Presumption of Innocence

This article takes an in-depth look into sentencing and into a concept that seems to be inherent within it, that is, the trial penalty. It seeks to answer the question " Should there be a trial penalty? ". In doing so, it begins by analysing the pros and cons of plea bargaining and argues that the weight of the disadvantages of the process, taken together with the need to respect entrenched constitutional rights regarding the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial, mean that a trial penalty should not exist. It is then argued that while the intuitive existence of an explicit trial penalty is accepted by many within the system, there is a lack of empirical evidence to prove said existence. The article concludes by offering possible solutions to various problems associated with the plea process, as it is currently practised.

When unilaterally closing a customer’s account due to so-called de-risking, the customer’s interests are not only ignored by the bank but their human rights, including respect for his private life and presumption of innocence, are also severely violated De facto, de-risking stigmatizes discarded consumers as being involved in criminal activity without a court conviction. As a result of the unfair account closure, both the consumer's social and psychological integrity can suffer. Their rights to establish and develop relationships with other human beings and the outside world and respect for reputation are put in jeopardy. In order to overcome the above collision of interests, this study proposes a doctrinal assessment of consumer's interests that should limit the bank's right to unilaterally terminate the contract by the systemic and teleological interpretation of regulating rules in combination with the general civil principle of good faith. By analogy with the original...

The 1961 Criminal Procedure Code has been in operation for so long with its significant gaps and vagueness. The lack of properly enshrined guiding principles both in the law and the practice made the fairness of the criminal justice administration doubtful. The 2019 Draft Criminal Procedure and Evidence Code is intended to make positive changes to the rules of procedure in order to ensure fairness of the process. Such changes are guided by fundamental principles, the presumption of innocence being the first principle, provided for in the section covering fundamental principles in the criminal procedure.
Both the substantive and procedural aspects of the principle of presumption of innocence are incorporated into the Draft Code. Thus, while there are express rules requiring the public prosecutor to prove the facts of his case, there are also rules that require the accused (and the suspect) to be treated with dignity and respect befitting a person presumed innocent. Those subjects specifically discussed here are the right to liberty, burden and standard of proof.

Lorsqu’une victime dénonce son agresseur sur la place publique, certaines personnes tentent de la réduire au silence en invoquant le droit à la présomption d’innocence. Ce fut particulièrement évident en 2014, lors du mouvement #AgressionNonDénoncée ; ce le fut encore à l’automne 2015, alors que des femmes autochtones de Val-d’Or dénonçaient les agressions sexuelles commises à leur endroit par des policiers ; ce le fut aussi en 2016 à l’occasion de la dénonciation du député Gerry Sklavounos par Alice Paquet ; et l’argument légaliste réapparaît ainsi périodiquement sur la scène publique. Pourtant, peut-on vraiment bâillonner une victime en mettant de l’avant les droits de son agresseur ? L’auteur estime qu’il s’agit là d’un mauvais usage de la présomption d’innocence. Dans ce texte, il explique que la présomption d’innocence doit être replacée dans son contexte juridique. Le droit à la présomption d’innocence est un principe fondamental qui protège les accusés contre le pouvoir punitif de l’État. Il trouve uniquement application dans le processus pénal et n’est pas conçu pour être employé sur la scène publique. De plus, l’auteur explique que, dans le cadre du processus pénal, la présomption d’innocence favorise la création d’un espace de discussion où les parties peuvent débattre de la culpabilité. Pourtant, lorsqu’elle est invoquée sur la scène publique, elle ne fait que placer les victimes dans un processus violent de remise en question de leur crédibilité, tout en protégeant les agresseurs. Son invocation crée une atmosphère qui décourage les dénonciations. Le débat public dévie, laissant peu de place pour critiquer nos systèmes de plaintes dysfonctionnels et la culture du viol. En ce sens, la présomption d’innocence n’est pas invoquée afin d’établir un dialogue constructif, mais plutôt pour faire taire les critiques.

Dubbele bestraffing voor hetzelfde feit is conform het ne bis in idembeginsel verboden. Dit beginsel is neergelegd in art. 4 Zevende Protocol EVRM. Nederland heeft het Procotol niet geratificeerd, maar ne bis in idem heeft als rechtsbeginsel toch gelding. In 2016 oordeelde het EHRM dat samenloop van strafrechtelijke vervolging met een bestuursrechtelijke sanctie onder voorwaarden is toegestaan, indien beide procedures een voldoende hecht verband hebben qua inhoud en in de tijd. Aan de inhoudelijke voorwaarden is voldaan indien: beide procedures complementaire doelen dienen, het gebruik van twee wegen voorzienbaar is, een herhaling van de vaststelling en de beoordeling van het bewijs zo veel mogelijk wordt vermeden en de totale strafoplegging proportioneel is. Het Hof van Justitie EU blijkt het EHRM te volgen, maar op punten biedt het EHRM of het HvJ EU meer rechtsbescherming. Het HvJ EU stelt geen hoge eisen aan het vereiste temporele verband, maar biedt wel bescherming in meer dan één lidstaat.

