The Guarantee of Defence Counsel and the Exclusionary Rules on Evidence in Criminal Proceedings in Germany

2007 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. 1053-1067
Author(s):  
Christian Fahl

The right of counsel in criminal proceedings is granted by section 137 (1) of the Strafprozessordnung (Criminal Procedure Code), which gives a person the right to obtain legal advice in criminal proceedings whenever he or she wishes, or as the law states: “in jeder Lage des Verfahrens“ (at any stage of the proceedings). There are different stages of criminal proceedings, which are to be distinguished under German Law, but section 137 governs the whole process and is not limited, for instance, to the pre-trial or the trial itself.

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 150-160
Author(s):  
Wondwossen Demissie Kassa

Whether preliminary inquiry should be conducted following completion of criminal investigation was one of the issues that arose in criminal proceedings of leaders of some opposition parties who were arrested (in June and July 2020) following the assassination of Hachalu Hundessa. The Court accepted the request of the Office of the Attorney General for the holding of preliminary inquiry. While the request of the Office of the Attorney General and the ruling of the court are consistent with the 1961 Criminal Procedure Code, in view of the unique nature of the Ethiopian Preliminary Inquiry, both the request and the ruling adversely affect the right of the accused to a fair trial. The application of the law regulating preliminary inquiry would be a departure from the principle of equality of arms and the right of the accused to confrontation, both of which are elements of the right to a fair trial. It is argued (in this comment) that using evidence obtained during preliminary inquiry against the accused is inconsistent with the FDRE Constitution and relevant international legal instruments.


2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160
Author(s):  
Andrіy Shulha ◽  
◽  
Tetyana Khailova ◽  

The article deals with the problem of specialist’s participation in the scene examination, which is carried out before entering information into the Unified Register of the pre-trial investigations. The essence of the problem is that the current criminal procedural law of Ukraine recognizes the specialist’s participation only in the pre-trial investigation, the litigation and the proceedings in the case of the commission of an unlawful act under the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine states that a specialist in criminal proceedings is a person who has special knowledge and skills and can provide advice and conclusions during the pre-trial investigation and trial on issues that require appropriate special knowledge and skills. In other cases, the specialist has no procedural status. In addition, Part 1 of Article 237 of the CPC of Ukraine «Examination» states that the examination is conducted to identify and record information on the circumstances of the offense commitment. It is an act provided by the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. However, there are the cases in the investigation, when a report is received, for example, about a person's death, other events with formal signs of the offense, which must first be checked for signs of a crime, and only then the act can be considered as offense. In this case, a specialist takes part in the scene examination. However, the current criminal procedure law in accordance with Part 1, Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine determines the legal status of a specialist only as the participant in criminal proceedings. The paragraph 10, part 1 of Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine defines the criminal proceedings as pre-trial investigation and court proceedings or procedural actions in the case of the commission of an unlawful act. Therefore, when the inspection of the scene is based on the uncertain status of the event (there is no clear information that the event contains signs of an offense), the specialist’s participation is not regulated by law. The authors propose to consider the specialists as «experienced persons» in cases mentioned above and to include their advices to the protocol of the scene examination, as the advices of other scene examination participants.


2020 ◽  
pp. 377-386
Author(s):  
Я. Ю. Конюшенко

The purpose of the article is to define the prosecutor's supervision over investigative (search) actions as a legal guarantee of human rights, as well as problematic issues in its implementation and to make proposals to improve the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine. The article defines doctrinal approaches to the concepts of "prosecutor's supervision over compliance with the law during the pre-trial investigation" and "prosecutor's procedural guidance of the pre-trial investigation" in the context of investigative (search) actions. The author came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in terms of regulating the functions and powers of the prosecutor during the pre-trial investigation. Based on the study, it is proposed to consider procedural guidance as one of the forms of prosecutor's supervision over the pre-trial investigation, which is implemented directly by the prosecutor or a group of prosecutors who are appointed to carry it out in a particular criminal proceeding. The author also emphasizes the existence of forms of supervision of the highest level prosecutor on the legality of these actions, which are implemented through the demand and study of information on the progress and results of pre-trial investigation, criminal proceedings and certified copies of court decisions and study of compliance with criminal procedure. A number of problematic issues during the prosecutor's supervision in pre-trial criminal proceedings are outlined, which relate to the relationship between the prosecutor's supervision and judicial control over the legality of investigative (search) actions; subjects and subject of supervision of the prosecutor in this sphere; providing the prosecutor-procedural manager and prosecutors of the highest level with instructions and instructions during the investigative (search) actions. To address these issues, it is proposed to amend the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine. The study of the materials of criminal proceedings and the survey of the subjects of criminal proceedings indicate the existence of a number of problematic issues that exist during the implementation of the prosecutor's procedural guidance of investigative (search) actions in the context of human rights.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-69
Author(s):  
Diah Ratri Oktavriana ◽  
Nasiri Nasiri

