanizma t reja q zn fill nga sistemi adversar, ndr t cilat edhe mundsia
e marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis. Kjo marrveshje sht nj ujdi varsisht
nga aprovimi i gjykatsit lidhur me akuzat pr nj aktvendim t fajsis dhe
dnimit, q rregullohet nga kapitulli 29. Marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis nuk
sht m shum sesa nj proces negociatash, qllimi i t cilit sht t bind
prokurorin t heq dor ose t zvogloj akuzat dhe t pajtohet pr nj dnim t
favorshm pr t akuzuarin, t ciln gj edhe gjykatsi i lnds (n tekstin e
mposhtm gjykatsi) do t duhet ta pranoj.101 N thelb, qllimi i marrveshjes
mbi fajsin sht t zgjidhet lnda nprmjet nj procedure m t shkurtr: n
kmbim t t mosshkuarit prmes nj gjykimi q konsumon edhe koh edhe
resurse, i akuzuari dakordohet, me dijenin e vet dhe vullnetarisht t pranoj kt
marrveshje, duke kuptuar se ai/ajo do t fitoj nj dnim m t favorshm sesa
t shkohet prmes seancave gjyqsore. Marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis
sht e mundur vetm pas fillimit t hetimit, kur prokurori ka dyshime t
bazuara se nj person ka kryer vepr penale,102 por para fillimi t shqyrtimit
fillestar t t akuzuarit.103 Meq i akuzuari ka heshtur104 dhe ka qen pa avokat
mbrojts pr lndn105, kjo i ndihmon marrveshjes pr pranimin e fajsis.
Sipas disa traditave juridike, sht e mundur t hiqen akuzat pavarsisht nga
provat. Kjo n prgjithsi pranohet n sistemin e Ligjit t prbashkt ku barra
e provave qndron plotsisht mbi prokurorin. Mirpo, kjo qasje n prgjithsi nuk
101
Shih Nenin 39(2), i cili e obligon dhe i jep t drejt prokurorit t bj negociata dhe
marrveshje me t pandehurin lidhur me marrveshjen e fajsis, sipas kushteve dhe
mnyrs s prcaktuar n kt kod kur krimi persekutohet ex ofcio.
102
Shih Kapitullin 21 t LPP-s.
103
Shih Kapitullin 22 t LPP-s. Shih poashtu Nenin 206(1)(2).
104
Shih Nenin 69(2).
105
Shih Nenin 79.
74 CHAPTER
pranohet n sistemin e Ligjit civil, ku barra e bindjes qndron mbi gjykatsin i

cili sht i obliguar t gjej t vrtetn objektive. Rrjedhimisht, n sistemin e Ligjit
civil n Republikn e Maqedonis mundsit pr marrveshjen e fajsis jan
t kufizuara n marrveshjen e dnimit, sepse do t ishte negative ndaj sistemit
penal maqedonas q gjykatsi t injoroj faktet dhe mos ti prfill detyrimet e
tij/saj gjat krkimit t s vrtets.106 Pasi u tha kjo, n disa rrethana faktike,
mund t ekzistoj mundsia q t bindet prokurori se sht n interes t drejtsis
t hiqet dor nga disa akuza n baz t asaj se, edhe prkundr vlersimit t tij/saj
fillestar t provave, shqyrtimi i mtejm tregon se ato akuza duhet braktisur
pr shkak t provave t pamjaftueshme. N do rast, pa marr parasysh se a
bhet fjal pr ligjin penal apo at civil, varet nga gjykatsi se a do ta pranoj,
ndryshoj apo refuzoj marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis. Kshtu, qllimi
i marrveshjes s fajsis nuk sht vetm t bindet prokurori t ofroj ndonj
marrveshje t favorshme, por edhe t sigurohet se kjo marrveshje sht e
pranueshme edhe pr gjykatsin i cili do t duhet t vendos.
Ska asgj magjike lidhur me marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis. Procesi

sht i njjt si me arritjen e ujdis pr nj mim t volitshm pr ndonj
produkt n treg. Me fjal t tjera, ka t bje me arritjen e pazarit: sa koh do
t duhet t kaloj n burg i akuzuari si rekomandim q gjykatsi ta pranoj.
Mund t ket raste kur, duke u bazuar n prova t reja ose gabime t bra me
prcaktimin e akuzave, mund t bhen prshtatje t akuzave aktuale q tu
reflektojn m s miri fakteve dhe krkesave t kodit penal. N raste t tilla,
nj pjes e procesit t marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis do t prfshij
diskutime vall mund t bhen prshtatjet e tilla t akuzave n mnyr t
duhur. Ktu nuk bhet fjal pr zhdukjen e krimeve t bra, por thjesht bhen
prshtatje t nevojshme dhe t arsyeshme t akuzave q ti prshtaten ligjit
dhe fakteve t lnds.
N shumicn e rasteve prokurori nuk do t dshiroj t pajtohet pr

kohzgjatjen e ndonj dnimi, por do t pajtohej pr nj seri kohsh (propozim
dnime) pr t cilat gjykatsi do t caktonte dnimin e duhur. Sipas ktij
skenari, qasja e prgjithshme sht t arrihet pajtim i prbashkt pr serin e
kohs: n njrn an minimumi absolut i pranueshm pr t ciln do t
pajtohet prokurori si dnim, por t diskutohet edhe nga avokati i mbrojtjes,
dhe n ann tjetr maksimumi absolut i pranueshm pr t ciln do t
pajtohet avokati i mbrojtjes, por t diskutohet edhe me prokurorin. Qasja e
106
Shih Nenin 484, i cili thekson se lnda e marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis sht tipi dhe
kohzgjatja e sanksionimit, dhe nse pranohet nga i Akuzuari lidhur me dmshprblimin
juridik apo pronsor t pals s dmtuar.
seris (n t ciln ka kufi t largt dhe t afrt) sht ndoshta qasja m

fleksibile pr t dyja palt.
Edhe pse s`ka garanci se gjykatsi do t jap dnim sipas propozimeve t t

dyja palve, ekziston nj probabilitet i mir q gjykatsi t pranoj propozimin.
Gjykatsit jan t pavarur dhe, si dihet, ata knaqin t drejtn e tyre pr t
ushtruar autoritetin e tyre n mnyr t pavarur. Kshtu, duke i ofruar
gjykatsit nj propozim t arsyeshm nga i cili do t vendos, gjykatsi ka liri
t prcaktohet dhe t zgjidh lndn ose t braktis propozimin dhe t rrezikoj
q palt t heqin dor nga marrveshja e fajsis dhe t shkojn me lndn e
tyre n gjyq. Ktij skenari t fundit gjykatsit duan ti shmangen: nuk ka kuptim
t humbet koh e vlefshme gjyqsore duke zhvilluar nj proces t tr kur nj
seanc e shkurt dgjimore do ti jepte rezultatet e pranueshme.
Gjykatsit e fazs preliminare nuk mund t marrin pjes n procedurn e

marrveshjes mbi fajsin midis prokurorit dhe avokatit.107 Pasi t dorzohet
propozimi i marrveshjes mbi fajsin n pajtueshmri me nenin 335, gjykatsi
ka pr obligim t caktoj seanc dgjimore n pajtueshmri me nenin 488.
Gjykatsi mund t sjell vendim ose t pranoj propozimin sipas kushteve t
nenit 490, ose t refuzoj n baz t nenit 489. Nse pranohet marrveshja e
fajsis, t dyja palt kan t drejt t apelojn pr vendimin.108
2. PROCESI I MARRVESHJES MBI PRANIMIN E FAJSIS
Marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis sht detyr e rndsishme pr avokatin

e mbrojtjes. Ndoshta duket se sht n favor t prokuroris t arrihet nj
dnim i leht pa mos u angazhuar n nj gjykim t gjat, por avokati i mbrojtjes
e ka detyrn m t vshtir pr arritjen e rezultatit m t favorshm pr
klientin, pa mos u desht t shkoj n gjykim dhe t rrezikoj dnim t rnd.
Si avokat i mbrojtjes, piksynimi sht t fitoj rezultatin m t mir pr
klientin. Meq do lnd ka faktet e veta dhe sfidat e veta, nuk ka formul t
veant: e gjith kjo varet nga prokurori i involvuar, nga prparsit dhe
mangsit e lnds s prokuroris, nga natyra e akuzave, nga natyra e fakteve,
nga historia e palve (t akuzuarit dhe viktimat), nga gjykatsi i involvuar, nga
vendi ku ka ndodhur krimi i supozuar, si dhe vendi ku gjykohet krimi. Kto
faktor jan jasht kontrollit t avokatit t mbrojtjes. Si t tilla, ato prbjn
107
Shih Nenin 487.
108
See Article 488(5).
76 CHAPTER
faktet q sndryshohen. Mund t debatohet se ndonj prokuror ose gjykats nuk

duhet t involvohet pr shkak t konfliktit t interesit, por prve ksaj, nuk
mund t bhet shum pr kt gj vetm se t pranohen kto fakte dhe t
shihet se deri n far mase mund t shfrytzohen ato pr t fituar nj
marrveshje ideale pr pranimin e fajsis. Sidoqoft, avokati i mbrojtjes duhet
t filloj ashtu sikur e bn punn e prditshme gjat prgatitjes s lnds
me analizn e lnds dhe ta bj distilimin e saj, t prcaktoj far detyrash
hetimore duhet kryer, ti analizoj prparsit dhe mangsit e lnds s
prokurorit etj. N thelb, lnda duhet analizuar njsoj sikur t shkoj n gjykim.
Vetm me prgatitje t hollsishme t lnds pr gjykim, avokati do t duhet
t pajiset me njohuri t mjaftueshme pr t br nj vlersim inteligjent t
lnds, dhe t jet n pozit t kshillon klientin e tij/saj si duhet se a duhet
ta pranoj marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis apo jo.
do gj q pason n nj procedur penale q ka elementet e sistemit adversar,

si sht e drejta e grumbullimit t provave, marrja n pyetje e dshmitarve
dhe inicimi i marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis, bazohet gati plotsisht n
identifikimin dhe prcaktimin e teoris m t favorshme t rastit.109 Edhe pse
kuptohet se jo do rast pr shkak t fakteve t pandryshuara - do t rezultoj
n ndonj teori t rastit q siguron lirimin absolut, shumica e rasteve jan t
prshtatshme pr t arritur marrveshje pr pranimin e fajsis. Mirpo, n
baz t ktyre fakteve vlen t theksohet se marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis,
si e till, nuk sht teori e rastit. Edhe pse faktet e lnds mund t jen t
prshtatshme pr t arritur marrveshje mbi pranimin e fajsis sepse do t
duket m e prshtatshme t krkohet ndonj shrbim m hert te gjykatsi
prapseprap duhet t mendohet teoria e rastit, nse jo pr shkaqe tjera por
pr shkakun nse marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis nuk arrihet, ather t
prgatitet lnda pr n gjykim.
Pasi t analizohet n hollsi lnda dhe hetimet e mundshme jan prfunduar,

secila pal duhet t ket sens nse rasti duhet t gjykohet, gjegjsisht rreziku
i daljes n gjyq, ose mund t negociohet, gjegjsisht, vlen t ndiqet me
seriozitet marrveshja pr pranimin e fajsis. Prgjigja sht se varet nga
lnda: faktet do t diktojn drejtimin se n ciln kategori bn pjes lnda
109
Teoria e rastit nuk sht kurrgj m tepr sesa nj tregim logjik binds pr at se ka ka
ndodhur nga pikpamja e prokurorit/mbrojtjes. Kjo sht nj arsyetim, justikim ose
shpjegim, pr at se pse duhet prokuroria ose mbrojtja t ngadhnjejn n gjyq. Teoria e
rastit duhet t zhvillohet n mnyr logjike dhe t vazhdueshme, q pasi t shqyrtohen
provat dhe dshmit e dshmitarve, trupi gjykues t marr vendim n mnyr racionale
n favorin tuaj.
edhe pse do t nevojitet nj shkall e caktuar e objektivitetit: me rndsi sht

t jemi real, doher t kemi parasysh interesin m t mir pr klientin ton.
Ashtu si ndodh n do juridiksion tjetr, vendimi i fundit se a duhet iniciuar

marrveshje pr pranimin e fajsis, dhe nse po, a duhet pranuar oferta e
fundit e prokurorit, qndron mbi prgjegjsin e t akuzuarit - klientit.110 Kjo
sht shum e rndsishme q avokati i mbrojtjes ta kuptoj dhe ti prmbahet
ksaj pr seciln lnd. Si e till, para se avokati i mbrojtjes ti afrohet
prokurorit pr t konsideruar mundsin e marrveshjes s pranimit t fajsis,
ai duhet t marr plqimin e klientit. Duke e br kt ose pr ta precizuar
edhe m shum, me qllim q klienti t jet n pozit t jap autorizim t
informuar avokati i mbrojtjes duhet ti sqaroj klientit kt q vijon:
ka sht marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis;
si funksionon marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis;
prparsit dhe mangsit e pranimit t marrveshjes s fajsis;
ant e forta dhe t dobta t lnds; dhe
rreziqet e t shkuarit n gjyq kundrejt zgjidhjes s lnds nprmjet
marrveshjes s fajsis.
Gjat ktij kshillimi me klientin avokati i mbrojtjes duhet t sqaroj procesin

me an t s cilit ai/ajo do t angazhohet pr t fituar ndonj marrveshje
pr pranimin e fajsis. Klienti duhet t sigurohet se do ofert e br nga
prokurori duhet ti prcillet atij dhe asnj kundrofert sduhet ti ofrohet
prokurorit pa dijenin dhe aprovimin e klientit. Me fjal tjera, avokati i
mbrojtjes e merr prgjegjsin pr t siguruar se asgj sdo t ndodh pa
dijenin dhe pa aprovimin e klientit. Me t vrtet, pr qllime t praktiks s
mir, rekomandohet t prpilohet nj memorandum i standardizuar dhe ti
jepet klientit me qllim q ai/ajo m konkretisht t kuptojn procesin hap pas
hapi t marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis. M tutje, kur jepen oferta nga
prokurori, m mir sht ato oferta t jepen n form t shkruar dhe ti
prezantohen klientit. Po ashtu, edhe kundr-ofertat duhet t jen n form
t shkruar dhe t bhen pjes e lnds. Edhe pse kjo mund t marr koh, me
rndsi sht t mbahet evidence transparente n rast se lind ndonj pyetje
lidhur me at se ka sht ofruar, kundr-ofruar, refuzuar, pranuar etj.111
110
Shih Nenin 206(6), sipas t cilit Para fillimit t shqyrtimit fillestar, i pandehuri do t
njoftohet edhe pr t drejtn e marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis me prokurorin publik,
n pajtueshmri me nenin 489 deri n nenin 496 t ktij kodi.
111
Shih Nenin 89(1), i cili thekson se Pr do veprim t ndrmarr gjat procedurs penale
prpilohet procesverbal n t njjtn koh kur ndrmerret veprimi, e nse kjo nuk sht e
mundur, ather menjher pas ksaj.
78 CHAPTER
N disa jurisdikcione, ku lejohet t arrihet marrveshje mbi pranimin e fajsis,

nga prokurori pritet t sigurohet nj njoftim pr dshmitarin e pals ankuese
/viktimn. Kjo nuk nnkupton se prokurori duhet t krkoj dhe t marr leje
nga dshmitari/viktima para se t arrihet ndonj marrveshje mbi pranimin e
fajsis. Po ashtu sht zakon t informohet dshmitari/viktima se kur sht
caktuar data e seancs dgjimore pr marrveshjen e fajsis dhe tu drgoj
ftes pr pranin e tyre dhe dhnien e deklarats n gjyq. Natyrisht, n disa raste,
do t jet e nevojshme pr dshmitarin ankuesin/viktimn t jet prezent dhe t
jap dshmi gjat seancs dgjimore pr marrveshjen e fajsis, sidomos kur
bhet fjal pr shtje dmshprblimi (t prcaktohen dmet e sakta financiare
/pronsore si pasoj drejtprdrejt apo e trthort e veprave penale t t
akuzuarit). Pr qllime prgjegjsie dhe transparence rekomandohet q pro-
kurori t njofton dshmitarin ankues/viktimn e procesit pr arritjen e marr-
veshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis. Kontributi i dshmitarit ankues/viktims sht i
dobishm pr kryerjen e vlersimit pr at se far dnimi do t jet i pranueshm.
Kjo po ashtu i mundson edhe pals ankuese/viktims t jet pjes e procesit.
Pr sa i prket vet procesit t marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis, ajo fillon

duke pasur n dispozicion nj dnim t caktuar i cili sht i pranueshm pr
klientin dhe mjaft real pr gjykatsin, q ai ta pranoj. Prcaktimi i dnimit,
si u diskutua edhe m lart, varet nga disa faktor. S pari, duhet br nj
hetim q t zbulohet se a ka raste t njohura me fakte dhe akuza t ngjashme
nga dhe prreth juridiksionit t krimeve t supozuara, gjat t cilave dnimet
e dhna do t mund t shrbenin si model n lndn e klientit: si nj mnyr
e vendosjes s piknisjes adekuate. Kjo krkon hulumtim themelor, sidomos
nse avokati i mbrojtjes nuk e kryen praktikn e tij rregullisht para gjyqit t
caktuar. N rrethana t tilla, mnyra m e shpejt pr gjetjen e atyre
informatave sht t kontaktohen antart lokal t dhoms penale t
avokatve n at vend. Me t vrtet, kjo mund t jet e dobishme edhe pr
prfitimin e njohurive pr tiparet e prokurorit dhe t gjykatsit t involvuar
n at lnd t caktuar: sa m shum informata, aq m mir. Meqense asnj
lnd nuk sht gjykuar n abstrakt, sht me rndsi t mohet rrethi n t
cilin punojn dhe veprojn vendim-marrsit e fundit. Prokurori duhet t jet
fleksibl ndaj lnds dhe t pranoj se do t humb dobin nga gjykimi publik,
kurse gjykatsi vetm do t jet i gatshm pr t pranuar ndonj marrveshje
mbi pranimin e fajsis nse popullata vendore, ku bhet gjykimi, do t jet e
knaqur me zgjidhjen prfundimtare t problemit.
Arritja e: po - po - po
Derisa arritja e ujdis n treg mund t jet nj proces i instinktit, duke filluar
nga an t kundrta t negociatave derisa njra pal t dorzohet dhe pranon,
marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis, nse kryhet me seriozitet, sht pak m
shum e sofistikuar. Meq piksynimi sht t arrihet nj situat fitore-fitore
(t dyja palt t fitojn), gjegjsisht t fitohet nj marrveshje (dnim) e cila:
a. do t knaq edhe klientin edhe prokurorin; dhe
b. sht e drejt dhe e arsyeshme pr viktimn (dhe pr interesat e shoqris),
piknisja sduhet t jet shum e ult pr tiu kundrvn oferts s lart
t prokurorit.
Hapi i par n procesin e negociatave sht t identifikohen piksynimet e

involvuara: t shihet cili sht dnimi m adekuat dhe m i pranueshm pr
klientin (piksynimet e klientit), dhe ajo m e rndsishmja, t shihe se cilat
jan nevojat konkrete t prokurorit t cilat ajo/ai duhet ti plotsoj me kt
lnd n baz t fakteve t caktuara dhe rrethanave (piksynimeve t
prokurorit). Mbasi t identifikohen piksynimet, ather krkohet t gjendet
nj qasje kreative q pak a shum do ti knaqte kto piksynime. Kjo krkon
q t shqyrtohen realisht t gjith faktort e involvuar dhe sidomos t
pranohen kufizimet t cilat mund t ngarkojn prokurorin pr t ofruar
zgjidhje. Duke pranuar fardo dilem, prokurori mund t tregoj butsi ndaj
lnds (q do t ishte perceptimi i prgjithshm i marrveshjes mbi pranimin
e fajsis), avokati i mbrojtjes, sht n pozit m t mir pr t gjetur zgjidhje
kreative. M tutje, duke i diskutuar faktet e lnds me prokurorin, duke pr-
fshir ktu edhe ato elemente t cilat sdo t jen t thjeshta apo t lehta pr
tù vrtetuar, avokati i mbrojtjes i thekson prfitimet e arritjes s marrveshjes
mbi pranimin e fajsis. Me t vrtet, nga pikpamja strategjike, sht me
rndsi t futet prokurori n diskutime ku ai/ajo do t zbuloj fardo
shqetsimesh ose kufizimesh t caktuara lidhur me lndn ndryshe nga ato
q jan evidente nga faktet e lnds. Ky lloj informacioni sht i rndsishm,
jo vetm pr zbukurimin e argumenteve pr negociatat e marrveshjes s
fajsis, por edhe pr tu prgatitur pr gjykim.
Gjat identifikimit t dilemave t prokurorit, avokati i mbrojtjes po ashtu

sduhet ti anashkaloj edhe kufizimet e mundshme pr gjykatsin i cili duhet
t pranoj apo refuzoj marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis ose t mbaj
80 CHAPTER
gjykim publik. Kjo sht e rndsishme sepse gjat negociatave pr ndonj

zgjedhje t mundshme, sht thelbsore q vazhdimisht t merren parasysh
shqetsimet e gjykatsit si pjes prbrse e diskutimeve pr marrveshjen e
pranimit t fajsis. Prokurori duhet t jet prsri i vetdijshm sepse avokati
i mbrojtjes nuk jep oferta t kota, por jep propozime t arsyetuara mir pas
shqyrtimit t duhur t fakteve t lnds, t shqetsimeve dhe piksynimeve
t prokurorit dhe t gjykatsit. N realitet, avokati i mbrojtjes duhet t vihet
n situat t prokurorit apo t gjykatsit. Duke e br kt avokati i mbrojtjes
duhet t tentoj t prgatitet pr t gjitha pyetjet q mund t lindin nga
prokurori ose nga gjykatsi, q t mund t jepen prgjigje/shpjegime bindse
pr takimet e marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis ose n takimin pr
ndryshimin e fajsis/dnimit. Nprmjet ktij procesi, avokati i mbrojtjes,
gjithsesi, do t identifikoj edhe fardo tjetr gj q duhet br me qllim t
prgatitjes s lnds pr seancn vlersuese lidhur me marrveshjen mbi
pranimin e fajsis.112 Ktu mund t prfshihen hetime plotsuese q t
tregohet se ngjarjet nuk jan aq t ashpra sa q jan prshkruar n fillim, se
natyra e dmeve materiale sht m e pakt sesa prshkruhet, se karakteri i
mir i klientit i zmadhon shanset e tij/saj pr rehabilitim etj.
N fakt, procesi po-po-po nuk sht asgj m tepr sesa nj identifikim i

piksynimeve t secilit dhe pastaj nj zgjidhje e prpiluar me t ciln t gjitha
palt e involvuara n proces (klienti, prokurori, gjykatsi) plotsisht do t
akordohen. Nuk domethn se t gjitha palt e involvuara t jen t lumtura,
por t jen t knaqura lidhur me at se rezultati prfundimtar i plotson
piksynimet e parashikuara t tyre.
3. PRGATITJA E KLIENTIT PR PROCESIN E MARRVESHJES MBI