In het bestuursrecht geldt een lagere bewijslast dan in het strafrecht. Toch hoeft dat niet tot schending van de onschuldpresumptie te leiden. Art. 4 Zevende Protocol EVRM hoeft geen beletsel te vormen voor de ratificatie door Nederland van het Protocol. Via het EU-recht werkt het beginsel al in de Nederlandse rechtsorde en Nederland mag altijd meer bescherming bieden dan het EVRM.

This report aims to illustrate the effects of excessive and uncontrolled publicity of criminal cases on basic human rights, such as fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and the right to private life, and to explore ways in which the latter could be balanced against the freedom of speech and the right to information. The examination of twelve criminal cases in four different EU Member States has shed light on various patterns and common malpractices of. media practitioners and public authorities. International non-legal instruments providing recommendations and guidance on communicating information about criminal proceedings to the public include standards that address two main audiences: 1) public authorities such as law enforcement agencies and judicial practitioners, and 2) media practitioners and journalists. The selected criminal cases are analysed in the context of the recommended standards for communicating information on ongoing criminal cases with the aim to demonstrate gross and widespread misconducts or negligence in relation to the presumption of innocence.

Nell’ambito della sequenza probatoria, i rapporti fra la discovery anticipata, imposta negli atti preliminari al dibattimento, e il successivo esercizio del diritto alla prova appaiono connotati da evidenti aporie normative, accentuate dalle prassi applicative, da cui discendono non secondarie diseconomie di sistema. A ciò si aggiunga che non sempre è tenuta nella giusta consideazione l’esigenza concettuale, ma anche pratica, di distinguere la prova diretta da quella contraria in funzione dei contrapposti interessi delle parti.

In the procedural rules of evidence, critical normative situations, exasperated by jurisdictional practices, unbalance the relationship between the early discovery and the right to introduce contrary evidence. Moreover, in the trial, the discipline doesn’t distinguish precisely what make difference between the direct evidence about the guiltiness and the contrary evidence inside of the conflicting parties’ interests.

The report aims to look at the various manifestations of the presumption of innocence in the context of media coverage of criminal cases. It represents a collection of papers by different authors, each highlighting a particular aspect of the topic: from the international legal framework and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights to the disclosure of information in cases of terrorism, cases against politicians and other high-profile cases. By shedding light on different problems related to the implementation of the presumption of innocence, the report intends to draw the attention of policy makers, criminal justice practitioners and the media on the importance of safeguarding the rights of suspects and accused persons in criminal proceedings as a key prerequisite for fair trial.

Inhuman torture is a common issue in our country. It is happening not only in Bangladesh but also each and every corner of the world. To prevent such a curse from society, country and world lots of national and international laws, guidelines and precedents continuously come from judicial decisions of different nations. Bangladesh judiciary is not exception here. In light of this issue, the paper has analyzed, for the purpose of focusing judicial developments, examining relevant laws and its implementation, national and international legal framework along with the reference of judicial precedent upon prohibition of inhuman torture including arrest, detention, remand and extrajudicial killing by law enforcement agency. In this regard, the Supreme Court of Bangladesh laid down a set of guidelines in blast vs. bd [55 dlr (2003) hcd, p. 380], saifuzzaman vs. state [56 dlr (2004) hcd, pp. 342-43] and bd vs blast [8 scob (ad) 2016, p. 1]with regard to exercise of power of arrest and remand consecutively under section 54, 161 and 167 of the CrPcalong with section 3 of the SPA and 316 of PRB where these sections provide the Police and LEA excess power which is mostly abused by them. This paper has critically analyzed these sections as well as article 35(5) of our Constitution which directly stands against the torture and degrading punishment. The paper has also emphasized upon the judicial precedents concerning prohibition of torture whether they are being implemented properly. In conducting this research, analytical methodology is applied and data have been collected from primary and secondary sources which found that in 2017 about 155 people died for extrajudicial killing. Among 155 people 13 died for torture; 139 for crossfire; 2 for beaten and 1 for shot that are the reflection of violation of human rights even fundamental rights also and such violation is not being under control rather it is increasing rapidly day by day where in 2018, from January to May, the death of person for extrajudicial killing stands to 222. And these are occurring because of authorization of black law, poor monitory system of

