scholarly journals Protection of Human Rights in the Criminal Procedure Legislation of the Republic Of Uzbekistan and Improved Reforms Taking Into Account Foreign Experience

2021 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 1102-1115
Author(s):  
Botirjon Khayitbayevich Ruzmetov

In this article author had searched the questions devoted the protection of human rights in the criminal procedure legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan and comparing with the legislation and worldwide experience of the foreign states.The article reveals the ongoing liberalization of the criminal law policy in the Republic of Uzbekistan, which is aimed at expanding human and fair norms, strengthening the protection of the rights, legitimate interests of a person andsociety. Against this background, the significance of investigative actions and the theory of evidence in the country's criminal procedural legislation is being revised. The development of science and technology leads to the improvement of methods of committing crimes using computer technology, taking into account which the timely disclosure and effective investigation of socially dangerous acts requires extensive use of mathematical tools and computer technologies.In this regard, changes are taking place in the investigative practice aimed at increasing knowledge in the field of computer technologies among law enforcement officials and increasing the responsibility of the personal of the investigative and judicial authorities in the implementation of their activities.The author emphasizes that despite significant restrictions on the rights and legitimate interests of a person in the conduct of investigative actions, all of them are necessary for obtaining sufficient evidence to expose the guilt of the offender, in the manner prescribed by law.Compliance by investigators, prosecutors and judges of all criminal procedural requirements established by the legislation of the country is a key requirement for the recognition of evidence as lawful and sufficient for a fair sentence.It should be noted that the article highlights that, since 1994, the Criminal Procedure Code of Uzbekistan enshrines the right to defense by involving a lawyer in the case from the moment a person is detained on suspicion of committing a crime, as well as the principle of equality of arms in criminal proceedings. An addition to the liberalization of legislation is the fact that now the courts are freed from such unusual functions as the execution of court decisions.In addition, the article expands on the author's proposals for improving the legislation of Uzbekistan, as well as expanding the power of lawyers, especially in the conduct of investigative actions, aimed at expanding the process of liberalization of criminal law in the country and improving the situation with the protection of human rights in the investigation of criminal cases.

2013 ◽  
pp. 653-665
Author(s):  
Natasa Mrvic-Petrovic ◽  
Zdravko Petrovic

The legal basis of state responsibility for damage caused by unfair sentence or unfounded arrest is the need to protect fundamental human rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and generally accepted international rules. The right to compensation on this basis (although subjective civil right) has a sui generis legal nature, because it is connected with the protection of human rights. Joint public-private legal nature of such a request is expressed in the legislation of the Republic of Serbia, because the circle of authorized persons and the conditions under which they may be entitled to compensation is determined by the criminal procedural rules, while the existence of a legally recognized forms of damage and the extent to which the damage may be reimbursed is estimated according to the general rules of Law of obligations. While the legislation is very progressive, it is observed that, in practice, the applications for compensation are usually submitted because of the most unreasonable detention of up to one month or three months, and the inefficiency of the criminal proceedings, suspended upon the expiration of the absolute limitation of prosecution. The state could easily affect these practices. Also, the priority of state must be meeting its financial obligations with regard to final adjustments, and the imposition of demands for compensation.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 102-121

