scholarly journals A General Overview on the Ethics of Pre-trial Detention

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 09-20
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Title V ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
General Part

The measure of pre-trial detention is one of the five preventive measures regulated by the legislator in Title V of the general part of the new Criminal Procedure Code, adopted by Law no. 135/2010 and implemented on February 1st, 2014, along with detention, judicial control, judicial control on bail and house arrest. Preventive measures are institutions of criminal procedural law, and have a coercive character, aimed at the deprivation or the restriction of individual liberty, whereby the suspect or defendant is prevented from undertaking certain activities that would adversely affect the proper conduct of criminal proceedings or achieving the purpose of the criminal trial. Regarding the cases of pre-trial detention and the conditions that must be met in order to take the measure of pre-trial detention, it must be said that they result from the corroborated examination of the provisions of art. 202 para. 1 and 3, and art. 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Article 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the general conditions for taking preventive measures, in general, and the provisions of art. 223 of the Criminal Procedure Code regulates the specific conditions for taking the measure of pre-trial detention.

scholarly journals Practical Application of the Provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Regarding the Measure of Preventive Arrest

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-32
Author(s):  
Nicolae Silviu Pana ◽  
Ana Maria Pana
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Practical Application ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code

Preventive measures are coercive criminal law enforcement institutions, aimed at the deprivation or restriction of individual liberty, by which the suspect or defendant is prevented from undertaking certain activities that would adversely affect the conduct of the criminal proceedings or the achievement of its purpose. They have been instituted by the legislator for specific purposes, namely: to ensure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings, to prevent the abstraction of the suspect or defendant from trial and to prevent the commission of new offenses (art. 202 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code). Preventive measures are not inherent in any ongoing criminal trial, but are exceptional measures (art. 9 para. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code), and the court can decide to sease the measure or make use of the measure in the light of the specific circumstances of each case. Of the five preventive measures, three are deprivation of liberty - detention, house arrest and pre-trial detention, and two are non-custodial: judicial control and judicial control on bail. All these measures are only applicable to the natural person. Specific preventive measures may be taken against legal persons, but those are regulated by the provisions of art. 493 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

scholarly journals House Arrest as a Preventive Measure in Accordance with the New Criminal Procedure Code

2016 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 344-348
Author(s):  
Silviu Jîrlăianu
Keyword(s):  
European Community ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Community Law ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Set Up

Abstract Romania's participation in European Community imposed realities of our country harmonization of national legislation in relation to Community law. Such national legislation, in terms of criminal procedure were introduced through preventive measures, house arrest, judicial and Judicial control on bail. In relation to the same European context, Romanian police set up surveillance units of judicial duties in order to enforce these measures.

scholarly journals USE OF SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE DURING THE EXAMINATION OF THE SCENE OF A CRIME IN THE ORDER OF PART 3 ART. 214 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF UKRAINE

2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (1) ◽  
pp. 153-160
Author(s):  
Andrіy Shulha ◽  
◽  
Tetyana Khailova ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Criminal Liability ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Special Knowledge ◽  
The Law

The article deals with the problem of specialist’s participation in the scene examination, which is carried out before entering information into the Unified Register of the pre-trial investigations. The essence of the problem is that the current criminal procedural law of Ukraine recognizes the specialist’s participation only in the pre-trial investigation, the litigation and the proceedings in the case of the commission of an unlawful act under the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. Part 1 of Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine states that a specialist in criminal proceedings is a person who has special knowledge and skills and can provide advice and conclusions during the pre-trial investigation and trial on issues that require appropriate special knowledge and skills. In other cases, the specialist has no procedural status. In addition, Part 1 of Article 237 of the CPC of Ukraine «Examination» states that the examination is conducted to identify and record information on the circumstances of the offense commitment. It is an act provided by the law of Ukraine on criminal liability. However, there are the cases in the investigation, when a report is received, for example, about a person's death, other events with formal signs of the offense, which must first be checked for signs of a crime, and only then the act can be considered as offense. In this case, a specialist takes part in the scene examination. However, the current criminal procedure law in accordance with Part 1, Article 71 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine determines the legal status of a specialist only as the participant in criminal proceedings. The paragraph 10, part 1 of Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine defines the criminal proceedings as pre-trial investigation and court proceedings or procedural actions in the case of the commission of an unlawful act. Therefore, when the inspection of the scene is based on the uncertain status of the event (there is no clear information that the event contains signs of an offense), the specialist’s participation is not regulated by law. The authors propose to consider the specialists as «experienced persons» in cases mentioned above and to include their advices to the protocol of the scene examination, as the advices of other scene examination participants.

scholarly journals PROSECUTOR'S SUPERVISION OF LAW CONDUCTING INVESTIGATIVE (SEARCH) ACTIONS

