Search

The First Information Report (FIR) serves as the foundation for criminal trials. The Station House Officer(s) (SHO) of the investigation agency is under an obligation to promptly register an FIR whenever any information regarding the commission of a cognizable offence comes to their knowledge, whether orally or in writing. However, they often refuse to do so or delay its registration. Consequently, victims or informants must resort to courts against this action of SHO. This research paper deals with a very important legal question: whether an SHO can refuse or delay the registration of an FIR in a cognizable offence. It also explores whether an SHO can inquire into the truthfulness of the information without first registering it. This research concludes that SHOs have no discretion in this matter. The informant or victim has the right to register an FIR. This should be accepted by the investigation agency. They need to be trained. Its recognition should be unequivocally declared by police authorities through issuing necessary directions to SHOs. Online FIR system can be a vital solution. These steps are sin qua non to ensure fair trials in the criminal justice system (CJS) of Pakistan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right to be present at trial is under threat following the decision of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals' Trial Chamber to continue proceedings against Félicien Kabuga after finding him mentally unfit to stand trial. The Trial Chamber opted instead to hold an "alternative finding procedure", resembling a trial as closely as possible, albeit without the possibility of concluding with a verdict. This article engages with that decision through the lens of whether this approach complies with the accused's right to be present at trial. It concludes that the proceedings would be little more than a de facto trial that does not adequately respect the accused's right to be present. It also finds that should other international criminal courts and tribunals follow a similar approach the right to be present would be deprived of any real meaning. This could also, in turn, threaten overall fairness of the proceedings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Domestic violence is a silent killer that attacks quickly. This Note specifically discusses the Battered Woman Syndrome and the need to explore the current laws that "protect" this group. Current laws in a majority of states create a barrier that blocks battered women from obtaining the justice that should be given to all citizens. When the abused woman is at an impasse in her relationship, she may be forced to make a life-or-death decision. More likely than not, the result becomes the worst possible outcome. Domestic violence continues to be higher amongst women than men, where women are emotionally, as well as physically, withdrawn due to the abuse. This Note considers the various possibilities that may be taken by the different levels of government. More importantly, each state legislature can ensure safety by removing the cruel measures that battered women face. This would therefore change the assessment of who the true victim is in self-defense scenarios. New York is one of the leading examples of states moving with a sense of urgency while maintaining the other aspects of criminal laws. This Note does not ask for battered women to not pay for the crimes they commit. Rather, this Note brings awareness to the issues that occur in the courtroom and a solution by allowing this vulnerable group to rehabilitate while getting a fair trial. The fair trial begins with a change in our policies to lessen the strict scrutiny that duress or self-defense claims require. Put simply, imminence should no longer be a controlling factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the contradiction between probable cause and presumption of innocence and how the right to fair trial of a criminal defendant relies on a child's education in fine arts. Topics discussed include history of probable cause and the Anglo-American presumption of innocence, impartial jury, standard of probable cause as inherently prejudicial, and jury's willing suspension of disbelief as a mandatory condition for the right to fair trial.

