scholarly journals CORRECTIVE MEASURES IN THE FEDERATION OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (41) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miodrag Simović ◽  
Dragan Jovašević ◽  
Marina Simović
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Important Measure ◽  
Corrective Measures ◽  
Social Reaction ◽  
Similar Content ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
Different Content

By the adoption of the Protection and Treatment of Children andJuveniles in Criminal Procedure Act 2014(which started applying in early 2015)the criminal and legal position of juvenile perpetrators of criminal offences inthe Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina was regulated in a new way. TheRepublika Srpska and Brčko District of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been applyinglaws of similar content from before. Education measures are providedas the most important measure of social reaction towards these persons. Thelaw recognizes several types of these measures with different content, purpose,duration and manner of implementation which are subject matter of this paper.

scholarly journals Complexity of the criminal procedural legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its entities

2007 ◽  
Vol 79 (9) ◽  
pp. 396-416
Author(s):  
Vesna Stojković
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Anglo Saxon ◽  
The Subject

The subject of the paper is a short analytic elaboration of development of criminal procedure in Bosnia & Herzegovina and its entities during the period since disintegration of former Yugoslavia till today. The goal is also presentation of the most important new law solutions which are primarily result of the influence of elements of Anglo-Saxon criminal procedure as well as presentation of proces of unification & centralization the criminal procedure at the level of Bosnia & Herzegovina state.

scholarly journals HARMONIZATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AS A MEANS OF ENSURING THEIR UNIFORM APPLICATION

2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-514
Author(s):  
D.V. Tat'yanin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Red Tape ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right ◽  
Different Content

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.

scholarly journals A LOOK INSIDE COOPERATION BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-77
Author(s):  
Dževad Mahmutović ◽  
◽  
Berina Huskanović ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Crime Scene ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Legal Regulation ◽  
Crime Scene Investigation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Scene Investigation ◽  
Mutual Relations

The paper deals with crime scene investigation as a measure of inquiry, conceptually and substantially, subjects of investigation, as well as their mutual relations. The analysis of the existing legal framework suggests that the current Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina offers the appropriate basis for the cooperation between prosecutors and law enforcement. However, previous practice indicates certain shortcomings in the cooperation and coordination between prosecutors and law enforcement. With this paper, the authors wanted to examine the opinions of direct actors on this matter. The results show that they are satisfied with the legal regulation of their mutual relations during investigations, and they express positive opinions in terms of their cooperation. Of course, the possibility of improving that cooperation is also noted, and the methods of achieving it should be identified in further research.

scholarly journals ON THE LEGAL POSITION OF A WITNESS UNDERGOING A PUBLIC CRIMINAL PROSECUTION PROCESS

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 23-26
Author(s):  
Andrey A. Boyarintsev ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Case ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Legal Position

In the article, the author considers the category of “witness under suspicion”, specifying that within the framework of criminal procedure science, the study of the legal nature of this phenomenon is very relevant due to the approach demonstrated by the legislator to endow participants in criminal procedure relations who have signs that do not allow them to be fully attributed to any of the existing categories with an independent procedural status. The author also provides a justification for the need to review the existing legal mechanisms for ensuring the procedural interests of a witness against whom actual criminal prosecution is being carried out, and raises the problem of using the evidence obtained as a result of such activities to expose the accused in a criminal case.

From Questioning Notes to Audiovisual Videoconferencing — Refl ections on the Evolution of the Model of Hearing a Witness Against the Background of the Solutions Adopted in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1928 and 1997

2019 ◽  
Vol Special Issue ◽  
pp. 105-124
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Choromańska
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Sound Transmission ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Historical Factors ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Comparative Nature

The paper addresses legal solutions concerning the model of witness interviewing. The discussion is of comparative nature, as it refers both to the regulations contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1928, as well as to the provisions of the current criminal procedure. It aims at a synthetic analysis of key changes in the model of interviewing a witness taking into consideration historical factors, as well as their impact on the current shape of the provisions in the Criminal Procedure Regulation. While reviewing legal solutions, the author pays special attention to the process of questioning at a distance supported by devices enabling simultaneous image and sound transmission. This issue is discussed in many aspects, taking into account the views of the doctrine and the analysis of case law. Apart from the assessment of the current legal status in genere, the paper also presents the proposals of solutions in the subject matter.