PRANIMIN E FAJSIS
Meq klienti, pas njoftimit t plot, dshiron ti niset rrugs s arritjes s

marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis, avokati i mbrojtjes duhet menjher t
filloj prgatitjet pr sesionin e marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis. Hapi i
par sht t takohet me prokurorin dhe t shoh nse mund t arrihet ndonj
marrveshje n prgjithsi: a mund t arrihet ndonj marrveshje pr dnimin
fillestar q do tu nnshtrohet prshtatjeve t tjera mbasi q jan shqyrtuar
112
Shih Nenin 485.
t gjitha provat, duke prfshir ktu edhe ofertn e provs pr faktet t cilat
klienti sht i prgatitur ti pranoj.113
Meq procesi i marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis n mas t madhe

mbshtetet n mirbesim dhe ndershmri, sht me rndsi q klienti t jet
i vetdijshm se e gjith ajo q ai e prezanton, patjetr, t jet e vrtet, e sakt
dhe e kompletuar. Deklaratat e rreme ose gjysm-t-vrtetat do t dmtonin
shanset e arritjes s ndonj marrveshjeje t volitshme mbi pranimin e fajsis.
Meq prokurori sht pjes integruese e procesit, sht me rndsi q
prokurori t jet fleksibl dhe n gjendje t ofroj nj zgjidhje kreative. Kjo ka
rndsi t veant pr seancn e marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis: ska
m mir se kur prokurori e prkrah n emr t t akuzuarit procesin e
marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis.
Gjat disa negociatave pr marrveshjen e fajsis prokurori do t dshiroj

t intervistoj/ t marr n pyetje klientin me qllim t vlersimit t kualitetit
dhe kuantitetit t informatave. Kjo m s shpeshti ndodh kur ka m tepr t
akuzuar. N rrethana t tilla, prokurori do t jet i gatshm t ofroj nj ujdi
t volitshme me kusht q klienti t bashkpunoj plotsisht dhe me nder
(ndershmrisht) duke dhn informata kundr t t akuzuarve/ t dyshuarve
t tjer, duke prfshir ktu edhe dhnien e dshmis nn betim. N kto raste,
sht me rndsi ti theksohet klientit nevoja e marrjes me seriozitet t
rreziqeve nse dshiron t vazhdoj me negociatat. Nse prokurori nuk sht
i knaqur me informatat e dgjuara, ekziston nj probabilitet i madh q
negociatat t dshtojn. Pr kt arsye, pr avokatin e mbrojtjes sht m
mir t prpiloj nj mostr faktike me klientin para se t mbahet takimi me
prokurorin. Kjo qasje e mbron klientin nga dhnia e fakteve t rreme dhe
gjysm t vrtetave. Nse prokurori ngul kmb pr informata plotsuese,
ather veprimi m i menur sht t krkohet q t gjitha krkesat plotsuese
t jepen n form t shkruar, n form t pyetjeve. Kjo i mundson Avokatit
t Mbrojtjes ti shqyrtoj t gjitha pyetjet me klientin (duke pasur n
dispozicion edhe materialin tjetr t lnds) dhe t siguroj se prgjigjet t
cilat duhet dhn n form t shkruar jan t sakta dhe t besueshme.
Si mund t shihet, nevoja e t mbajturit evidenc pr faktet e lnds sht

mjaft e rndsishme. Meq gjykatsi do t vendos n fund t pranoj apo t
113
Kjo sht mundsia e vetme e parashikuar n Nenin 484. Mirpo, n sistemet tjera juridike
sht e mundur t arrihet nj marrveshje pr heqjen e disa pikave t akuzs pr shkak se
ka prova t pamjaftueshme dhe pr uljen e disa akuzave pr shkak t mungess s provave
pr mbshtetjen e akuzave aktuale.
82 CHAPTER
refuzoj marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis, prve prpilimit t propozim-

marrveshjes, e cila mes tjerash, do t prmbaj t ashtuquajturn ofert t provs:
nj prshkrim t fakteve t cilat i akuzuari i pranon vullnetarisht dhe pa rezerv si
fakte n baz t t cilave ai/ajo do t fajsohet dhe do t dnohet. Me rndsi sht
q oferta e provs t identifikoj elementet konkrete t veprs penale t cilat
jan pjes e marrveshjes pr pranimin e fajsis. Kjo u shrben disa qllimeve:
a. i ndihmon avokatit t mbrojtjes q t siguroj se faktet e dorzuara i
prshtaten veprs penale;
b. e prqendron klientin pr t kuptuar natyrn e sjelljes s tij kundrejt
normave t shoqris t parashikuara n Kodin penal; dhe
c. siguron bazat pr prpilimin e marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis t ciln
prokurori do t duhet ta pranoj dhe ta mbshtes, si edhe gjykatsi.
4. PRGATITJA E KLIENTIT PR SEANCN DGJIMORE T MARRVESHJES

MBI PRANIMIN E FAJSIS
Meq klienti pranon me dijeni, me inteligjenc dhe vullnetarisht, se sht fajtor,

duke u bazuar n marrveshjen e fajsis n prgjithsi, ather ska nevoj
t kalohet nprmjet procesit t gjykimit ku prezantohen t gjitha provat.
Sidoqoft, Meq q Gjykatsi do t duhet t bindet se faktet e akorduara
prshtaten me veprn penale (se ka t vrteta n marrveshjen e fajsis),
varsisht nga procedura penale, gjykatsi mund/do t krkoj ofert prove. Kjo
mund t bhet ose me marrjen e drejtprdrejt n pyetje t t akuzuarit ose
duke e shpjeguar prokurori gjendjen faktike, kurse i akuzuari t njoh dhe t
pranoj faktet (t cilat si u prmend m lart jan pranuar nga palt dhe
paraqitur n form t shkruar). Meq gjykatsi do t dshiroj ti dgjoj faktet
drejt pr drejt nga i akuzuari, klienti do t duhet t prgatitet pr tu prgjigjur
t gjitha pyetjeve t mundura (p.sh. actus rea, mens rea, motivin, pendimin etj.).
Si pjes e procesit t dnimit, sidomos kur gjykatsit i prezantohet ndonj

dnim pr t cilin duhet t vendos ai, sht me rndsi q para gjyqit t
paraqiten t gjitha provat relevante, t cilat jan t favorshme pr klientin.
Kshtu, avokati i mbrojtjes duhet t bj krkime nse gjen ndonj dshmitar
t favorshm pr ta ftuar; t mendoj se vall do t duhet t vlersohet gjendja
fizike dhe psikike e klientit; se a do t duhet t grumbullohen t dhna nga
shrbimet sociale; t mendoj pr do gj q mund t ndihmoj pr zbutjen e
veprave t klientit. Natyrisht, prokurori do t duhet t jet i vetdijshm pr

gjitha kto - nse avokati i mbrojtjes sht dirigjent (i kujdesshm) shum
nga kto informata do ti jepen edhe prokurorit gjat negociatave pr
marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis. M tutje, t gjitha provat dokumentare
q duhen prdorur gjat seancs dgjimore, duhet ti dorzohen paraprakisht
edhe gjykatsit.
Nse paraqiten prova t ashtuquajtura viva voce gjat seancs dgjimore,

ather duhet paraprakisht t prgatiten dshmitart. Kjo do t krkoj t
caktohet nj takim me ta dhe t shpjegohet natyra e seancs dgjimore, si
edhe t shqyrtohen pyetjet e mundshme q do t parashtrohen nga prokurori
dhe/ose nga gjykatsi. Nse prdoren dokumente gjat takimit me
dshmitart, avokati i mbrojtjes duhet paraprakisht ti shqyrtoj ato
dokumente me dshmitart gjat takimeve prgatitore; dshmitart duhet t
jen n dijeni pr natyrn dhe pr qllimin e atyre dokumenteve.
Meq shkalla e dnimeve mund t ndryshoj nga nj sistem juridik n tjetrin,

sht mir t keni t prpiluar nj grafik me dnime, n t ciln do t kyen
dnimet e prgjithshme t shqiptuara paraprakisht n Republikn e
Maqedonis lidhur me sjelljen dhe akuzat e ngjashme. Kjo sht me rndsi,
nse jo pr ndonj arsye tjetr, ather pr nj tregim vizual t dnimeve t
mparshme dhe t argumentohet qndrueshmria dhe trajtimi/mbrojtja e
barabart sipas ligjit. Meq avokati i mbrojtjes duhet t prkrah doher
dnimin m t ult pr klientin e tij, sht me rndsi t prgatit argumente
t arsyeshme pr gjykatsin kur ai krkon dnim t ult (n nj sistem juridik
i cili sht famkeq pr dnime t larta). Marrja si shembull e sistemeve t
tjera juridike nuk mjafton, sidomos sepse gjykatsit e shohin veten plotsisht
t pavarur. Kshtu, sht m mir t kihet qasje t shumfishte kur krkohet
ulje t dnimit. Kjo bhet duke i dalluar:
faktet e ndonj shtje me shtje tjera;
kohn dhe rrethanat e dnimeve t shqiptuara paraprake t cilat sipas
standardeve t sodit meritojn skema t ndryshme t dnimit; dhe
historiatin e klientit dhe parashikimin e tij/saj pr tu rehabilituar etj.
Qllimi sht t sigurohen argumentet e nevojshme q gjykatsi ti ket

parasysh sesa t pritet Gjykatsi t jap arsyet e veta pr nj dnim t leht.
84 CHAPTER
5. PLANI REZERV
Nj avokat i matur i mbrojtjes planifikon dhe shpreson pr rezultat m t

volitshm, por po ashtu prgatitet edhe pr at m t keqen. Nse gjykatsi e
refuzon marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis, avokati i mbrojtjes do t duhet
t jet i prgatitur q lndn ta oj n gjykim. Duke marr parasysh se
gjykatsi i ka shqyrtuar t gjitha dorzimet t cilat ishin br vetm pr hir
t seancs dgjimore lidhur me ndryshimin e fajsis pr gjykimin sht me
rndsi q ky t vazhdoj para nj gjykatsi tjetr i cili ska qen i involvuar
gjat procesit t marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis. Nj pjes e planit
rezerv prfshin njoftimin e duhur t klientit paraprakisht lidhur me
mundsin se marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis ndoshta nuk do t pranohet.
N at rast, klienti duhet t vendos:
a. t pranoj propozimin alternativ pr t cilin gjykatsi mendon se sht
zgjidhje e pranueshme; ose
b. t trhiqet krejtsisht nga procesi dhe t shkoj n gjykim. Nse prpilohet
nj memorandum pr marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis, si u sugjerua
m lart, kjo informat do t kyet n t dhe nuk do tì lihet asgj rastsis
q t dal ndonj keqkuptim i mundshm.
6. AGJENDA E AVOKATIT PR MARRVESHJEN MBI PRANIMIN E FAJSIS
6.1. Elementet kyesore hap pas hapi jan
T ndrmerren t gjitha prgatitjet dhe analizat e nevojshme pr prcaktimin

e teoris s rastit.
T kihet vmendje e posame derisa t kryhet analiza pr faktet q smund t

ndryshohen, si jan:
Prokurori i involvuar;
Ant e forta dhe t dobta t lnds s prokuroris;
Natyra e akuzave;
Natyra e fakteve;
Historiati i palve edhe i t akuzuarit edhe i viktims;
Gjykatsi i involvuar;
Vendndodhja e ngjarjes edhe e gjykats ku do t gjykohet lnda.
T sigurohet qasje e plot n t gjitha provat.114
T ndrmerren t gjitha hetimet e nevojshme, duke prfshir:

Grumbullimin e t gjitha provave prkrahse, prfshir edhe identifikimin e:
T gjitha provave dokumentare;
fardo dshmitari q do t dshmonte n mbshtetje t klientit.
T vlersohet klienti n aspekt psikologjik dhe fizik, nse paraqitet nevoja;
dhe/ose
T shqyrtohet shkalla e dnimeve t shqiptuara lidhur me lndt me
fakte/akuza t ngjashme nga i njjti sistem juridik.
T bhet nj vlersim nse lnda mund t gjykohet, gjegjsisht vall ia vlen

barra qiran pr t shkuar n gjyq, ose t negociohet, gjegjsisht vall ia vlen
barra qiran q seriozisht t krkohet nj marrveshje mbi pranimin e fajsis.
T bhet nj takim me klientin pr tia sqaruar se ka nnkupton marrveshja mbi
pranimin e fajsis. T prdoret memorandum i prpiluar pr marrveshjen mbi
pranimin e fajsis (duke u bazuar n memorandumin mostr) si nj udhrrfyes.
T sigurohet se klienti qartazi e kupton se ka prmban nj ofert pr

marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis; se ai ose ajo do t pranoj fajin.
N vazhdim, me rndsi sht q klienti t jet n dijeni t plot se ky pranim
i fajit duhet br me dijenin e vet dhe vullnetarisht.
Nse klienti i autorizon negociatat pr marrveshje mbi pranimin e fajsis,

prgatitet nj ofert pr marrveshje dhe shqyrtohet me klientin pr tù
siguruar vall ajo sht e pranueshme.
Marrveshja e shkruar mbi pranimin e fajsis duhet t:

Prshkruaj ofertn e provs (faktet t cilat duhet t pranohen nga klienti);
Respektoj dshirat e klientit;
Plotsoj piksynimet e prokurorit; dhe
Siguroj nj shkall/skem dnimi pr gjykatsin.
Ti afrohet Prokurorit t shihet nse ai/ajo jan t interesuar pr t arritur
nj marrveshje mbi pranimin e fajsis. N veanti, t shihet nse sht e
mundur t arrihet ndonj marrveshje pr kohzgjatjen e dnimit, t cilat
do tu nnshtrohen prshtatjeve tjera pasi t shqyrtohen t gjitha faktet.115
114
Shih Nenin 79.
115
Si u prmend m lart, n tipet tjera t sistemeve juridike sht e mundur t negociohet
heqja ose zbutja e disa akuzave pr shkak t provave t pamjaftueshme.
86 CHAPTER
Nse prokurori akordohet pr negociata lidhur me marrveshjen mbi pranimin

e fajsis, duhet vn re dshirn e tij/e saj t intervistoj/t marr n pyetje
klientin. Nse Prokurori bn nj krkes t till, duhet t kmbngulet q:
a. t kihen t gjitha pyetjet n form t shkruar, q t shqyrtohen me klientin; dhe
b. t jepen prgjigje n form t shkruar.
Nse Prokurori prsri dshiron t intervistoj/t marr n pyetje klientin edhe

pse i sht prgjigjur pyetjeve t tija fillestare n form t shkruar, ather t
bhen patjetr prpjekjet e duhura q t prgatitet klienti hollsisht pr at
intervist/marrje n pyetje. Klienti duhet ta ket t qart se duhet t tregoj
t vrtetn, t jet i prpikt dhe i kompletuar me prokurorin.
Kundr-ofertat nga prokurori duhet pranuar n form t shkruar dhe ti

paraqiten klientit me qllim krkimin e aprovimit/kundrshtimit t tij/saj.
Oferta e aprovuar nga klienti duhet dorzuar prokurorit n form t shkruar.

Pas arritjes me sukses t marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis, menjher t
fillohen prgatitjet pr seancn dgjimore lidhur me marrveshjen mbi
pranimin e fajsis.116 N veanti duhet prgatitur:
Klienti pr probabilitetin se gjykatsi do t dshiroj ta marr n pyetje
klientin lidhur me faktet e akorduara;
Dshmitart t cilt duhet t dshmojn n mbshtetje t klientit; dhe/ose
Nj grafikon dnimesh me qllim q t bindni gjykatsin t jap nj dnim
m t leht.
Para seancs dgjimore, t sigurohet se gjykatsi ka kopje t dokumenteve

pr t cilat do t diskutohet gjat seancs dgjimore.
Gjat seancs dgjimore pr vlersimin e marrveshjes, duhet siguruar se

marrveshja mbi pranimin e fajsis theksohet qart n procesverbal.117
Nse Gjykatsi vendos t refuzoj marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis dhe

deklaron se ai/ajo dshiron t tejkaloj dnimin e akorduar, ather lnda i
kthehet prokurorit dhe ai/ajo do t vendos se ka duhet br pastaj.118
116
Shih Nenin 488(1).
117
Shih Nenin 89.
118
Shih Nenin 489(1).
Nse klienti vendos t trhiqet nga ky proces dhe t vazhdoj n gjykim,

ather avokati duhet, prve prgatitjes s lnds pr n gjykim, t siguroj
nj gjykim me gjykatsi tjetr i cili ska qen i involvuar n arritjen e
marrveshjes mbi pranimin e fajsis.
88 CHAPTER
6.2. Mostr memorandum pr marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis
Kujt:___________________________
Prej: ___________________________
Prokurori________ Nr. i lnds ____________
Data: ______________
Akuza: _______________ sipas seksionit ________ t ___________________
Sipas seksionit _________t ______________, ligjit t Maqedonis, Ju prmes meje,

n cilsin e avokatit mbrojts, hyni n negociata pr t arritur marrveshje
mbi pranimin e fajsis me prokurorin me qllim q t shihet vall mund t
arrihet nj marrveshje, e cila do ti nnshtrohet aprovimit t gjykatsit.
Brenda sistemit t Maqedonis lidhur me marrveshjen mbi pranimin e

fajsis, negociatat zakonisht prqendrohen n nj dnim t caktuar q mund
t shqiptohet, edhe pse ka situata t caktuara kur ndodhin negociata lidhur
me akuza specifike t cilat krkohen nga prokurori, ku pas shqyrtimit t
mtejm besohet se ka prova t pamjaftueshme pr mbshtetjen e ndonj
fakti apo faji ashtu si sht perceptuar m hert. Edhe pse mundsia pr t
negociuar heqjen apo zbutjen e akuzave nuk sht e paraqitur qart n LPP,
meqense ekziston mundsia pr diskutime joformale pr rndsin dhe
prshtatshmrin e akuzave n baz t provave t dhna. Duke pasur parasysh
se diskutimet e tilla joformale mund t ojn kah zbutja e akuzave, sugjerohet
q ato diskutime t mbahen kurdo q t jet e arsyeshme dhe e duhur.
Megjithse negociatat pr marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis zakonisht

ndodhin midis prokurorit dhe avokatit t mbrojtjes Ju, si i akuzuar, vazhdimisht do
t jeni t njoftuar pr do hap t negociatave. Asgj sdo bhet pa plqimin dhe
dijenin tuaj paraprake. Mirpo, qysh nga fillimi duhet t jeni t vetdijshm
se nse akordoheni me nj marrveshje t fajsis, n fakt ju dakordoheni me
pranimin e fajit, q t shmangni gjykimin. N thelb, do t pyeteni q me
dijenin, inteligjencn dhe vullnetin tuaj ti pranoni faktet, akuzat dhe fajin.
Meq besoj se lnda juaj mund t jet e prshtatshme pr marrveshje mbi

pranimin e fajsis, po ju krkoj q t m lejoni t prpiloj nj ofert n form t
shkruar n emrin tuaj. Pasi t prpiloj propozim-ofertn, do t diskutojm bashk
me ju dhe pastaj do t takohem me prokurorin pr t iniciuar negociata pr
marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis. Tani pr tani duhet t dini se kjo ofert t
ciln do tìa propozoj prokurorit do t ket shkall dnimesh. Si e till, prokurori
do t propozoj dnimin m t lart kurse un m t ultin, i cili propozim do
ti rekomandohet gjykatsit n kmbim pr pranimin e fajit nga ana juaj.
Duhet t keni kujdes se gjat procesit t negociatave, prokurori do t dshiroj

q tu intervistoj, q s bashku me ju ti shqyrtoj faktet e akuzave t
supozuara. Kjo d.m.th. se edhe ju duhet t jeni sa m t sinqert, I prpikt
dhe t jepni t dhna komplete para prokurorit q t arrihet nj marrveshje
mbi pranimin e fajsis. Para nj takimi dhe pyetjeve t tilla, ne do tì
shqyrtojm provat bashkrisht q t jeni t prgatitur.
Nse arrihet nj marrveshje, ather hapat e ardhshm do t bhen lidhur me

seancn dgjimore pr ndryshimin e fajsis/dnimit. Duhet t jeni t vetdijshm
se edhe nse arrihet nj marrveshje mbi pranimin e fajsis, prsri at marrveshje
duhet ta aprovoj gjykatsi. Prokurori nuk ka kompetenca ta sforcoj marrveshjen
para gjykatsit, por mundet vetm ta rekomandoj at. Varet nga gjykatsi t vendos
vall ai do ti pranoj sugjerimet e bra n marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis.
Nse gjykatsi e refuzon marrveshjen mbi pranimin e fajsis dhe vendos t

tejkaloj dnimin e akorduar n marrveshje, ather lnda i kthehet
prokurorit publik prej t cilit do t varen hapat e ardhshm. Nse kjo ndodh
do ti diskutoj opsionet e mundshme me ju n mnyr m t hollsishme dhe
n koh t duhur. Mirpo, kjo sht dika pr t ciln duhet t keni dijeni tani
pr tani. M tutje, sikurse prokurori gjat fazs s negociatave, ashtu edhe
gjykatsi do t dshiroj tju marr n pyetje pr faktet me t cilat
dakordoheni, gjat seancs dgjimore lidhur me ndryshimin e fajsis/dnimit.
Duhet t keni dijeni pr kt dhe t jeni t prgatitur tu prgjigjeni t gjitha
pyetjeve t parashtruara n mnyr t sinqert, t prpikt dhe t kompletuar.
Ky memorandum shrben pr tu ndihmuar q t kuptoni bazat themelore t

nj marrveshjeje t negociuar mbi pranimin e fajsis dhe procesin q pason.
Nse keni pyetje pr kt apo ndonj shtje tjetr, ju lutem mos ngurroni q
n do koh t m kontaktoni.
Nnshkruar nga
___________________
xxx
90 CHAPTER
LITERATURA
Baldwin J./Mc Conville M., Negotiated justice: pressures on defendants to
Bucy, Pamela H., Privatizing Law Enforcement, The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science (GANP), January 1996.
Buzharovska/Nanev/Misoski, Hulumtin krahasues i zgjidhjeve pr
prshpejtim dhe thjeshtsim t procedurs penale, RMDPK, nr. 1/2008.
Buzharovska, G/Misoski, B, Marrveshja pr pranim t fajit dhe
ndrmjetsimi, RMDPK, nr. 2/2009.
DAndrea, Alesandro, Procedurat e shkurtuara, Prmbledhje tekstesh,
Tinning Project Fight Against Organized Crime and Corruption Unit
Public Prosecutors Office, Shkup, 2009.
Dervieux, Valerie, The French System, in European Criminal Procedures, Ed. by,
Delmas-Marty, Mirreille and Spencer, J. R., Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Studies, 1983.
Gail, Kellough/Wortley, Scot, Remand for Plea, Bail Decisions and Plea
Bargaining as Commensurate Decisions, British Journal of Criminology, No.
42, 2002.
92 CHAPTER
Garoupa, N./Stephen F.H., Law and Economics of Plea Bargaining,

www.ssrn.com/
Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany, The University of Chicago Law Revie,
Vol. 41, No. 3. (Spring, 1974).
Heumann, Milton, Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges
and Defense Attorneys, University of Chicago Press, 1978.
System, 1993.
Ivievi, lizabeta, Plaider coupable - Nove alternative klasinom kaznenom
postupku u francuskom pravu.
Jones, David A., Crime without punishment, Lexington, Mass. (etc.), 1979.
Juy-Birman, Rodolphe, The German system, European Criminal Procedures,
Krapac, Davor, Engleski kazneni postupak, Pravni fakutlet Sveucilishtu u
Zagreb, Zagreb, 1995.
Review, 2002.
Maffei, Stefano, Negotiations on evidence, Negotiations on sentence, (Ad-
versarial exoeriments in Italian Criminal Procedure), Journal of International
Mather, Lynn M, Plea bargaining or trial? he Process of Criminal-Case Dis-
position, Lexington, Mass. (etc.), Teakfield Ltd, 1979.
Michael M. OHear, Plea Bargaining and Procedural Justice, Marquette
University, April 2007, www. ssrn.com/
Neubauer, David W., Americas Courts and the Criminal Justice System,
Duxury Press, 1979.