Extrajudicial killing in international law, is the use of intentional and lethal force by states, which is not justifiable under the rules of the right to life and can be carried out arbitrarily without legal authorization and without a fair trial. On January 3, 2020, a US drone strike killed General Qassem Soleimani and his entourage at Baghdad Airport, killing him and his entourage. The United States immediately took responsibility for the attack. This paper seeks to answer the question whether the United States' action against General Soleimani and his entourage at Baghdad airport could be considered extrajudicial killing in international law. The present paperr using a descriptive-analytical methos concludes that the United States has committed extrajudicial killing against General Soleimani and his entourage by arbitrarily depriving them of life, without legal authorization and without a fair trial. In addition to the violation of human rights of the individuals, US action also violated the rules of international humanitarian law and international criminal law. Of course, it should not be forgotten that General Soleimani and his entourage were never sentenced to death in a competent court and through a fair trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Kırıkkale Law Journal (KLJ) is the property of Kirikkale Law Journal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of KritV, CritQ, RCrit. Kritische Vierteljahresschrift für Gesetzgebung und Rechtswissenschaft / Critical Quarterly for Legislation & Law / Revue critique trimestrielle de jurisprudence et de législation is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The Italian Constitutional Court recently issued its ruling in the context of the criminal proceedings concerning the torture of Giulio Regeni, an Italian PhD student whose dead body was found in Egypt. The case raised the issue of whether the impossibility of prosecuting the alleged perpetrators of acts of torture was compatible with Italy's international obligations. The Constitutional Court concluded that the duty to prosecute torture imposed to hold the trial even in absentia, subject to the right of the accused to obtain a retrial. This contribution will show how the Constitutional Court filled a lacuna in the domestic legal framework by balancing the international obligations at stake. It will assess the questionable aspect of the judgment, notably the identification of the source of the alleged duty of the State of passive nationality of the victim to prosecute of torture. Lastly, it will assess the case in the light of the international legal framework concerning trials in absentia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article is devoted to the study of the concept of reasoning of court decisions through psychological, logical and doctrinal aspects. Reasonableness of court decisions is a multifaceted concept, which is influenced by the interaction of these three key aspects. Studying the characteristics of a court decision as a special type of legal document through the prism of interdisciplinary dialogue improves understanding of the processes underlying judicial thinking and the formalization of its outcome. Cognitive biases, emotional state and social pressure influence the decision-making process. The article analyzes certain psychological theories and concepts that emphasize the influence of psychological factors on the motivation of judicial decisions. The author emphasizes the importance of logical consistency in legal reasoning. The author examines the common logical techniques, used in rendering court decisions and their reasoning, and also identifies the importance of consistent and rational judgments in law enforcement. In addition, the author examines how established legal doctrines affect the characteristics of a court decision, including its motivation, and how deviations from these doctrines may affect public perception of court decisions. Understanding and taking into account psychological, logical and doctrinal aspects in the process of making a court decision is important for increasing the level of motivation of court decisions, and as a result, ensuring the right to a fair trial and building trust in the legal system in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The quasi-judicial body responsible for the enforcement of official documents is one of the most important auxiliary bodies within the registration system. This body possesses multiple legal competencies to handle specialized litigations, alongside other authorities within its legal system. The significance of these competencies lies in their nature as actions that guarantee fundamental rights of individuals within the judicial procedure of this body. The establishment of fair trial within this body is one of the key criteria to assess these competencies. This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach with a comparative perspective. The article aims to examine the quasi-judicial procedure in the enforcement of official documents, considering its competencies, in the context of fair trial to answer the question: What is the approach of this body towards fair trial in its own judicial procedure? The findings of this research demonstrate that the quasi-judicial body possesses broad competencies under the regulations governing the enforcement of official documents, and some aspects of fair trial, such as the principle of legality, time limits, appealability, and religious exceptions, have been recognized; however, important criteria such as consistency, independence in decision-making, the right to legal representation, and the right to access case files have not been adequately addressed. Therefore, it can be argued that the quasi-judicial body in the enforcement of official documents applies an incomplete form of fair trial in its judicial procedure, which, in addition to ambiguities and inconsistencies within this body, leads to the violation of individuals' rights.

Good faith as an essential principle in substantive and procedural criminal law, can be discussed not only in the context of justifying the exercise of legal institutions including justifiable causes, legal excuses and mitigating factors for the crime perpetrator, but also in criminal proceedings, from the police stage to the investigation stage and even the execution of the sentence, have a special position. Though in the legal literature and in the criminal laws of many countries, explicitly or implicitly, the principle of good faith and its effect on the decision of the judicial authority and the scope of the criminal responsibility of the perpetrator, providing the basis for the use of the institutions of mutual aid, granting the right of defense to the accused in justifying the committed behavior and removing the charge, balancing the view of the official actors of the criminal justice system, etc. has been mentioned, but in the literature of Iran’s criminal law and criminal procedure, this principle has not been paid attention to in a proper and specific way. Although some judicial activists pay attention to good faith as a justification for adjusting or changing charges and changing the amount of punishments based on legal doctrine, but due to the lack of identification of the legal position of the aforementioned principle and its disregarded place during the criminal proceedings, the effective role of it, is not taken into account. In this research, which was carried out in a descriptive-analytical and at the same time comparative method by using library tools and analyzing the content of some opinions, the position of the good faith principle during the criminal proceedings process was explained and the positive consequences of legal and judicial efforts were explained. It has been mentioned, among other things, narrowing the scope of the population of suspects and accused persons, reducing the rate of court cases, reducing the number of convicts and prisoners, as well as consolidating the position of fair trial.

