Search

The prohibition of being liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings for the same offence ne bis in idem - is one of fundamental criminal proceeding principles and a basic human right. It protects the defendant from reopening the proceedings for the same criminal offence in respect of which the proceedings were finalized. Primarily, the effect of this principle is related to final court decisions. Regarding the decisions of the public prosecutor, there is a legal gap. As the reformed criminal procedure provides broader jurisdiction to the public prosecutor, it has seemed a necessity to consider in this paper what status is given in practice to the decisions of this procedural entity regarding the prohibition of ne bis in idem. During the review, the views of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union are presented, which plays a key role in defining the principles and setting standards for the application of the principle, as well as domestic case-law. The author believes that a broader interpretation should be accepted so that the effect of the ne bis in idem principle is not limited only to court decisions but also to include the decisions of the public prosecutor. In this way complete legal certainty is achieved and uncertain legal situations are eliminated.

The paper critically analyzes the provisions of the amendments of the Constitution adopted in 2022, regarding the change of the position of the public prosecutor's office. The third initiative for the partial change of the Constitution was fruitful. The provisions which regulate the constitutional position of judiciary and prosecutor's office were changed, with the initial aim to create the independence guarantees of the judiciary, as well as the autonomy of the prosecutor's office. Certain steps that would go in the direction of achieving the given aim, can be recognized in the norms of the amendments. Those amendments have been also confirmed by the Venice Commission, which are considered as the key factor. However, the first impression created by the amendment provisions is that they are the result of a compromise and therefore partly inconsistent, between: the initiator of constitutional amendments (Government), representatives of the court's and the prosecutor's associations, other members of the working group, and, lastly, international community. Within that impression, the new position of the public prosecutor's office primarily indicates that the prosecutor's office rose to the rank which the judicial branch of power enjoys, by copying the provisions of the judiciary, with only a few differences.

One of the most important features of the criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Serbia is the institute of conditional deferral of criminal prosecution as a key aspect of the principle of opportunity, which was standardized in order to create a normative basis for increasing the efficiency of criminal proceedings. The subject of the paper is an analysis of the extent of the application of the institute, both in general and in terms of the structure of some of the obligations imposed on the suspect by the public prosecutor during the deferral of criminal prosecution in the Republic of Serbia from 2019 to in 2021. The aim of the paper is to point out the exceptional importance of the institute and to point out the fact of the necessity of both the adequate normative elaboration of the institute and its adequate application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article criticizes the obligation of the court to discontinue criminal proceedings or prosecutions if the public prosecutor refuses to prosecute in terms of preventing such consequences from obstructing the court’s unique function of resolving a criminal case. The purpose of the work is to develop theoretical provisions justifying the need for legislative improvement of the public prosecutor’s withdrawal of the charge in order to ensure the procedural independence of judges. The article uses the methods of system analysis, synthesis, sociological survey and generalization. Results: on the basis of the analysis of criminal case files and the results of the judges' questionnaires, it is proved that the lack of an alternative effect of the public prosecutor’s with-drawal of prosecution is an unjustified restriction of the judge’s discretion in making the final decision and the lack of a real possibility for the court to en-sure the procedural interests in the actual presence of sufficiently accurate grounds. In this part, the author compares criminal proceedings to civil and ar-bitration proceedings, noting that the plaintiff’s waiver is possible only if it does not violate the fundamental principles of justice and the interests of third parties. It is proposed to remove from the law the rule of mandatory dismissal of a criminal case when the public prosecutor withdraws the charge, and to leave the matter to the reasoned discretion of the court, as it was done in the Statute of Criminal Procedure of 1864.

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(1), 1-14 | European Forum Insight/Highlight of 22 March 2022 | (Table of Contents) I. Introduzione. - II. La causa XK: la normativa rilevante e il rinvio della Procura di Trento. - III. La causa XK: le conclusioni dell'AG e la sentenza della Corte di giustizia. - IV. Considerazioni critiche sul ruolo della Procura della Repubblica quale autorità giudiziaria di esecuzione dell'OEI e sulla risposta della Corte di giustizia. - V. Conclusioni. | (Abstract) In 1996, the Court of Justice ruled out that prosecutors could refer questions for a preliminary ruling on the grounds that their task is not to settle a dispute in complete independence but to submit it to a court by means of criminal prosecution. In case C-66/20 XK ECLI:EU:C:2021:200, the Court was asked to deal with the same issue in the light of the peculiar EU and national rules governing the execution of European Investigation Orders. The divergent solutions proposed by the AG and the Court of Justice are here illustrated. Subsequently, some thoughts are devoted to prosecutors as European Investigation Order executing authorities, to establish whether they may ensure effective judicial protection. Besides, a potentially problematic aspect resulting from the Court's ruling is high-lighted, which may exclude the referral of preliminary questions by European Investigation Order executing authorities altogether.