No. 3, pp. 28-31.
Press, 2004.
Sprack, John, Criminal Procedure a Practical Approach, 10-th Edition,
Oxford University Press, 2005.
Tassi, Andrea, Posebna postupanja, Talijanski Kazneni Postupak (ed.
B.Pavii), Pravni Fakultet Sveucilita u Rijeci, 2002.
Tulkens/van de Kerchove, La Justice Pnale, European Criminal
Procedures, (ed. Delmans-Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Vogel, Mary. Plea Bargaining in the US and England: A Comparative-
Historical Perspective annual meeting of the American Society of
Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles, 31.10.2006,
03. Plea Bargaining 03 EN [REV2] 28.02.2011 11:26 Page 1
CIP -
. ,
343.144 (497.71/035)
,
: [ ,
. , ], - : OBSE, 2010 - 197 . 21
. . , - -
. 105-108 ; 194 - 197, - Plea bargaining
ISBN 978-608-4630-09-8
1. K, . [] 2. , []
) - - -
The content of this publication does not necessarily represent the view or
the position of the OSCE Spillover Monitor Mission to Skopje.
Copyright:
OSCE Spillover Monitor Mission to Skopje
Oktomvriska Revolucija bb
Hyperium Building, Skopje
www.osce.org/skopje
PLEA BARGAINING
A GUIDEBOOK FOR
PRACTITIONERS
December 2010
Authors:
Plea bargaining procedure and guilty plea under the new criminal procedure code*
Comparative practices on plea bargaining:

by David Re
Guidelines on plea bargaining:

by Michael G. Karnavas
*Prepared by Prof. Gordana Buzarovska, Ph.D

in cooperation with Prof. Gordan Kaladjiev, Ph.D
6 CHAPTER
PLEA BARGAINING - A GuIdEBook foR PRActItIoNERs 7
CONTENTS
SECTION 1. PLEA BARGAINING PROCEDURE AND GUILTY PLEA UNDER THE

NEW CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE ........................................11
1. WHY PLEA BARGAINING IN THE PENAL PROCEDURE? ........................11

1.1. Introductory comments ..................................................................11
1.2. Advantages of plea bargaining justice ............................................12
1.3. Critical remarks ................................................................................13
2. FORMS OF PLEA BARGAINING................................................................14
3. PLEA BARGAINING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW

ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ....................................................................16
3.1. Basic characteristics of the plea bargaining procedure ................16
3.2. Elements of the draft plea bargaining agreement ........................18
3.3. Evaluation of a draft plea bargaining agreement ..........................20
3.4. Role of the parties in the plea bargaining procedure ..................23
4. STATUS OF THE GUILTY PLEA, I.E. CONFESSION UNDER THE LAW ON

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ..............................................................................25
4.1. Review of the indictment ................................................................25
4.2. Confession given at the main hearing ............................................28
5. IMPLICATIONS OF PLEA BARGAINING ON OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE

LAW ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ............................................................31
6. CHALLENGES AND RISKS........................................................................32

8 CHAPTER
SECTION 2. COMPARATIVE PRACTICES ON PLEA BARGAINING ................35
1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................35
2. ENGLAND AND WALES (UNITED KINGDOM) ..........................................38

2.1. Introduction and overview ..............................................................38
2.2. Pleading guilty to all or some of the charges ................................41
2.3. Agreed basis of a plea ......................................................................41
2.4. Hearing re dispute of facts on a plea of guilty the
Newton hearing ................................................................................43
2.5. Cases involving serious fraud a plea of guilty upon a basis agreed
by the prosecution and defence accompanied by joint submissions
as to sentence ..................................................................................44
2.6. Advance indication of sentence Goodyear hearing..................46
2.7. Reduction in sentence for promise to assist authorities ..............47
2.8. Role of the prosecutor ....................................................................48
2.9. Role of defence counsel ..................................................................50
2.10.Role of victims or their families in the plea process ......................50
3. ITALY ............................................................................................................51
3.2. Plea bargaining - Sentencing by parties request lapplicazione
della pena su richiesta della parti or patteggiamento or
bargain ..........................................................................................52
3.3. Summary proceedings il giudizio abbreviato ................................54
3.4. Decreto penale di condanna proceeding by trial decree............55
3.5. Assessment of how it works in practice ..........................................55
4. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA ..................................................................56

4.2. Plea of guilty ....................................................................................57
4.3. Statutory plea bargaining ................................................................58
4.4. Plea bargaining in practice ..............................................................59
5. INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS ..........................................61

5.2. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ....62
5.3. International Criminal Court ..........................................................65
5.4. European Court of Human Rights ..................................................66
SECTION 3. GUIDELINES ON PLEA BARGAINING........................................71
1. OVERVIEW OF PLEA BARGAINING ..............................................................71
2. THE PROCESS OF PLEA BARGAINING ........................................................73
3. PREPARING THE CLIENT FOR THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS ............78
4. PREPARING THE CLIENT FOR THE PLEA ASSESSMENT HEARING ............80
5. HAVING A FALLBACK PLAN ........................................................................81
6. COUNSELS CHECKLIST FOR PLEA BARGAINING ......................................82

6.1. Step-by-step essentials ............................................................................82
6.2. Sample draft memorandum on plea bargaining ....................................85
BIBLIOGRAPHY ..........................................................................................89
10 CHAPTER
SECTION 1
PLEA BARGAINING PRocEduRE ANd GuILtY PLEA
uNdER tHE NEW cRIMINAL PRocEduRE codE
1. WHY PLEA BARGAINING IN THE PENAL PROCEDURE?
1.1. Introductory comments
The Law on Criminal Procedure1 includes provisions which, for the first time in
the Macedonian criminal procedure law, regulate the possibility of plea bargaining
between the public prosecutor and the suspect regarding the type and severity of
the criminal sanction. They provide different status to guilty plea during the stage
of review of the indictment and the confession given during the main hearing
under the ordinary procedure, as well as that given during the hearing in the
summary procedure. The status is different, compared to the situation so far,
with respect to the confession the defendant could give before the court.
The new solutions that essentially reform the procedure are actually Anglo-
Saxon practices which have long tradition in common law countries, neces-
sarily adjusted to the European legal practice. The traditional criminal
procedure law and court case law specific to the European continent have
long been opposed to plea bargaining, i.e. consensual justice. The European
practice holds as a principle that the determination of the penal reaction is
strictly determined under the law and knows neither dialogue nor compromise
nor plea bargaining, having in mind the fact that the main objective is the pro-
tection of fundamental social values. 2
The literature on the criminal procedure has long accused the mixed criminal
procedure of being slow, excessively formal, inflexible and, as a result, ineffi-
cient. The possibility of plea bargaining is expected to silence such remarks
and to enable the implementation of criminal justice as soon as possible.
1
Current LCP refers to the Law on Criminal Procedure of 1997 with all its later amendments and
supplements, while New LCP refers to the Law on Criminal Procedure adopted in 2010.
2
Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002, page 643.
12 CHAPTER
By accepting that efficient penal justice can be partially ensured through pro-
cedures that enable decriminalization, depenalisation, alternative forms of
criminal prosecution and simplification of the criminal procedure, one should
distinguish between plea bargaining as a link between the offender (as a sus-
pect or defendant and necessarily, his defense attorney) and the public pros-
ecutor, in the capacity of an authorized plaintiff, as an alternative to the court
procedure, and the negotiation for compensation that may be done between
the offender and the injured party, managed by a third independent party (me-
diator), having the characteristic of an alternative to prosecution.
1.2. Advantages of plea bargaining justice
Plea bargaining should be understood as a redefinition of criminal law and accep-

tance of new forms of actions as a response to minor crimes, as a way to alle-
viate the sense of uncertainty and to take into account the interests of the
victim whereby such practice does not breach the constitutional rights of the
defendant3. Plea bargaining promotes initiative by the parties and their readiness
to accept the proposal of the other party, to negotiate and to find compromise.
Consensual justice is a model that leaves room for consent by the parties con-
cerned, given overtly (expression of consent) or silently (absence of rejection)4.
Efforts to make the criminal procedure efficient and cost-effective led to stud-
ies and analyses of economic effectiveness and advantages specific for plea
bargaining, which is considered as a market mechanism to improve the quality
of criminal prosecution that reduces the costs in the criminal procedure. 5
A key role in the acceptance of various forms of plea bargaining was partly
played by the acceptance of the Recommendation no. R(87) 18 of the Com-
mittee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning the simplification of
criminal justice6 which expressly recommends plea bargaining procedure as a
way to accelerate proceedings when the defendant pleads guilty, he/she
3
4
Tulkens/van de Kerchove, La Justice Pnale, in European Criminal Procedures, (ed. Delmans-
Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002, page 644.
5
12, p. 289-332; Steven Shavell, Foundation of Economic Analysis of Law, Harvard University
Press, 2004; Thomas Miceli, The Economic Approach to Law, Stanford University Press,
2004. N. Garoupa/F.H. Stephen, .7.
should not be left long in doubt regarding the sanction that follows. In case
the defendant confesses, the rules of the procedure must be simplified. The
acceleration refers to not presenting evidence related to the factual situation
and the procedure is simple, fast and efficient, since the court should only pro-
nounce the sanction.
The solutions adopted in the LCP were preceded by a comparative analysis of

the solutions in the criminal procedure laws of Germany, Italy, France, Norway,
The Netherlands, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia regarding sim-
plified and accelerated procedures. It showed that a purely continental penal
procedure ceases to exist. The conclusion was that efforts for acceleration of
criminal justice are made through acceptance of models of simplified proce-
dures, a tendency to reach judgments in earlier stages of the penal procedure.
Also, efforts are made to persuade the parties to agree on the criminal sanc-
tion and to avoid usage of legal remedies which, on the overall, would accel-
erate the procedure and passing of final and enforceable court judgments.7
At the same time, there is a different treatment of plea bargaining procedure
regarding the sentence upon proposal by the parties and the defense attorney
and of guilty plea, depending on the stage of the procedure when these prac-
tices are applied, the court and the procedure for their review, evaluation and
making a final decision.
Plea bargaining and guilty plea lead to a complete transformation of the role
of the entities involved in the procedure, above all, of the opposed parties and
the defense counsel. The readiness of the parties and the defense attorney,
i.e. the willingness of the defendant to confess, for the first time, provide the
possibility to avoid the traditional penal procedure, its significant rationaliza-
tion and acceleration, and thus enabling proper application of penal justice.
1.3. Critical remarks
In order to acquire a global image regarding the positions on plea bargaining, in

addition to advantages, benefits and its positive sides, it is necessary to mention
both the criticism and the particular remarks addressed to plea bargaining.
6
Recommendation No. R (87) 18 concerning the simplication of criminal justice.
7
Buzarovska/Nanev/Misoski, Comparative research of the solutions for acceleration and sim-
plification of the penal procedure,Macedonian Review for Criminal Law and Criminology
(MRPLC), no. 1/2008.
14 CHAPTER
This system is believed to be most beneficial for judges and lawyers. The mit-
igation is contrary to the principle of proportionality of the sanction and the
criminal judiciary becomes a hybrid and a multi-functional system. 8
Plea bargaining is considered as a disaster in the criminal procedure and a

practice that enables undeserved mitigation of the penalty of the defendant.9
It has constitutional and legal deficiencies since it undervalues the procedural
guarantees for the defendant and is contrary to his/her rights: to examine wit-
nesses, to enjoy protection on the basis of presumption of innocence, the right
to a fair and public trial10.
Despite the criticism that the pronounced sanction resulting from the guilty
plea is not based on penological grounds for sentencing, there are serious re-
marks regarding the threat to pressure an innocent person to plead guilty, the
threat to propose harsher sentence than the one the court would pronounce
had the case been prosecuted normally, as well as the invisibility of cases in-
volving a guilty plea and plea bargaining.11
2. FORMS OF PLEA BARGAINING
Despite the fact that plea bargaining originates from Anglo-Saxon law, it is
important to note that there is a significant difference between the incentives to
bargain for a guilty plea in the common law states and in the European countries.
The Anglo-Saxon model of plea bargaining is focused on the scope of the

charges the number, description and legal qualification of the crime (charge
bargaining), while the European legislation recognizes a concept whereby sub-
ject of plea bargaining is the type and the severity of the criminal sanction
(sentence bargaining).
8
Franoise Tulkens, p. 664.
9
Stephen J. Schulhofer, Plea Bargaining as Disaster, Yale Law Journal, 1992, 101, . 1979-
2009. Russell Christopher, The Prosecutors Dilemma: Bargains and Punishment, Fordham
Law Review, 2003, 72, . 93-168.
10
Andrew Ashworth/Mike Redmayne, The Criminal Process, 2005, 3rd edition, Oxford Univer-
sity Press, Chapter 12, cited according to N. Garoupa/F.H. Stephen, p.9. Timoty Lynch, The
Case Against Plea Bargaining, Regulation,2003, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 24-27.
11
1993, p. 169-170.
There are also differences in the manner of regulation, i.e. application in England, plea
bargaining has been long applied in practice, and was formally legalized in 1996, while in
the countries with mixed criminal justice system, due to the principle of legality, the first
step was legislative regulation of plea bargaining, followed by practical implementation.
Plea bargaining between the public prosecutor and the suspect and his/her
defense counsel exists in several modern criminal procedure systems, with cer-
tain similarities and differences depending on the view of the legislator, i.e.
the practice, about the manner and the form of acceptance of plea bargaining.
Several forms of plea bargaining exist, they are not mutually exclusive and can
be combined:
charge bargaining bargaining about the content of the indictment regard-
ing the description and legal qualication of the crimes,
fact bargaining consent for selective presentation of facts if the defendant
pleads guilty,
special forms of plea bargaining:
nolo contendere pleas sanction is accepted without an expressly given
guilty plea; there are several advantages for the defendant, and in fact
an obligation for damage compensation is avoided that could follow in a
civil procedure that would come after the completion of the criminal pro-
cedure where the defendant pleaded guilty; 12
alford pleas a case where the defendant does not plead guilty, but con-
rms that the prosecution has sufcient evidence to establish guilt be-
yond any reasonable doubt;13
sentence bargaining the confession results in reduced or mitigated sen-
tence, i.e. shorter sentence than the one that may be expected if the court
were to determine one as part of an ordinary court procedure.
12
The defendant neither confesses nor denies the charges; in many legislations this is not a
right of the defendant; it serves as an alternative to a guilty plea and is used during the plea
bargaining procedure. A statement, according to which the defendant does not deny the
facts of the case, but claims he/she did not commit the crime, and it can also mean that
he/she does not understand the accusations against him/her. This statement is put on
record with the consent by the judge (in exceptional cases, by the prosecutor) and has two
advantages: a) the defendant may claim that there is no judgment regarding the guilt in
formal terms, although a sentence was pronounced and b) such statement prevents initiat-
ing any civil procedure for compensation against the defendant, R.A. Carp/R.Stidham, p.165.
13
The name originates from the case in the US Supreme Court, North Carolina v. Alford, 400
U.S. 25 (1970).
16 CHAPTER
3. PLEA BARGAINING UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW

ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
A detailed clarification is needed of the conditions of plea bargaining stipu-

lated by the legislator, actions by the parties, submission of the draft plea bar-
gaining agreement, its content, activities of the court regarding the review of
the draft plea bargaining agreement and the role of the parties, the defense
counsel, the injured party and the court in the plea bargaining procedure.
3.1. Basic characteristics of the plea bargaining procedure
The LCP envisages a procedure for delivering a judgment on the basis of a plea
bargain of the public prosecutor and the suspect and for the first time, it en-
ables plea bargaining between the parties to the end of achieving a mutually
acceptable solution.
This procedure has the following fundamental characteristics:

Severity of the crime plea bargaining is allowed for all crimes regardless
of the severity of the prescribed criminal sanction;
Mitigation of sentence when determining the criminal sanction, the judge
is obliged to determine it according to the type and severity of the crime,
within the legal framework for the specific crime, but not below the limits
for mitigation of the punishment as provided by the Criminal Code;
Consent by both parties the draft plea bargaining agreement is an expres-
sion of a prior consent of both parties and is not allowed for such agreement
to be submitted by one party only. Therefore, it is not important which party
gave the initiative to start the plea bargaining procedure, but what is im-
portant is that both sides (parties and the defense counsel) are willing to
join the plea bargaining procedure;
When is plea bargaining possible? The LCP does not have any restrictions
in terms of the stage of the procedure when plea bargaining is allowed,
hence, plea bargaining is allowed at any moment after the public prosecutor
has given an order to begin an investigation procedure, until the evaluation
of the indictment;
Model of plea bargaining Macedonian legislators accepted sentence bar-
gaining and not charge bargaining. Namely, the draft plea bargaining agree-
ment might include all or part of the crimes which resulted in an order to
initiate an investigation, however, for crimes included in the order for which
no plea bargaining was reached, the procedure must continue;
Is confession a precondition for plea bargaining? guilty plea is not a pre-
condition to start a plea bargaining procedure during the investigation pro-
cedure, which is not the case with plea bargaining in the stage of review of
the indictment when the confession is a necessary precondition to start a
plea bargaining procedure;
Protection of the injured party in order to protect the interests of the in-
jured party, the public prosecutor is legally obliged to attach to the draft
plea bargaining agreement, together with all gathered evidence, a written
statement signed by the injured party regarding the type and the amount
of the civil claim on property. During the plea bargaining, it is possible to
reach consent about part of the claim of the injured party or about fully
excluding it from the discussions during the plea bargaining procedure,
whereby the injured party does not remain unprotected even in case when
his/her civil claim on property was not subject to discussion or is only par-
tially accepted, he/she can refer to the judgment validating the plea bar-
gaining agreement as the basis on which to exercise his/her rights in a civil
procedure;
Subject of plea bargaining - the type and the level of sanction included in
the draft plea bargaining agreement is an inevitable subject to plea bar-
gaining. The draft plea bargaining agreement must precisely indicate the
sanction proposed, determined by type and severity, within the legal frame-
work for the specific crime, but not below the limits for mitigating the pun-
ishment as determined in the Criminal Code. The civil claim for property
can be subject to plea bargaining only when the suspect has given consent
to take into account and to negotiate the civil claim on property by the in-
jured party during the plea bargaining procedure;
Mandatory presence of the defense attorney from the moment the plea
bargaining procedure begins, the suspect must have a defense attorney of
his or her own choosing and if not, an ex officio defense attorney shall be
assigned. This expands the possibilities for mandatory defense during the
criminal procedure, aimed at ensuring equality of arms and ensuring that
the suspect, who, ususally is a laymen in law, does not participate in the
plea bargaining procedure without having an opportunity for defense and
evaluation of the appropriateness, from the commencement of any such
procedure to its outcome at the end;
18 CHAPTER
Prohibition of involvement by the court in plea bargaining non-involve-

ment of the court in the plea bargaining procedure is expressly stipulated.
The reason is to ensure that the court does not influence the parties and
the defense attorney in any way, regarding the decision whether to get in-
volved in a plea bargaining procedure, as well as regarding the choice of the
type and level of the criminal sanction.
3.2. Elements of the draft plea bargaining agreement
The LCP expressly states the elements of the draft plea bargaining agreement
that could be categorized as follows:
introductory data:
data on the participants in the plea bargaining procedure (public prose-
cutor, suspect and his/her defense attorney) and
description and legal qualification of the crimes to which the draft plea
bargaining agreement refers to (it can refer to all or some of the crimes
subject of the investigation procedure);
subject of the plea bargaining:
the proposed sanction by type and level (main sanction, auxiliary sanc-
tion, security measure, alternative measure or other measures envisaged
under the Criminal Code), and/or
type and scope of the civil claim on property and the manner of its exe-
cution, if the suspect consents to include it in the plea bargaining; 14
statements by the parties:
statement by the suspect, that he/she willingly and voluntarily accepts
the draft plea bargaining agreement and any consequences resulting
from it; and
statement by the public prosecutor and the suspect that they waive the
right to an appeal in case of a judgment accepting the draft plea bar-
gaining agreement;
manner of reimbursing the costs of the procedure,
final section:
signatures of the public prosecutor, the suspect and his/her defense at-
torney; and
date and place of signing the draft plea bargaining agreement.
14
The property civil claim is determined according to the statement given by the injured
party and any consent reached on the manner of compensation for the claim is included in
the draft plea bargaining agreement.
When the court receives the draft plea bargaining agreement signed by both
parties, the second stage of the plea bargaining procedure begins, referring
to the court evaluation of the draft plea bargaining agreement.
Having in mind that the draft plea bargaining agreement can be submitted
even during the investigation procedure, the judge of the preliminary pro-
ceedings has an active role and a status of a judge delivering the judgment in
the investigation stage, in the process of evaluation of the submitted draft
plea bargaining agreement.15
The draft plea bargaining agreement is reviewed during a special court hearing
which the preliminary proceedings judge schedules within 3 days from the day
of receiving the draft plea bargaining agreement. This stipulated period shows
that the legislator insists on a fast and efficient procedure. The persons sub-
mitting the draft plea bargaining agreement, i.e. the parties and the defense
attorney are summoned at the hearing.
During the hearing, the court examines the following circumstances first:
whether the draft plea bargaining agreement is submitted voluntarily and
whether the suspect is aware of the legal consequences of its acceptance,
whether the suspect is aware of the consequences related to the civil claim
on property and
whether the suspect is aware of the costs of the procedure.
After examining the aforementioned circumstances, the judge of the prelim-

inary proceedings is obliged to instruct the parties and the defense attorney:
that they can always withdraw the submitted plea bargain before a decision
is reached by the court, in which case it shall be considered as not submitted
at all and all files will be returned to the public prosecutor for further action;
and
that the acceptance of the draft plea bargaining agreement is considered
as waiving the right to an appeal to the verdict that validates the submitted
draft plea bargaining agreement.
15
Court actions in other stages of the procedure, where the guilty plea by the suspect, i.e.
the defendant is a precondition to be met, whereby the court evaluates the statement first,
and then the submitted draft plea bargaining agreement, are explained below with the
elaboration of the status of the guilty plea.
20 CHAPTER
The parties can waive the submitted draft plea bargaining agreement, whereby
the waiver can be:
explicit if the public prosecutor and the suspect and his/her defense at-
torney waive the submitted draft plea bargaining agreement up to the mo-
ment a decision is reached; or
implicit if the public prosecutor, the suspect and his/her defense attorney
submit a request during the hearing to determine a sanction, other than
the one contained in the draft plea bargaining agreement.
3.3. Evaluation of a draft plea bargaining agreement
The judges ruling with regard to the submitted draft plea bargaining agree-
ment can take the form of a decision or a judgment, depending on whether
the court has evaluated it as acceptable or not.
If the draft plea bargaining agreement is evaluated as acceptable, the competent