scholarly journals Guilty Plea Agreement in Proceedings Before the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia / Sporazum o priznanju krivice u postupku pred međunarodnim krivičnim tribunalom za bivšu jugoslaviju

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 242
Author(s):  
Radenko Janković
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Criminal Sanction ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Guilty Plea ◽  
Special Place ◽  
The Hague

Guilty plea agreement is a new legal concept in the criminal procedure legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina that was accepted under foreign influences. While frequently applied, a number of contentious issues still remain. To resolve them it is necessary to study the agreement in other legislations. A special place here belongs to the procedure and practice of The Hague Tribunal and the Office of the Prosecution that influenced its standardization in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As a result, certain solutions are specific and do not exist in legislations of other countries of the former Yugoslavia such as, for instance, a separate hearing for the imposition of criminal sanction following the agreement’s acceptance. At the time of its introduction in the Bosnia and Herzegovina legislation, the Statute and the Rules of the Hague Tribunal were well-known, just like the practice created in proceedings before it and the Hague Office of the Prosecution. The majority of indictees before the Hague Tribunal were citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with many lawyers from Bosnia and Herzegovina acting as defence counsels. An examination of this issue contributes to a better understating of this principle, enables more proper application, but should, also, lead to better legal solutions.

scholarly journals Deciphering the Composition of Section 79- Assessment Panels in the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 4 of 2017

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Letitia Pienaar
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Professional ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Mental Health Professional ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Fitness To Stand Trial ◽  
Violent Offence ◽  
Legal Position

Section 79 of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 provides for the appointment of mental health professionals to assess an accused’s fitness to stand trial and/or criminal capacity if the court orders such an enquiry in terms of sections 77 and 78 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In terms of section 79, one mental health professional must assess an accused charged with a non-violent offence, whereas a panel of such professionals must assess an accused charged with an offence involving serious violence. The legislative provisions regarding the appointment of mental health professionals to a section 79-assessment panel are not without ambiguity. Section 79(1)(b) read with section 79(13) is problematic. Directives issued by the National Prosecuting Authority in terms of section 79(13) do not aid in clarifying the legal position either. The main point of contention is whether a section 79-assessment panel must consist of a minimum of two or three psychiatrists. This ambiguity creates challenges for presiding officers tasked with appointing section 79-assessment panels. When presiding officers appoint these panels incorrectly, it causes delays in the assessment process and the delivery of justice to the accused and the victim. The court considered the interplay between section 79(1)(b) and section 79(13) in S v Pedro 2015 1 SACR 41 (WCC). The judgment highlights the need to clarify the position in the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the appointment of section 79-assessment panels. This case provided the impetus for the amendment of section 79 through the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 4 of 2017. This contribution explores the composition of section 79-assessment panels as provided for in the Criminal Procedure Act. Section 79(1)(b) and the seemingly contradictory provisions contained in section 79(13) are discussed. The S v Pedro judgment is discussed with a specific focus on the court’s interpretation of the interplay between these two provisions. Following the S v Pedro judgment, the Criminal Procedure Amendment Act 4 of 2017 amended section 79. This contribution explores the clarifying provisions of the Amendment Act regarding the composition of assessment panels

The subject of proof in criminal procedure

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (XIX) ◽  
pp. 65-77
Author(s):  
Jerzy Konieczny
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Trial ◽  
Evidential Reasoning ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Subject

In the theory of evidential reasoning in a criminal trial, there is a discrepancy in the subject matter of proof. There are two main positions. The first one states that the object of proof is fact, while the second one is a statement expressed in a sentence. The article presents a possible solution to this controversy. The starting point is the observation that the bearers of truth are statements/sentences. Therefore, since truth is one of the basic values in criminal proceedings, it results that the object of proof is a claim. Secondly, in the course of evidential reasoning is carried out in the form of thought operations - these can only be carried out with the use of sentences. The article ends with an conclusion that the object of evidence is a proposition; proving the fact is epistemologically impossible. Such a solution seems to be beneficial for the theory of proof, as it may improve the quality of evidential reasoning, including the quality of justifications of verdicts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document