This paper analyses new fact-finding methods in criminal proceedings, using state-of-the-art innovations in neuroscience and artificial intelligence (AI). It will outline the existing methods and explain their effects. Then it will address the criminal-law aspects of the use of such methods as evidence in criminal proceedings, with an emphasis on the assessment of their admissibility from the perspective of the right to a fair trial and the privilege against self-incrimination. This topic will be observed from the perspective of US and European law, highlighting the existing jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the legal standards established by the court in relation to the privilege against self-incrimination. Based on this analysis, the authors will formulate a conclusion suggesting that the use of current AI technologies should be juxtaposed to the relevant benchmark of the privilege against self-incrimination as the requisite standard of the right to a fair trial.

The ability of a person to represent and protect his interests, and bear legal responsibility for committing administrative offenses and crimes, constitutes such a category as the legal personality. The article's purpose was to compare the legal personality of an offender and criminally punishable acts by the legislation of Ukraine and international legal acts. For this purpose, the following tasks have been set: 1) the concept and components of such a category as "legal entity" were defined; 2) the peculiarities of the concept of administrative legal personality are clarified, the limits of the administrative legal personality of a person who has committed an administrative offense are determined; 3) the limits legal personality person who has committed a criminal offense are characterized. The value of individual sources of the United Nations and the European Court of Human Rights for solving the specified tasks is clarified. Provisions are given that indicate that certain norms of Ukraine's national legislation do not correspond to the provisions of international law. This needs to be settled, because, for example, the right to a fair trial should be equal for everyone. The legal personality within the limits of administrative and criminal proceedings carried out by the legislation of Ukraine does not differ. However, in the case of bringing a person to justice, it is necessary to evaluate different components of legal personality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Bankrecht und Bankwirtschaft is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article discusses defendants' rights to a fair and adequate trial in ineffective assistance of counsel claims in the U.S. Topics discussed include the right to effective assistance to counsel in a criminal proceeding under the Sixth Amendment, the Supreme Court case Strickland v. Washington, and suggested remedies to the impossibility of prevailing on ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

The article analyzes research conducted between 2018 and 2022 in Montevideo, focusing on the migrant population deprived of liberty and their access to rights and justice. The study worked with men mainly from Cuba and the Dominican Republic, as well as other countries in South America and Africa, whose displacements are primarily motivated by economic reasons, although they are intertwined with political and religious factors. The analysis is carried out from the perspective of belonging or not belonging to the national order, which allows for examining how migrants have less legitimacy and challenge the functioning of the state, its bureaucracy, and the norms of national society. We seek to contribute to knowledge about the relationship between the migrant population and the penal system based on questions such as: What is the nature of the link between the migrant population and the penal system? What specific obstacles do these individuals face in the system? What aspects of the penal system are questioned or challenged by working with migrants and foreigners? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Ankara Barosu Dergileri is the property of Ankara Bar Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article focuses on the importance of jury selection procedures, particularly through the lens of voir dire. It discusses the impact of careful voir dire on cases, the effectiveness of open-ended questioning, individual questioning, and the challenges faced in diversifying jury pools. It further sheds light on the significance of thorough jury selection processes in ensuring fair trials.

