Suchergebnisse

This article addresses the issue of the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings, specifically focusing on the use of results from operational investigative activities, expert conclusions, and testimonies. Until now, the issues of their legalization and recognition as admissible evidence remain controversial. The relevance of this study is underscored by the need in legal theory and practice to recognize the distinct role of non-procedural information in criminal proceedings, which holds significance for the case, and to develop approaches to its legal interpretation and application, considering the sources and methods of its acquisition. The aim of this publication is to justify the necessity of fully reflecting the results of operational investigative activities and expert studies in the materials of pre-trial investigation and criminal cases for subsequent judicial review. To achieve this goal, a number of tasks are solved, including: analysis of approaches to understanding the stated problem that have emerged in the scientific legal literature, determination of legal ways to solve it within the framework of current legislation. An overview of the procedural process of judicialization is provided, with emphasis on the possibilities of interrogating personnel conducting operational support and specialists performing individual studies, the results of which are then subject to verification and evaluation in accordance with the requirements of relevance and admissibility of evidence. In conclusion, the integration of operational investigative results and expert analyses as admissible evidence in criminal proceedings requires balanced approaches that uphold procedural integrity while accommodating the complexities of modern investigative techniques. By advancing these discussions, policymakers and legal practitioners can foster a more robust framework for evidence evaluation and judicial decision-making.

A ZLRev article on torture in Zimbabwe. ; Section 24 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe gives the Supreme Court the power to declare any law to be in violation of the Declaration of Rights and hence unconstitutional and invalid. This has not always been the position. Under s.26 (2)(b) as read with s.26 (3)(b) of the Constitution, no pre-existing law was to be held to contravene the Declaration of Rights until five years after the date of independence. A similar prohibition, but without the time restriction, was found in the 1961,1965,1969, and 1979 Constitutions.* 1 Therefore, on 18 April 1985, for the first time a court in Zimbabwe was empowered to strike down a preexisting law as unconstitutional. It was clearly the intention of the drafters of the Constitution that pre-existing laws should be reviewed, and if necessary, struck down. With this in mind, it is the purpose of this article to discuss the application of s.15 of the Declaration of Rights to the law of evidence. Section 15 provides "No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading punishment or other such treatment." I will argue that existing laws which allow evidence obtained as the result of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment to be admissible are unconstitutional and must be struck down. First I will discuss the content of what is forbidden, i.e. the definition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment. Next I will discuss the enforcement of the provision, particularly with regard to the law of evidence.

International criminal procedure combines elements of accusatorial and inquisitorial legal traditions, thus constituting a unique amalgam. Because of the broader scale and the complexity of international criminality to be addressed by international criminal courts and tribunals, it may seem interesting to look at developments and their hitherto experience through the lens of the admissibility of evidence. The presented paper scrutinizes the respective law and practice of the International Military Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, and the International Criminal Court, and also makes some general observations on the admissibility of evidence from the perspective of international judiciary as a whole, i.e. not only confined to international judicial bodies of a criminal character. ; O processo penal internacional combina elementos das tradições acusatórias e inquisitórias, assim constituindo um paradigma único. Em razão da escala mais ampla e da maior complexidade da criminalidade internacional a ser enfrentada pelos Tribunais criminais internacionais, pode ser interessante observar os seus desenvolvimentos e históricos diante da temática da admissibilidade probatória. Neste artigo pretende-se analisar a legislação e a prática dos Tribunais Internacionais Militares, os Tribunais Penais Internacionais para a antiga Iugoslávia e para Ruanda, e o Tribunal Penal Internacional, além de apontar comentários gerais sobre admissibilidade da prova em uma perspectiva internacional ampla, ou seja, não somente limitada a órgãos judiciais internacionais de caráter penal.

The EU, while developing instruments for evidence-gathering in criminal matters, is not making much of an effort to enhance its admissibility. This may lead to situations where, given the differences between legal systems across the EU, evidence collected in one member state will not be admissible in other member states. Due to the fact that the Lisbon Treaty opened the possibility of adopting minimum rules concerning, among other things, the mutual admissibility of evidence, this paper is dedicated to verifying whether it is feasible to achieve various common EU minimum standards for evidence-gathering.

This article analyses the admissibility of evidence gathered by the Polish procedural authorities as a result of issuing an European Investigation Order, on the basis of provisions implemented due to the adoption on the 3th of April 2014 of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. This Directive created a mechanism that allows for transfer of evidence between EU Member States. In this text the question will be answered how to deal with results of investigative measures that have been legally obtained in the executing state but despite acting in accordance with the legality principle by both states, happen to be illegal in the issuing Member State. Another discussed problem is how the rules of admissibility of evidence obtained from the result of issuing an EIO work in Poland – or at least how they should operate. The second discussed issue thus will refer to the current provisions in force in Poland regulating the method of dealing with evidence obtained abroad – that is also with evidence transferred from other Member States. It will be shown that they are unclear and may lead to undesirable results. In addition, suggested changes in Polish law will be proposed. ; This article analyses the admissibility of evidence gathered by the Polish procedural authorities as a result of issuing an European Investigation Order, on the basis of provisions implemented due to the adoption on the 3th of April 2014 of the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding the European Investigation Order in criminal matters. This Directive created a mechanism that allows for transfer of evidence between EU Member States. In this text the question will be answered how to deal with results of investigative measures that have been legally obtained in the executing state but despite acting in accordance with the legality principle by both states, happen to be illegal in the issuing Member State. Another discussed problem is how the rules of admissibility of evidence obtained from the result of issuing an EIO work in Poland – or at least how they should operate. The second discussed issue thus will refer to the current provisions in force in Poland regulating the method of dealing with evidence obtained abroad – that is also with evidence transferred from other Member States. It will be shown that they are unclear and may lead to undesirable results. In addition, suggested changes in Polish law will be proposed.