This research is a normative research. One of the fulfillment of human rights is justice in equalizing the position of every citizen before the law, as stated in Article 27 paragraph (1) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia. The right to equality before the law or what is commonly referred to as equality before the law is a principle that provides recognition and protection of human rights for every individual regardless of one's background. Therefore, it is true that Law Number 16 of 2011 concerning Legal Aid for People Who Are Less Capable to Guarantee Constitutional Rights of Citizens for Justice and Equality before the Law emerged. Legal aid is a legal service provided by advocates to the community seeking justice In the realm of criminal cases, the provision of legal assistance is described in Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code which explains that in the interests of defense, a suspect or defendant has the right to receive legal assistance from one or more legal advisers during the time and at each level of examination. The provision of legal assistance must be based on the principle of equality before the law as stated in the explanation of Law Number 8 of 1981 concerning Criminal Procedure Law. From the various analyzes that have been carried out, in the perspective of Islamic criminal law it can be concluded that the principle of equality before the law as described in Article 54 of the Criminal Procedure Code is equivalent to an order to provide legal aid which in Islamic criminal law is spelled out in Surah Al-Maidah verse 2 which states that as a fellow humans are ordered to help each other as a form of horizontal worship to fellow humans (habl minan-nas). In addition there are many more both in the Al Qur'an and the hadith of the prophet regarding the application of the principle of equality before the law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. 71-83
Author(s):  
Justyna Żylińska

The subject of this study is an analysis of the detainee’s right to have contact with a lawyer or solicitor and to direct consultation with them as an element of the right of defence. The right of defence is also applicable with respect to detainees. An important element in the process of its fulfi lment is the real contact of the detainee with a lawyer or solicitor. In particular, it allows the detainee to obtain legal advice, not only with respect to the current procedural situation but also with respect to further legal consequences and ultimately effect the rights of defence to which the detainee is eligible in the manner consistent with his/her actual procedural interests. The author’s intention is to examine the scope and rules of application of the rights of the detainee as set out in Art. 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the analysis of its effect on the detainee’s effective exercising of the right of defence.


Author(s):  
D.V. Tat'yanin

The law of criminal procedure contains a number of rules with different content, which raises a number of questions in their interpretation and application. Decisions made using rules with different content lead to their appeal, often to annulment, which does not ensure the achievement of the appointment of criminal proceedings, but leads to unjustified red tape in criminal proceedings and the delay in making final decisions on them. The need to harmonize criminal procedure rules is related to ensuring high-quality and effective criminal proceedings, ensuring the protection of the rights of participants in criminal proceedings, the quality of the evidence process, both in pre-trial and judicial proceedings. The article addresses the problems of unification of criminal procedure rules containing such concepts as an investigator and urgent investigative actions. It is proposed to eliminate the contradictions in them in order to ensure their uniform application. The introduction of a single concept of investigator and refusal to use the profession of "forensic investigator" in this concept is justified, it is proposed to expand the number of participants who have the right to carry out urgent investigative actions, as well as to assign to them investigative actions carried out at the stage of initiating a criminal case.


Author(s):  
Olga Aivazova ◽  
Galina Vardanyan ◽  
Irina Smirnova

The article discusses some aspects of proving in cases of crimes against legal entities. The criminalistic description of the victim represented by a legal entity determines specific details of applying criminalistic and criminal procedure measures aimed at the identification, investigation, detection and prevention of such crimes. Under the current Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, one of the elements of ordering criminal proceedings is the protection of rights and legal interests of organizations that became victims of crimes. Part 1 of Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation details this guideline for the first time by giving legal entities, viewed as independent subjects of criminal procedure legal relations, the right to be recognized as victims of criminal actions if the crime inflicted damage on their property or business reputation. Nevertheless, the imperfections in the regulation of legal entities’ participation in criminal proceeding, and the insufficient attention to the specifics of realizing their rights and legal interests in comparison with the physical persons of a similar procedural status give rise to numerous problems. The complex of such problems has a negative impact on the effectiveness of investigating this category of crimes and, as a consequence, on the ability of criminal proceedings to produce the intended result. The literal interpretation of Part 1, Art. 42 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation points out that the consequences of such crimes must include the infliction of two types of damage simultaneously — «to property and to business reputation», which can hardly be considered a good de­finition from the standpoint of juridical technique. Quite naturally, the investigation and court practice shows that law enforcers, while collecting proof on the character and size of damage inflicted on legal entities as a result of a crime, usually limit themselves to proving material damage, and even this damage is not proven in full (the common omission being losses of expected income). As for the damage inflicted on business reputation of a legal entity, its establishment during criminal proceedings is still problematic and, in practice, there is usually a gap in proving it. The authors point out that incomplete character of evidentiary information regarding the infliction of damage on the business reputation of legal entities is inadmissible and present their recommendations for resolving this problem, including the use of specialist knowledge and the improvements in the tactics of specific investigatory actions aimed at obtaining criminalistically relevant information on the case.