Resumen: Este artículo tiene como objetivo mostrar algunos problemas persistentes en el uso de las presunciones en el Derecho. De manera concreta, se plantea que el análisis de las presunciones está afectado por la ambigüedad en el uso de esta expresión en el lenguaje jurídico, así como por la diversidad de concepciones sobre las presunciones. En el artículo se critica la concepción tradicional de las presunciones como razonamientos o inferencias del legislador o del juez. A pesar del arraigo de esta concepción en la cultura jurídica continental, en el artículo se argumenta que se trata de una concepción insuficiente e inadecuada. Dicha concepción es insuficiente porque solo permite explicar la estructura del razonamiento presuntivo, pero no da cuenta del carácter y el funcionamiento de las reglas de presunción establecidas legal o jurisprudencialmente. Por otra parte, dicha concepción es inadecuada porque las presunciones legales no son inferencias que van de un hecho conocido a un hecho desconocido, sino reglas que obligan a considerar un hecho como probado, dispensando a quien se beneficia con la presunción de la carga de acreditar un hecho, trasladando la carga de la prueba a la contraparte que desee evitar que opere la presunción.

La presunción de inocencia, erigida como principio constitucional en el artículo 29 de la Carta Política, ha sido considerada por el Tribunal Constitucional como un derecho absoluto no sujeto a ponderación. Lo anterior, teniendo en cuenta que la Sentencia C-774 de 2001, entre otras, señala que la presunción de inocencia no admite excepción y permanece incólume durante toda la etapa de investigación y de juicio. Pese ello, la medida de aseguramiento privativa de la libertad en establecimiento carcelario continúa teniendo plena validez y aplicación dentro del proceso penal, contrariando el postulado que la misma Corte desarrolla y referido apenas unos renglones atrás. En el presente artículo se evidenciarán las falacias en que incurre la guardiana de la Constitución al valorar la presunción de inocencia y el derecho a la libertad, y se propondrán dos situaciones en las cuales podría romperse dicha presunción e imponer una medida de aseguramiento privativa de la libertad.

Once rape incidences are reported, what spring up are emotional responses either in favour of the rape victims or the accused. To some, the perpetrators are brutal, inhumane and must be punished and to others, the victims should have been dressed more decently, avoided walking at night and so on. A significant number of persons are quick not only in choosing sides but are also in the dark about the rights of the victims and those of the perpetrators. This study therefore examines the rights of rape victims and those of the perpetrators in line with the Nigerian Legislation on the offence of rape. It discusses the extent to which parties are accorded justice under the law and the relationship between media trial and the presumption of innocence in upholding the rights of the perpetrators. In doing this, the study makes use of primary and secondary sources derived from the legislations on rape in Nigeria, journal articles, digital books and internet. It also makes use of journal reports of medical practitioners interviewed using self-administered questionnaires.

Naturaleza de la Confesión. La Confesión y la Teoría de la Prueba. Reinado de la Confesión. Defecto de las pericias. Confesión y Objeto del Proceso. Arresto del potencial confesante. Control de identidad. Parte policial. Excesos policiales. Videovigilancia. Miranda Rules. Técnicas de interrogatorio. Legajo fiscal. Objetividad del fiscal. Tunnel vision. Contradictorio. Derecho a mentir. Derecho al silencio. Principio Nemo Tenetur se Ipsum Accusare. Método Reid. Estado de inocencia. Clasificación de la confesión. Divisibilidad de la confesión. Retractación. Confesión obtenida mediante Truth Serum, Lie-Detection y Test P300 (NeuroLaw). Prueba ilícita. Allanamientos atentatorios del derecho a no autoincriminarse. Conexión de Antijuridicidad. Confesión acusatoria del coimputado. Confesiones falsas. Confesión que se pretende introducir
mediante la declaración del Policía aprehensor. Escuchas telefónicas. Confesión en el Proceso Abreviado. Confesión en el Derecho Tributario.