This article paper examines the possibility of consular protection in espionage and terrorist act cases from the perspective of international law and the International Court of Justice judgment in the Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan). In this descriptive- and analytical research, by re-examining the precedent of the court in cases related to the interpretation and application of article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, we conclude that the Court, because of jurisdictional limitations, reaffirms its previous precedent (stare decisions) on not considering consular protection as a human right. But by remembering the responsibility of the host state to effective review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences, the court implicitly confirms the importance of consular protection in making the right to a fair trial more effective. Moreover, by denying the existence of the "terrorism and espionage exclusion" in treaties and customary international law, the Court considered that all persons deprived of liberty regardless of their criminal charge and its gravity have the right to receive consular protection from their respective state. The approach of the International Court of Justice cas d’espece is evaluated in the sequence of progressive humanization of international law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Research in Humanities is the property of Tarbiat Modares University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Türkiye Adalet Akademisi Dergisi is the property of Justice Academy of Turkey and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Without ex-ante judicial oversight, there is a significant risk that individuals' fundamental rights could be severely threatened under the guise of pursuing and investigating individuals. This research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology, utilizing relevant legal literature to elucidate the role of ex-ante judicial oversight. The aim is to explain the significance and position of this institution in ensuring a fair trial, upholding the presumption of innocence, and striking a balance between the rights of the parties involved in a criminal case, all based on the principles of the rule of law and jurisprudence. Implementing ex-ante judicial oversight is the enhancement of public trust in the functioning of the judicial system ensures the system's efficiency and prevents the misuse of legal powers by prosecution and investigation authorities. The research findings underscore the necessity of strengthening ex-ante judicial oversight over investigative and prosecutorial measures, particularly in Iran and Syria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal for Technology in Theory & Practice / Zeitschrift für Technikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis (TATuP) is the property of Oekom Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of International Journal on Humanities & Social Sciences is the property of International Journal on Humanities & Social Sciences and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The paper takes a recent case as a starting point to examine how the disappearance of the object of examination from a forensic expert appointed by the trial court should be assessed in the light of civil law, civil procedure and constitutional law. The analysis will focus on the specific legal relationships and liabilities associated with the appointment of an expert. The theoretical conclusions on these issues are the starting point for the fundamental question, of constitutional importance, of whether a judgment can be based on an expert's opinion that was drawn up without the expert having returned the object of the examination although he should have done so. The study also attempts to answer this question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Kyrgyzstan e-justice is in its developing phase. Digital transformation of justice was accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic. The impact of Covid-19 on courts was the rapid increase in the use of information and communication technology (ICT) to maintain some functioning during lockdown and in its aftermath. The implemented ICT in courts must align with principles of law. The paper presents development of existing e-justice systems in Kyrgyzstan. The main objective of the paper is to analyse the evaluation that main actors in the judicial proceedings give to the effects of the development of e-justice concerning some relevant dimensions including access to justice, the right to a fair trial, the right to an effective remedy, data privacy, the rule of law and main judicial values. In addition, the paper conducts analysis of risks of e-justice implementation, and determines areas of improvement from technological, legal, organisational, human resources and educational perspectives. The main challenges of e-justice systems are identified in the study. The methodology of this paper includes an analysis of national legislation, public information about e-justice complemented by an exploratory empirical study based on ten semi-structured interviews with judges, court staff, advocates and an online survey of twenty-one advocates. The study provides 'points of attention' on how to improve e-justice in Kyrgyzstan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This review essay discusses two books: Fairness and Rights in International Criminal Procedure by Sophie Rigney and Punishing Atrocities through a Fair Trial by Jonathan Hafetz. It discusses the methods used in each book, their conceptions of fairness, and what they see as the future of fairness in international criminal law. The review argues that when the two books are read together they show how far fairness has come, where it is now, and where fairness is headed in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The constitutional test the Supreme Court has prescribed to review courtroom closures for compliance with the Sixth Amendment's right to a public trial is in the nature of strict scrutiny. The Court requires an "overriding interest" to justify the closure, and a narrow, minimally restrictive scope to the closure. Many lower courts have imposed a less