court delivers a judgment which is based on the draft plea bargaining agreement.
The court, when delivering such judgment, may not pronounce a criminal sanction
other than the criminal sanction contained in the draft plea bargaining agreement.
This means that the court may not make any changes to the proposed sanction
(main and auxiliary penalties or measures) to which the parties have agreed.
If the court believes that the proposed sanction is not fully acceptable, it
passes a decision to reject the draft plea bargaining agreement, after which
the files are returned to the prosecutor (in case the bargaining takes place during
the investigation procedure), i.e. the proceeding continues (in case the bar-
gaining is performed in some of later stages of the procedure).
The judgment delivered on the basis of the draft plea bargaining agreement
contains all the elements of a conviction judgment as provided for in the LCP.
It is pronounced immediately and is prepared in writing within 3 days from the
day it was pronounced.
The judgment is forthwith delivered to the public prosecutor, the suspect and
his/her defense attorney, and to the injured party who, if unsatisfied with the
judgment with regards to the type and amount of the rewarded damages, may
exercise his/her right in a lawsuit.
The delivered judgment is a decision based on the merits of the criminal case,
and it has a character of an effective, final and enforceable judgment. Thus,
the procedure is completed in its earliest possible stage after its initiation,
and the impossibility to appeal the delivered judgment leads to a quick, effi-
cient, equitable and acceptable final outcome for both parties which is con-
sidered as an exceptional situation in the criminal procedure law.
The court adopts a negative ruling under the form of a decision to reject the
draft plea bargaining agreement, in the following cases:
when it is established that the evidence obtained for the facts substantial for
selection and weighing of the criminal sanction does not justify the propo-
sed criminal sanction contained in the draft plea bargaining agreement, or
if, during the hearing, the public prosecutor, the suspect and his/her defense
attorney filed a request for a criminal sanction other than the criminal sanc-
tion contained in the draft plea bargaining agreement.
An appeal may not be filed against the decision to reject the draft plea bar-
gaining agreement.
In case of rejection of the draft plea bargaining agreement, the judge of the
preliminary proceedings submits the files to the public prosecutor and the
records from the hearing and the draft plea bargaining agreement may not be
used in later proceedings and are therefore kept elsewhere in a separate closed
envelope.
The LCP does not provide for any limitations regarding the possibility for the
parties to resubmit a draft plea bargaining agreement to the court, following
the courts rejection of an earlier draft plea bargaining agreement, which was
considered as unacceptable.
22 CHAPTER
3.4 Role of the parties in the plea bargaining procedure
The public prosecutor is expected to (pro) actively initiate the plea bargaining
procedure and make efforts to reach a mutually acceptable criminal sanction
for the crime or crimes for which he ordered an investigation procedure. The
public prosecutor should, first and foremost, assess the value of the gathered
evidence available in a certain case, and based on that, decide whether to ini-
tiate plea bargaining, whether to apply some other procedure envisaged in the
LCP, for example conditional delay of the prosecution or to conduct ordinary
criminal procedure. One of the competences of the public prosecutor stipu-
lated in the LCP, among other things, is his right and obligation to negotiate
and bargain with the defendant for pleading guilty, in accordance with the
LCP. The judgments of the US Supreme Court, where plea bargaining has been
in practice for many years, may be beneficial for determining the role of the
public prosecutor. Based on the judgments, one can conclude that the main
responsibilities of the public prosecutor during the plea bargaining procedure
are as follows:
prohibition of retaliation,
the role of guarantor and guardian of legality, and
establishing full discretion of the prosecutor with regard to the type of
crimes for which prosecution, i.e. bargaining, will be initiated.16
The defendant is one of the parties participating in the plea bargaining proce-
dure which he/she can also initiate. Pursuant to the LCP, the defendant has
the right to present his/her defense, not to be forced to give a statement
against him/herself or his/her relatives or to plead guilty, as well as to have an
opportunity to present his/her views about the facts and the evidence against
him/her, and finally, to state all facts and evidence in his/her favor. The defen-
dant is expected to be well aware of the characteristics and possibilities of plea
bargaining, but also of the implications arising from this procedure, such as:
the waiving the right to appeal,
the possibility to withdraw the submitted plea bargain up to the moment
the court reaches a decision,
the consequences of him filing a request for determining a sanction other
than the one contained in the draft plea bargaining agreement at the hear-
ing for evaluation of the draft plea bargaining agreement,
16
More details at Buzarovska, G/Misoski, B, Plea bargaining and mediation, p. 221.
24 CHAPTER
the possibility to agree for the civil claim of property to be subject to plea
bargaining, and
the consequences with regard to compensation of a portion of the court
procedure expenses.
The participation of the defense attorney is compulsory in the plea bargaining

procedure from its very beginning. The defense attorney is expected to be pro-
fessional, to provide quality legal assistance and action, so as to protect the
interests of the defendant. The defense attorney must be experienced, com-
petent and capable to negotiate a sentence with the prosecutor which is ac-
ceptable for the defense, taking into account the type of sentence that would
be pronounced if ordinary criminal procedure were conducted. Given these
expectations from the defense attorney, it is clear why the lawmakers reached
a solution where a plea bargaining procedure may not be initiated without a
defense attorney. The provisions referring to the plea bargaining procedure
increased the possibilities for mandatory defense, i.e. if the defendant fails to
choose a defense attorney, the president of the competent court assigns him
a defense attorney ex officio.
The court is explicitly prohibited from participating in a plea bargaining pro-

cedure. This provision is aimed at making the court unable to influence the
selection of the type and severity of the criminal sanction and outlining the
role of the public prosecutor as a dominus litis during the investigation proce-
dure. By not participating in the plea bargaining procedure, the judge retains
his/her impartiality as an arbitrator, who evaluates the submitted draft plea
bargaining agreement based on gathered evidence obtained by the prosecu-
tion. It is useful that the judge is not involved in the plea bargaining procedure.
This way, the judge does not have any knowledge about the bargaining process
preceding the draft plea bargaining agreement and he/she is not familiar with
the discussions between the prosecutor and the defense attorney. This em-
phasizes the role of the court in the second stage of the plea bargaining pro-
cedure which consists of an evaluation of the draft plea bargaining agreement.
Plea bargaining enables adjudicating in an earlier stage of the procedure, and
to this end, the judgment based on the draft plea bargaining agreement may
be adopted both in the investigation procedure and in the stage of evaluating
the indictment. The provisions on plea bargaining correspondingly apply to
the summary procedure.
Although not directly participating in the plea bargaining procedure, and in

order to protect the interests of the injured party whose priority is the decision
regarding the civil claim on property, the public prosecutor must attach a writ-
ten statement to the draft plea bargaining agreement and any gathered evi-
dence signed by the injured party with regard to the type and amount of the
civil claim on property. Thus, the injured party indirectly participates through
the public prosecutor. However, the statement given is not a guarantee that
the civil claim on property will be subject to the plea bargaining. As empha-
sized above, it depends on whether the defendant consents to subject the civil
claim on property to the plea bargaining. However, the possibility remains for
the injured party to exercise his/her rights through a lawsuit.
4. STATUS OF THE GUILTY PLEA, I.E. CONFESSION UNDER THE LAW ON

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
There are differences in the options for pleading guilty, i.e. making a confession in
various stages of the proceeding after the completion of the investigation procedure.
A guilty plea is a prerequisite for conducting a plea bargaining procedure in the

stage of review of the indictment which is not the case in the investigation procedure.
In the course of the investigation procedure, the provisions on delivering a

judgment based on the draft plea bargaining agreement of the parties without
prior confession of the defendant apply directly, if any of the parties initiated
a plea bargaining procedure.
Despite the fact that an explicit confession is not made for the crimes under
investigation, it seems implicit with the initiative for a plea bargaining proce-
dure, i.e. by accepting a plea bargaining proposed by the prosecution.
4.1. Review of the indictment
As regards the stage when the indictment is reviewed, the guilty plea is a prere-
quisite for conducting a plea bargaining procedure between the public prose-
cutor and the defendant and his/her defense attorney.
26 CHAPTER
Unlike the investigation procedure where both parties may initiate plea bar-
gaining, in the stage of review of the indictment the initiative comes from the
defense who is willing to admit the crimes contained in the indictment.
The suspect may express his/her willingness to confess in two ways:

by filing a written statement indicating willingness to plead guilty to all or
certain crimes contained in the indictment whereby the judge, i.e. the
chamber for review of the indictment is obliged to schedule a hearing to
review the confession, or
by making a verbal statement at the hearing for evaluation of the indict-
ment, that he pleads guilty for all or certain crimes contained in the indict-
ment whereby the proceeding continues in accordance with the provisions
on the conduct of a hearing when there is a guilty plea.
The ruling for acceptance of the guilty plea reached by the competent judge,
i.e. by the chamber for review of the indictment is a prerequisite for initiating
the procedure.
If the judge or the chamber for review of the indictment does not accept the
guilty plea, this is entered in the records, the parties present are informed of
the ruling and the hearing for review of the indictment resumes. The guilty
plea, i.e. its adjunction in the records may not be used as evidence further in
the criminal procedure and they are to be closed in a separate le and set
aside from the case les.
The judge, i.e. the chamber will adopt a ruling accepting the guilty plea after
determining that:
it is made voluntarily, in full mental capacity and while being fully aware of
any consequences thereof, including any consequences related to the civil
claim on property and the costs related to the criminal procedure, and
there is sufcient evidence proving the guilt of the suspect.
Unlike plea bargaining during the investigation procedure where there is no

time limit to plea bargaining, in the indictment procedure, the parties have
only 15 days to reach an agreement for a mutually acceptable criminal sanc-
tion and to file a draft plea bargaining agreement to the judge, i.e. to the
chamber for review of the indictment.
f the parties fail to file a draft plea bargaining agreement within this time pe-
riod, the hearing for review of the indictment continues.
When a draft plea bargaining agreement is submitted, it is followed by an as-

sessment which might be:
positive the draft plea bargaining agreement is accepted, whereby the
judge or the chamber for review of the indictment delivers a judgment
based on the provisions on delivering a judgment based on a draft plea bar-
gaining agreement, or
negative the draft plea bargaining agreement is not accepted, whereby
the judge or the chamber for review of the indictment adopts a decision to
reject the draft plea bargaining agreement and reaches a decision regarding
the indictment. Any rejected draft plea bargaining agreement, may not be
used as evidence further in the criminal procedure.
28 CHAPTER
4.2. Confession given at the main hearing
Pursuant to the provisions of the LCP, there is a possibility to make a confes-

sion in the stage of the main hearing, after the parties make their introductory
remarks and before the evidentiary hearing.
After instructing the defendant on his/her rights (the right to remain silent or
to make a statement, carefully to follow the course of the main hearing, the
option to present evidence in his/her defense, to ask questions of co-defen-
dants, witnesses and experts, and to present remarks to their statements), the
presiding judge calls the defendant to enter his/her plea with regards to all or
some of the crimes included in the indictment.
The defendant may voluntarily plead guilty to one or several crimes included
in the indictment.
The plea is restricted neither with the nature nor with the severity of the crime
for which the proceeding was initiated.
Following a voluntary guilty plea, the single judge, i.e. the presiding judge is
obliged to examine the following circumstances:
whether the guilty plea is made voluntarily,
whether the defendant is aware of the legal consequences of the guilty plea,
whether the defendant is aware of the consequences related to the civil
claim on property, and
whether the defendant is aware of the costs of the criminal procedure.
If the guilty plea is deemed unacceptable because it was made under mistaken
opinion of the defendant, due to lack of comprehension of the consequences
related to it or other similar circumstances, the court continues with the main
hearing (i.e. the evidentiary hearing begins) whereby the record of the given
confession is kept in a special file and is separated from the case files and it is
considered as never made and may not be used further in the procedure.
If the confession is accepted, the court initiates an evidentiary hearing only

when it examines the evidence referring to the ruling on the criminal sentence.
The novelties related to the guilty plea rationalize the actions included in the
main hearing whereby the focus, being on the circumstances proving guilt,
the criminal liability of the defendant and the actual situation, is now put on
the circumstances related to the type and severity of the criminal sanction
under the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code.
30 CHAPTER
In case the guilty plea is accepted, and after examining the evidence substan-
tial for the sentencing, the court delivers a judgment which contains all ele-
ments of a conviction judgment. It is important to mention that the defendant
may not file an appeal due to wrongly or partially established factual situation
against the judgment or the portion of the judgment delivered, as a result of
a confession given after the main hearing has already started.
5. IMPLICATIONS OF PLEA BARGAINING ON OTHER PROVISIONS

OF THE LAW ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Plea bargaining and guilty pleas also have an effect on other provisions of the
LCP and/or on other procedural practices, such as:
Splitting the procedure in the event of pleading guilty to some of the
crimes included in the indictment, i.e. a number of co-defendants pleading
guilty, the court may, until the completion of the main hearing, decide that
the procedure for individual crimes or against individual defendants be split
and completed separately, or be assigned to another competent court;
Mandatory defense during the negotiation and plea bargaining procedure
with the prosecutor for pleading guilty, the defendant must have a defense
attorney;
Grounds for determining detention - if the defendant pleaded guilty, he/she
will not be held in detention, although there are reasons for suspicion that
he/she committed a crime, or that there are grounds for detention due to
justied fear that he/she will hide, forge or destroy any traces of the crime;
that is to say that there exist certain circumstances that indicate that
he/she will obstruct the criminal procedure by inuencing witnesses, ex-
perts, accomplices or persons obstructing justice;
Revoking detention the detention will be revoked with a decision and the
defendant will be released when the detention was determined due to jus-
tified fear that he/she will hide, forge or destroy any traces of the crime or
if certain circumstances indicate that he/she will obstruct the criminal pro-
cedure by influencing witnesses, experts, accomplices or persons obstruct-
ing justice, and the defendant pleaded guilty;
Instructions on the defendants rights prior to any examination, the de-
fendant must be informed and instructed, among other things, about the
right to plea bargaining with the public prosecutor;
Delivering a judgment - plea bargaining, i.e. the admission of guilt enables
adjudication in different stages of the proceeding, starting as early as during
the investigation.
32 CHAPTER
DELIVERING A JUDGMENT
STAGE OF STATUS OF FINAL COMPETENT ENTITY
PROCEDURE ADMISSION EFFECT FOR DELIVERING A
OF GUILT JUDGMENT
Investigation NOT Judgment on the Preliminary

procedure a prerequisite basis of a plea bar- proceedings judge
gaining agreement
between the parties
Review of IS Judgment on the Judge, i.e. chamber

the indictment a prerequisite basis of a plea bar- for review of the
gaining agreement indictment
between the parties
Beginning of the IS Judgment based on Single judge, i.e.

main hearing a prerequisite presented evidence trial chamber,
related to the administering the
criminal sanction main hearing
6. CHALLENGES AND RISKS
What is to be expected from plea bargaining and the guilty plea?

relieving the courts for the part of the cases where the parties reach a plea
bargaining agreement,
due to lack of limitation to the nature and severity of crimes for which bar-
gaining is allowed, parties may apply bargaining any time they feel it is of
mutual benefit,
judges will have more time to dedicate to complex criminal cases with com-
plicated factual situations, large volume of evidence and multiple offenders,
etc.,
reducing the costs of court proceedings because the period from the be-
ginning of the criminal procedure to the delivery of the judgment is signifi-
cantly shortened,
proactive role of the parties,
completion of the procedure in an earlier stage by adopting a decision
based on the merits of the case,
certainty of the final outcome which follows after consultations, discussions
and compromises between the parties and the defense attorney, which re-
sult into signing a draft plea bargaining agreement,
competence of the defense attorney to weigh the benefits for his/her client
to plead guilty, i.e. admitting guilt before the court against the final out-
come of the procedure which includes regular procedural actions through
its various stages.
What are the possible risks and/or difficulties in practice?

broad range of sanctions stipulated in the Criminal Code,
sentencing policies that are very close to the legally prescribed minimum
for the sanctions,
need to amend the Criminal Code with regard to more lenient sentences in
case of a plea bargaining process, i.e. admission of guilt,
difficulties for the parties to evaluate whether it is more beneficial to have
plea bargaining, i.e. a confession, instead of an ordinary criminal procedure,
non-uniformed case law and sentencing policies for criminal sanctions for
same or similar crimes, lack of an average sanction for different crimes in
accordance with the case law in the past several years.
34 CHAPTER
SECTION 2
coMPARAtIVE PRActIcE
oN PLEA BARGAINING
1. INTRODUCTION
Plea bargaining has traditionally been seen as a part of the criminal justice
system of the United States of America and other common law countries.
It is often used as a generic term to describe a negotiation between prosecution

and defence to plead guilty on negotiated terms. In a technical sense, however,
it occurs only when defendant pleads guilty in return for a reduced sentence.
A recent OSCE report defined it as a bargaining process between the defen-

dant and prosecutor in which the defendant admits having committed a crime,
and the prosecutor agrees to some concession in exchange. The agreement is
then submitted to the court in order to avoid trial proceedings.17
Technically a charge bargain occurs where the prosecution agrees to drop a

more serious charge in return for a plea of guilty to a lesser offence, or a de-
fendant pleads guilty to at least one charge in return for the prosecutor drop-
ping at least one other. A fact bargain is where the prosecution presents a
more favourable version of the facts alleged relating to the offence in return
for a guilty plea. A sentence bargain usually refers to cases in which a judge
has given an indication of the likely sentence if the defendant pleads guilty.
The process in which a defendant cooperates with the prosecution or court is

also sometimes referred to as negotiated justice because the ultimate result
has been achieved by some kind of negotiation.
In common law adversarial systems the defendant is required to enter a formal

plea of guilty or not guilty to the charges before the court. This concept is
17
OSCE Mission to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Plea Agreements in Bosnia and Herzegovina: Prac-
tices before the Courts and their compliance with international human rights standards 2nd ed.
May 2006, page 7 (OSCE report on plea agreements)
36 CHAPTER
alien to the civil law inquisitorial systems in which a judge is required to make
the legal determination of guilt after scrutinizing all of the evidence irrespec-
tive of whether the defendant admits culpability. The concept of the defen-
dant formally pleading guilty or not guilty has been introduced into some civil
law systems using adversarial trial procedures such as Bosnia and Herzegovina
but not into others such as Italy.
Common law adversarial systems feature a contested hearing between the

prosecution and defence each presenting distinct cases. The overwhelming
majority of cases brought to court in common law systems are not contested
in that the defendant pleads guilty. Sharp differences exist in practice even
between common law systems as to how the guilty plea (and ultimate sen-
tence) is achieved.
In the United States, where plea bargaining is ubiquitous, it is estimated that

it is employed in almost 95% of cases prosecuted. There, the parties may bar-
gain over both charge and sentence and an agreed sentence may be suggested
to the court. In England and Wales, by contrast, the negotiation is over the
charge and the facts supporting the charge(s) but not the sentence, and the
court may hold a hearing over contested facts. The Italian adversarial system
features sentence bargaining but not charge bargaining. The Bosnian adver-
sarial system provides for sentence bargaining but in practice the parties also
negotiate over charges and facts. The ICTY (International Criminal Tribunal for
the Former Yugsoslavia) features both charge and sentence bargaining. In Italy
and in Bosnia and Herzegovina the court, if it accepts the plea agreement, is
bound by the agreed sentence. In the ICTY and the United States the court is
not so bound. The International Criminal Court Statute and Rules are silent
on plea bargaining.
Common law adversarial systems rely on plea negotiations for the efficient
operation of their criminal justice systems. The Italian reforms in 1988, abol-
ishing the investigating magistrate and introducing adversarial trials, also
opted for plea bargaining, seen as a necessary part of an adversarial system.
Plea bargaining can be controversial and attracts both strong support and fe-
rocious criticism.
The benefits of negotiated justice leading to a lower sentence are described

as reducing the cost of public justice and assisting both defendant and victims
and witnesses. Witnesses and victims are spared from testifying in court, cases
are shorter and more quickly disposed of, case backlogs may be lowered. Plea
negotiations may also help to provide closure or restorative justice in, for
example, war crimes cases where may agree to provide information such as
the location of graves and information about missing persons. Public policy
in detecting crime and bringing offenders to justice is also advanced as de-
fendants may agree to provide information or intelligence or testify in other
cases in return for a reduced sentence. Other proponents argue that it allows
a defendant to express remorse for the crime and its effect on those affected.
Critics respond that it provides an inducement to plead guilty that causes

some innocent people to plead guilty, that it usurps judicial authority by giving
too much power to the prosecutor, that it allows prosecutors to overcharge
thus forcing defendants to negotiate to plead guilty to lesser offences in the
hope of receiving a lesser sentence, and that defendants may provide false in-
formation against others in return for a plea bargain.
Despite these criticisms, plea bargaining in one form or another is gaining in

popularity in both common law adversarial and civil law systems. In recent
years, for example, France, Russia, Argentina, South Africa and India, among
other countries, have formally introduced it.
As an example of a system not reviewed below, the recent experience of Tai-

wan shows how a formerly purely civil law system has introduced some adver-
sarial procedures including plea bargaining. Reforms in 2004 introduced
limited plea bargaining under the heading of negotiation procedures.18 The
previous system featured inquisitorial features with a prosecutor-controlled
investigation leading to an indictment and examination of the case file by the
court. The trial was previously an inquiry by a judge with little participation
by prosecution or defence. The new system is an adversarial party driven con-
test between the prosecution and defence before a neutral judge although
the judge still receives the investigation pre-trial dossier. Negotiations, con-
fined to non-serious offences, may begin after indictment, and focus over the
length of the sentence although the defendant may agree to apologise or pay
compensation to a victim or a sum to another organization. Judges cannot
18
Articles 455-2 to -11 Criminal Procedure Code of Taiwan.
38 CHAPTER
participate in the negotiations but must confirm that defendants understand