Bugün Türkiye'deki içinden çıkılması güç hukuki sorunlar üzerine anlamlı bir şeyler yazabilmek için işin alfabesinden yani hukukun temellerinden başlamak gerekiyor. Şüphesiz Türkiye'de hukuka ilişkin bir tartışma yapmak için geç kalınmış olduğu söylenebilir ve bu çaba anlamsız görülebilir. Ancak bu yazının içerdiği asıl tuhaflık hukuk üzerine söz söyleme çabası değil, bu çaba içinde olan kişinin Türkiye'deki mevcut hukuk sistemi tarafından olağan üstü hal çerçevesinde ihraç edilmiş, pasaportuna el konmuş, mesleğini yapma hakkı elinden alınmış hukukçu bir akademisyen oluşu. Modern liberal hukuk tartışması içinde ancak bir " istisna hali " olarak açıklanabilecek ve bir " düşman " a yönelik olarak gerçekleştirilebilecek bu uygulamaların muhatabı olarak hukuka ilişkin olarak kaleme alacaklarım şüphesiz aynı zamanda bir savunma olarak okunabilir. Bu nedenle, hukukçu ve akademisyen kimliğime rağmen taraflı ve özneldir. Ancak kanımca zaten feminist çalışmaların açıklıkla ortaya koyduğu gibi liberal hukukun tarafsız ve nesnel olabilmesi mümkün olmadığı için bu karşı çıkış ancak cılız bir denkleştirme çabası ve adalet arayışıdır. Üstelik asılsız ve dayanaksız suçlamaların neden olduğu her savunma gibi oldukça onur kırıcıdır. Tam da bu nedenle başlangıç noktamızı hukukun temellerinden olan ancak çoktandır anılmayan masumiyet karinesi ve bu karinenin insan onuru ile ilişkisi oluşturacaktır. Masumiyet karinesi modern liberal hukukun en temel ilkelerinden olan suçsuzluk ilkesinin diğer bir adıdır. Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Anayasasında temel bir hak olarak tarif edilen ve ceza hukuku bağlamında sanık haklarının en önemli dayanağını oluşturan bu ilkeye göre, " Suçsuzluğu hükmen sabit oluncaya kadar, kimse suçlu sayılamaz. " Üstelik bu hak yine Anayasaya göre savaş, seferberlik, sıkıyönetim ve olağanüstü hallerde dahi dokunulması mümkün olmayan çekirdek haklar kategorisinde yer almaktadır. Yani istisna halinde dahi vazgeçilmez niteliktedir. Sadece Anayasada değil, insan haklarına ilişkin bütün uluslararası düzenlemelerde kendine yer bulan bu hak modern liberal hukukun koruduğu en önemli değerlerden olan insan onurunun doğrudan bir sonucu kabul edilir. Liberal hukuk çerçevesinde insanı insan yapan, onu diğer canlılardan ayıran ve bütün insanlarda eşit şekilde bulunan bir öz değer olarak tanımlanan insan onuru, liberal hukuka meşruluğunu veren insan haklarının kaynağıdır1. Modern devlet tam da bu nedenle insanca bir yaşam yani " eşitlik, özgürlük ve kardeşlik " vaadi ile ortaya çıkar. Ancak kapitalist üretime dayalı alt yapı ilişkilerinin öne çıkardığı ve gereksinim duyduğu asıl değer özgürlüktür. Özgürlük kavramı özellikle diğer özgürlükler için olmazsa olmaz kabul edilen ifade özgürlüğü liberalizmin aynı zamanda varoluş sebebidir. Üretim ilişiklerindeki dönüşümün üst yapıda karşılık bulabilmesi modern toplum ve devlet düzeninin düşünsel düzeyde savunulması ile mümkün olmuştur. Bu nedenle, liberal hukukun içerdiği insanlık onurunun bir gereği olan masumiyet karinesinin ortaya çıkışı ile ifade özgürlüğü arasında doğrudan bir bağlantı söz konusudur. Avrupa'da ortaçağ boyunca düşünce suçlarının cezalandırılmasında kanıtların işkence sonucu elde edilen ikrara dayandırılması karşısında oluşan tepki masumiyet karinesinin modern hukuka dahil edilmesini sağlamıştır. İfade özgürlüğü tartışmasının bizim açımızdan önemi sadece liberal hukukun oluşumu ve meşruiyeti açısından sahip olduğu belirleyici değerden ibaret değildir. Yazının başında da belirtildiği gibi Türkiye'de hukuk içinden çıkılması güç sorunlarla yüzyüzedir. Bu sorunlardan en fazla öne çıkanı ifade özgürlüğüne ilişkin sınırlamalardır. Pek çok farklı özgürlüğün ön şartı yahut kaynağı olan ifade özgürlüğünün sınırlanması özgürlüklerin tamamen ortadan kaldırılmasına varan sonuçlar doğurabileceği için liberal hukuk çerçevesinde önemli bir tartışmaya karşılık gelir ve güncel insan hakları mevzuatı ve içtihatında kamu düzeni, genel ahlak gibi genel nitelikteki sınırlama sebeplerini karşısında dahi önemli bir bağışıklığa sahiptir. Günümüzde ifade özgürlüğüne ilişkin asıl istisna, nefret 1 Jack Donelly, Teoride ve Uygulamada İnsan Hakları (çev. Mustafa Erdoğan, Levent Korkut), Yetkin Yayınları, Ankara: 1995, s. 28-33.

Cómo hacer aparecer como culpable a quien ante la ley es inocente. Implicaciones deontológicas en la cobertura periodística del “caso Aitana”.