2020 ◽  
pp. 377-386
Author(s):  
Я. Ю. Конюшенко
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Court Decisions ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Law ◽  
Procedural Guidance ◽  
Compliance With The Law ◽  
The Relationship

The purpose of the article is to define the prosecutor's supervision over investigative (search) actions as a legal guarantee of human rights, as well as problematic issues in its implementation and to make proposals to improve the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine. The article defines doctrinal approaches to the concepts of "prosecutor's supervision over compliance with the law during the pre-trial investigation" and "prosecutor's procedural guidance of the pre-trial investigation" in the context of investigative (search) actions. The author came to the conclusion that the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Law of Ukraine "On the Prosecutor's Office" and the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine in terms of regulating the functions and powers of the prosecutor during the pre-trial investigation. Based on the study, it is proposed to consider procedural guidance as one of the forms of prosecutor's supervision over the pre-trial investigation, which is implemented directly by the prosecutor or a group of prosecutors who are appointed to carry it out in a particular criminal proceeding. The author also emphasizes the existence of forms of supervision of the highest level prosecutor on the legality of these actions, which are implemented through the demand and study of information on the progress and results of pre-trial investigation, criminal proceedings and certified copies of court decisions and study of compliance with criminal procedure. A number of problematic issues during the prosecutor's supervision in pre-trial criminal proceedings are outlined, which relate to the relationship between the prosecutor's supervision and judicial control over the legality of investigative (search) actions; subjects and subject of supervision of the prosecutor in this sphere; providing the prosecutor-procedural manager and prosecutors of the highest level with instructions and instructions during the investigative (search) actions. To address these issues, it is proposed to amend the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine. The study of the materials of criminal proceedings and the survey of the subjects of criminal proceedings indicate the existence of a number of problematic issues that exist during the implementation of the prosecutor's procedural guidance of investigative (search) actions in the context of human rights.

Improvement of criminal-procedural legislation, regulating the activities of employees, establishments and bodies of the penal system

2019 ◽  
pp. 111-118
Author(s):  
Александр Борисович Диваев
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Investigation ◽  
Penal System ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
Effective Implementation ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Russian Federation

В представленной статье рассмотрен ряд вопросов совершенствования регламентации процессуальных полномочий органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы Российской Федерации. Высказаны предложения по модернизации ряда норм, устанавливающих статус органов и учреждений уголовно-исполнительной системы и их должностных лиц как органов дознания. Рассмотрен круг проблем, связанных с более четким процессуальным регулированием механизма исполнения меры пресечения в виде домашнего ареста. Даны предложения по внесению изменения в уголовно-процессуальное законодательство, которые должны содействовать более эффективной реализации полномочий по контролю за арестованными со стороны уголовно-исполнительных инспекций. Сформулировано предложение по устранению терминологической неточности, допущенной в ст. 397 Уголовно-процессуального кодекса Российской Федерации. The article deals with a number of issues of improving the regulation of procedural powers of bodies and institutions of the penal system of the Russian Federation. In particular the proposals for the modernization of a number of rules establishing the status of the bodies and institutions of penal system, and their officials, as criminal investigation bodies. In addition, the range of problems associated with a more precise procedural regulation of the mechanism of execution of preventive measures in the form of house arrest. In this regard, proposals were made to amend the criminal procedure legislation, which should contribute to a more effective implementation of the powers to control arrested persons by the penal inspections. In conclusion, a proposal to eliminate the terminological inaccuracy in article 397 of the Criminal procedure code of the Russian Federation is formulated.

Legislative Evolution in Romanian Criminal Proceedings: The Special Procedure for Compensation of Material or Moral Damages in Cases of Judicial Error

2010 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 369-396
Author(s):  
Mircea Damaschin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Potential Effect ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Individual Liberty ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Special Procedure ◽  
Judicial Error

AbstractThis article analyzes the special procedure for compensating material or moral damages where there has been a wrongful conviction—or other wrongful injury to individual liberty—caused by error in Romanian criminal proceedings.This remedy is provided for by the 1969 Romanian Criminal Procedure Code; however (perhaps inevitably), tension has risen between these provisions and those of the 1991 Romanian Constitution resulting in amendments to both the Code and the Constitution. The most significant of these amendments have flowed from decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court; in turn, the Constitutional Court has been guided in its determinations of constitutionality by interpretations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.In the present article, the author presents the evolution of Romania's legal framework in this field, analyzing key decisions of the Romanian Constitutional Court. Also considered here is the jurisprudence of Romanian ordinary courts dealing with the compensatory remedy for material or moral damages awarded to victims of judicial error in Romanian criminal proceedings. The relevance here of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, which has been critical of Romania in this regard, cannot be overestimated.Finally, this article considers the potential effect of changes contained the new Criminal Procedure Code, which has been adopted in mid-2010 by the Romanian Parliament.