demanding test for "partial" closures, which admit to the courtroom some, but not all, of the public. These courts require a less demanding justification before closing the courtroom to certain individuals--the justification need be only "substantial," rather than "overriding." This standard is in the nature of intermediate scrutiny, as applied in other constitutional contexts. There is a third type of "closure," however, beyond the complete closures the Supreme Court has reviewed, and the partial closures encountered by other courts. This third type is the imposition of entry conditions on would-be audience members, such as requiring a form of identification. These generally applicable conditions may not actually exclude anyone but could conceivably dissuade some audience members from attending a trial. For instance, an attendee might prefer not to provide identification to court personnel and might be turned away as a result. In keeping with the doctrinal model already followed by the courts--applying "tiered scrutiny" to courtroom closures--conditional courtroom entry should be reviewed according to the most lenient of the tiers, rational basis scrutiny. A sliding scale should apply to public trial scrutiny, "Waller" scrutiny, the most demanding, when all are excluded. "Substantial reason" scrutiny, less demanding, should apply when some are excluded. And rational basis scrutiny, much less demanding, should apply when no one need be excluded, but for their non-compliance with a general rule. A lesser standard should apply in the case of entry conditions because they differ from other closures and cause minimal prejudice to the purposes of the right to a public trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho de la Seguridad Social, Laborum is the property of Ediciones Laborum S.L. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article evaluates the challenges that have arisen from the growth of social media and its influence on the right to the fair trial process in high-profile cases. Pretrial publicity through media exposure can bias potential jurors, potentially leading to decisions based on outside information rather than courtroom evidence. The article highlights the risks associated with jurors being exposed to external information through various media sources, which can significantly impact their objectivity and ability to make impartial judgments. It scrutinizes the limitations of the existing legal framework in addressing these challenges, including the reliance on jurors’ assurances of impartiality and the presumed ability of the legal system to uncover and mitigate bias. By highlighting the case of State of Minnesota v. Derek Chauvin, the article considers how social media amplifies pretrial publicity, further complicating the preservation of juror impartiality. This case raises important questions about the impact of social media on juror bias and whether the current legal standards are equipped to address this issue adequately. The article does not assess Chauvin’s guilt or whether the jury was correct in reaching their verdict. Rather, the article emphasizes the urgent need for a reevaluation of these legal standards, which have largely remained unchanged since the 1960s, focusing on whether a fair trial is possible in cases with worldwide attention and social justice scrutiny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyzes the unconstitutionality of the second paragraph of article 387 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Chile, which establishes restrictions on the right to appeal in cases of final judgments. The jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court on this issue is reviewed, highlighting the recent changes in the jurisprudence of the latter court. The importance of an ordinary and effective appeal, accessible and allowing a comprehensive examination of the appealed decision, is discussed. The Constitutional Court has declared the inapplicability due to unconstitutionality of the second paragraph of article 387 in several judgments, arguing that it restricts the right to defense and violates the right to a fair trial. It is suggested to modify this rule to comply with constitutional and human rights standards. [Extracted from the article]

In comparison to the European Convention on Human Rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which provides in its Article 16 for the freedom to conduct a business, is a much more modern instrument. In this article I argue that the Convention nevertheless appears to be no less important a document offering protection of entrepreneurs' rights. This is the case even though it does not provide any particular rights devoted to the running of a business by entrepreneurs. This is possible, first of all, due to the right of individual application which may be lodged directly with the European Court of Human Rights in its capacity as an international court. No comparable measure for an individual complaint is available under the UN Charter. Secondly, the extensive case law of the Strasbourg Court has made it possible for entrepreneurs to rely on a number of Convention rights, despite the fact that these rights, at least at first glance, are not connected with the running of a business. This refers not only to the right to a fair trial on the protection of property, which offer entrepreneurs the protection of a number of their interests, but also to rights which at first glance have nothing to do with the running of the business, such as the right to respect for private and family life protected under Article 8 of the Convention. As a result, the right of individual complaint to the ECtHR should be perceived as an important measure of the protection and enforcements of entrepreneurs' rights at the international level, in case of any failure to secure the protection of those rights at the national level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The often-overlooked provision of criminal law, which holds significant importance is section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973. Section 313 grants the accused an opportunity to provide their statement, ensuring their right to be heard and preventing self-incrimination. This article explores the