As of 2020, 70 years have passed since the day of the adoption of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which Ukraine ratified in September 1997. It was from this date that the countdown to significant democratic transformations in Ukraine and the establishment of human and civil rights and freedoms began. In this article, the authors raise relevant issues of reforming the criminal process of Ukraine in the context of European standards. The old Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine was adopted in 1960 and was in force for almost half a century. During this time, it became obsolete and bore a significant imprint of the Soviet past, which was manifest in both the bodies that conducted the trial and had primarily repressive powers and the public interests that dominated the rights and legitimate interests of those involved in criminal justice. The conditions under which the first steps aimed at realising the importance of the Convention and the value of human rights enshrined in it took place were not easy. The path of reform processes in criminal proceedings was associated with the confrontation of the Soviet past with modern transformation. It was difficult to realise the need to harmonise national legislation with European standards of human rights and freedoms and consolidate their perception as one of the necessary conditions for Ukraine’s integration into the European legal space, as well as the need for a conceptually new worldview for both the people of Ukraine and law enforcement bodies – officers, judges, and prosecutors. The authors summarise the most important decisions of the ECtHR made on complaints against Ukraine during the period of the reform of criminal procedure legislation, analyse the problems identified by the ECtHR, and illustrate how the legislator implemented the ECtHR standards in national criminal procedure legislation. They note that on the basis of the Convention and the case-law of the ECtHR in criminal procedure legislation, important principles of criminal proceedings, such as adversarial proceedings, direct examination of evidence, the right to defence, the right not to testify against oneself and close relatives, and reasonable time are legitimised. For the first time, the legislation of Ukraine has enshrined a rule on the inadmissibility of evidence obtained as a result of a significant violation of human rights and freedoms. A separate segment of the article is devoted to the consideration of amendments to the criminal procedure legislation regarding the protection of the rights and legitimate interests of a person in respect of whom a measure of restraint in the form of custody is chosen. In order to ensure the right of a person to liberty and security, the position of an investigating judge and the institute of free legal aid have been introduced. In addition, the authors focus on the aspects of direct application of the Convention and ECtHR decisions in law enforcement practice without amending the legislation, as well as analyse the legislative perspectives arising from non-implemented ECtHR decisions. Keywords: European convention; human rights; criminal procedure; principles of criminal procedure; Ukraine; freedom from self-disclosure; the right not to testify against close relatives and family members; the right to defence.


Author(s):  
Viktoriia V. Haltsova ◽  
Sergiy O. Kharytonov ◽  
Oleksandr M. Khramtsov ◽  
Oleksandr O. Zhytnyi ◽  
Andrii A. Vasyliev

This paper is a comprehensive study of the problems of criminal law as a remedy for human rights and freedoms in the modern world. The relevance of this subject lies in the systematic violations of constitutional human rights and freedoms and the inaction of the criminal law in such cases. Nowadays, the criminal law as a remedy for human rights and freedoms in national and international law is described by imperfection in its adaptation to rapidly changing social relations, which, accordingly, leads to problems in their legal protection. There are various reasons for this in the legal sphere, such as gaps in the legal provisions, conflicts of legal regulation and inconsistency of the rules of legislation with existing public relations in the state. All of the above determines the relevance of the subject matter of this study. Thus, the purpose of this study was a comprehensive analysis of theoretical and applied issues relating to the remedies for human rights and legitimate interests against socially dangerous encroachments, and the formulation of scientifically sound proposals for improving the current legislation of Ukraine and the practice of its application in this area. Ultimately, this study identified the legal characteristics of human rights and freedoms at both the national and international levels. The remedies for rights were demonstrated through the lens of criminal law. In addition, the study analysed the forms of implementation of international practice in the national legislation of Ukraine as a remedy for human rights and freedoms in the modern world. The significance of the results of this study was expressed in the further research of related subjects concerning this issue, namely the history of the development of EU criminal law standards and the historical establishment of the concept of human and citizen rights and legitimate interests. Furthermore, the materials of this study can be used in the preparation of educational materials, methodological recommendations, as well as training in various fields of legal science. This, in turn, will allow properly using the criminal law protection of human rights and freedoms without violations on the part of criminal justice bodies


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.


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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 792
Author(s):  
Talgat T. DYUSSEBAYEV ◽  
Aizhan A. AMANGELDY ◽  
Talgat T. BALASHOV ◽  
Ainur A. AKIMBAYEVA ◽  
Kuanysh ARATULY ◽  
...  

