scholarly journals Review of the Specific Principles of the Activities and Responsibilities of the Procedural Bodies as the Ways to Ensure the Rights of Individuals and Citizens in the Application of Preventive Measures in Vietnam

Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 156-160
Author(s):  
Thanh Do
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Practical Significance ◽  
Socialist Republic ◽  
National Assembly ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Research Goal ◽  
General Scientific

Introduction: on November 27, 2015, the 10th session of the XIII National Assembly of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam adopted the Code of Criminal Procedure, which entered into force on January 1, 2018. This has become an important legal basis for organizing the investigative and judicial activities aimed at combating crime, as well as for securing guarantees for the protection of human rights and citizens. The purpose of the study was to analyze a number of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2015, which set out the principles of activity and responsibilities of the procedural bodies, from the point of view of ensuring the protection of human rights when applying preventive measures. The achievement of the research goal is determined by solving the following tasks: revealing the fundamental principles of the activity of the procedural bodies, establishing the practical significance of their consolidation in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2015. Applying the general scientific research methods, namely, comparing the current provisions of the legal acts, their generalization, the author drew the following conclusions: in order to ensure the protection of human rights and citizens in the application of preventive measures, to create conditions for their effective implementation in practical application in Vietnam, the Criminal Procedure Code of Vietnam of 2015 was supplemented with a number of relevant provisions, in particular, the specific principles of activity and responsibilities of the procedural bodies were fixed as the ways to ensure the rights of people and citizens when applying preventive measures.

scholarly journals Konstytucyjne aspekty procesu karnego w działalności Rzecznika Praw Obywatelskich

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 205-211
Author(s):  
Stanisław Trociuk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Public Prosecution ◽  
The Public ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Individual

The changes in the broadly conceived criminal procedure which were introduced in recent years refer to the problems which are crucial from the perspective of the protection of human rights, such as the scope of the authority of the services due to operational control which is conducted secretly, the model of the functioning of the public prosecution service or the unlawful acquiring of evidence in a criminal procedure. The evaluation of these changes, conducted by the Ombudsman from the point of view of the constitutional standards of the protection of the rights of the individual is not positive. The new regulations reduce the quality of these standards and they do not contain sufficient guarantees of protection against the arbitrariness of the activities engaged in these terms by the organs of public authority. This phenomenon imposes a particular duty on the courts – which hear criminal cases – to see that the final decision in a criminal case respects the universal standards of the protection of human rights.

DEFINITION OF THE PUBLIC SECURITY AND ORDERLINESS ENSURING MECHANISM IN UKRAINE

2018 ◽  
Vol 1 (11) ◽  
pp. 155-163
Author(s):  
Marina Aleksandrovna Kalievskaya
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Development Strategy ◽  
State Policy ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Public Security ◽  
National Priority ◽  
Institu Tions ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Definition Of

In this article, a model of the mechanism of ensuring public security and orderliness in accordance with the principles and tasks of the relevant institu- tions in public administration, taking into account resources, technologies, mea- sures for the state policy implementation in the spheres of ensuring the protection of human rights and freedoms, the interests of society and the state, combating crime, maintaining public security and order. It was found that ensuring public security and order in Ukraine is a mechanism for the implementation of national goals of state policy in the areas of ensuring the protection of human rights and freedoms, the interests of society and the state, combating crime, maintaining public security and order, by defining tasks according to certain principles. The idea is that if one considers the state policy in the spheres of ensuring the protec- tion of human rights and freedoms, the interests of society and the state, combat- ing crime, maintaining public security and order as a national priority (purpose, task), then the mechanism of ensuring public security and order in Ukraine needs coordination with the state development strategy. From the point of view of the implementation of the state policy in the areas of ensuring the protection of hu- man rights and freedoms, the interests of society and the state, combating crime, maintaining public security and order, the mechanism of ensuring public security and order in Ukraine can be considered as the main system providing intercon- nection such elements as institutions (implementing the specified state policy), resources (human resources, logistical, natural and so on, with the help of which it is possible to implement state policy), technologies (skills, knowledge, means and so on the implementation of state policy), measures (action plans), as well as external (internal) threats.

scholarly journals NE BIS IN IDEM PRINCIPLE IN THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA AND COURTS’ JURISPRUDENCE