ENGLISH_Case analysis of the media coverage and its ethical implications regarding the "Aitana case" in Spain, where an innocent was framed as guilty by the media, who ignored the mandate of the presumption of innocence.

In 1996 Keane J, then an ordinary member of the Supreme Court, suggested that the complete removal of mens rea from criminal offences would be unconstitutional.  Ten years later the Supreme Court in CC v Ireland  struck down a statutory rape offence because of an absence of mens rea and the unavailability of a defence of mistake as to the victim’s age. This contribution to the Festschrift for Chief Justice Keane revisits the question of what constitutional principles are breached by the use of strict liability in criminal law. The suggested answer is that in an extreme case, such as Keane J envisaged in 1996, the legality principle may be breached but apart from that it is difficult to explain the unconstitutionality of strict liability per se in Irish law. The first part of this article critically analyses CC v Ireland, arguing that the judgment did not convincingly show incompatibility between the impugned strict liability offence and the Constitution. The second part of the article surveys potential constitutional bases for restraining strict liability; it considers the recommendation that the presumption of innocence should be thought of as restraining strict liability and emphasises the legality principle as an important check on criminalisation.
The question of the constitutionality of strict liability in criminal law and the question of the value of strict liability in criminal law may be related but are not the same. It may be that, on balance, strict liability ought not be used, especially for serious offences, but that does not mean there must be a constitutional doctrine to rule it out. This article is concerned with the question of the constitutionality of strict liability in Ireland. It generally neither favours nor disfavours the use of strict liability in criminal law; rather, it somewhat doubts that the Constitution puts, and should put, the use of strict liability off limits to the Oireachtas. The main reason for this is that judicial review of strict liability is problematic because there is an apparent absence of apt standards by which judges can decide what forms of strict liability are constitutionally permissible. Candidate constitutional doctrines for limiting strict liability are canvassed below and found to be problematic. That is not to say, however, that a doctrine to coherently limit strict liability per se could not be developed, but it is emphasised how such development would lead the courts deeper into the controversial territory of deciding the moral limits of the criminal law.

ÖZ Sadece ceza muhakemesinde değil, hukukun her alanında etkinliğini gösteren suçsuzluk karinesi hakkında birçok araştırma yapılmış olmakla birlikte; savcılık ile olan irtibatı özel olarak ele alınmamıştır. Savcının ceza muhakemesi hukukundaki yeri nazar alındığında, suçsuzluk karinesinin irtibatlı olduğu öncelikli süjelerden bir tanesinin savcı olduğu gözden kaçırılmamalıdır. Savcının, şüpheliye temas eden ilk süje olması onu bu konuda daha da önemli hâle getirmektedir. Öncelikle suçsuzluk karinesi ve savcılığa ilişkin genel açıklamalar yapılmış, akabinde Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesinin konuya dair Daktaras/Litvanya kararı analiz edilmiştir. Kararda, savcının karine karşısındaki durumunu inceleyen bölüme odaklanılmış ve varılan tespitler incelenmiştir. Bunun yanı sıra Türk hukukundaki mevcut durum ve sorunlu alanlar ele alınmıştır. Konuya ilişkin yargı kararlarına yer verilmiştir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Savcı, adil yargılanma hakkı, suçsuzluk karinesi, soruşturma, kovuşturma, basın sözcülüğü. ABSTRACT While a large number of researches have been conducted on the presumption of innocence which is efficient not only in the criminal procedure but also in each field of law, its relation with the prosecution service has not been specifically addressed. Given the large area which prosecution service holds in criminal procedure law, it must not go unnoticed that one of the primary institutions with which presumption of innocence is linked is prosecution service. The fact that the prosecutor

Featuring two star intelligence general Ion Mihai Pacepa's testimony about actual Romanian, implicitly EU and CoE pro-US totalitarian regime. Pre/Post 1989 coup d'etat atrocities continuum demonstration. Facebook political illegal censorship,  ostracism, Stalking and Harassment, data protection and other penal infringements (selling it)

Crimes Against Humanity, state terrorism, murder, dehumanization, unethical human experimentation, extrajudicial killing,  state terrorism, kidnappings, unjust imprisonment, enslavement, torture, political repression, religious persecution, other human rights abuses

Please donate to support the anti-mafia fight at http://truthjustice.x10host.com/

Raneti vs Romania at ICC for Crimes Against Humanity, state terrorism, chemical lobotomy of institutionalized children, murder, dehumanization, ethnic cleansing, deportations, unethical human experimentation, extrajudicial punishments, state terrorism or state sponsoring of terrorism, kidnappings and forced disappearances, unjust imprisonment, enslavement, torture, political repression, religious persecution, other human rights abuses, abuse of "psychiatry" charlatanry, constitutional court abolished the presumption of innocence