In the process of reforming the criminal procedure legislation, the institution of the prosecutor’s office has become one of its important aspects. The judiciary, being one of the independent and autonomous branches of power in criminal proceedings, which is a system of protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, is by far the most effective structure for protecting human rights. The article reveals the essence of judicial control and prosecutorial supervision, identifies a number of problems in the form of potential threats to ensure the rights and legitimate interests of a suspect (accused) in this form of preliminary investigation. As a result of the study, the following was stated. The current provisions of the CIS constitutions regulating the sphere of human rights and freedoms have made it possible to single out separate independent areas in the activities of the prosecutor’s office. Based on the practical problems that arise in the conditions of the new Criminal Procedure Code in the CIS countries, the authors consider it reasonable that the current oversight functions assigned to the prosecution authorities in ensuring the rights and freedoms of a suspect and an accused during the investigation, necessitate further special studies with the aim of development of evidence-based proposals for their resolution.  


2019 ◽  
pp. 137-144
Author(s):  
Serhii Krushynskyi

The article is devoted to the analysis of some problematic questions related to the duty of proving of civil suit in criminal proceedings in Ukraine. In the criminal procedure doctrine there is no unanimous opinion of which subjects are required to engage into proving activities aimed at detection of civil suit circumstances in criminal proceedings. Concepts «duty of proving» and «burden of proving» are delineated by author. The position that the burden of proving is determined by the interests of participants in criminal proceedings was supported. The content of the burden of proving of civil suit in criminal proceedings covers the need to representation of evidence to justify (or refute) the amount of property damage, the depth of the suffering, and the amount of property compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The material and procedural interest of the civil plaintiff and the civil defendant in the outcome of the criminal proceedings encourages them to take an active part in the criminal procedural proving, in particular by representation of evidence available to them. The publicity (officiality) of criminal proceedings causes differences in the procedure for proving the grounds and size of a civil suit in criminal proceedings compared to civil proceedings. It is concluded that the duty of proving of civil suit circumstances lies on the prosecution party (investigator, prosecutor). The civil plaintiff, the civil defendant, their representatives are complete subjects of proving, but their activity in proving is a right, but not a duty. For the successful performance of their procedural functions, the defense of their legitimate interests, these persons are empowered to represent evidence, to participate in their research. So, they are given the opportunity to contribute to the correct resolution of criminal proceedings, in particular in the civil suit part. The subjects involved in the criminal proceedings who have a duty of proving should provide a possibility of realization of the right to represent evidence by other participants in the process.


2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 7-21
Author(s):  
Natalia Banach ◽  

The issue of exemption from the attorney-client privilege and the nature of this attorney-client privilege is widely discussed both in the literature on the subject and in the doctrine. In order to analyze this subject, it was necessary to interpret the provisions of the Law on the Bar Ac (26 May 1982), the provisions of the Code of Bar Ethics (23 December 2011) the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (2 April 1997), both guarantees enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Rights of liberty from 1950. The interpretation was made in conjunction with Polish case law common courts and case law of the European Court of Human Rights. This also presents the view of the polish Ombudsman’s Office. Given that the professional secrecy of lawyers is an inseparable element of justice, it would be wrong to omit the generally accepted moral norms of society in relation to the procedural role of a lawyer. The thesis put forward that the professional secrecy of lawyers is part of the implementation of the right to a fair trial and the right to respect for private life. The purpose of the work was to emphasize the essence of lawyers’ secrecy as an inseparable element of defense of the parties to the proceedings and to indicate interpretation differences between Polish courts and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-125
Author(s):  
Ewa Wójcicka

Summary This paper focuses specifically on the fundamental part of the right to a fair trial, namely access to a court. The aim of this article is an attempt to analyse the difference between the requirements of European standards and how they are reflected in Polish legislation. First of all, I am going to analyze basic European standards specified in Article 6(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Recommendation Rec(2004)20 on the judicial review of administrative acts and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Then I will focus on selected aspects of the problem of judicial review of administrative acts specified in the Act of 30th August 2002 Law on Proceedings before Administrative Courts. I will discuss several specific topics from this field, which can be considered as crucial in relation to access to court, namely: definition of terms for access to justice by an individual, exhausting administrative remedies before judicial review, locus standi and legal aid.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document