2019 ◽  
Vol 34 (5) ◽  
pp. 1439-1444
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Marina M. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Offence ◽  
Ne Bis In Idem ◽  
International Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

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.

scholarly journals Direitos humanos, descolonialismo e a contribuição brasileira para (re)interpretação dos conceitos de asilo e de refúgio

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 141-155
Author(s):  
Eduardo Biacchi Gomes ◽  
Ane Elise Brandalise Gonçalves
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
American System ◽  
Brazilian Legislation ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Current Context ◽  
America Latina ◽  
Do So

O presente artigo tem por fim analisar, sob a ótica do descolonialismo, os avanços da legislação brasileira em relação aos critérios para concessão do asilo. Para tanto, parte-se do próprio conceito de descolonialismo e a sua aplicabilidade dentro do contexto atual para construção dos Direitos Humanos na América Latina, de forma a cotejar com a nova legislação brasileira em relação aos critérios para fins de concessão de asilo e de refúgio. Por fim, de forma a demonstrar a importância do tema frente ao Sistema Interamericano de Proteção aos Direitos Humanos, questionar-se-á quanto a possibilidade de referidos temas serem analisados por parte da Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos (Corte IDH). Abstract: The purpose of this article is to analyze, from the point of view of decolonialism, the advances of Brazilian legislation in relation to the criteria for granting asylum. In order to do so, it is based on the very concept of decolonialism and its applicability within the current context for the construction of Human Rights in Latin America, in order to compare with the new Brazilian legislation in relation to the criteria for granting asylum and refuge. Finally, in order to demonstrate the importance of the issue in the Inter-American System for the Protection of Human Rights, it will be questioned whether the above-mentioned issues can be analyzed by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

scholarly journals The Forms of Criminal Prosecution

Legal Concept ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 167-175
Author(s):  
Ilya Dikarev ◽  
◽  
Sailaubek Baymanov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
Scientific Methods ◽  
Theoretical Position ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
General Scientific ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Common

Introduction: the paper discusses the possibility of differentiating the forms of criminal prosecution. The critical analysis is subject to the widespread position in the science of criminal procedure that the forms of criminal prosecution are suspicion and accusation. This point of view is based on the conclusion that the content of criminal prosecution varies depending on the degree of proof of the guilt of the person subject to criminal prosecution. Concerning compliance with the principle of adversarial parties, the theoretical position is also evaluated, according to which one of the forms of criminal prosecution is conviction. The question of the grounds for differentiating the forms of criminal prosecution is studied. Purpose: the confirming the unified nature of the criminal prosecution carried out during the pretrial proceedings, regardless of the procedural position of the person accused of committing the crime. Methods: the paper uses the general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, a systematic approach, as well as specific scientific methods: legal interpretation and logical-legal. The methodological framework was the dialectical method. Results: the study of the common position in the science of criminal procedure, according to which criminal prosecution at different stages of its implementation consistently takes the forms of suspicion and accusation, showed its inconsistency. From the standpoint of philosophy, the content always has a determining value, and the form is always determined. Accordingly, to establish a change in the form of criminal prosecution, it is necessary to make sure that the content of this activity changes. However, the degree of proof of the person’s involvement in the crime is not reflected in the content of the accusatory activity, it remains the same. Therefore, suspicion and accusation do not form the independent forms of criminal prosecution. At the same time, the differentiation of the forms of criminal prosecution is possible, but on different grounds. Conclusions: the differentiation of the forms of criminal prosecution should be made depending on, first, the organization of procedural activities that determine the role and powers of the subject of criminal prosecution in the process of proof; secondly, the procedural status of the participant in the criminal process on the part of the prosecution and, thirdly, the content of the fact in issue.

scholarly journals The state liability for damages caused by its judicial authorities

2003 ◽  
Vol 75 (9-10) ◽  
pp. 409-422
Author(s):  
Nikola Mihailović
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Council Of Europe ◽  
Member States ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
State Liability ◽  
Domestic Law