that they have waived certain rights. The judge may accept the agreement and
sentence the defendant within the terms of the agreement or reject it and re-
quire a trial. The judge must reject the agreement in specified circumstances.19
2. ENGLAND AND WALES (UNITED KINGDOM)
2.1. Introduction and overview
The criminal justice system of England and Wales has long utilized the com-
mon law adversarial principle of the formal plea of not guilty or guilty to a
charge brought before a court. A defendant is required to enter a formal plea
of guilty or not guilty to charges brought to court.
The law and practice related to sentencing and pleas of guilty is contained in
a complex mixture of common law case, legislation, court practice directions,
legal guidelines and advocates codes. It is subject to frequent amendment by
the legislator and interpretation by the higher courts. The doctrine of stare
decisis or precedent, one of the basic distinguishing features of the common
law system, binding lower courts to decisions of any higher court in the same
court hierarchy, has the Court of Appeal continually issuing fresh decisions of
binding legal precedent. Sentencing in England and Wales is a particularly
complex undertaking.
The police are primarily responsible for investigating crime. The Crown Pros-
ecution Service (CPS) headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is
now responsible for directing the charges for many crimes brought to court.
The police now have a more limited role in the formal charging process, con-
fined generally to specified offences such as minor traffic violations, street of-
fences and offences of public disorder and any summary offence in the
Magistrates Courts with a penalty of up to three months imprisonment, which
of course amounts to a significant percentage of cases. In all other cases the
Crown Prosecutors determine the charge to be brought to the court and in-
form the police how to charge.
19
See, Margaret K. Lewis Taiwans New Adversarial System and the Overlooked Challenge of
Efciency-Driven Reforms 49 Virginia Journal of International Law 651 (2008-2009).
The CPS has a formalized statutory role in the process of negotiating pleas of
guilty. This process is not referred to as plea bargaining in the sense under-
stood in, for example, the United States, the international tribunals and Bosnia
and Herzegovina. The practical effect, however, in terms of negotiating plea
agreements, is fairly similar.
Historically, those who plead guilty have generally received a discounted sentence
on the sentence otherwise applicable on a finding of guilt after a contested hearing.
The general practice on sentence for a time plea of guilty has, for many years, been
to reduce by around a one third the sentence that would otherwise be imposed.20
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides that an accused may receive a statu-
tory reduction in sentence for a plea of guilty and the court must take into
account when the defendant indicated an intention to plead guilty and the
circumstances in which the indication was given.21 This does not provide any
statutory right or entitlement as such to a discount. The Act does not reg-
ulate the tariff or the sentence reduction, saying only that nothing prevents
a court form imposing a sentence of not less than 80 per cent of specified of-
fences which carry statutory minimum terms of imprisonment.
In sentencing, a court must have regard to any guidelines which are relevant
to the offenders case.22 The Sentencing Council, established under the legis-
lation, has published a number of guidelines in relation to sentencing. Its func-
tion, to promote consistency in sentencing, is to set guidelines for to
sentencing principles generally and for specific offences. The Sentencing
Councils Definitive Guideline Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea (2007)
specifies sliding scales of sentences. These range from recommended reduc-
tions of one-third for pleas entered at the earliest possible opportunity to one-
tenth for pleas entered at the court doorstep. The guideline provides limited
circumstances, other than the timing of the plea, where a discount may be
withheld or reduced, such as in an overwhelming prosecution case.
The guideline states as a principle that a reduction in sentence is appropriate

because a guilty plea avoids the need for a trial (thus enabling other cases to
20
In R. v. Buffrey 14 Cr. App. R (S) 511 the Court of Appeal held that while there was no absolute
rule as to what the discount should be, as general guidance around one-third would be an
appropriate discount.
21
Section 144 Criminal Justice Act 2003.
22
Section 172 Criminal Justice Act 2003.
40 CHAPTER
be disposed of more expeditiously), shortens the gap between charge and sen-
tence, saves considerable cost, and, in the case of an early plea, saves victims
and witnesses from the concern about having to give evidence. The reduction
principle derives from the need for the effective administration of justice and
not as an aspect of mitigation.
Generally, over 90% of defendants in England and Wales plead guilty. Most of-
fences around 98% are prosecuted in the Magistrates Courts without a jury.
Even in the Crown Courts (for trials on indictment of more serious crimes) in
England and Wales over 60% of the cases result in guilty pleas while only
around 14-15% lead to conviction by a jury. The Magistrates Courts commit
the more serious offences to the Crown Courts for sentence or trial. Because
the procedure used in the Crown Courts is the closest to plea bargaining, the
procedures in those courts are described here.
Once committed for the sentence in the Crown Courts a defendant pleads
guilty essentially by three routes.
The first is pleading guilty to all or some of the charges based upon the pros-
ecution case as set out in the court documents. The second is by pleading
guilty upon the basis of a plea agreed between the parties, or upon the basis
of a plea put forward by the defence but not contested by the prosecution.
This is known as an agreed basis of plea.
The third relates specifically to serious or complex fraud cases and a plea of guilty
agreed by the parties and accompanied by joint submissions as to sentence.
In negotiating pleas of guilty with the defence, prosecutors are bound by

guidelines published by the Attorney General,23 the DPP, the Code of Crown
Prosecutors, and the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction of the Criminal
Procedure Rules. The public policy principles relating to the pleas of guilty in
the courts generally are set out in the Attorney Generals (different) guidelines
in relation to serious fraud offences (see below), saying plea discussions occur
to narrow the issues in the case with a view to reaching a just outcome at the
earliest possible time, including the possibility of reaching an agreement about
acceptable pleas of guilty and preparing a joint submission as to sentence.
23
Attorney Generals Guidelines on the Acceptance of Pleas and the Prosecutors Role in the
Sentencing Exercise.
The potential benefits are described as providing early resolution of the case
that may reduce the anxiety and uncertainty for victims and witnesses, pro-
viding earlier clarity for accused persons who admit their guilt, and narrowing
any issues in dispute so that the case can be managed more efficiently if it
goes to trial.
2.2. Pleading guilty to all or some of the charges
A defendant may plead guilty to all charges on the basis of the facts alleged
by the prosecution. Alternatively, a defendant may plead guilty to some of the
charges. The judge must consider whether the plea represents a proper plea
on the basis of the facts alleged and may proceed to sentence if satisfied that
the plea is properly grounded.24
The parties may agree to the accused pleading guilty to part of an indictment
and the prosecution offering no evidence in support of other parts or allegations
on the indictment. After accepting a plea to lesser charges the prosecutor
may invite the judge to approve the proposal. The judge may decline to do so.
Alternatively, the prosecutor may proceed without seeking the judges ap-
proval. The judge may express dissent and invite the prosecutor to reconsider.
The judge may adjourn the proceedings if of the belief that the course pro-
posed by the prosecutor may lead to serious injustice. The prosecutor must
then discuss this with designated senior prosecutors, and, in extreme circum-
stances the judge may decline to proceed until the prosecuting authority has
consulted with the Attorney General, the judge presumably hoping that the
decision will be reversed. If not, the judge still has the ultimate decision.
Before entering a plea of guilty a defendant may seek an advance indication

of sentence (see below).
2.3. Agreed basis of a plea
The prosecution and defendant may agree to the factual basis on which the
defendant will plea guilty, known as an agreed basis of plea. This is the end
to a process of negotiation between the prosecution and defendant. The court
24
Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction, paragraph IV.45 Further Practice Directions Ap-
plying in the Crown Court.
42 CHAPTER
must approve a plea put forward on this basis. The court has to consider
whether accepting it is fair and in the interests of justice.
The principles are purely common law and are set out in the 2004 Court of
Appeal case of R v Underwood,25
The prosecution may accept and agree the defendants account of the dis-
puted facts or reject it in its entirety. If accepted, the prosecution must en-
sure it is factually accurate,
The primary duty of the prosecution is to the court and it must not acqui-
esce in an agreement containing material factual disputes,
The agreement must be written and signed by counsel and made available
to the judge before the prosecutors opening,
It may not contain any matters in dispute, and
An agreed basis of plea that has been reached between the parties must
not contain any disputed matters.
The prosecutor must ensure that defence counsel is aware of the basis on
which the plea is accepted and the manner in which the prosecution will pres-
ent its case to the court.26 The Attorney Generals Guidelines on the Accept-
ance of Pleas state,
The basis of a guilty plea must not be agreed on a misleading or untrue set
of facts and must take proper account of the victims interests. An illogical
or insupportable basis of plea will inevitably result in the imposition of an
inappropriate sentence and is capable of damaging public confidence in
the criminal justice system. In cases involving multiple defendants the bases
of plea for each defendant must be factually consistent with each other.
Irrespective of any agreement the judge is not bound by the agreement and
may insist that any evidence relevant to any facts in dispute, or for which the
judge requires further information, should be called. The judge must be in-
formed if a factual dispute cannot be resolved. According to the Attorney Gen-
erals Guidelines,
Where the basis of plea cannot be agreed and the discrepancy between
the two accounts is such as to have a potentially significant effect on the
level of sentence, it is the duty of the defence advocate so to inform the
court before the sentencing process begins. There remains an overriding
duty on the prosecution advocate to ensure that the sentencing judge is
25
R. v. Underwood [2004] EWCA Crim 2256 [2005] 1 Crim. App. R. (S) 90.
26
Paragraph C5 Attorney Generals Guidelines on the Acceptance of Pleas.
made aware of the discrepancy and of the consideration which must be

given to holding a Newton hearing to resolve the issue. The court should
be told where a derogatory reference to a victim, witness or third party is
not accepted, even though there may be no effect on sentence.
In all cases where it is likely to assist the court where the sentencing issues
are complex or unfamiliar the prosecution must add to the written outline
of the case which is served upon the court a summary of the key consider-
ations. This should take the form of very brief notes on: - any relevant statu-
tory limitations - the names of any relevant sentencing authorities or
guidelines - the scope for any ancillary orders (e.g. concerning anti-social
behaviour, confiscation or deportation will need to be considered. - The out-
line should also include the age of the defendant and information regarding
any outstanding offences.
2.4. Hearing re dispute of facts on a plea of guilty the Newton hearing
If the parties cannot resolve a factual dispute when attempting to reach a plea
agreement the prosecution should consider whether the case should proceed
to trial, or to invite the court to hold a hearing as necessary. The Court may hold
a hearing to resolve a dispute about the facts following a plea of guilty. This
is a common law procedure without a statutory origin, deriving from the 1982
case of R. v. Newton27 and referred to as a Newton hearing. Where the prose-
cutor lacks the evidence to positively dispute the defendants account, for ex-
ample if the defendant asserts a matter outside the prosecutions knowledge,
it may seek to test the defendants evidence by requesting a Newton hearing.
The Court is entitled to reach its own conclusion of the facts based on the ev-
idence where neither the prosecutor or defence has invited the Court to hold a
Newton hearing, and the factual dispute is likely to have a material impact on
the sentence. Where the disputed issue concerns facts within the defendants
exclusive knowledge and the defendant is willing to testify, the defendant
should testify. If the defendant is not willing to testify, subject to any expla-
nation given, the judge may draw appropriate inferences in passing sentence.
Where the defendant pleads guilty, but disputes the prosecutions facts, the
defendants basis of plea must be set out in writing, identifying the dispute.
27
R. v. Newton (1982) 77 Crim. App. R 13.
44 CHAPTER
The court may invite the parties to say whether the dispute is material to sen-
tence. If the court decides that it is, it then invites further representations or
evidence and decides the dispute by holding a Newton hearing.
2.5. Cases involving serious fraud a plea of guilty upon a basis agreed
by the prosecution and defence accompanied by joint submissions
as to sentence
This is the third category identified in the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direc-
tion and applies where the prosecution and the defendant in a case of serious
or complex fraud have agreed a basis of plea and seek to make submissions
to the court on sentence. In these cases the written basis of plea agreed be-
tween the prosecution and defence is actually called a plea agreement.28
The Practice Direction defines its applicability and both the Attorney General
and DPP have applicable guidelines.29 Discussions may occur during the inves-
tigation phase, and before charges are brought, that may result in different
charges to those preferred without agreement. Any agreement has to be rea-
sonably, fair and just and that there are safeguards to ensure that defendants
are not under improper pressure to make admissions. Records have to be kept
of the discussions.30
The plea agreement must reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending,
gives the court adequate sentencing powers, and enables the court, the public
and the victims to have confidence in the outcome. The prosecutor must con-
sider carefully the impact of a proposed plea or basis of plea on the community
and the victim, and on the prospects of successfully prosecuting any other
person implicated in the offending. The prosecutor must not agree to a re-
duced basis of plea which is misleading, untrue or illogical.
In addition the prosecutor must not put improper pressure on a defendant in

the course of plea discussions, for example by exaggerating the strength of
28
Paragraph IV.45.18 Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction.
29
Paragaph 45, Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction; Attorney Generals Guidelines on
Plea Discussions in Cases of Serious or Complex Fraud 18 March2009, Directors Guidance
to accompany the Attorney Generals Guidelines on Plea Discussions in cases of Serious or
Complex Fraud.
30
Paragraphs A5, A6 and A7 Attorney Generals Guidelines on Plea Discussions in Cases of Se-
rious or Complex Fraud.
the case in order to persuade the defendant to plead guilty, or to plead guilty
on a particular basis. The defendant must have sufficient information to en-
able him or her to play an informed part in the plea discussions.31
The procedures in these cases differ in that the parties have to provide far more
material to the judge, and at least seven days before the defendants first ap-
pearance in the Crown Court. This includes (i) the plea agreement; (ii) the sen-
tencing submission(s); (iii) all of the material provided by the prosecution to the
defendant during the plea discussions; (iv) relevant material provided by the
defendant, for example documents relating to personal mitigation; and (v) the
minutes of any meetings between the parties and any correspondence gener-
ated in the plea discussions. The judge may request further material.
Because of the nature of these types of offences, the court must consider the
length of time since the offence, the time taken to interview the defendant, the
date of charge and the prospective trial date, to ensure that its consideration of
the plea agreement and sentencing submissions does not cause any unnecessary
further delay. The parties may submit joint sentencing submissions. The court
may reject them in their entirety and the judge may refuse to accept the plea
agreement and to sentence otherwise than in accordance with the sentencing
submissions made under the Attorney Generals Plea Discussion Guidelines.
The sentencing submissions should draw the courts attention to any applicable
sentencing range in any relevant guideline, and to any ancillary orders that may
be applicable. Sentencing submissions should not include a specific sentence or
agreed range other than the ranges set out in sentencing guidelines or authorities.
Before pleading guilty in accordance with the plea agreement, the defendant
may seek a sentence indication for an indication of the likely maximum sen-
tence (see below). The plea agreement remains binding even if the judge indi-
cates a sentence or passes a sentence outside the submissions made on
sentencing. If the defendant does not plead guilty in accordance with the plea
agreement or if a defendant who has pleaded guilty in accordance with a plea
agreement successfully applies to withdraw his plea, the signed plea agree-
ment may be treated as confession evidence, and may be used against the de-
fendant at a later stage in these or any other proceedings.32 A court has the
31
Paragraphs B1, B2, B3 and B4 Attorney Generals Guidelines on Plea Discussions in Cases
of Serious or Complex Fraud.
32
Rule 39.3 Criminal Procedure Rules.
46 CHAPTER
discretion not to admit it into evidence if doing so would adversely affect the
fairness of the proceedings.33
2.6. Advance indication of sentence Goodyear hearing
Before pleading guilty a defendant may request from the court an indication
of the maximum sentence likely to be imposed if he or she pleaded guilty at
that point in the proceeding. Sentence indications may only be sought in the
Crown Courts.
Advance indication of sentence is a common law procedure not regulated by

statute. The guidelines derive from the 2005 Court of Appeal case of R v
Goodyear.34 The Attorney Generals guidelines also provide guidance. Where
appropriate there must be a written basis of the plea.
After hearing from the parties, the judge may give an indication by indicating
the sentence that would be imposed on a plea of guilty. The judge may also
inform the defendant that the type of sentence and or length of the sentence
would be the same if the case went to trial.
The judge can also refuse the application or postpone it. The court should nor-
mally not give an indication where a dispute exists as to the basis of plea unless
the judge concludes that he or she can properly deal with the case without
the need for a Newton hearing. If a dispute exists as to the facts the procedure
in R. v. Underwood referred to above should be followed before the court gives
a sentencing indication.
The Attorney Generals guidelines state that indications as to sentence should

not be sought from the trial judge unless the issues between the prosecution
and defence have been addressed and resolved. Prosecutors should also not
agree a basis of plea until they have made the necessary consultations with
the victim or family. The Court of Appeal has held that the judge should not
treat the process as a plea bargain or become involved in any form of plea
bargaining.35
33
Paragraph 45.27 Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction.
34
R. v. Goodyear [2005] 2 Crim. App. R. 20 (Court of Appeal), 3 All ER 117, see also see para-
graphs 45.29-29.33 of the Consolidated Criminal Practice Direction.
35
Paragraph 67 R. v. Goodyear.
Once given it is binding on the judge and any other judge who becomes re-
sponsible for the case if the defendant decides to plead guilty. Following an
indication of sentence, if a defendant does not plead guilty, the indication will
not bind the court.
The prosecutor has an active role in the process and should assist the court by
providing appropriate references to the relevant statutory powers of the court,
sentencing guidelines and authorities, and any assistance the court requires.
The prosecutor may not say anything which may create the impression that
the sentence indication has the support or approval of the Crown36 and may
not indicate approval of the sentence even after making joint sentencing sub-
missions with the defence.
A Goodyear indication should be given in open court in the presence of the de-
fendant but any reference to the hearing is not admissible in any subsequent
trial. In this respect the court should impose media reporting restrictions.37
The indication does not bind the Court of Appeal if the prosecution appeals
against the leniency of the sentence.38
2.7. Reduction in sentence for promise to assist authorities
Defendants who plead guilty and assist the authorities are entitled to receive
a reduction in their sentence. This is a common outcome of a plea negotiation.
This is justified on the basis of a public interest in discounting the sentence of
those who give evidence for the prosecution, especially given that those they
may be at physical risk. The defendant may receive the discount even if he or
she has not pleaded guilty.39
A defendant who enters into a written agreement with the prosecution to pro-
vide assistance to an investigator or prosecutor may receive a reduction in
sentence if that he or she has pleaded guilty in the Crown Court.40 The defen-
dant does not have to have pleaded guilty before entering into a written agree-
ment with the prosecution. Assistance could be testimony or other
36
Paragraph 70 (d) R. v. Goodyear.
37
Paragraphs 76-77 R. v. Goodyear.
38
Attorney Generals Reference No. 40 of 1996 [1997] 1 Crim. App. R 357.
39
R. v. A [2006] EWCA Crim 1803 and R. v. H, D, Chaudhury [2009] EWCA 2485
40
Section 73 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
48 CHAPTER
information such as intelligence. The Court of Appeal has provided guidance

on the interpretation of the section.41
The prosecutor should provide the court with a report setting out the quantity
and quality of the assistance given, the results arising from it (e.g. arrests or
prosecutions directly attributable to the defendants information) and an as-
sessment of the risks that the defendant and his or her family face as a result
of the co-operation.
A reduction in sentence is not mandatory, and in determining the appropriate

sentence the court may take into account the extent and nature of the assis-
tance given or offered. The reduction may be in addition to that normally given
for an early plea of guilty, including to statutory minimum sentences.
The prosecutor may refer the case back to the court for a sentence review if
the defendant knowingly fails (to any extent) to give the promised assistance
and the court may increase the sentence. Conversely the prosecutor may refer
the case back if a defendant offers additional assistance after sentence or, if
no assistance was offered, subsequently gives or offers assistance. The court
may reduce the original sentence.42
2.8. Role of the prosecutor
Prosecutors must comply with the Attorney Generals Guidelines on the Ac-
ceptance of Pleas and the Prosecutors Role in the Sentencing Exercise and
the DPPs Code for Crown Prosecutors Accepting Guilty Pleas. Prosecutors
should only accept the defendants plea if they think the court is able to pass
a sentence that matches the seriousness of the offending, particularly where
there are aggravating features. Prosecutors must never accept a guilty plea
just because it is convenient.43 In deciding whether to accept a plea to some
or less serious offences because the defendant is only admitting part of the
crime the prosecutor should ensure that the interests and views of victim are
considered in deciding whether it is in the public interest to accept the plea.
The decision is the prosecutors alone.
The prosecutor may agree to have the defendant sentenced on the basis that
some offences are taken into account rather than dealt with separately, meaning
41
R. v. P and Blackburn [2007] EWCA Crim 2290.
42
Section 74 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
43
Paragraph 10.1 Code for Crown Prosecutors Accepting Guilty Pleas.
that the offences have been disposed of. The procedure of a court taking other
offences into account when sentencing has no statutory basis but has long
been part of the sentencing regime.44
Prosecutors should be alert to defendants seeking to plead guilty to a less

serious offence that may not attract a mandatory minimum sentence, espe-
cially because ancillary orders (restitution, compensation etc) may not be
made with some offences.45 The prosecutor is required to draw the courts at-
tention to any victim personal statement or information about the impact of
the offence on the victim, the impact on a community (where appropriate),
statutory provisions relevant to the offender and offences, and any aggravat-
ing or mitigating factors.46
The prosecutor must make clear to the court on what basis any plea is ad-
vanced and accepted. In cases where a defendant pleads guilty to the charges but
on the basis of facts that are different from the prosecution case, and where
this may significantly affect sentence, the court should be invited to hear ev-
idence to determine what happened, and then sentence on that basis.47
If a defendant declines to admit an offence in court that he or she has previ-

ously asked to be taken into consideration on sentencing the prosecutor must
consider whether prosecution for that offence is merited.
The prosecutor is also required to challenge any assertion by the defence in

sentencing submissions which is derogatory to a persons character and is ei-
ther false or irrelevant to the sentencing proceedings. The defence is required
to give advance written notice of such an intention to allow the prosecutor
time to investigate it.48
In addition to these guidelines and codes the Bars Code of Conduct also sets
out the duties of prosecuting counsel in court in relation to sentence as,49
not to attempt by advocacy to influence the Court with regard to sentence,
44
In other common law jurisdictions, such as Australia, it is recognized and regulated by statute.
45
46
Paragraph B4 Attorney Generals guidelines on the acceptance of pleas.
47
48
Paragraphs E1 and E20 Attorney Generals guidelines on the acceptance of pleas.
49
Paragraph 10.8 Code of Conduct of the Bar of England and Wales and Written Standards
for the Conduct of Professional Work, 8th ed. 2004 (Bar Code).
50 CHAPTER
to inform the Court of any mitigating circumstances of an unrepresented

defendant,
to assist the Court if requested as to any statutory provisions relevant to
the offence or the offender and relevant sentence guidelines,
to inform the Court of these matters if of the opinion that the Court has erred,
to inform the Court of any appropriate compensation, forfeiture and resti-
tution matters, and
to inform the defence to any assertion of material fact made in mitigation
which the prosecution believes to be untrue and, and if the defence persists,
to invite the Court to hold a Newton hearing.
2.9. Role of defence counsel
The role of defence counsel is set out in the Bars Code of Conduct Written Standards,50
A barrister acting for a defendant should advise his lay client generally
about his plea. In doing so he may, if necessary, express his advice in strong
terms. He must, however, make it clear that the client has complete free-
dom of choice and that the responsibility for the plea is the clients.
A barrister acting for a defendant should advise his client as to whether or

not to give evidence in his own defence but the decision must be taken by
the client himself.
2.10. Role of victims or their families in the plea process
The prosecutor is required to speak to a victim of the family to explain a de-

cision to accept a plea or to offer no evidence on the indictment or to any
parts of it. The prosecutor is required to keep the victim or family informed.51
Victims may make a victim personal statement which allows them to say
how the offence has affected them. In some circumstances, such as the death
of a victim family may make the statement.
During the sentencing process the prosecutor has to draw the courts atten-
tion to any victim personal statement or information about the impact of the
offence on the victim, and, where appropriate, its impact on a community.52
50
Paragraphs 11.3 and 11.4 Bar Code.
51
Paragraph B3 Attorney Generals Guidelines.
52
Paragraph B4 Attorney Generals Guidelines, Practice Direction (Criminal Proceedings: Con-
solidation) [2002] 1 W.L.R. 2870; [2009] 1 W.L.R. 1396.
3. ITALY
The 1988 Code of Criminal Procedure Code di Procedura Penale formally intro-
duced a system of plea bargaining into the Italian criminal justice system.
At the time of its introduction the new code was described as a revolution
both for replacing the investigative judge with a new procedural framework
and for introducing adversarial processes into a traditionally civil law system.53
Commentators explained the rationale as the accusatorial/adversarial model
being seen as a way to open up Italys criminal justice system to reflect its
status as a modern, democratic society and to provide it with new and effi-
cient procedures to ameliorate its problem of judicial overload.54
However, an adversarial type system, even while retaining many inquisitorial