The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is commonly thought to be an important benefit to the accused. The history of the standard is much more complex and demonstrates lesser commitments to the truth and to the defendant.
This article develops the history of the reasonable doubt instruction in the United States and its English antecedents. Examining the development of the instruction in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and its evolution through the nineteenth and twentieth, this history reveals the dual nature of the instruction. It both encapsulated a theory of knowledge and articulated a level of confidence in the evidence. Further, the history describes twentieth-century changes in the meaning of the legal standard, particularly the divorce of the jury instruction from a broader theory of knowledge and the failure of the legal language to reflect changing definitions of reason in public discourse. The most significant of these changes in the jury instruction is to define reasonableness as the assignment of reasons. The result of these changes has been both to lower standards of criminal proof and to diminish the autonomy of the juror as the finder of fact. This outcome is the opposite of that believed by the majority of the Supreme Court that made proof beyond a reasonable doubt a constitutional requirement in In re Winship. In particular, these changes in the standard may have altered the operation of the presumption of innocence, so that the defense now has the burden of proving the reasons for innocence. This result has all but escaped scholarly notice, although it is felt keenly by some judges, and it is worthy of both further study and reform.

Updated last 11/05/2020

Please donate to support the anti-mafia fight at http://truthjustice.x10host.com/

Request for interim measures - Rule 39, cerere de masuri intermediare in regim de urgenta. Dossier 31061/17 (updated by 56472/17), updated last in August 2018. Raneti vs Romania at ECHR for Crimes Against Humanity, state terrorism, political repression, torture, grave death inducing bodily harm, qualified murder, dehumanization, unethical human experimentation, extrajudicial, abolished the presumption of innocence

Η παρούσα εργασία καταπιάνεται με την θεματική του τεκμηρίου αθωότητας. Πρωτίστως, ο συγγραφέας αναφέρεται εν συντομία στην θέση που κατέχει στο Κοινοδίκαιο και στην Κυπριακή έννομη τάξη. Ακολούθως, επεκτείνεται στην υπερεθνική του διάσταση, όπου επικεντρώνεται, κατά ένα μεγάλο μέρος, στην ανάλυση του τεκμηρίου αθωότητας υπό το πρίσμα της Νομολογίας του ΕΔΑΔ δίδοντας έμφαση στις κυριότερες θεματικές του, όπως η νομική του φύση, το χρονοδιάγραμμα προστασίας και το περιεχόμενο του. Εν συνεχεία, δράττεται της ευκαιρίας να αναφερθεί σε μια ειδική έκφανση του τεκμηρίου και συγκεκριμένα στο δικαίωμα της σιωπής και μη αυτοενοχοποίησης, το οποίο επεξηγεί με πληρότητα. Ενόψει της ανάλυσης περί υπερεθνικής διάστασης του τεκμηρίου, ο συγγραφέας αναφέρεται και στην νομική υπόσταση του τεκμηρίου αθωότητας κατά τον Χάρτη Θεμελιωδών Δικαιωμάτων της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης, καθοδηγούμενος από την Νομολογία του ΔΕΕ. Σημειωτέο ότι σε όλη την έκταση της παρούσας εργασίας γίνεται ουσιαστική μνεία στις κυριότερες πρόνοιες της πολυσυζητημένης και σχετικά πρόσφατης Ευρωπαϊκής Οδηγίας 2016/343/ΕΕ, όπου αυτή σχετίζεται ή διαφοροποιείται κυρίως με τα προαναφερόμενα υπερεθνικά νομοθετήματα. Εν κατακλείδι, ο συγγραφέας παραθέτει σε συντομία τις θέσεις του.

Civil forfeiture is playing an increasingly prominent role in the fight against organised crime. While this tool is attractive to law enforcement agencies, it does give rise to concerns under Art 6 of the ECHR. Such proceedings ought to attract the full range of enhanced procedural protections inherent in the criminal process. Even if the Strasbourg Court decides otherwise, there is an argument that the presumption of innocence ought to apply where civil forfeiture proceedings are instituted against a person subsequent to that person being acquitted in criminal proceedings. The Strasbourg jurisprudence, though, is permeated by confusion and inconsistency, which does not inspire confidence that the rights of the individual will be protected. The final section of this paper, then, considers whether civil forfeiture represents a proportionate response in the fight against organised crime. Ultimately, though, given lack of information on such crime, we cannot provide an answer either way – what can be said, though, is that civil forfeiture has had a significant impact on the rights of the individual.

