POMILOSTITVENI POSTOPEK V PRAKSI - Slana, Nataša (N. Slana, 2016)
Pomilostitveni postopek v Republiki Sloveniji se lahko začne na dva načina, in sicer na prošnjo obsojenca ali po uradni dolžnosti. Diplomska naloga opisuje, kako postopka potekata v praksi, ju opredeljuje, razčlenjuje ter prikazuje posamezne faze postopkov ter razkriva vsebino poročil in mnenj pristojnih organov. Pomilostitveni postopek na prošnjo obsojenca je v diplomski nalogi predstavljen vse od prošnje obsojenca, odstopa vloge sodišču, ki je sodilo na prvi stopnji, predhodnega postopka, ki ga vodi sodišče, ko zbira poročili centra za socialno delo in zavoda za prestajanje kazni zapora, do obrazloženih mnenj sodišča in tožilstva o pomilostitvi, vključno s tem, kakšni kriteriji oziroma okoliščine morajo biti podane za pozitivno mnenje pristojnega organa oziroma pozitivni predlog ministra za pravosodje, ter vse do tega, kako o pomilostitvi odloča predsednik republike, do oblike ukaza za pomilostitev, obvestila kazenski evidenci o morebitnem izbrisu obsodbe in obvestila obsojencu glede odločitve predsednika o pomilostitvi. Pomilostitev po uradni dolžnosti je postopkovno drugačna, saj gre za neposreden predlog ministra predsedniku republike, naj določnega obsojenca oziroma obdolženca pomilosti. Od rednega postopka se razlikuje v tem, da je predlagatelj postopka minister, ki določene organe pozove, naj podajo svoje predloge, ter da je v postopku za pomilostitev po uradni dolžnosti možen tudi odpust kazenskega pregona, sami kriteriji za presojo o upravičenosti pomilostitve pa so podobni pomilostitvi na prošnjo. Pomilostitev je akt milosti, ki ga izda predsednik republike, če so v konkretnem primeru na strani storilca podane okoliščine, ki jih sodišče v okviru sojenja na podlagi zakona ni moglo upoštevati, so pa v korist obsojenca, ali okoliščine, ki nastanejo po tem, ko je kazen že izrečena in je sodba pravnomočna, ali če obstajajo razlogi, ki terjajo korekcijo morebitne strogosti zakona oziroma višine izrečene kazni, ko bi v posamičnem primeru sodna odločba pomenila nepravično odločitev, ali pa če obstajajo izključno okoliščine, ki narekujejo milejši odnos do storilca. Pomilostitev se torej uporablja v izjemnih okoliščinah in restriktivno. Pomilostitev je predsednikova diskrecijska pravica, zato ni vezan na mnenja oziroma predloge, ki jih v pomilostitvenem postopku podajo pristojni organi, mu pa pomagajo pri sprejetju odločitve. Diplomska naloga institut pomilostitve najprej pojmovno in zakonsko opredeli, nato pa primerja z ostalimi sorodnimi instituti, in sicer z amnestijo, sodno rehabilitacijo, alternativnimi oblikami izvrševanja kazni, namreč vikend zaporom, delom v splošno korist ter hišnim zaporom, ter s pogojnim odpustom. Prikazuje tudi število dejanskih pomilostitev glede na število vloženih prošenj in predlogov po uradni dolžnosti od leta 2008 do 2015. Naloga predstavi tudi določene težave in pomanjkljivosti postopka ter ponudi možne spremembe, vključno z izboljšavami v smislu zakonskih sprememb ter sprememb glede vrste gradiva, ki se zahteva v konkretnem postopku. The clemency procedure in the Republic of Slovenia can be initiated in one of two ways, i.e. following a request by the convicted person or ex officio. This thesis describes how those two procedures are implemented in practice, defines them, looks at their integral parts and shows the individual stages of the procedures as well as reveals the content of the reports and opinions of competent authorities. In this thesis, the clemency procedure following a request by the convicted person is presented, starting from the filing of such a request, to its forwarding to the court that tried that person at first instance, the preliminary procedure lead by the court which gathers the reports from social services centres and the prison administrations, as well as reasoned opinions on the clemency by the court and the prosecution, including what criteria must be met and which circumstances need to exist in order for the competent authority and the minister of justice to give a positive opinion and a positive proposal, respectively. It is also presented how the President of the Republic adopts his or her decision, from the format of the order of clemency to the notification of a potential erasure of a conviction to the criminal records office and a notification of the decision of the President on the clemency to the convicted person. Clemency ex officio differs procedurally as it concerns a direct proposal to grant clemency to a certain convicted person from the minister of justice to the President of the Republic. From the other, regular, procedure it differs in the sense that it is the minister who initiates it, by calling on certain authorities to submit their opinions and that in this procedure it is also possible to grant immunity from prosecution, whereas the criteria concerning the justification of the clemency are similar to those with the clemency following a request. Clemency is an act of mercy, issued by the President of the Republic if in a specific case there are circumstances, on the part of the offender, that are favourable to him or her and that the court could not have taken into account at trial on the basis of the law, or circumstances that only arise after the sentence was imposed and the judgment became final, or if there are reasons requiring a correction of the possible strictness of the law or the sentence imposed that would in the specific case render the judgment unjust, or if there are exclusively circumstances that require a more lenient approach to the offender. Clemency is therefore used in exceptional circumstances, in a restrictive manner. It is a discretionary power of the President, thus he or she is not bound by the opinions and proposals submitted by the competent authorities, however they assist the President in adopting his or her decision. The thesis first conceptually and legally defines the notion of clemency, following which it compares it with other related notions, namely amnesty, judicial rehabilitation, alternative forms of sentencing, i.e. so called "weekend prison", community service and house detention, and release on parole. It also shows the number of actual clemencies in relation to the number of requests filed and proposals ex officio from 2008 to 2015. It also presents certain difficulties and deficiencies concerning the procedure and suggests possible changes, including improvements in the sense of amendments to the law and modifications as regards the type of material that is required in specific proceedings.