Author(s):  
V. V. Muryleva-Kazak

The article discusses the issue of the legal nature of the right to compensate harm, the effectiveness of usage of the criminal procedure mechanism for its protection and the reasonableness of the inclusion of relevant in the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.Based on the analysis of judicial practice, it is concluded that the courts have difficulties in determining the appropriate way to protect the right to compensate harm caused in the course of criminal proceedings and the delineation of competence between arbitration courts and courts of general jurisdiction, which leads to a violation of the applicants’ right to access to justice and reduces the effectiveness of judicial protection.In addition, it is concluded that the criminal procedure form is not adapted to the consideration of civil disputes on compensation for harm, the author names the impossibility of collecting lost profits as one of the factors that reduce the effectiveness of the use of the criminal procedural mechanism for protecting property rights.Based on the interpretation of the criminal procedure rules provided in the article, the author concludes that legal entities have an opportunity to use criminal procedure remedies for violated property rights in more cases than individuals, which violates the principle of equality before the law and the court. The article provides ways to solve the identified problems.


2021 ◽  
Vol 66 ◽  
pp. 224-228
Author(s):  
A.-M.Y. Anheleniuk

The article considers the collection of evidence by the prosecution, because it is in this order that the evidence base of criminal proceedings is most often formed. Thus, the prosecutor, investigator (investigator) acting under Articles 36, 40, 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as an employee of the operational unit pursuant to Article 41 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine on behalf of the investigator or prosecutor have the right to collect evidence. The purpose of the article is to study the affiliation of the subjects of evidence collection as part of the procedural form of the criminal process of Ukraine, taking into account the analysis of court decisions, namely the assessment of the evidence base as a basis for deciding on the merits of criminal proceedings. Cases of involvement of an improper subject in the pre-trial investigation, which are common and typical, are systematized. There are two types of improper subjects within the investigative (search) or procedural actions, namely the subject: 1) is not appointed in the manner prescribed by law, although according to current legislation according to the list of its powers may be appropriate; 2) does not have the authority under the law to make a specific decision or to conduct investigative (search) or procedural actions. An analysis of court decisions according to which courts provide an assessment of the procedural activities of the subjects of evidence collection in criminal proceedings at the stage of pre-trial investigation, including their relevance and admissibility. Thus, attention is paid to the assessment of courts on the legality of the presence of persons during investigative (investigative) or procedural actions; the correctness of fixing such a presence. In addition, the situations of appointment of relevant subjects in criminal proceedings to fulfill their powers are considered. It is proposed to supplement the first part of Article 236 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine with a provision that clarifies the grounds for the stay and authority of the employee of the operational and investigative service during the search.


2020 ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
V.S. Suslova ◽  
O.I. Tyshchenko

The article is devoted to the research of topical issues of application of the institute of preventive measures in criminal proceedings on the basis of the analysis of normative provisions of the current criminal procedure legislation and law enforcement practice. It is emphasized that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine 2012 (hereinafter - the CPC of Ukraine) provides for an updated system of preventive measures, unlike the CPC of 1960. Attention is drawn to the degree of restriction of human rights and freedoms in the application of preventive measures. The purpose of this article is to analyze topical issues regarding the grounds and procedural order for the application of preventive measures in criminal proceedings and to offer optimal ways of solving them. The author has come to the conclusion that at this stage criminal procedural legislation in terms of regulation of preventive measures needs improvement. The article investigates the types and reasons for choosing preventive measures, which determined the author's position on the need to consolidate at the legislative level the definition of the term "preventive measures". The scientific positions of different authors on the issues related to the application of preventive measures are analyzed, in particular, the views of the processional scientists on the concept of "preventive measures". This made it possible to demonstrate the existence of a rather wide range of scientific proposals for defining this concept at the legislative level. Attention is drawn to the fact that, in practice, the right of a person to liberty and personal integrity when choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention is quite often unduly restricted. The materials of the case law, legal provisions of the ECtHR, Letter of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on Civil and Criminal Matters "On Some Issues of Preventive Measures During Pre-trial Investigation and Proceeding in the Procedure Provided by the Criminal Procedure" Code of Ukraine of 04.04.2013 are used.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document