A breach of any right or freedom under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, leads to but is not limited to liability of the State for damages. That liability is much stricter than the State liability for damage provided according to the domestic law provisions currently in force. The current provisions on State liability for the work of its judiciary do not include the damage caused by improper interpretation and application of the relevant legal provisions. In contrast, the liability of the Council of Europe Member States for the damage caused by their judicial and other authorities, through the breach of the human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Convention includes their liability for improper interpretation and application of the relevant provisions of the Convention. That liability is so strict that it in fact comes equal to no-fault liability, from the point of view of its legal consequences. This is so, although it is regulated only as a presumed liability for which there are no grounds of limitation. As a result, two systems of liability for damage caused by judicial authorities will exist in our State Union and in its member states, after the ratification of the aforementioned Convention: liability pursuant to the domestic legal provisions and liability pursuant to the Convention. For that reason, a reform of the provisions on liability is necessary, which will lead to tightening of liability for damage caused by judiciary pursuant to the domestic rules. How to achieve this is a separate issue, which will not be discussed on this occasion.

scholarly journals Remedies and Sanctions for Non-Compliance with the Aspects Aiming at the Authorization and Development of Supervision and Research Special Methods

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-16
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Entire Procedure

The distinction between the notion of sanction and that of remedy is very important from the perspective of the present analysis, as the idea of sanction implies, in addition to bringing the whole criminal process within lex limits and the idea of punitive, sanctioning the individual’s conduct, the last being the basis of the institution, while the notion of remedy pursues and at the same time places in the main plan the idea of safeguarding the entire procedure by trying to keep the procedural and processual activities within reasonable limits. From the perspective of the analysis of the existence and the need to implement the legislation, we can easily conclude in the regard that these methods, techniques are intrusive. Thus, in order to be able to determine the concrete content of the intrusion, we must appeal to the principles of criminal processual law. The latter principles benefit both from a framework regulation in the Fundamental Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but also from an internal regulation in the Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by Law no. 255/2013 for the implementation of Law 135/2010 on the Code of Criminal Procedure and for amending and supplementing some normative acts that include criminal procedural provisions.

scholarly journals Problems of protection of human rights in criminal procedure under the conditions of pandemic

2020 ◽  
pp. 23-32
Author(s):  
Lyudmila Mil'tonovna Volodina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Russian Federation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Nonstandard Conditions ◽  
The Russian Federation

The object of this research is the relations on protection of human rights in criminal procedure justice in under the conditions of pandemic. The subject of this research is analysis of the activity of law enforcement and judicial systems in the country’s current situation. The proliferation of coronavirus infection in the Russian Federation generated pervasive problems in this area. Recommendations contained in the Decisions of the Presidium of the Supreme Court and the Presidium of the Council of Judges of the Russian Federation of March 18, 2020 and April 8, 2020 did not clarify the law enforcement practice, which led to ambiguity in the interpretation of certain provisions of these documents. The situation that formed in the country as a result of COVID-19 pandemic requires rationalization of a number of issues on the protection of human rights in nonstandard conditions of the work of judicial and law enforcement systems. Information from the open sources published on the Internet served as the foundation for this research. The conducted analysis is valuable for understanding the current situation, as well as for making appropriate decisions that are instrumental for the future. Based on the acquired results, the makes recommendations aimed at improvement of separate institutions of criminal law and criminal procedure law, namely Institution of the statute of limitations, institution of the suspension of proceedings in a criminal case. The scientific novelty consists in the exact wording of indicated recommendations on amending the current criminal procedure legislation.

scholarly journals The position of victims in Serbia: Criminal procedure and possibilities of restorative justice

Temida ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vesna Nikolic-Ristanovic ◽  
Sanja Copic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Restorative Justice ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Support Service ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
The Other ◽  
Victim Support ◽  
The One ◽  
The Way

In the paper, the authors deal with the victim"s position in the criminal procedure, on the one hand side, and the possibilities of implementing restorative justice and its importance for the improvement of victim"s position in Serbia, on the other one. In the first part of the paper, the authors point out victim"s position within the criminal procedure and the noticed gaps, which are particularly reflected in insufficient paying attention to the victim and neglecting of his/her rights and needs. This is opposite to the strengthening of the rights of the accused party that characterizes societies, which are, as our society, on the way of democratization and improvement of human rights. In the second part of the paper, the authors analyze some solutions that introduce elements of restorative justice into our system of criminal response to crime, but from the victim"s point of view. Finally, the authors also point out some further steps that should be undertaken in order to improve the victim"s position, particularly emphasizing the place and role of victim support service, witness service and special facilities in the courts for victims/witnesses, possibilities of using victim-offender mediation before reporting the crime, or staring the prosecution, or as a part of the treatment in the prison etc.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document