Search engine for discovering works of Art, research articles, and books related to Art and Culture
ShareThis
Javascript must be enabled to continue!

Confronting with the Prosecution

View through CrossRef
Confronting criminal investigation activity cannot always be qualified as illegal activity of some participants in the criminal process. The right to defense in the criminal process is a tool through which the defense side can try to confront the course of the criminal prosecution or redirect it in a convenient way. The possibilities granted by the law to the defense party, which aim to protect legitimate rights and interests, are also a legal tool to confront the criminal prosecution, provided by the legislator (the right of the suspect/accused to be assisted by a defense attorney, the right of the suspect/accused not to submit statements, the right to contest the actions of the criminal investigation body, the right to a legal representative, limitation of terms for applying preventive measures, etc.). A way provided by the law, by which the defense side can confront the activity of the criminal investigation body, would be the principle of adversariality in the criminal process. This principle of criminal procedural law, in essence, represents the legal basis for the confrontation with criminal prosecution activities (results of actions), which is obviously limited within an absolutely predefined framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Moldova. The essence of the principle of adversariality in the criminal prosecution phase implies that the criminal prosecution body "acts" (for example: forwards the accusation), and the defense side confronts it (for example, the accused submits statements by which he argues the non-recognition of the act or guilt). Therefore, the opposition and the pursuit of compliance by the criminal prosecution body with the legal regulations when carrying out criminal prosecution actions will also constitute, an element of the implementation of the principle of adversariality in the criminal prosecution phase and a way of legally confronting the criminal prosecution activity.
Title: Confronting with the Prosecution
Description:
Confronting criminal investigation activity cannot always be qualified as illegal activity of some participants in the criminal process.
The right to defense in the criminal process is a tool through which the defense side can try to confront the course of the criminal prosecution or redirect it in a convenient way.
The possibilities granted by the law to the defense party, which aim to protect legitimate rights and interests, are also a legal tool to confront the criminal prosecution, provided by the legislator (the right of the suspect/accused to be assisted by a defense attorney, the right of the suspect/accused not to submit statements, the right to contest the actions of the criminal investigation body, the right to a legal representative, limitation of terms for applying preventive measures, etc.
).
A way provided by the law, by which the defense side can confront the activity of the criminal investigation body, would be the principle of adversariality in the criminal process.
This principle of criminal procedural law, in essence, represents the legal basis for the confrontation with criminal prosecution activities (results of actions), which is obviously limited within an absolutely predefined framework of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Moldova.
The essence of the principle of adversariality in the criminal prosecution phase implies that the criminal prosecution body "acts" (for example: forwards the accusation), and the defense side confronts it (for example, the accused submits statements by which he argues the non-recognition of the act or guilt).
Therefore, the opposition and the pursuit of compliance by the criminal prosecution body with the legal regulations when carrying out criminal prosecution actions will also constitute, an element of the implementation of the principle of adversariality in the criminal prosecution phase and a way of legally confronting the criminal prosecution activity.

Related Results

The Pendulum Swings: Reconsidering Corporate Criminal Prosecution
The Pendulum Swings: Reconsidering Corporate Criminal Prosecution
Corporate crime continues to occur at an alarming rate, yet disagreement persists among scholars and practitioners about the role of corporate criminal prosecution. Some argue that...
Reconstruction of the Termination of Prosecution of Corruption Offences Public Prosecutor's Discretion
Reconstruction of the Termination of Prosecution of Corruption Offences Public Prosecutor's Discretion
Corruption cases that result in small state financial losses continue to end up in the Corruption Court without alternative solutions that are faster, simpler and cheaper, even tho...
Harmonizing Prosecution History Estoppel and the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Infringement Actions
Harmonizing Prosecution History Estoppel and the Doctrine of Equivalents in Patent Infringement Actions
The patent law's doctrines of prosecution history estoppel and equivalents have come head on in the Court of Appeals for the Federal District's decision Festo Corporation v. Shoket...
An Examination of the Institutions of Investigation and Prosecution in Iranian Criminal Law and English Law
An Examination of the Institutions of Investigation and Prosecution in Iranian Criminal Law and English Law
Preliminary investigations and prosecution are legal prerogatives of prosecutorial authorities and the police, functioning as human instruments in the procedural stages of criminal...
Pembatasan Diskresi Penuntutan Pasca P-21 Melalui Mekanisme Praperadilan
Pembatasan Diskresi Penuntutan Pasca P-21 Melalui Mekanisme Praperadilan
This study aims to analyze the limitation of prosecutorial discretion in terminating prosecution after a case file has been declared complete (P-21) through Pretrial Decision Numbe...
INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTION OF MACRO-CRIMES COMMITTED DURING THE THIRD ARTSAKH WAR
INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTION OF MACRO-CRIMES COMMITTED DURING THE THIRD ARTSAKH WAR
This article articulates the possible legal paths open to international criminal law in order to activate the prosecution of macro-crimes committed during the Third Artsakh War. Ne...
The “Kouwenhoven” Case
The “Kouwenhoven” Case
431 War and armed conflict — War crimes — Foreign amnesty laws — Scope — Effect of foreign amnesties on prosecution under Dutch law — War crimes committed in Se...
7. Prosecutions and constructing guilt
7. Prosecutions and constructing guilt
This chapter examines whether the combination of laws, policies, and procedures of different prosecuting and enforcement agencies is fair and effective, and why an overwhelming pro...

Back to Top