features, could not work in practice without diverting a substantial percentage
of the cases away from a trial. Adversarial trials can be lengthy and costly.
Hence, in line with common law procedures, alternatives to trial were intro-
duced to try to reduce the cost of adversarial trials as their length and expense
essentially required most cases to be disposed of otherwise than by full trial.
Both the Criminal Procedure Code and the Constitution mandate an adver-
sarial trial process. However, Article 111 (5) of the Constitution allows a de-
parture from the adversarial process if the defendant consents to it, and the
law allows several ways of establishing guilt and proceeding to sentence short
of a full adversarial trial. These are plea bargaining, summary proceedings
giudizio abbreviato and proceeding by trial decree.
The plea bargaining process that was introduced is quite different to that in
United States, for example, where almost all cases in some jurisdictions are
resolved by some form of plea bargaining. In Italy, unlike in the United States,
plea bargaining occurs at the preliminary hearing stage, and when the defence
53
See. e.g. Jeffrey J. Miller Plea bargaining and its analogues under the new Italian Criminal Pro-
cedure Code and in the US: towards a new understanding of comparative criminal procedure
[1989-1990] 22 New York University Journal of International Law& Politics, 215 at 215 quot-
ing from media reports of its introduction in 1989.
54
Elisabetta Grande Italian Criminal Justice: Borrowing and Resistance, 48 Am. J. Comp. L. 227
(2000) at 231.
52 CHAPTER
has had the opportunity to inspect the investigation file thereby providing full
discovery of the prosecution case. The defendant can thus make an informed
decision about whether to seek a plea bargain.
Other significant features (and differences) are that the parties do not bargain
over the nature of the crime, and the maximum reduction in sentence limits
the sentence to 5 years of imprisonment, thus significantly reducing its avail-
ability. The defendant may also ask for a one third reduction even if the pros-
ecution does not join the request. Additionally, the defendant does not
actually plead guilty as in common law adversarial systems.
The Italian system also differs by featuring a combination of significant delays

in bringing cases to court and strict statutory time limits for commencing and
concluding cases. American prosecutors, by contrast, have a much greater in-
fluence on the result of the process as the system does not prevent over-charg-
ing; in turn this encourages plea bargaining.
So, in Italy, in contrast to the United States, the defendants personal interest
may be better served by taking the case to trial while free on bail and awaiting
the expiration of the statutory time limit for bringing the prosecution rather
than entering into plea negotiations with the prosecutor. However, as sen-
tences of less than two years are generally suspended, some incentives exist
to avoid imprisonment by engaging in plea bargaining.
Trial delays in Italy can be severe. The typical case spends close to 400 days in
the Prosecutors office. The preliminary hearing takes place over 300 days
later. A trial before a tribunal takes another 350 or so days.55
By way of contrast, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, for example which also has
statutory plea bargaining - the main trial must commence within 30 days (or
60 days with an extension) of the entering of a plea.56
3.2. Plea bargaining - Sentencing by parties request lapplicazione della pena

su richiesta della parti or patteggiamento or bargain
Sentencing by parties request is described as a mild form of plea bargaining

and is commonly called the patteggiamento, or deal or bargain in English.
55
2003 Report of Chief Prosecutor of the Supreme Court.
56
Article 229 Criminal Procedure Code 1998.
It was originally limited to sentences of no more than three years. In 2003 leg-
islative amendment extended this to sentences of ve years of imprisonment.57
Plea bargaining may not be used for some crimes attracting sentences of five
years such as those involving pornography, pedophilia, sexual harassment, and
habitual or professional criminals or those with criminal tendencies.58
This procedure may be used at the preliminary hearing following the closure
of the investigative phase. At the hearing before the preliminary hearing judge
giudice per ludienza preliminare (gup) and before closing submissions, the defence
and prosecution may request the judge to apply a negotiated reduced sen-
tence to no more than five years of imprisonment, which includes a one-third
reduction of the normal sentence. The length of the reduction is very important
to a defendant given that sentences under two years may be suspended.
The parties must agree on a sentence before presenting the agreement to the
judge.59 In practice, however, the parties, including the defendant, may nego-
tiate the sentence in the presence of the gup (in the gups office) who may also
informally participate. The defendant may waive his or her obligation to at-
tend in writing.
After receiving the request the gup reviews the investigation file and decides
whether the defendant is innocent or could be acquitted under Article 129,
that is, no offence has been committed, or the defendant has not committed
it, or the offence is statute-barred by time. If not, the judge verifies whether
the case is one appropriately dealt with by plea-bargaining and whether the
parties have applied the correct principles of balancing mitigating and aggra-
vating features in seeking a negotiated sentence.60
This is done without a formal guilty plea. In the United States, by contrast,
the parties may agree on a penalty but always with a guilty plea.
The judge can refuse to accept the proposal if of the view that the sentence
is inappropriate. The judge may thus refuse to impose the sentence agreed
between the parties but cannot change the mutually agreed sentence and im-
pose lesser or harsher sentence.
57
Articles 444 to 448 Criminal Procedure Code 1988.
58
Articles 446 and Art 600 bis quinquies and 609 bis octies.
59
60
Under Article 69 (1) and (2) where the two are equal the sentence may not be increased or
mitigated. Otherwise it may be either increased or mitigated.
54 CHAPTER
If the judge refuses the request and commits the case for trial, the parties can
reapply at the opening of the trial for a patteggiamento.
Despite the original parliamentary intention that this procedure be frequently

utilized, only about 15% of cases are disposed of by this method of plea bar-
gaining. As an illustration, between 1990 and 1998, 17 to 21% of cases in the
misdemeanor courts and between 34 and 42% in the mid-level trial courts
used it.
3.3. Summary proceedings il giudizio abbreviato
A defendant may also waive the right to a trial and request a hearing in front
of the gup based primarily on the evidence in the prosecutions investigation
file. This is known as a summary proceeding, or an abbreviated trial il giudizio
abbreviato. Where the case is before a single trial judge without the involve-
ment of a gip or gup, before the case commences, the defendant may request
an abbreviato before the trial judge.61
The defendant may be questioned during the abbreviato and may present new
evidence that will be considered together with that in the investigative file.
The defence may also conditionally commit to accept the findings in the in-
vestigation file, but only after the prosecution has performed specified addi-
tional investigations. The prosecutor may only seek to call evidence to counter
any produced by the defence.62
As in the patteggiamento procedure the judge must independently assess the

guilt or innocence of the defendant, but in the abbreviato, based upon the con-
tents of the investigation file. After reviewing the file, and any other evidence
submitted, the judge may either acquit the defendant or find the defendant
guilty and impose a one third reduction on the sentence.63 The one-third re-
duction is a statutory incentive in exchange for submitting to the abbreviato.
Either party may appeal the sentence. This procedure is available for any crime
regardless of its seriousness. For cases carrying life imprisonment the punish-
ment may be reduced to 30 years.64 Estimates are that about 10% of cases
not dismissed are handled in this manner.
61
Article 452 (2) Criminal Procedure Code 1988.
62
63
64
The 1988 Code was designed to introduce an adversarial trial and to eliminate
the investigative dossier from the trial court-room. This procedure, however,
has the opposite effect as the defendant may choose a written trial in return
for a one-third reduction in sentence.
In common law systems in a sentence hearing following a plea of guilty the

judge or magistrate may be provided with similar documents such as a full
brief of evidence or a summary of the facts or a mixture of the two. The dif-
ference is that in common law systems the process is still fundamentally ad-
versarial in that either party may present evidence such as calling witnesses,
although this is not common in summary matters heard in the magistrates or
lower courts for minor offences.
3.4. Decreto penale di condanna proceeding by trial decree
A third possibility is the decreto penale di condanna proceeding by trial de-

cree. The prosecutor may request the gip and without the consent of the de-
fendant, to decide the case in camera on the basis of the material in the
investigatory record. The defence may not speak but can introduce evidence.
This procedure is applicable for minor offences, classified as misdemeanours,

attracting either a fine or a penalty of imprisonment for which a fine may in-
stead be imposed. It is used to attempt to reduce the case-load of the prose-
cutors and courts.
The judge may decrease the penalty by up to a half but only to impose a fine.
The judge has complete discretion in deciding the appropriate penalty. The
defence may contest the decision within fifteen days and elect for an imme-
diate or summary trial or seek a plea agreement.
3.5. Assessment of how it works in practice
The Italian plea bargaining system is very different to, say, the American one.
There, the prosecutor is more likely to make the most lenient offer early well
before trial preparations are complete.
56 CHAPTER
By way of contrast in Italy, defendants may bargain, even with the judge, with-
out the consent or participation of the prosecutor on the day of trial.65 This
means in effect that there are no real incentives for defendants to settle cases,
and especially so if they are on bail. Defence counsel have no incentive to set-
tle cases before trial, unless they are court appointed. Italy has no office of
the public defender. Only where defendants have been caught in the act and
face certain conviction is there a real incentive to bargain to receive the one-
third reduction.66
The rationale for the introduction of these procedures was expressed to be to

make the criminal justice system more efficient and to assist in eliminating
the delays in bringing cases to court that had been plaguing the Italian system.
However, these procedures have been utilized in only about one-third of cases,
meaning that the impact has not been dramatic.67
4. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Before the introduction of the 2003 Criminal Procedure Code, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, like the other countries of the former Yugoslavia used a purely
civil law inquisitorial procedure for disposing of criminal cases in the courts.
The draft criminal code was produced by a working group of legal experts from
Bosnia and Herzegovina. An OSCE report described the resulting new system
as hybrid, adversarial or mixed.68
The Code introduced both the concepts of the plea of guilty and of plea bar-
gaining. Although utilized successfully in other courts and in the economic
65
66
Critique of the Italian reforms in practice in Marco Fabri, Criminal Procedure and Prosecution
Reforms in Italy: a ashback, Paper for the European Consortium for Political Research, Pisa
September 2007.
67
See e.g. Giulio Illuminati and Michele Caianello The investigative stage of the criminal
process in Italy in Ed Cape, Jacqueline Hodgson, Ties Prakken and Taru Spronken (eds.) Sus-
pects in Europe: procedural rights at the investigative stage of the criminal process in the Euro-
pean Union Intersentia, 2009, page 133.
68
OSCE Trial Monitoring Report on the Implementation of the New Criminal Procedure Code in
the Courts of BiH, December 2004, page 1.
and organized crime section of the court, it was not until February 2008 that
the first plea agreement was reached in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovinas
war crimes chamber.
In imposing the code at the national and entity level the High Representative
explained the need for a criminal procedure code at state level that was in
conformity with modern internationally recognized standards in the field of
criminal procedure and which shall comply with guarantees enshrined under
the European Convention on Human Rights.69
Some reasons for introducing adversarial trial methods into a civil system in
a post-conflict legal system included the desirability of having an independent
prosecutor making public decisions, and the need to expedite the trial process
by introducing strict time limits for indictments, trial commencement, bail
hearings and appeals.
4.2. Plea of guilty
The Criminal Procedure Code 2003 introduced the concept of the plea of
guilty into the Bosnian legal system. Under Article 229, an accused must plead
guilty or not guilty to an indictment at a preliminary hearing. In a failure to
plead the judge enters an ex officio plea of not guilty. Before entering a plea
the accused must be advised of the consequences of his or her decision,
namely that,
The plea of guilty was entered voluntarily, consciously and made with un-
derstanding,
the accused was informed and understood the waiver of the right to trial,
there is enough evidence of the guilt of the accused,
the accused was informed of and understood the possible consequences in
relation to a possible property claim, and possible forfeiture, and
law and the forfeiture of property gain obtained by commission of the crim-
inal offense, and possible payment of the costs of the proceedings.
The Court must satisfy itself of each of these and may reject the plea.70
69
Decision of the High Representative no 3/2003.
70
58 CHAPTER
4.3. Statutory plea bargaining
Article 231 of the Criminal Procedure Code is headed plea bargaining and
regulates the procedure. A suspect or defendant and the defence attorney
may negotiate with the Prosecutor about the conditions of admitting guilt
for the criminal offence with which the suspect or defendant is charged. They
may do this before the completion of the main trial or the appellate proceed-
ings but cannot do so after entering a plea of guilty.
The Prosecutor may suggest a lesser sentence than that mandated,71 for ex-
ample, to reduce long-term imprisonment, which is normally 20 years to a
minimum of 5 years. In a statutory sense the regime appears to contemplate
sentence bargaining, however, the prosecution regularly practices charge bar-
gaining. For example, the parties may negotiate for the accused to be indicted
for a lesser offence than that under investigation, for example for an indict-
ment alleging crimes against humanity rather than genocide.
The practice is for the parties to approach the Court with a written plea agreement
establishing the factual basis for the plea and the agreement to the facts.
The court may reject or accept the agreement. It must deliberate on the plea
agreement in virtually the same manner it deliberates on whether to accept
a plea of guilty.72
The court appears to have no discretion and is bound by the suggested sen-
tence. Article 231 (7) provides, If the Court accepts the plea agreement, the
statement of the accused shall be entered into the record and the Court shall
continue with the hearing for the pronouncement of the sentence foreseen
by the agreement. If the court rejects it the case is sent for trial within 30
days.
By pleading guilty the defendant waives the right to appeal the sentence im-
posed under the plea agreement.73 However, the court, it would appear, could
impose a higher sentence than that contemplated by the plea agreement, thus
providing the accused with a right of appeal against the sentence.
71
72
73
Article 231 (4) (c) Criminal Procedure Code 2003.
The court is also required to inform any injured party about the results of the
plea bargaining. The Code does not contemplate the participation of victims
or injured parties in the plea bargaining process. A consequence of the plea,
however, is the satisfaction of any property claims made by victims against
the defendant.
4.4. Plea bargaining in practice
A 2006 OSCE report surveyed the use of plea bargaining in the various courts
in Bosnia and Herzegovina and concluded that the judiciary had embraced
plea agreements and affirmed their use in all manner of cases, from the most
minor trespassing offences, to crimes against humanity. 74
The report found that Plea agreements are most often negotiated following
plea hearings, but prior to main trialin 77% of the pleas monitored this was
the case.75
Because the legislation appears to allow the court no discretion in relation to

the sentence negotiated pursuant to the plea bargain, a practice has devel-
oped of the parties suggesting a sentencing range for the Court of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, thus giving acceptance of the agreement a greater chance of
success. For example, the parties may suggest a sentencing range of between
5 and 10 years for an offence that may otherwise carry a sentence of 20 years
on conviction.
The legislative scheme appears not to have envisaged charge bargaining and
appears to confine itself to sentence bargaining. However, charge bargaining
is not specifically excluded and has been utilized.76
The initial assessment of the OSCE in Bosnia and Herzegovina was positive in
relation to the acceptance of plea bargaining by the courts. Increasing use is
being made of Article 231 and its entity equivalents for all crimes, and its use
is increasing in war crimes cases in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
74
OSCE Report on plea agreements, pages 2, 8.
75
OSCE Report on plea agreements, page 12.
76
See e.g. Prosecutors Ofce of BiH v Vaso Todorovi X-KR-06/180-1, First instance verdict, 2
October 2008, the prosecution amended the initial indictment to reduce charges of geno-
cide to one count of crimes against humanity. The defendant pleaded guilty and agreed to
assist in investigations and other trials where necessary.
60 CHAPTER
The following completed cases, three of which are war crimes cases, illustrate
how it has worked in practice:
Ljubia eti (Korianske Stijene massacre). The defendant and seven others
were charged with participating in the mass murder the subject of the Darko
Mra case at the ICTY described below. He changed his initial plea of not
guilty to one of guilty of committing crimes against humanity. The plea
agreement proposed a sentence of between 11 and 13 year. The court ac-
cepted the agreement and sentenced him to serve 13 years.77
A co-accused Gordan uri pleaded not guilty and went to trial. Mid-trial
he entered into a plea agreement under which he agreed to testify against
the others and to admit his guilt. He duly testified but some of his testimony
was inconsistent with the allegations against him in the indictment. The
court rejected the plea agreement and rejoined his case with his co-accused.
Six weeks later he entered into a second plea agreement and testified again,
this time consistently with the allegations pleaded. The agreement sug-
gested a sentence of between 7 and 10 years. The court then accepted the
plea agreement and sentenced him to 8 years of imprisonment on the basis
that he stood guard and did not shoot the prisoners himself.78
Pako Lubii, a military commander in the Croatian Defence Council Hrvatsko vi-
jee obrane (HVO), was indicted by the ICTY for his participation in an attack on the
village of Ahmii causing over 100 civilians deaths and the destruction of houses
and mosques. His case was transferred to the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Under
a plea agreement the prosecution changed the charges from crimes against humanity
to war crimes against a civilian population.It specified that he was to reveal to the Pros-
ecutors Office of BiH and the ICTYeverything he knew about certain military attacks.
The prosecution submitted that a sentence of 9 years was appropriate, while the de-
fence suggested 8 years. The court accepted the plea agreement but imposed 10 years
of imprisonment, finding that his admission of guilt and genuine regret could have
a positive impact on the rehabilitation of the victims and acceptance of the facts.79
Muadin Emrulai pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to participating in
organized human smuggling, agreeing to a sentence of up to two years of
imprisonment provided that he failed to reoffend within three years. The
defendant admitted participating in the illegal movement of people across
the border of Bosnia and Herzegovina into Croatia and Montenegro for pay-
ments of between 50 and 1,000 euros. The court accepted the agreement and
sentenced him to a sentence of one year and nine months of imprisonment.80
77
Prosecutors Ofce of BiH v Ljubia eti X-KR-08/549-3, First instance verdict 18 March 2010.
78
Prosecutors Ofce of BiH v Gordan uri X-KR-08/549-2, First instance verdict, 10 September 2009.
79
Prosecutors Ofce of BiH v Pako Lubii X-KR-06/241, First instance verdict, 29 April 2008.
80
Prosecutors Ofce of BiH v Muadin Emrulai X-K/08/635, First instance verdict, 22 January 2009.
Sead Adilovi pleaded guilty under a plea agreement to knowingly using a

counterfeit 100 KM banknote (50 euros) to pay for 15 KM of medicine. The
agreement specified that he was to receive a prison sentence of between
one and three months, and the court accepted the agreement and sen-
tenced him to a term of two months, taking into account his family situation
and that he was a first-offender.81
5. INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS
The international ad hoc and hybrid tribunals, the ICTY, International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, (ICTR), the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), the Special
Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) except the Extraordinary Chambers of Courts
in Cambodia (ECCC) each provide for plea agreements or plea bargaining. Each
uses an adversarial trial method. The International Criminal Court (ICC) Statute
and Rules do not specifically mention the term plea bargaining but appear
not to preclude plea agreements.
The ICTY, ICTR, SCSL and STL employ the common law or adversarial concept of
the plea of guilty. The accused must first plead guilty before being sentenced.
The Statute of the ICTY introduced the concept of a plea of guilty into inter-
national criminal law. In Erdemovi, the ICTYs first concluded case, where the
defendant had pleaded guilty, Judge Cassese noted that the system of plead-
ing guilty or not guilty had been drawn from the common law systems, observ-
ing this practice does not have a direct counterpart in the civil-law tradition
where an admission of guilt is simply part of the evidence to be considered
and evaluated by the court. He observed that the rationale for this approach
appeared to be to enable the accused (as well as the Prosecutor) to avoid a
lengthy trial with all the attendant difficulties all the more notable in inter-
national proceedings. These include the extremely arduous and time-con-
suming collection of evidence, protecting victims and witnesses, the expense
the proceedings requiring translation and interpretation, international trans-
portation of victims and witnesses and assistance to them at trial. A plea of
guilty contributes to public advantage, and may be beneficial to an accused
81
Prosecutors Ofce of BiH v Sead Adilovi X-K/07/474-8, First instance verdict, 20 August 2009.
62 CHAPTER
by sparing him or her the ordeal of a trial and public exposure, allow the ac-
cused to atone, and receive a reduced sentence.82
This judgement was written before the ICTY Rules adopted the concept of
plea bargaining in an amendment to the Rules inserting Rule 62 ter and cod-
ifying the procedure. The first annual report of the ICTY in 1994 even specifi-
cally noted that the practice of plea-bargaining finds no place in the rules
and it was not until December 2001 that the Judges officially adopted plea
bargaining in the rules. The text of Rule 62 ter was in fact mainly derived from
the United States Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
One of the main differences in pleas of guilty between international justice