background, evolution, and objectives of section 313 CrPC, as well as its alignment with the principles of natural justice. The main aim of the article is to demonstrate how India still falls short in upholding the right to silence as per section 313, through a detailed analysis of various judgments passed by the Supreme Court of India, and laws enacted in other jurisdictions around the world. The article addresses the issue of Indian courts using adverse inferences from an accused person's silence, which conflicts with Article 20(3) of the Indian Constitution. It argues that drawing such inferences should be reconsidered by the courts, as it contradicts important legal principles and undermines the right to a fair trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper acknowledges the progressive efforts under the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, statutes and jurisprudence on the rights of accused persons vis-àvis victim rights under Kenya’s criminal justice system. It conceptualizes the place, scope, and evidentiary weight of victim impact statements by arguing that VISs have evidentiary value especially during court sentencing. Secondly, the paper evaluates what “reasonable access” means in a criminal justice system and whether the discretion of the Court under section 329C(4) of the Kenyan Criminal Procedure Code is constitutional, equitable and promotes access to justice. Thirdly, whereas discretion is a fundamental element of judicial independence, further conceptual and theoretical studies on access to justice are necessary in understanding the intersectionality of different variables under Kenya’s criminal justice system, the need for progressive development of the law. Lastly, this paper contributes to the body of knowledge on the intersectionalities under criminal justice systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review is the property of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Majalat Monazaat Al-Aamal is the property of Majalat Monazaat Al-Aamal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this article, we argue that a majority of the Constitutional Court, in Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State v Zuma & Others [2021] ZACC 18 ('Zuma II'), erred in its reasoning and outcome when it sentenced former South African President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma to 15 months' imprisonment for contempt of court, without affording him the Constitution's Section 35(3) fair trial rights. We argue that Mr Zuma was owed fair trial rights - in particular the Section 35(3)(o) right 'of appeal to, or review by, a higher court' - in Zuma II because the primary relief sought against him was direct imprisonment. We go on to argue that the majority should have referred the case against Mr Zuma to a High Court of appropriate jurisdiction - not the National Prosecuting Authority, as the minority in Zuma II suggested. In making this suggestion, we depart from a core finding of Zuma II's minority: that motion proceedings are, inherently, unable to offer the protection of a fair trial. In Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector including Organs of State & Others [2021] ZACC 28 ('Zuma III'), Mr Zuma asked the Court to rescind Zuma II. We argue that Mr Zuma's rescission application was a non-starter and that the minority's efforts in Zuma III to overturn Zuma II in terms of Section 172(1) and Section 173 of the Constitution failed as well. To the extent that Zuma III dealt with South Africa's international law obligations, we argue that they were irrelevant to Mr Zuma's rescission application. However, by denying Mr Zuma an opportunity to appeal or review Zuma II, we argue that South Africa may have breached its obligations under Article 14(5) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disturbed people's lives all over the world for many months and it has had a weighty impact on all spheres of life, both in terms of the private sphere of individuals and in relation to the functioning of state institutions, including courts. To protect public health and limit the number of infected citizens, it became necessary for state authorities to introduce emergency measures, some of which resulted in far-reaching restrictions on human rights – and the right to a fair trial was no exception. This article aims at presenting the way in which the Polish judiciary functioned during the pandemic, as well as the main problems related to exercising the right to a fair trial during the COVID-19 pandemic, including a lack of openness of court proceedings, remote hearings and the removal of the collegiality of judicial adjudication in most civil cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anti-Money Laundering measures have various objectives including detecting crime by following the money trail and protecting the integrity of the financial system against abuse by criminals. Suspicious Transactions Report (STR) is one of the vehicles to achieve these objectives. The Ethiopian Financial Intelligence Service has received reports of suspicious transactions involving 9 Billion Birr within five months of 2014 E.C. (Sept. 2021 to August 2022). On the other hand, some argue that the obligation contravenes legally protected rights, such as confidentiality, the relationship of trust between lawyers and client, professional freedom of the lawyers and fair trial. Based on international and national legal instruments and scholarly works, the practice in Ethiopia and views of experts, this author argues that advocates' duty to report suspicious transaction is in line with legally protected rights due to the adverse impact of money laundering and the role of the professionals in combating money laundering through the bridge mechanism. The rights and privileges accorded to advocates and their clients are meant to protect legitimate interests of individuals, and cannot justify acts that conceal a crime, escape criminal liability or encourage impunity. The advocate's duty to report suspicious transactions provided under Proclamation No. 780/2013 is thus in line with the state's duty under the Palermo Convention and other international instruments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]