The point of discussion of this paper is to have a detailed overview of blasphemy laws under the “Pakistan Penal Code”. This paper will begin by discussing what blasphemy is, then it will discuss the blasphemy laws in Pakistan with the historical background. It will explain the landmark blasphemy case: Mst. Asia Bibi v The State. The critical review of the Asia Bibi Case will be given in this paper at hand. This paper will briefly discuss the flaws in section 295C and how it is causing injustices in society and further discusses how it is misused against minorities and discriminate against people on the basis of their religion. Furthermore, it will be discussed how blasphemy laws are causing serious threats to society perhaps destroying the religious harmony in the society. In addition to that this paper will also discuss these laws in the light of Islam. In the end, it’ll give some recommendations to make this law compatible with society. The whole paper is supported by case laws.

I originally entitled this paper ‘Why are there no uncontroversial examples of philosophical nonsense?’, but since this seemed apt to provoke rather superficial responses, I decided to re-title it.  In it I ponder the fact that, not only are there no uncontroversial examples of philosophical nonsense, there are no uncontroversial examples of what one might call ‘analogue philosophical nonsense’.  These would be non-philosophical cases of someone’s believing he means something when in reality he means nothing.  (Someone’s saying, ‘It’s 5 o’clock on the sun’ is sometimes offered as an example.)  I ask what conditions such cases would need to satisfy.  What would count as a compellingly clear case of an illusion of meaning?  Why has no one described one?

The standard of proof plays an important role in the adjudication task, because only if the standard is exceeded we can say that a statement of fact has been proven. Only then, we can determine if the presumption of innocence is defeated. This intellectual operation must be expressed by the judge in the sentence. The consequence of this duty is that the standard of proof has the utility to prevent a judge´s subjective decision at the time of the adjudication. And so, prevent a conviction based only in an arbitrary decision. Therefore in criminal law, a standard of proof, in a constitutional level, is a mechanism of protection of the presumption of innocence. Yet, in our legal system, this standard doesn’t fulfill that task.

La investigación del fiscal penal debe estar dirigida a establecer si corresponde o no hacer la acriminación y no a procurar sustentar una hipótesis de culpabilidad asumida en forma previa -sugerida a veces por la policía- y que no ha pasado por el tamiz del contradictorio; la teoría del caso, por esta razón, debe ser siempre la conclusión o la síntesis de la indagación y no una tesis a comprobar.

La ansiedad por la resolución de un hecho o la excesiva carga de trabajo o el impulso por hacer justicia o la presión mediática o la inexperiencia pueden hacer que un fiscal quede expuesto a dislocaciones cognitivas inconscientes tales como la tunnel vision o la hindsight bias o knew-it-all-along effect y procure únicamente la evidencia inculpatoria, deseche (y a veces oculte) la exculpatoria y termine interpretando toda la evidencia con un sesgo de retrospección.

Este artículo, al tiempo que analiza cuatro casos judiciales que ejemplifican esta misconduct de los persecutores (y también de los peritos y jueces), procura advertir a los señores del Ministerio Público al respecto para que tomen conciencia de su exposición al fenómeno (propio del sistema adversarial) y alertar a los señores defensores respecto de su existencia y frecuencia para que lo controlen y denuncien.

Dopo una breve ricostruzione storica, il saggio esamina il sistema delle impugnazioni ordinarie «ai soli effetti civili» cercando di ricostruirne oggetto e regole alla luce della recente giurisprudenza costituzionale e di legittimità.

After a quick historical background, the essay examines the system of appellate remedies «for civil interest only», trying to identify their object and regulation considering the recent decisions by the Constitutional court and by the Court of cassation.

El presente artículo pretende hacer algunos cuestionamientos en torno a la implementación de la teoría de la carga dinámica de la prueba en la actuación penal, a partir de los elementos brindados por las Reglas de Mallorca y la teoría del garantismo penal, defendida por el profesor Luigi Ferrajoli en Italia, y en Argentina por el profesor Adolfo Alvarado Velloso, desde la perspectiva de una sistemática procesal penal, reconocedora de garantías universales como el debido proceso.

This essay wants to make some questionings around the application of the dynamic evidence charge in criminal process, starting from the point of view given by the Mallorca rules and the criminal guarantee theory, defended by Luigi Ferrajoli in Italy, and Adolfo Alvarado Velloso, in Argentina, from a criminal systematic judgment recognizer of universal rights, as the due process of law.

The argument presented in this paper is that not only should the state make greater use of scientific research, it is under a moral and legal obligation to do so. The source of this obligation is the right to the most accurate procedures for determining innocence and guilt. I will suggest that this right is implied by the presumption of innocence.

The paper compares and contrasts the way in which the evidence of witnesses to events, eyewitness identification evidence is obtained and tested. It goes on to envisage what the most accurate procedures for obtaining and testing the former class of evidence might look like.