and national systems employing the plea of guilty is its use. In common law
jurisdictions, pleas of guilty typically occur in almost all cases brought to court.
In international criminal law a much lower percentage of defendants enter
pleas of guilty (at the ICTY to date, 20 of 161 indictees have pleaded guilty).
Notably, the STL, the newest hybrid international tribunal utilizing a mixture
of international criminal and Lebanese law, has adopted a similar procedure.83
5.2. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
The ICTY has a plea agreement procedure set out in its Rules. Within 30 days
of an initial appearance after apprehension the accused must enter a plea of
guilty or not guilty.84 Before accepting the plea, the Chamber must be satisfied
that the guilty plea was voluntary, informed, unequivocal, and a sufficient fac-
tual basis for the crime and the accuseds participation in it.85
Rule 62 ter provides for a plea agreement procedure. This allows the Prosecu-
tor and defence to agree that, upon the accused entering a plea of guilty, the
Prosecutor may apply to amend the indictment and submit a particular sen-
tence or sentencing range and not oppose a request by the accuse for a par-
ticular sentence or sentencing range. The Trial Chamber is not bound by any
agreement. The Trial Chamber has sentenced three accused to terms of
82
Prosecutor v Draen Erdomovi IT-92-22-A, 22 October 1997, Separate and Dissenting Opin-
ion of Judge Cassese, paragraphs 7-8.
83
See rules 99 and 100 of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
84
Rule 62 (iv) ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
85
Rule 62 bis ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
imprisonment greater than provided for in the plea agreement.86 This envis-
ages both a charge and a sentence bargain.
The case-law of the Tribunal has interpreted this to mean that before accept-
ing a plea of guilty the Chamber must be satisfied that the accused is mentally
competent, understands the nature of the charges and the consequences of
the plea, was not threatened or improperly induced into admitting guilt, the
plea has a sufficient legal factual basis, and that the plea reflects the totality
of the criminality.
Plea agreements must be written and disclosed to the court publicly. The plea
negotiations only involve the prosecution and defence and not the judges. The
prosecution may submit an amended indictment offering charges to which
the accused would plead guilty under a plea agreement.
No fixed procedure or practice exists. The prosecution does not have to amend
the indictment. The accused does not have to offer assistance to the prose-
cution. During a sentence hearing the parties may call evidence. For example,
the prosecution could call victims or expert evidence, the defence could call
the accused and character evidence, and the Trial Chamber could call its own
expert evidence.
Unlike, say in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there is no statutory waiver of the right
to appeal a sentence imposed under a plea agreement. The prosecution can
negotiate such a waiver as part of the agreement to specify that an accused
will not appeal if the sentence imposed is within a specified range.87
To date, 20 indictees have entered into plea agreements with the prosecution.
To illustrate how the ICTY handles plea bargaining are three examples:
The case of Darko Mra concerned the murder of over two hundred Muslim
men near at Korianske Stijene near Mount Vlai in Bosnia and Herzegovina
in August 1992. 1200 Croat and Bosnian Muslim civilians were taken by bus
86
Prosecutor v Momir Nikoli IT-02-60/1-2 Sentencing Judgement, 2 December 2002 (the agree-
ment specied 15 to 20 years, the sentence was 23 years); Prosecutor v Dragan Nikoli IT-
94-2-S, Sentencing Judgement, 18 December 2003 (the agreement was 15 years, the
sentence was 27 years); Prosecutor v Milan Babi IT-03-72-S, Sentencing Judgement, 29 June
2004 (the agreement specied 11 years, the sentence was 13 years).
87
For example, in Prosecutor v Stevan Todorovi IT-95-9/1 Sentencing Judgement, 31 July 2001;
Prosecutor v Milan Simi IT-95-9/2 Sentencing Judgement, 17 October 2002.
64 CHAPTER
in convoys from detention camps, being told that they would be exchanged.
Over 200 men were taken off the buses and taken by separate busses to a
ravine where they were murdered by shooting them over a cliff. Mra, a po-
lice officer who had participated in the murders, was charged with exter-
mination as crime against humanity, murder as a violation of the laws or
customs of war and inhumane acts as a crime against humanity. He entered
into a written plea agreement with the prosecution under which he pleaded
guilty to two out of three counts. He admitted his participation in the mas-
sacre. The accused, a survivor of the massacre and a victims association
representative, testified at the sentencing hearing. The plea agreement
obliged Mra to cooperate with the prosecution and the prosecutor agreed
that he had provided substantial cooperation (in an annex filed confiden-
tially). The Trial Chamber accepted the cooperation and the plea of guilty
were mitigating features and that the plea had helped to establish the truth
about the crime, and may thus encourage reconciliation. The prosecution
recommended a sentence of between 15 and 20 years while the defence
recommended a sentence of 15 years. The Trial Chamber imposed a sen-
tence of 17 years of imprisonment. The sentence was not appealed.88 Pros-
ecutions have occurred in the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in respect
of the same crime.
Biljana Plavi was a member of the Presidency of the Republika Srpska in
Bosnia and Herzegovina during the conflict. She was jointly indicted with
Radovan Karadi on charges of genocide, complicity in genocide, and per-
secutions, extermination and killing, deportation and inhumane acts as
crimes against humanity. She signed a plea agreement with the prosecution
part of which was a five page factual basis of plea. She entered a plea of
guilty to one count of persecutions and the Trial Chamber permitted the
prosecution to withdraw the remaining counts. Her written factual basis of
plea admitted to, among other things, inviting and encouraging paramili-
taries from Serbia to assist Bosnian Serb forces in effecting ethnic separa-
tion by force and supporting the persecution through her participation in
the leadership structure. The indictment listed 37 municipalities in Bosnia
and Herzeogvina in which the persecutions occurred. The Prosecutor sub-
mitted that in the absence of the plea of guilty a sentence of life imprison-
ment would have been appropriate. She was then 72 years of age. The
prosecution asked for a sentence of between 15 and 25 years while the de-
fence submitted that 8 years was appropriate.
88
Prosecutor v Darko Mra IT-02-59-S Sentencing Judgement 31 March 2004.
89
Prosecutor v Biljana Plavi IT- IT-00-39&40/1-S, Sentencing Judgement, 27 February 2003.
The Trial Chamber found that her guilty plea, voluntary surrender to the Tri-
bunal, her age and post-conflict conduct were all mitigating features and sen-
tenced her to 11 years of imprisonment. Neither party appealed the sentence.89
Dragan Nikoli was the camp commander of a detention centre in Bosnia
and Herzegovina in which hundreds of Muslim and non-Serb civilians were
detained in inhumane living conditions. Murders, rapes and tortures oc-
curred. He was charged with persecutions as a crime against humanity, and
several years after his apprehension and, on the day that some trial depo-
sition hearings were to commence, he reached a plea agreement with the
prosecution, in which he agreed to the allegations in the indictment (as the
factual basis of the plea). He also provided some assistance to the prosecu-
tion. The prosecution recommended a sentence of 15 years. The defence
agreed. The Trial Chamber however did not and sentenced him to 23 years
of imprisonment, finding the offences such that a sentence of 15 years
would have been unjust.90 Nikoli appealed the sentence. The Appeals
Chamber reduced it to 20 years on the basis that the Trial Chamber had
erred in determining the precise anticipated time he would serve before re-
lease. It dismissed an appeal ground that the Trial Chamber had set an ex-
cessively high starting point for imprisonment.91
5.3. International Criminal Court
The ICC Statute does not refer to a plea of guilty, but rather to an admission
of guilt. This resulted from compromises made between common law and
civil law delegations during the negotiations in 1998.
At the commencement of trial, an accused may plead not guilty or make an

admission of guilt.92
Article 65 regulates the proceedings on admission of guilt. The Trial Chamber

is required to determine whether the accused understands the nature and con-
sequences of the admission, the charges and materials presented support the
admission. It then considers whether the essential facts required to prove the
crime have been established. It may call for more evidence or send the case
for trial. Article 65 (5) provides that any discussions between the Prosecutor
and the defence regarding modification of the charges, the admission of guilt
90
Prosecutor v Dragan Nikoli IT-94-2-S, Sentencing Judgement, 18 December 2003.
91
Prosecutor v Dragan Nikoli IT-94-2-A, Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, 4 February 2005.
92
Article 65 (8) (a) ICC Statute.
66 CHAPTER
or the penalty to be imposed shall not be binding on the Court. Under Rule
139, the Court then makes it decision on the admission of guilt.
The Court must confirm that the defendant has received sufficient consulta-
tion by counsel before it accepts an admission of guilt.93
If it rejects the agreement it must give reasons. The Court may reject the ad-
mission of guilt and order the case to trial.94
The Court may accept an admission of guilt but ask the prosecution to present
additional evidence if it believes that a more complete presentation of the
the facts of the case is required in the interests of justice, in particular the in-
terests of the victims Article 65 (4). The ICC Statute and Rules do not specif-
ically provide that an admission of guilt is a mitigating feature on sentence,
but do consider cooperation with the Court as mitigating.
Plea bargaining, although not expressly mentioned, is not prohibited and ap-
pears to be envisaged by the Rules. The Court has no examples to date of ad-
missions of guilt.
5.4. European Court of Human Rights
Sentencing practice is regulated by national courts. Few cases directly rele-

vant to plea bargaining have reached the European Court.
One area of human rights law directly relevant to this is the waiver of the Ar-
ticle 6 right to a fair trial that is implicit in agreeing to a procedure similar to
the Italian abbreviato.
The European Court has directly considered this issue. It recognized the ad-
vantages to a defendant, if convicted, in receiving a substantially reduced sen-
tence, and the prosecutions inability to appeal a conviction that does not alter
the legal characterisation of the offence. However, at the same time, it noted
that this entailed a diminution of procedural safeguards by foregoing the right
to a public hearing and to adduce new evidence and to have witnesses sum-
monsed. Article 6 of the Convention does not prevent a person waiving these
93
Article 65 (1) (b) ICC Statute.
94
Article 65 (4) ICC Statute and Rule 139 ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
particular rights of his or her own will, but the waiver must be unequivocal.
And no public policy issues militated against this particular waiver of rights.95
Another relevant area is the equality of arms between the prosecution and
defence. The rights guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on
Human Rights commence once a person is notified of charges that the prose-
cutor intends to press, whether or not the indictment has been brought to the
court or confirmed.96 This impacts upon the negotiation process between pros-
ecution and defence and the principle of equality of arms.
This principle mandates equal treatment of all persons before the court. The
European Court has interpreted this to mean that ...that each party must be
afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his caseincluding his evidence
under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis--vis
his opponent...97
In plea negotiations the prosecutor would appear to have at least an initial

advantage. The OSCE has reported,98
In the context of plea negotiating, this principle has implications for the
degree to which there is an equality of bargaining power between the pros-
ecutor and suspect or accused. In practice, the best way to equalise the po-
sition of the parties is for the accused to have the assistance of defence
counsel in the negotiating process. Further, concluding plea agreements
only after the confirmation of the indictment, but prior to a guilty plea, also
bolsters the equality of bargaining power between the parties.
A defendant could be disadvantaged by entering into a plea agreement before an

indictment has been confirmed or charges taken to court. This is because at that
stage the defendant may not be familiar with the prosecution evidence and
hence not able to make an informed decision as to how to plead to the charges.
A defendant could also be disadvantaged by entering into a plea agreement

without the proper disclosure from the prosecutor necessary to allow him or
her to make an informed decision based upon proper legal advice.
95
Scoppola v. Italy (No. 2) app. 10249/03, 17 September 2009.
96
Deweer v. Belgium, A-35, 27 February 1980, para. 46.
97
Dombo Beheer B.V. v. The Netherlands, A-27, 27 October 1993 para. 33.
98
OSCE Report on plea agreements 2006, p. 10.
68 CHAPTER
A plea bargain or plea of guilty or admission of guilt is also essentially a waiver of

the right to a trial. It must be unequivocal to be valid. A person may waive their
right of access to court but the waiver cannot be tainted with constraint.99
Voluntariness is therefore critical issue in plea bargaining under human rights

law. The European Court has found that Article 6 is not breached in systems
where the accused pleads guilty at the commencement of the proceedings
and no hearing occurs as to guilt or innocence but only as to sentence, pro-
vided that adequate safeguards exist to prevent abuse, here, specifically the
United Kingdom.100
99
Deweer v. Belgium, A-35, 27 February 1980, para. 46.
100
X v. United Kingdom No 5076/71 CD 64 at 67 (1972). In that case the adequate safeguards
considered to be consistent with Article 6 (1) were if the judge was satised that the accused
understands the effect of his plea and that his confession was recorded.

70 CHAPTER
SECTION 3
GuIdELINEs
oN PLEA BARGAINING
1. OVERVIEW OF PLEA BARGAINING
The new LCP has introduced various new institutes / procedures and mecha-
nisms originating from the adversarial system, among which the possibility of
plea bargaining. Plea bargaining is an agreement subject to the Judges ulti-
mate approval as to the charges for a guilty verdict and sentencing, regulated
by Chapter 29. Plea bargaining is nothing more than a negotiating process,
the objective of which is to convince the Prosecutor to dismiss or lower the
charges and to agree to a favorable sentence for the accused which the Trial
Judge (hereinafter Judge) will also find acceptable to impose.101 Essentially,
the purpose of plea bargaining is to have the case resolved through a short-
ened procedure: in exchange for not going through a time/resource-consuming
trial, the accused agrees to enter a knowing, intelligent and voluntary plea of
guilty, with the understanding that he or she will receive a much more favor-
able sentence than if convicted at trial. Plea bargaining is possible after the
beginning of the investigation, when the Prosecutor has grounded suspicions
that a person committed a criminal offense,102 but before the beginning of the
initial examination of the defendant.103 The accused having remained silent104
and access by the Defense Counsel to the whole case file105 facilitate the plea
bargaining.
In some legal traditions, it is possible to have the charges dismissed irrespec-

tive of the evidence. This is generally acceptable in the Common Law system
where the burden of proof rests entirely on the Prosecutor. This approach,
101
See Article 39(2), which gives the public prosecutor the right and duty to negotiate and
bargain with the defendant on a guilty plea, under conditions and in a manner as deter-
mined in this Code when the crime is prosecuted ex ofcio.
102
See Chapter 21 of the LCP.
103
See Chapter 22 of the LCP. See also Article 206(1) (2).
104
See Article 69(2).
105
See Article 79.
72 CHAPTER
however, is generally unacceptable in the Civil Law system, where the burden
of persuasion rests with the Judge who is obliged to search for the objective
material truth. Consequently, in the Civil Law system as in the Country - the
options for plea bargaining are restricted to sentence bargaining, since it
would be antithetical to the Macedonian criminal justice system for the Judge
to overlook facts and disregard his or her obligations in searching for the
truth.106 That said, under certain factual circumstances, the possibility may
exist to convince the Prosecutor that it is in the interests of justice to drop
certain charges on the basis that, despite his or her initial evaluation of the
evidence, further review indicates that they should be dismissed due to insuf-
ficient evidence. In any event, whether it is a Common Law or Civil Law system,
it is ultimately up to the Judge to decide whether to accept, modify or reject
a plea agreement. Thus, the aim of a plea negotiation is not just to convince
the Prosecutor to offer a favorable deal but also to make sure that the deal is
deemed acceptable to the Judge who will ultimately decide upon it.
There is nothing magical about plea bargaining. The process is very similar to
bargaining for a favorable price over an item with a shopkeeper at the local
market. In other words, it is all about haggling: what amount of time could be
agreed upon as a recommendation for the Judge to accept. There may also
be instances where, based on newly discovered evidence or errors in the charg-
ing of the offenses, that adjustments to the actual charges could be made to
more accurately reflect the facts and criminal code requirements. In such in-
stances, part of the plea bargaining process would entail discussion on whether
such adjustments to a charging document can appropriately be made. This is
not about bargaining away crimes, but simply making necessary and reason-
able adjustments to the charged crimes to fit the law and facts of the case.
In many instances the Prosecutor may not wish to commit him or herself to a
set amount of time for a sentence but would rather agree to a range of time
within which the Judge can select an appropriate sentence. Under this sce-
nario, the general approach is to agree upon a mutually agreeable range: at
one end an absolute acceptable minimum which the Prosecutor will agree
as a sentence to be argued by the Defense Counsel, while at the other an ab-
solute acceptable maximum which the Defense Counsel will agree as a sen-
106
See Article 484, which states that the subject matter of the plea bargaining is the type and
severity of the sanction, and if consented by the Accused, the subject matter of the plea
bargaining can also encompass the property claim of the damaged party. For more details
on what a plea agreement should contain, see Article 485.
tence to be argued by the Prosecutor. The range approach (where there is a

high-end and low-end limit) is perhaps the most flexible approach for both par-
ties to argue their respective positions.
While there is no guarantee that the Judge will impose a sentence within the
range as opposed to going below it or above it, there is a good likelihood that
the Judge will stay within the range. Judges are independent and, as is well
known, enjoy projecting their independence when exercising their discre-
tionary authority. Thus, by providing a reasonable range from which to deter-
mine a sentence, the Judge is left free to choose within the range and resolve
the case, or depart from the range and risk having the parties discarding the
plea bargaining process so that the case goes to trial. It is this latter scenario
that Judges try to avoid: there is no sense in wasting valuable court time in
conducting an entire trial when a short hearing will yield acceptable results.
Judges of the preliminary phase can not participate in the plea agreement
procedure between the Prosecutor and Counsel.107 Once a motion for plea
bargaining agreement is filed in accordance with Article 335, there is an obli-
gation on the Judge to schedule a hearing in accordance with Article 488. The
Judge can issue a decision either accepting it with the conditions of Article
490, or rejecting it on the basis of Article 489. If the plea agreement is ac-
cepted, both parties have waived their right to appeal the judgment.108
2. THE PROCESS OF PLEA BARGAINING
Plea bargaining is a very important task for a Defense Counsel. It might seem
to be in favor of the Prosecution to achieve an easy conviction without having
to engage in a lengthy trial, but Defense Counsel is afforded the difficult task
of achieving the most favorable outcome possible for the client without having
to go to trial and risk a conviction and a heavy sentence. As Defense Counsel,
the objective is to get the best possible result for the client. Since each case
has its own set of facts with its own set of challenges, there is no formula: it
all depends on the particular Prosecutor involved, the strengths and weak-
nesses of the prosecution case, the nature of the charges, the nature of the
facts, the background of the parties (accused and victims), the Judge involved,
the location where the (alleged) crime occurred and the location in which the
107
See Article 487.
108
See Article 488(5).
74 CHAPTER
case is being tried. These variables are beyond the control of the Defense Coun-
sel. As such, they constitute what are known as facts beyond change. It may be
possible to argue that a particular Prosecutor or Judge should not be involved
because of an irreconcilable conflict of interest, but other than that, there is
not much that can be done except to embrace these facts and see to what ex-
tent they can be used to the benefit of fashioning an ideal plea agreement.
Nonetheless, the Defense Counsel should begin as in everything else concern-
ing the preparation of the case for trial with analyzing the case and distilling
it to its very essence. In doing so, one is able to develop the possible theories
of the case, determine what investigative tasks need to be carried out, analyze
the prosecution case for its strength and weaknesses, etc. Essentially, the case
needs to be analyzed as if it is going to be tried. Only by meticulously preparing
the case for trial will the Defense Counsel be equipped with sufficient knowl-
edge to make an intelligent assessment of the case, and be in a position to ad-
vise his or her client properly on whether to engage in a plea bargaining process.
Everything that follows in a criminal procedure which has elements of the ad-
versarial system, such as the right to gather evidence, cross-examine witnesses
and enter into plea bargains, is based almost entirely on identifying and se-
lecting the most favorable theory of the case.109 While it is understood that not
every case due to facts beyond change will result in a theory of the case that
provides for an absolute acquittal, most cases are in fact suitable for plea bar-
gaining. In light of this fact, however, it is worth highlighting that plea bargain-
ing, as such, is not a theory of a case. While the facts of the case may be suitable
for plea bargaining ostensibly because it may be more appropriate to seek
early favor with the Judge one will nonetheless need to figure out a theory
of the case, if for no other reason than to prepare the case for trial should the
plea bargaining yield no agreement.
Once the case is thoroughly analyzed and any potential investigation is com-
plete, each party should have a sense of whether the case is triable, i.e. worth
the risk of taking the case to trial, or negotiable, i.e. worth seriously pursuing
a negotiated plea agreement. The answer is case-specific: the facts will dictate
in which of the two categories the case lies although a certain degree of
109
The theory of the case is nothing more than a logical persuasive story of what happened
from the prosecutors/defenses perspective. It is the reason, justication or explanation
of why the prosecution or defense should prevail at trial. The theory of the case must be
logically and consistently developed so that upon examination of the evidence and testimony
from all the witnesses, the Trial Chamber can rationally render a judgment in your favor.
objectivity will be required: it is important to be realistic, always bearing in

mind the best interests of the client.
As in any jurisdiction, the ultimate decision whether to enter into the plea bar-
gaining process, and if so, whether to accept the Prosecutors final offer lies
with the accused the client.110 This is fundamentally important for the Defense
Counsel to understand and abide by in every case. As such, before approaching
the Prosecutor to even consider the possibility of a plea bargain, the Defense
Counsel must get the clients authorization. In doing so or to put it more ac-
curately, in order for the client to be in a position to give an informed authori-
zation the Defense Counsel will need to explain to the client the following:
what is plea bargaining;
how plea bargaining works;
the pros and cons of entering into plea bargaining;
the strengths and weaknesses of the case; and
pitfalls of going to trial versus resolving the case through plea bargaining.
It is during this consultation with the client that the Defense Counsel must
set out to explain the process by which he or she will engage the Prosecutor
in pursuing a plea agreement. The client must be assured and re-assured that
every offer presented by the Prosecutor will be transmitted back to the client
and no counter-offer will be presented to the Prosecutor without the express
knowledge and approval of the client. In other words, the Defense Counsel un-
dertakes the responsibility to ensure that nothing will occur without the
clients knowledge and approval. Indeed, for best practice purposes, it is rec-
ommended that a standardized memorandum is prepared and provided to the
client so he or she can concretely better understand the step-by-step process
of plea bargaining. Moreover, when offers are communicated by the Prosecu-
tor, it is best to have such information reduced to writing and presented to
the client. Likewise, any counter-offers should also be reduced to writing and
made part of the Case File. While this may be time consuming, it is essential
to have a transparent record in case a question arises of what was offered,
counter-offered, rejected, accepted, etc.111
110
See Article 206(6), according to which Before the initial examination the accused will also
be informed about the right to plea bargain with the public prosecutor in accordance with
the articles from 489 to 496 from this Code.
111
See Article 89(1), which states that for every activity undertaken during the criminal pro-
cedure, a record will be made at the moment the activity is undertaken and, if not possible,
immediately after.
76 CHAPTER
In some jurisdictions where plea bargaining is permitted, the Prosecutor is ex-

pected, if not required, to prove notice to the complaining witness / victim.
This does not mean that the Prosecutor must seek and obtain permission from
the complaining witness / victim prior to reaching any plea agreements. It is
also customary to inform the complaining witness / victim when the change
of plea hearing is scheduled to be held and to extend an invitation for their
participation to make a statement to the court. In some instances, of course,
it may be necessary for the complaining witness / victim to be present and to
give evidence during the change of plea hearing, particularly when matters of
restitution are at issue (to establish the actual financial / property damages
suffered as a direct or indirect consequence of the criminal acts of the ac-
cused). It is recommended that for transparency and accountability purposes,
the Prosecutor inform the complaining witness / victim of the plea bargaining
process. Getting the complaining witness / victim input is useful in making an
assessment as to what may be an acceptable range of sentencing in the case.
It also allows the complaining witness / victim to be part of the process.
As for the actual process of plea bargaining, it all starts with having a particular
range of sentence which is acceptable to the client and realistic enough for
the Judge to accept. Determining the range, as discussed above, depends on
several variables. To begin with, an investigation should be conducted in order
to discover whether there are any known cases with similar facts and charges
from in and around the jurisdiction of the alleged events, where the sentences
that were imposed could potentially serve as bench marks in the clients case:
as a way of establishing an appropriate starting point. This may require some
basic research, particularly if the Defense Counsel does not regularly practice
before the court that is involved. In such circumstances, the quickest way to
acquire such information is to contact local members of the criminal defense
bar. Indeed, this may also be helpful in gaining an insight into the individual
traits of the Prosecutor and Judge involved in the case: the more information
known the better. As no case is ever tried or judged in the abstract, it is im-
portant to appreciate the environment in which the ultimate decision-makers
are operating in and being influenced by. The Prosecutor will need to be flex-
ible and receptive to disposing of the case without the benefit of a public trial,
while the Judge will only be amenable to accepting a particular plea agree-
ment if the local community where the court sits will be satisfied with the final
resolution.
Getting to: yes yes yes
While bargaining at the market may be more of an instinctive process, in that

