一般而言，对腐败相关罪行的制裁似乎具有充分的警戒性。然而，审议人员注 意到，2013 年 4 月的《刑法修正案》在对某些罪行的制裁方面做了一些改动， 似乎在整个制裁制度以及腐败相关罪行的基本形式与情节严重形式之间的关系 中造成了一些不一致之处。审议人员请拉脱维亚当局确保反腐败立法行动不影 响适用于打击腐败的刑法条款的现行制裁制度的一致性和连贯性。关于诉讼豁免程度和范围，《刑事诉讼法》第 120 条规定，正如《宪法》明确 指出的，国家总统和议员享有刑事诉讼豁免权。如果经不少于三分之二的大多 数议员的同意，总统须承担刑事责任（《宪法》第 54 条）。不可逮捕议员，也 不可在其住所进行搜查，除非征得议会同意，否则不得以任何方式限制议员的 人身自由。然而，如果议员因犯罪而被扣押，可对其进行逮捕。未经议会同 意，不得对议员提起刑事起诉，也不得对其征收行政罚款（《宪法》第 30 条）。 法官在履行职责期间享有豁免。只有检察长能够提起对法官的刑事诉讼程序。 特别授权一名最高法院法官为此目的做出关于拘留、押解、逮捕或搜查法官的 决定。 审议专家注意到议会在撤销议员的豁免权方面起了决定性作用。为避免在撤销 其豁免权期间证据消失或被篡改的潜在风险，建议采取立法措施，确保能够在 撤销豁免权之前开展旨在获得证据的调查行动，并将程序豁免缩小至仅限于刑 事起诉，而且不可适用于审前调查阶段。 只要侦查到刑事犯罪特征，检察和调查机关就必须启动刑事侦查。然而，《刑 事诉讼法》给予了检察官自由裁量权，使其能够主动地或在被告或被告辩护律 师提议下就认罪和处罚订立协议（诉辩协议形式）（《刑事诉讼法》第 38 章第 433 条至第 438 条）。 预防和打击腐败局有权对违反关于利益冲突和资助政党的条款的行为给予行政 制裁。具体而言，《国家公务员法》第 39 条规定，在作为安全措施对公职人员 实施拘留或对其启动刑事诉讼后，暂停其履行职责。《公务员纪律责任法》规 定了行使纪律惩戒权的程序。
In general, the sanctions for corruption-related offences appear to be sufficiently dissuasive. The reviewers noted, however, that the amendments of the CL of April 2013 brought about a couple of changes in relation to the sanctioning of some of these offences, which seem to create some inconsistencies in the overall sanctioning system and the inter-relationship between basic and aggravated forms of corruption-related offences. The review team invited the Latvian authorities to ensure that legislative anti-corruption action does not affect the consistency and coherence of the existing sanctioning system of the criminal law provisions which are applicable in the fight against corruption. In relation to the extent and scope of immunities from prosecution, section 120 CPL stipulates that the State President and members of the Parliament (Saeima) enjoy immunity from criminal proceedings, as specified in the Constitution. The President may be subject to criminal liability if the Saeima consents thereto by a majority of not less than two thirds (section 54 of the Constitution). Members of the Saeima cannot be arrested, nor can their premises be searched, nor can their personal liberty be restricted in any way without the consent of the Saeima. However, its members may be arrested if apprehended in the act of committing a crime. Without the consent of the Saeima, criminal prosecution may not be commenced and administrative fines may not be levied against its members (section 30 of the Constitution). Judges enjoy immunity during the time they fulfil their duties. A criminal procedure against a judge may only be initiated by the Prosecutor General. A decision concerning the detention of, forcible conveyance, arrest or subjection to a search of a judge is taken by a Supreme Court justice specially authorized for that purpose. The reviewing experts noted the decisive role of the Saeima in lifting the immunities of its members. In order to avoid the potential risk that during the time it takes to lift the immunity evidence could disappear or be tampered with, legislative measures were recommended to ensure that investigative action aimed at securing evidence is allowed before the lifting of immunity and that procedural immunity is narrowed to only criminal prosecution and would not be applicable to pretrial investigation stage.The prosecutorial and investigating authorities have to initiate criminal investigations whenever the features of criminal offence are detected. Nevertheless, the CPL provides the prosecutors with discretional powers by enabling them to enter into agreements (form of plea-bargaining agreements), on the basis of own initiative or on the initiative of an accused or his or her defence counsel, regarding the admission of guilt and punishment (chapter 38, sections 433-438 CPL). KNAB has powers to impose administrative sanctions for violations of provisions on conflicts of interest and funding of political parties. In a more specific context, section 39 of the State Civil Service Law provides for the suspension from the performance of duties where detention has been applied as a security measure or criminal prosecution has been initiated against the public official. The procedure for exercising disciplinary powers is stipulated by the Law on Disciplinary Liability of Civil Servants.