Judicial Control and Prosecutorial Supervision in the System of Guarantees for Observing the Rights and Freedoms of a Suspect Person

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 792
Author(s):  
Talgat T. DYUSSEBAYEV ◽  
Aizhan A. AMANGELDY ◽  
Talgat T. BALASHOV ◽  
Ainur A. AKIMBAYEVA ◽  
Kuanysh ARATULY ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Preliminary Investigation ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Cis Countries ◽  
Special Studies

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.  

scholarly journals On Classification of the Powers of an Investigating Judge in Criminal Proceedings of the Kyrgyz Republic

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (11) ◽  
pp. 350-355
Author(s):  
A. Kalygulova
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Kyrgyz Republic ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Relevant Object ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
The Subject

The article is devoted to the issue of classification of the powers of an investigating judge in criminal proceedings of the Kyrgyz Republic. The relevance and novelty of the study is caused by the introduction of a new procedural figure of the investigating judge, who exercises judicial control in pre-trial proceedings. The powers conferred by the Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic to an investigating judge are varied in content. In this regard, the issue of the classification of the powers of an investigating judge is relevant. Object of research: the procedural figure of the investigating judge. The subject of the research: the powers of the investigating judge and their division by classification. Thus, the powers of an investigating judge, provided for in Article 31 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, cover not only the issues of the existence of grounds for the application and extension of measures to ensure criminal proceedings, authorization of investigative and special investigative actions, as well as the resolution of issues arising between the participants in pre-trial proceedings, including those affecting the scope of proof in criminal cases. A proposal has been made to classify the powers of an investigating judge in criminal proceedings in the Kyrgyz Republic.

scholarly journals A Brief Analysis On Preventive Measures Involving Deprivation Of Liberty

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 398-402
Author(s):  
Denisa Barbu
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
General Nature ◽  
Individual Freedom ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
House Arrest ◽  
The Individual ◽  
General Conditions

Abstract Preventive measures are divided by the legislator in 2 categories: imprisonment (detention, house arrest, preventive arrest) and restrictive of rights (judicial review and judicial control on surety). An absolute novelty is the introduction of house arrest. There is some controversy concerning the conditions which must be fulfilled in order to be disposed by the judge of rights and freedoms, the judge of preliminary Chamber or Panel of judges either the house arrest or the measure of preventive arrest. Whereas the establishment of preventive measures involves undermining the individual freedom, the national and the European laws have created a series of legal guarantees to prevent arbitrariness or abuse in making or extend/maintain them. There are also a number of provisions of a general nature, applicable to all preventive measures, namely, termination, revocation or replacement thereof. For all measures involving deprivation of liberty, general conditions must be fulfilled, stipulated by article 202, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but for house arrest and detention in addition to the General conditions, special conditions should be fulfilled foreseen by article 223 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, conditions which must be cumulatively met. Not fulfilling the cumulative criteria laid down in national and European norms cannot be replaced by other considerations of the judge.

scholarly journals Application of preventive measures in the criminal process: current issues

2020 ◽  
pp. 122-126
Author(s):  
V.S. Suslova ◽  
O.I. Tyshchenko
Keyword(s):  
Preventive Measures ◽  
Preventive Measure ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Provisions ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Criminal Matters

The article is devoted to the research of topical issues of application of the institute of preventive measures in criminal proceedings on the basis of the analysis of normative provisions of the current criminal procedure legislation and law enforcement practice. It is emphasized that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine 2012 (hereinafter - the CPC of Ukraine) provides for an updated system of preventive measures, unlike the CPC of 1960. Attention is drawn to the degree of restriction of human rights and freedoms in the application of preventive measures. The purpose of this article is to analyze topical issues regarding the grounds and procedural order for the application of preventive measures in criminal proceedings and to offer optimal ways of solving them. The author has come to the conclusion that at this stage criminal procedural legislation in terms of regulation of preventive measures needs improvement. The article investigates the types and reasons for choosing preventive measures, which determined the author's position on the need to consolidate at the legislative level the definition of the term "preventive measures". The scientific positions of different authors on the issues related to the application of preventive measures are analyzed, in particular, the views of the processional scientists on the concept of "preventive measures". This made it possible to demonstrate the existence of a rather wide range of scientific proposals for defining this concept at the legislative level. Attention is drawn to the fact that, in practice, the right of a person to liberty and personal integrity when choosing a preventive measure in the form of detention is quite often unduly restricted. The materials of the case law, legal provisions of the ECtHR, Letter of the High Specialized Court of Ukraine on Civil and Criminal Matters "On Some Issues of Preventive Measures During Pre-trial Investigation and Proceeding in the Procedure Provided by the Criminal Procedure" Code of Ukraine of 04.04.2013 are used.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document