Determination of Suspects by Judges in Corruption Cases: Concepts and Lessons from Several Countries

This study seeks to elucidate the optimal framework for judges in determining suspects in corruption trials. The author endeavours to elucidate the nature of judicial authority in the determination of suspects across numerous nations, specifically France, Italy, and Germany. This research constitutes a normative legal study employing a comparative law methodology, with France, Germany, and Italy as the comparative subjects. The author concludes that judges must rely on suspects' determinations of the trial's facts. This practice is already implemented in the criminal justice systems of France, Germany, and Italy. In Italian criminal justice, the word 'Urgent Action' refers to the power of Italian investigating judges to issue Urgent Action orders. One category of Urgent Action concerns the interrogation of suspects regarding facts relevant to the accountability of other individuals, as well as the questioning of those involved in the case. The determination of suspects by judges in corruption cases must rely on: First, adequate preliminary evidence; Second, the conviction that a criminal act has transpired and that the defendant is culpable; Third, judges shall consider human rights when designating suspects in corruption cases; Fourth, the assurance that judges' designation of suspects will be subject to trial