the negotiating parties begin at opposite ends with the general approach of
negotiating until the other side gives up and accepts, plea bargaining, if seri-
ously conducted, is a bit more sophisticated. Since the objective is to achieve
a win-win situation, i.e., get a deal (sentence) which:
a. satisfies both the client as well as the Prosecutor; and
b. is fair and equitable for the victim (and for the interests of society), the start-
ing point should not be at some ridiculously low end in order to hammer
away at the Prosecutors ridiculously high end.
The first step in the negotiation process is to identify the objectives involved:
what is the most acceptable sentencing scheme for the client (the clients ob-
jectives) and more importantly, what are the specific needs of the Prosecutor
which he or she must meet in this case relative to the particular facts and circum-
stances (the Prosecutors objectives). Once the objectives are identified, the
goal then is to find a creative approach to more or less satisfy these objectives.
This requires taking a realistic view of all the variables involved and especially
recognizing any limitations/peculiarities that may burden the Prosecutor to
which, of course, solutions will need to be provided. By recognizing any dilem-
mas the Prosecutor may be facing by showing leniency in the case (which is
the general perception of plea bargaining), the Defense Counsel is in a better
position to find creative solutions. Moreover, by discussing with the Prosecutor
the particulars of the case, including those elements which may not be simple
or easy to prove, the Defense Counsel is highlighting the benefits of reaching
a plea agreement. Indeed, from a strategic point of view, it is important to en-
gage the Prosecutor in discussions wherein he or she will reveal any particular
concerns or constraints involving the case other than the obvious ones which
are readily apparent from the facts of the case. This sort of information is im-
portant not only in fashioning arguments for the plea negotiations but also in
preparing the case for trial.
In identifying the Prosecutors dilemmas, the Defense Counsel must also not
lose sight of the possible constraints that the Judge may face in accepting the
plea agreement as opposed to holding a public trial. This is important because
in negotiating for a particular resolution, it is essential to constantly bear in
78 CHAPTER
mind the concerns of the Judge as part of the plea bargaining discussions.
Again, the Prosecutor must be aware that the Defense Counsel is not just
blindly throwing out figures, but is making well-reasoned proposals after due
consideration of the facts of the case and the respective concerns and objec-
tives of the Prosecutor and Judge. Essentially the Defense Counsel must place
him or herself in the shoes of the Prosecutor and the Judge. In doing so, the
Defense Counsel should attempt to list all the questions that may be raised
by either the Prosecutor or the Judge, so that plausible answers/explanations
can be crafted for the plea bargaining sessions or change-of-plea/sentencing
hearing. Through this process, the Defense Counsel will also identify anything
else that may need to be done in order to prepare the case for the plea as-
sessment hearing.112 This may include further investigation to show that the
events are not as severe as initially described, that the nature of physical dam-
age is far less than reported, or the good character of the client and his/her
excellent chances for rehabilitation, etc.
Essentially, the yes-yes-yes process is nothing more than identifying everyones

objectives and then crafting a solution so that all stake-holders in the process
(client, Prosecutor, Judge) fully agree. It does not matter that all stake-holders
are happy, but that they are satisfied that the end result is one that meets
their underlying objectives.
3. PREPARING THE CLIENT FOR THE PLEA BARGAINING PROCESS
Once the client, after being fully briefed, decides to journey down the plea
bargaining road, the Defense Counsel must immediately begin preparing for the
plea bargaining session. The first step is to meet with the Prosecutor and see if
an agreement can be reached as to the general nature of the bargaining process:
whether a general sentencing range can preliminarily be agreed upon, subject to
further adjustments once there has been an opportunity to review all of the
evidence, including an offer of proof of the facts the client is prepared to accept.113
112
See Article 485.
113
This is the only possibility foreseen in Article 485. However, in other legal systems it is pos-
sible to have an agreement on dismissal of certain counts on the grounds that there is in-
sufficient evidence and of reduce of certain charges because of the lack of evidence to
support the current charges.
Because the plea bargaining process is based to a large extent on trust and
honesty, it is important for the client to be aware that whatever he or she rep-
resents must be truthful, accurate and complete. Falsehoods or half-truths are
likely to poison any chances of getting a favorable agreement. Since the Pros-
ecutor is an integral part of the process, it is important to have a Prosecutor
who is flexible and engaged in fashioning a creative solution. This is particu-
larly essential for the plea assessment hearing: there is nothing better than to
have the Prosecutor advocating on behalf of the accused the merits of the
plea agreement.
During some plea negotiations, the Prosecutor may wish to interview/inter-

rogate the client in order to assess the quality and quantity of his or her infor-
mation. This is very common when there are multiple accused. In such
circumstances, the Prosecutor may only be willing to offer a favorable deal on
the condition that the client fully and truthfully cooperates by providing in-
formation against other suspects/accused, including being willing to testify
under oath. In these instances, it is important to impress upon the client the
need to seriously consider the risks of going forward with the negotiations. If
the Prosecutor is not satisfied with the information being provided, there is a
strong likelihood that the negotiations will fall through. For this reason, it is
best for the Defense Counsel to work out the factual matrix with the client
first before the meeting with the Prosecutor to discuss/debate the facts. This
approach shields the client from potentially providing falsehoods and half-
truths. If the Prosecutor insists on additional information, then the wisest
course of action is to insist on all additional requests being put in writing in
the form of questions. This allows the Defense Counsel to go over the ques-
tions with the client (with the benefit of the disclosure material) to ensure that
the answers which are to be provided in writing are accurate and consistent.
As can be seen, the need to have a written record of the facts which the client is
going to admit to is paramount. Since ultimately it will be up to the Judge to
accept or reject the plea agreement, in addition to preparing the Draft Agreement,
which among other things, will contain what is commonly referred to as an
offer of proof: a narrative of the facts which the accused willingly and unre-
servedly accepts as the facts for which he will be convicted and sentenced. It
is essential for the offer of proof to identify the specific elements of the crimes
which are the subject of the plea agreement. This serves several purposes:
80 CHAPTER
a. it focuses the Defense Counsel in ensuring that the facts being admitted to
fit the crime;
b. it focuses the client on understanding the nature of his or her conduct vis-
- vis the societal norms as set out in the Criminal Code; and
c. it provides the basis for drafting a plea agreement which the Prosecutor will
need to embrace and support, and which the Judge will be willing to accept.
4. PREPARING THE CLIENT FOR THE PLEA ASSESSMENT HEARING
Once the client knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily admits to being guilty
based on a plea agreement, there is generally no need to go through the
process of a trial where all the evidence is presented. Nonetheless, since the
Judge will need to be convinced that the agreed facts fit the crime (that there
is truth in the plea admission), depending on the criminal procedure, the Judge
may/will often require an offer of proof. This may be done by either directly
posing questions to the accused or by having the Prosecutor lay out the fac-
tual predicate with the accused acknowledging and accepting the facts (which
as noted above, have been pre-agreed upon and reduced to writing). Since the
Judge may want to hear the facts directly from the accused, the client should
be prepared to answer any questions likely to be asked (e.g. actus rea, mens
rea, motive, remorse, etc.).
As part of the sentencing process, especially where the Judge is being pre-
sented with a particular range from which to determine a sentence, it is im-
portant to place all relevant evidence that may be favorable to the client
before the court. As such, the Defense Counsel should investigate whether
there are any favorable witnesses that may be called, whether the client should
be physically or psychologically evaluated, whether there is a need to gather
any records from any social services: anything that may be of assistance in hu-
manizing and/or mitigating the acts of the client. Of course, the Prosecutor
will need to be aware of all of this although - if the Defense Counsel was pru-
dent and duly diligent - much, if not all, of this information would have been
made known to the Prosecutor during the plea negotiations. Furthermore, all
documentary evidence that is to be used during the hearing should be dis-
closed to the Judge in advance.
If viva voce evidence is to be presented during the hearing, it is important to

prepare the witnesses in advance. This will require meeting with them and ex-
plaining the nature of the hearing, as well as reviewing the potential questions
that may be asked by the Prosecutor and/or the Judge. If documents are likely to
be used with the witnesses it is essential that the Defense Counsel go through them
with the witnesses during the preparation session; the witnesses must be aware
of the nature of, and purpose for, referring them to the selected documents.
Since sentencing schemes may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it is good

to have a sentencing graph prepared, which outlines the general sentences
previously imposed in the Country for similar conduct and charges. This is impor-
tant, if for no other reason than to visually set out the sentences previously
imposed and to argue for consistency in sentencing and equal protection/treat-
ment under the law. Since the Defense Counsel should always be advocating
for the lowest end of the sentencing scheme, it is essential to prepare reasoned
arguments for the Judge when asking for a downward departure of a sentence
(in a jurisdiction which is notorious for high-end sentences). Pointing to an-
other jurisdiction may not be enough, especially since Judges often see them-
selves as completely independent. Thus, it is best to have a multi-faceted
approach in asking for the downward departure. This is done by distinguishing:
the facts of the particular case with others;
the time or circumstances of previously imposed sentences which by
todays standards merit a different sentencing scheme; and
the clients background and his or her prospects for rehabilitation, etc.
The point is to provide the necessary arguments for the Judge to consider
rather than simply waiting for the Judge to come up with the reasons why a
light sentence should be imposed.
5. HAvING A FALLBACK PLAN
A prudent Defense Counsel will plan and hope for the most favorable outcome,
while also preparing for the worst. Should the Judge reject the plea agreement,
the Defense Counsel will need to be prepared to take the case to trial. Given
that the Judge has been exposed to the factual admissions which were only
made for the sake of the change-of-plea/sentencing hearing it is essential
82 CHAPTER
for the trial to proceed before a different Judge who has not been exposed to
the negotiated plea agreement. Part of the fallback plan includes informing
the client well in advance of the possibility that the plea agreement may not
be accepted. In that event, the client will need to decide:
a. whether to accept the alternative proposal that the judge may deem as an
acceptable resolution; or
b. whether to withdraw completely from the process and proceed to trial. If a
plea bargaining memorandum is prepared (as suggested above), this infor-
mation will be included in it, thus leaving nothing to chance for any poten-
tial misunderstanding.
6. COUNSELS CHECKLIST FOR PLEA BARGAINING
6.1. Step-by-step essentials
Undertake all necessary preparation and analysis in order to establish your

theory of the case.
While conducting this analysis pay particular attention to the facts beyond
change, such as:
The Prosecutor involved;
The strengths and weaknesses of the prosecution case;
The nature of the charges;
The nature of the facts;
The background of the parties - both the accused and the victim(s);
The Judge involved;
The location of both the event and the court in which the case is being tried.
Ensure that you have full access to all the evidence.114
Undertake any necessary investigation, including:
Collecting all supporting evidence, including identifying:
- All relevant documentary evidence;
- Any witnesses that could testify in support of the client.
Having the client psychologically or physically evaluated if necessary;
and/or
Examining the range of sentences imposed in cases with similar
facts/charges from the same jurisdiction.
114
See Article 79.
Make an assessment as to whether the case is triable, i.e., worth the risk of
taking the case to trial, or negotiable, i.e., worth seriously pursuing a nego-
tiated plea agreement.
Meet with the client to explain what plea bargaining is. Use the prepared
plea bargaining memo (based on the sample memo) as a guide.
Make sure that the client clearly understands what accepting a plea offer
entails; that he or she would be making an admission of guilt.
In addition, it is important that the client is fully aware that this admission
must only be made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.
If the client authorizes plea negotiations, prepare a plea offer and review it
with the client to ensure that it is acceptable.
The written plea offer should:
Outline the offer of proof (facts to be acknowledged by the client);
Respect the wishes of the client;
Meet the objectives of the Prosecutor; and
Provide an acceptable sentencing scheme/range for the Judge.
Approach the Prosecutor to see whether he or she is interested in entering into
plea negotiations. In particular, see whether it is possible to agree to a sentencing
range, subject to further adjustments once all the facts have been reviewed.115
If the Prosecutor agrees to plea bargain negotiations, be aware that he or
she may request to interview/interrogate the client. Should the Prosecutor
make such a request, insist on:
a. having all questions in writing, so that you can go over them with the
client (with the benefit of the disclosure material); and
b. providing written responses.
If the Prosecutor still wishes to conduct an interview/interrogation after
having provided written responses to the Prosecutors initial questions, then
you must make the necessary efforts to prepare the client thoroughly for
interview/interrogation. The client must understand the need to be truthful,
accurate and complete with the Prosecutor.
Counter-offers by the Prosecutor should be reduced to writing and pre-
sented to the client in order to seek his or her approval/non-approval.
A plea offer agreed to by the client should be communicated to the Prose-
cutor in writing.
Following a successful plea agreement, immediately begin preparing for the
plea assessment hearing.116 In particular, prepare:
115
As noted above, in other types of adversarial legal systems it is possible to negotiate the
dismissal or reduction of certain charges due to insufficient evidence.
116
See Article 488(1).
84 CHAPTER
The client for the likelihood that the Judge will want to question him or
her over the facts being agreed to;
Any witnesses that are due to testify in support of the client; and/or
A sentencing graph in order to persuade the Judge to impose a lighter
sentence.
Prior to the hearing, ensure that the Judge has a copy of any documents
that you intend to refer to during the hearing.
At the plea assessment hearing, make sure that the plea agreement is
clearly stated on the record.117
If the Judge decides to reject the plea agreement and announce that he or
she wishes to go above the sentencing range, the case file is sent back to
the Prosecutor and he or she will be the one to decide on the next step.118
Should the client decide to withdraw from the process and proceed to trial,
in addition to preparing the case for trial, Counsel needs to ensure that the
trial resumes before a different Judge one that has not been exposed to
the negotiated plea agreement.
117
See Article 89.
118
See Article 489(1).
6.2. Sample draft memorandum on plea bargaining
To: _______________________
From: _______________________
Prosecutor v___________________ Case No. _______________________
Date: _______________________
Charge: _______________________under section ________ of ___________________
Under section _________of ______________, Macedonian law you through me as

your Defense Counsel, enter into plea bargain negotiations with the Prosecu-
tor in order to see whether a plea agreement can be agreed, subject to ap-
proval by the Judge.
Within the Macedonian system plea bargain negotiations usually focus on the
particular sentence that might be imposed, although there are certain situa-
tions where negotiation over the specific charges that are being sought by the
Prosecutor can occur where upon further review it is believed that there is in-
sufficient evidence to support a finding of guilt as initially perceived. While
the possibility to negotiate for the dismissal or reduction of charges is not ex-
plicitly provided in the LCP, the possibility does exist for informal discussions
to be held on the substance and appropriateness of the charges in light of the
evidence. Given that such informal discussions could actually lead to a down-
ward adjustment (lowering) of the charges, it is advisable to hold such discus-
sions whenever it is reasonable and appropriate.
Although plea bargaining routinely takes place between the Prosecutor and
the Defense Counsel you, as the charged person, will constantly be kept in-
formed about every step of the negotiation. Nothing will be done without your
prior knowledge and consent. From the outset, however, you must be aware
that agreeing to a plea bargain is essentially agreeing to plead guilty, in exchange
for not going to trial. Essentially, you will be asked to knowingly, intelligently
and voluntarily agree to the facts, charges and guilty plea.
As I believe that your case may be acceptable for a plea bargain, I am request-
ing that you permit me to prepare a written plea offer on your behalf. Once I
have a draft tentative offer, I will then go over it with you and if you agree to
this offer, I will then approach the Prosecutor to initiate plea bargain negotiations.
86 CHAPTER
For now you should know that the plea offer which I will be recommending
will have a sentencing range. As such, the Prosecutor will be presenting the
high end and I will be presenting the low end of the sentence to be recom-
mended to the Judge in exchange for your guilty plea.
You should be aware that during the negotiation process, the Prosecutor may wish
to interview you to go over you the facts of the charges alleged. This means that
you will have to be as truthful, accurate and complete as possible with the Prosecutor
to ensure that a plea agreement is reached. Prior to any such meeting and ques-
tioning, we will thoroughly go over the evidence in the file so you are prepared.
If an agreement is reached, then the following step will be to prepare for the
change-of-plea/sentencing hearing. You should be aware that even though a
plea offer has been agreed upon, it is still subject to the approval of the Judge.
The Prosecutor does not have the power to force the plea agreement upon
the Judge, but can only recommend it. It is up to the Judge to decide whether
he or she will accept the suggestions made in the plea agreement.
If the Judge rejects the plea agreement and decides to go above the agreed
sentence range, then the case file is sent back to the public prosecutor and it
is up to him or her to decide the next step. Should this happen, I will discuss
your options with you in more detail at the time. This is, however, something
that you need to be aware of now.
Furthermore, like the Prosecutor during the negotiation stage, the Judge at the
change-of-plea/sentencing hearing is in all likelihood going to want to question you
about the facts that you are agreeing to. You need to be aware of this and be pre-
pared to answer all questions asked of you truthfully, accurately and completely.
This memorandum is to assist you in understanding the basics of a plea nego-

tiation and the process that is to be followed. If at any time you have any ques-
tions about this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Signed
___________________
xxx

88 CHAPTER
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldwin J./McConville M., Negotiated justice: pressures on defendants to
Bucy, Pamela H., Privatizing Law Enforcement, The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science (GANP), January 1996.
Buzarovska, G./Nanev, L./Misoski, B., Comparative research of the solutions
for accelerating and simplifying the criminal procedure, MRPLC, No. 1/2008.
Buzarovska, G/Misoski, B, Plea bargaining and mediation, MRPLC, No. 2/2009.
DÀndrea, Alesandro, Shortened procedures, Collection of texts, Twinning
Project Fight Against Organized Crime and Corruption Unit Public Prosecutors
Office, Skopje, 2009.
Dervieux, Valerie, The French System, in European Criminal Procedures, Ed. by,
Delmas-Marty, Mirreille and Spencer, J. R., Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Studies, 1983.
Gail, Kellough/Wortley, Scot, Remand for Plea, Bail Decisions and Plea Bargain-
ing as Commensurate Decisions, British Journal of Criminology, No. 42, 2002.
Garoupa, N./Stephen F.H., Law and Economics of Plea Bargaining,
www.ssrn.com/
90 CHAPTER

Prosecutorial Discretion in Germany, The University of Chicago Law Review,
Vol. 41, No. 3. (Spring, 1974).
Heumann, Milton, Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges
and Defence Attorneys, University of Chicago Press, 1978.
System, 1993.
Ivievi, lizabeta, Plaider coupable New alternatives in the classical criminal
procedure in the French law.
Jones, David A., Crime without punishment, Lexington, Mass. (etc.), 1979.
Juy- Birman, Rodolphe, The German system, European Criminal Procedures,
Krapac, Davor, English criminal procedure, Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb,
Zagreb, 1995.
Review, 2002.
Maffei, Stefano, Negotiations on evidence, Negotiations on sentence, (Ad-
versarial exoeriments in Italian Criminal Procedure), Journal of International
Mather, Lynn M, Plea bargaining or trial? he Process of Criminal-Case Dis-
position, Lexington, Mass. (etc.), Teakfield Ltd, 1979.
Michael M. OHear, Plea Bargaining and Procedural Justice, Marquette Uni-
versity, April 2007, www.ssrn.com/
Neubauer, David W., Americas Courts and the Criminal Justice System, Duxury
Press, 1979.

No. 3, pp. 28-31.
Press, 2004.
Sprack, John, Criminal Procedure a Practical Approach, 10-th Edition, Oxford
University Press, 2005.
Tassi, Andrea, Special Procedures in the Italian criminal procedure (ed.
B.Pavii), Faculty of Law, University of Rijeka, 2002.
Tulkens/van de Kerchove, La Justice Pnale, European Criminal Procedures,
(ed. Delmans-Marty/Spencer), Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Vogel, Mary. Plea Bargaining in the US and England: A Comparative-His-
torical Perspective Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Society of Criminology (ASC), Los Angeles, 31.10.2006,
92 CHAPTER

Spogoduvanje Za Vina

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spogoduvanje Za Vina

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

03. Plea Bargaining 01 MK [REV2] 25.02.

2011 12:05 Page 1

20. . 14 Cr. App. R (S) 511,

27. . (1982) 77 Crim. App. R 13.

34. . [2005] 2 Crim. App. R. 20 ( ), 3 All ER 117;

41. . . [2007] EWCA Crim 2290.

1988 Code di Procedura Penale

61. 452 (2) 1988 .

decreto penale di condanna ..

63. 438 (5) 1988

65. 446 1988 .

70. 230 (3) 2003 .

72. 231 (6) 2003 .

88. IT-02-59-S, , 31. 3.2004 .

94. 65 (4) 139 .

96. , A-35, 27. 2.1980 , 46.

116. 488 (1).

: ________ ________ _____________________

Herrmann, Joachim, The Rule of Compulsory Prosecution and the Scope of

avell, Steven, Foundation of Economic Analysis of Law, Harvard University

Prmbajtja e ktij publikimi nuk prfaqson medoemos kndvshtrimin apo

Procedura pr marrveshje pr pranim t fajit sipas Ligjit t Ri t Procedurs Penale*

Praktika komparative t marrveshjes pr pranim faji:

Udhzime mbi marrveshjen pr pranim t fajit:

*Prgatitur nga Prof. Dr. Gordana Buzharovska

MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT - DORACAK PR PROFESIONISTT 7

PJESA 1. MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT SIPAS LIGJIT T RI

1. PSE T KET MARRVESHJE PR PRANIM T FAJIT N

2. FORMA T MARRVESHJES PR PRANIM T FAJIT ..............................14

3. MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT SIPAS DISPOZITAVE T LPP......16

4. STATUSI I DEKLARATS PR PRANIM T FAJIT GJEGJSISHT PRANIMI

5. IMPLIKACIONET NGA MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT

6. SFIDAT DHE RREZIQET............................................................................32

PJESA 2. PRAKTIKA KOMPARATIVE PR MARRVESHJEN PR PRANIM

2. ANGLIA DHE UELLSI (MBRETRIA E BASHKUAR) ..................................38

4. BOSNJA E HERCEGOVINA ......................................................................59

MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT - DORACAK PR PROFESIONISTT 9

5. GJYKATAT DHE TRIBUNALT NDRKOMBTAR ..................................64

PJESA 3. UDHZIME MBI MARRVESHJEN PR PRANIM T FAJIT ............73

2. PROCESI I MARRVESHJES MBI PRANIMIN E FAJSIS..........................75

3. PRGATITJA E KLIENTIT PR PROCESIN E MARRVESHJES

4. PRGATITJA E KLIENTIT PR SEANCN DGJIMORE T MARRVESHJES

5. PLANI REZERV ........................................................................................84

6. AGJENDA E AVOKATIT PR MARRVESHJEN MBI PRANIMIN E FAJSIS ..84

MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT - DORACAK PR PROFESIONISTT 11

1. PSE T KET MARRVESHJE PR PRANIM T FAJIT

1.1. Vrejtjet hyrse

Ligji pr procedur penale1 prmban dispozita q pr her t par n

Zgjidhjet e reja me t cilat n mnyr thelbsore reformohet veprimi

N literaturn penale-procedurale tanim nj koh t gjat mund t hasen

Duke e pranuar qndrimin se drejtsi penale efikase, pjesrisht, mund t

1.2. Prparsit e t drejts konsensuale

E drejta konsensuale (me marrveshje pr pranim t fajit) duhet t kuptohet

E drejta konsensuale paraqet model, q l hapsir pr pajtueshmri t palve n

Insistimi q procedura penale t jet efikase dhe ekonomike ka uar n

MARRVESHJA PR PRANIM T FAJIT - DORACAK PR PROFESIONISTT 13

mekanizm i tregut pr prmirsim t kualitetit t ndjekjes penale n mnyr

Zgjidhjeve q u pranuan n LPP i parapriu nj analiz komparative e

Marrveshja dhe pranimi i fajit ojn drejt ridefinimit t plot t rolit t

1.3. Vrejtje kritike

Me qllim q t fitohet nj pasqyr e qart pr qndrimet q kan t bjn

Konsiderohet se dobi m t madhe nga ky sistem kan gjykatsit dhe avokatt,

Marrveshja pr pranim t fajit konsiderohet si katastrof n procedurn

Prve kritikave se sanksioni i shqiptuar q ndrlidhet me deklaratn pr

: _____________