It is an undeniable fact that, the press media (both online and offline based) possess a powerful influences on domestic litigation system in general and criminal justice system in particular. This scenario is quite obvious on jurors’ decision making over an ongoing criminal case in trial, and most of the cases, this happens due to the excessive media outbid over the matter. Statistical reports of the last two decades in the UK signify that, there have been an increasing trend in Jurors decision-making on cases in trial, that are being impacted on greatly by media sources, including newspaper reporting, radio and television newscasting or televised crime shows and courtroom scenes. This jurors’ over-influencing by media coverage against the accused in trial, ultimately violates the constitutional right to fair trial that stated under Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and other International and domestic legislative instruments for the fair trial rights for all. However, a conflicting situation engendered, when rebuttal arguments from other scholars flinging from journalistic angles, emphasising the magnitude to realise the fundamental right to freedom of expression for all individual, from International and domestic instruments, owing to ensure good governance, administration of justice in the UK. This attitude of media correspondents and practice of the jurors, ultimately neglect the crucial gap between an accused and a convicted person, keeping at stake the golden ethos of ‘presumption of innocence until proven guilty’ and ‘guilt beyond reasonable doubt’ which has also been guaranteed statutorily in the United Kingdom, Regional and International instruments. The current Dissertation has been endeavoured to scrutinize all legal provisions under the UK laws and International instruments for the protections of fundamental rights to fair trial and freedom of expression for all individual. This research also considers all judicial decisions from domestic UK courts and regional ECtHR, that are relevant for guaranteeing these two rights. The research project come out with by proposing some policy recommendations against matters that creates obstacle for the realisation of these rights.

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi yakın dönemde kabul ettiği 7248 sayılı Kanun ile 27 Mayıs 1960 tarihli askerî darbeden sonra kurulan Yüksek Adalet Divanı’nın hukuki dayanağını geçmişe etkili şekilde yürürlükten kaldırmıştır. Türkiye’de demokratik hayata geçilmesinden sonra icra edilen ilk askerî darbenin en önemli kurumlarından birini kurulduğu tarihten geçerli olacak şekilde yürürlükten kaldıran bu sıra dışı kanun, özellikle öğretide çeşitli eleştirilere maruz kalmıştır. Bu bağlamda, Yüksek Adalet Divanı’nın bir yargı organı olduğu kabulünden hareketle, 7248 sayılı Kanun’un Anayasa’ya ve erkler ayrılığı prensibine aykırı şekilde mahkeme kararlarını geriye dönük olarak hükümsüz hale getirdiği ileri sürülmüştür. Yine 7248 sayılı Kanun’un parlamentodaki görüşmeleri esnasında anılan kanun, askerî darbeler ve hakkaniyete aykırı yargılamalar arasında seçici davranmakla ve ayrım yapmakla itham edilmiştir. Bu çerçevede çalışmada 7248 sayılı Kanun’a yöneltilen bir kısım eleştiriler ele alınarak, adı geçen kanunun erkler ayrılığı prensibine ve Anayasa’ya aykırı olup olmadığı, hukuka aykırı yargılamalar arasında haksız bir ayrım yapıp yapmadığı ve bu kanunla ulaşılmak istenilen amacın alternatif başka yöntemlerle temin edilebilip edilemeyeceği sorularına yanıt aranmaktadır.

Recently, with the Law no.7248, the Grand National Assembly of Turkey retrospectively abrogated the legal basis of the High Council of Justice which had been established after the military coup of 27 May 1960. This atypical law which retrospectively abrogated one of the most significant institutions of the first military coup following transition to democracy in Turkey as from the date of that institution’s foundation, has attracted varied criticisms especially in the doctrine. In this context, departing from the assumption that the High Council of Justice was a judicial body, it has been claimed that the Law no. 7248 retrospectively overruled the court decisions contrary to the Constitution and the principle of separation of powers. Furthermore, the Law no.7248 has been accused of being selective and of discriminating between different military coups and unfair trials during the parliamentary discussions. In this framework in the study, considering several criticisms made for the Law no.7248, answers will be sought to the questions of whether aforementioned law has been contrary to the principle of separation of powers and to the constitution, whether it has made unjust discrimination between unlawful trials and whether the aim of this law can also be achieved by any other alternative methods.

This book examines the means and context of national implementation of Directive 2016/343, with which the European Union sought to harmonise the procedural guarantees of the accused persons’ right to be present and the presumption of their innocence. The book, which emanates out of an EU-fund- ed comparative research and training project is addressed to both law students, judges, police and practitioners and serves as a casebook, combining detailed studies of specific aspects, a comparative perspective, and a selection of Cypriot and European (CJEU, ECtHR) case law.