Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 4 November 1950 - Right to life - Deprivation of life - Lawfulness of the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials - Absolute necessity - Article 53 Italian Criminal Code

2003 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 237-241
Author(s):  
MARCO FASCIGLIONE
2021 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-92
Author(s):  
Emir Ćorović

Life imprisonment was introduced to Serbian Criminal legislation with the amendments of Criminal Code from 2019. These amendments replaced the former penalty of imprisonment from 30 to 40 years. Special attention was drawn by the fact that the new legislation allows the possibility of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for committing certain crimes. This legal solution is considered not to be in accordance with the Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Still, the prohibition of parole was introduced to Serbian criminal law in 2013, with the adoption of the Law on the special measures for the prevention of crimes against sexual freedom towards minors. However, at that time the academic community did not give the attention it deserved to the justification of this prohibition, which by itself generates many concerns. That is why, when discussing the problematics of life imprisonment and parole, and its prohibition, one has to bear in mind the previously structured legal frame, as well as the concerns that such a prohibition creates, regardless of whether it not it relates to life imprisonment or timely limited imprisonment.


2006 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 83-96
Author(s):  
Momčilo Grubač

This Article represents author's reaction to the idea of initiating preparation of the new Serbian Criminal Procedural Law and achieving this goal in a short term of several months. The author thinks that this idea is uwustifiable for several reasons. Instead of drafting the new criminal code we shall take into consideration what has already been done, and we shall proceed with the reform by amending and supplementing the existing Criminal Code, by making it legally perfect in respect of several clearly defined issues, which obviously require such intervention. The author makes references to seven issues that require consideration in the reform of Serbian criminal procedural law. According to him it is necessary to: [1] make a final draft of the Criminal Code; [2] amend Criminal Code and add more detailed provisions on witness protection and protection of inured persons in the criminal procedure; [3] remove the provision on international criminal assistance and extradition from the Criminal Code and adopt a State Union law; [4] potentially change the model of investigation proceedings, by transferring investigation to the competence of the state prosecution or police and referring to the investigating judge so that he can only pass decisions on limitation of human rights during the proceedings; [5] re-evaluate once more whether the Criminal Code is in compliance with European Convention on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms [6] harmonize the Criminal Code with later adopted constitutional provisions (Constitutional Charter 2003) and with the provisions of new Criminal Code 2005; [7] take into consideration justifiable objections of the court practice.


2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1439-1444
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Marina M. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović

The paper is dedicated to ne bis in idem principle, which is a fundamental human right safeguarded by Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This principle is sometimes also referred to as double jeopardy.The principle implies that no one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted (internal ne bis in idem principle), and that in some other State or before the International Court (ne bis in idem principle in respect of the relations between the states or the State and the International Court) the procedure may not be conducted if the person has already been sentenced or acquitted. The identity of the indictable act (idem), the other component of this principle, is more complex and more difficult to be determined than the first one (ne bis).The objective of this principle is to secure the legal certainty of citizens who must be liberated of uncertainty or fear that they would be tried again for the same criminal offence that has already been decided by a final and binding decision. This principle is specific for the accusative and modern system of criminal procedure but not for the investigative criminal procedure, where the possibility for the bindingly finalised criminal procedure to be repeated on the basis of same evidence and regarding the same criminal issue existed. In its legal nature, a circumstance that the proceedings are pending on the same criminal offence against the same accused, represents a negative procedural presumption and, therefore, an obstacle for the further course of proceedings, i.e. it represents the procedural obstacle which prevents an initiation of new criminal procedure for the same criminal case in which the final and binding condemning or acquitting judgement has been passed (exceptio rei iudicatae).The right not to be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which s/he has already been finally convicted or acquitted is provided for, primarily, by the International Documents (Article 14, paragraph 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms). The International framework has also been given to ne bis in idem principle through three Conventions adopted by the Council of Europe and those are the European Convention on Extradition and Additional Protocols thereto, the European Convention on the Transfer of Proceedings in Criminal Matters, and the European Convention on the International Validity of Criminal Judgments.Ne bis in idem principle is traditionally associated with the right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Likewise, no derogation from Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 shall be made under Article 15 of the Convention at the time of war or other state of emergency which is threatening the survival of the nation (Article 4, paragraph 3 of Protocol No. 7). Thereby it is categorised as the irrevocable conventional right together with the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery, and the legality principle. Similarly, ne bis in idem principle does not apply in the case of the renewed trials by the International criminal courts where the first trial was conducted in some State, while the principle is applicable in the reversed situation. The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia could have conducted a trial even if a person had already been adjudicated in some State, in the cases provided for by its Statute and in the interest of justice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document