Judicial Legal Culture and Victim Procedural Status at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia

This chapter examines the relationship between judicial legal culture and victim procedural practices at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC). Starting with judicial composition, judges are categorized by their professional and educational backgrounds and legal cultures before assuming their STL/ECCC judicial positions: whether they originate from the common law/adversarial system, the civil law/inquisitorial system, or the ‘international’ system. The chapter then investigates connections between STL/ECCC practices concerning victim procedural status and the typical features of these legal cultures. Overall, it is argued that there is a direct relationship between the legal culture of judges and their judicial practices. The chapter explains how STL and ECCC judges have adapted several civil law/inquisitorial and common law/adversarial features to make victim procedural status fit the mandate and characteristics of the STL and ECCC, namely, the presence of sui generis international features.

The Concept of Plea Bargain in an Ethical Society

The current Criminal Procedure Code has introduced several elements specific to adversarial law. Among these specific elements, I consider that a special impact on those interested in or targeted by the dispositions of criminal law is "negotiated justice". Traditionally, in the field of ​​criminal procedural law, several institutions specific to the continental system have been adopted in our country, that impose for the diagnosis of the legal problem, so that in criminal procedural law the objective truth must be identical to the judicial truth, hence the fact that judges can't base their rulings on anything else than actual facts. During the evolution of civilization, three criminal procedural systems have appeared progressively, in a chronological (historical) order in full accordance with the political and social tendency of the states at a certain moment, namely the inquisitorial system, the accusatory system, respectively the mixed system, named the continental system. We will resort in the following article to a brief presentation of these criminal procedural systems, while making a brief analysis of each of them.

Demystification of the Inquisitorial System

Criminal procedure in South Africa is outdated and does not produce speedy justice. The Criminal Procedure Act requires a revamp. Lessons can be learnt from the inquisitorial systems but local lawyers have preconceived ideas, based on ignorance, about those systems. It would be useful to consider the successful convergence of the accusatorial and inquisatorial systems attained in the rules of international criminal courts for local application.

Adversarial versus Inquisitorial Systems: Error and Valuation

This paper discusses valuation within the judicial processes by comparing the adversarial and inquisitorial systems of litigation. It evaluates adversarial and inquisitorial litigation on the legal systems’ ability to aid processes that lead to discovery of knowledge. It argues that much of the information required for accurate valuation must be discovered. While the adversarial method of litigation is essentially a competitive model of evidence production; the inquisitorial system comprises only the expert/principle searcher, and lacks a competitive discovery process. Therefore, as a system, adversarial litigation may be more conducive for error minimization in enforcing rules than inquisitorial litigation. On the question of business valuation of firms under Chapter 11, both the adversarial and inquisitorial systems are problematic, given that market competition leading to discovery of prices and valuation is impossible within the judicial system of valuation.

O OBOWIĄZYWANIU ZASADY KONTRADYKTORYJNOŚCI W POSTĘPOWANIU NIEPROCESOWYM: PRZYCZYNEK DO DYSKUSJI

The Adversarial Principle in Non-litigious Proceedings: a Contribution to the Discussion Summary The adversarial principle has been applicable in Polish non-litigious proceedings since 1964, when the provisions for litigious and non-litigious proceedings in Polish civil law were integrated in one civil code, and later when its procedural law was fundamentally revised and amended. Prior to this change, the applicable provisions were defined in the 1945 Code for non-litigious proceedings, which did not admit the adversary system, viz. the principle that the parties to proceedings collect evidence and produce witnesses, while the court merely assists and supervises. There are only two situations in which under current Polish civil law the inquisitorial system may supersede the adversary ststem. The two exceptions are: 1) when ex officio proceedings may be initiated on the grounds of a legislative act; and 2) when it is in the public interest to initiate an ex officio inquiry.

Is There a Burden of Proof in Mental Health Cases?

<p>This article examines the concept of the burden of proof in the context of the First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health). Whereas it is well established that in an adversarial system the burden of proof in a case will always rest with the party bringing the action, the position in an inquisitorial system is far less clear. At least 4 positions have been competing for supremacy on this issue for over 30 years.</p>