This research aims to analyze the legal authority of public prosecutors to conduct wiretapping in corruption cases and to identify the regulatory weaknesses in the implementation of this authority. The research employs normative legal research, a process used to discover legal rules, legal principles, and legal doctrines to address the legal issues at hand. The normative research approach in this study focuses on three approaches: 1) the statute approach, 2) the conceptual approach, and 3) the comparative approach. The findings indicate that the legal authority of public prosecutors to conduct wiretapping is explicitly stipulated in Article 30C letter (i) of Law No. 11 of 2021, amending Law No. 16 of 2004 on the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Indonesia. However, there are several weaknesses in the regulations, including deficiencies in legal substance, legal structure, and legal culture. The weaknesses in legal substance include the absence of specific legislation on wiretapping. The weaknesses in legal structure involve overlapping authority among institutions such as the Prosecutor's Office, BIN, Police, and KPK, as well as the lack of digital forensic laboratories and skilled human resources in wiretapping operations.

The aim of this research was to confront the unconstitutionality of the criminal sentence in view of the absolutory manifestation by the Public Prosecutor, and, consequently, the incompatibility between article 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the Republic’s Constitution of 1988. This is because, from the legal-procedural construction of the Democratic State of Law, several provisions still present in the Code of Criminal Procedure, as a result of its historical-political conception, do not fit with the current constitutional order. Based on the hypothetical-deductive method, the legal literature and jurisprudence were reviewed to conclude that article 385 of the Code of Criminal Procedure violates the democratic procedural established in the Republic’s Constitution of 1988, mainly because of the mitigation of the impartiality of the judgment, the inertia of the jurisdiction and the separation of the functions established to the procedural subjects.

In the presented article, the author analyzes practical issues related to the service of process of the public prosecutor’s decisions related to the search and seizure during the course of the preparatory proceedings. The first part of the paper discusses the search and seizure regulations in urgent cases. In the course of further deliberations, the focus is on search and seizure regulations, obligation on the service of public prosecutor’s decisions and opportunity of its appealing. The author points out that this practice is wrong and suggest what the optimal solution should look like, even without legislative changes, but with the right interpretation of the current regulations. All the considerations lead him to present his own final conclusions and de lege ferenda postulates.

This paper will analyse the position of the injured party in an investigation conducted by the public prosecutor's office, which was implemented in the Republic of Serbia in 2011. After we have given the definitions of the injured party and the difference with the term victim, as a criminological category, we will discuss whether the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code (2011) takes a step back when it comes to the position of the injured party in criminal proceedings. First of all, the ability of the injured party to become a subsidiary prosecutor was limited, as it was prescribed that the injured party can take over criminal prosecution only after the confirmation of the public prosecutor's indictment, so the opportunity to acts as a subsidiary prosecutor does not exist in the manner in which it existed under the Criminal Procedure Code from 2001 of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Then, we shall demonstrate how the position of the injured party was exacerbated in relation to deferred prosecution, as the injured party cannot submit an objection to the higher public prosecutor to re-examine the decision not to prosecute and the injured party's consent is not needed for this decision. The research conducted among deputy public prosecutors and attorneys for the purposes of this paper confirms the presumption that the Criminal Procedure Code in force downgraded the injured party's impact on the criminal proceedings.

The article is devoted to the pre-trial procedure for qualifying information, information materials, posted on information and telecommunication networks, including the Internet, as extremist and prohibited for distribution as a condition for applying to court. The object of the study was a complex of public relations aimed at countering extremism. As a result of the study, the author concluded that part of the complex of preventive measures, carried out by the authorized bodies in order to counter extremism, can be assessed by the court as a pre-trial procedure for qualifying information as extremist. The author draws attention to the lack of certainty in the terms extrajudicial procedure and pre-trial procedure, which requires improvement of the legislation; the need to determine the mechanism of pre-trial procedure of applying to court by establishing criteria, specific and sufficient actions of the authorized bodies to apply to court.

The appeal is one of the remedies that give litigants the opportunity to correct the mistakes committed by the courts, it said in a guidebook by the courts portal. The material below will tell you everything you need to know about ordinary appeal call from cases in which you can declare appeal to items that must be included in the appeal. The article analyzes some aspects of participation of public prosecutor in criminal cases in trial in court of appeal, general provisions of the appeal proceeding, prosecution powers in appeal court. Author analyzes the scientific concepts on the participation of the prosecutor in the court of second instance, sets a goal and functions of the prosecutor in considering criminal cases in the court of first instance; determines the concept and to find out the essence of the legal status of the prosecutor in criminal proceedings. The scientific relevant problem solved is in conceptualization of prosecutor’s participation in the court of appeal; the result is the optimization of the prosecutor’s activity in the court of second instance on the basis of the improved legislation on criminal procedure in order to increase the efficiency of criminal procedure. Expose conclusion on the active participation of the prosecutor in the research evidence in criminal cases in trial in court of appeal.

The public ministry is the body that represents the society by the repression of criminals and the mobilization and exercising the public action on every type of offence, basing on the competences provided by the law because of its competence. Kinship influents on the work of public ministry by the restriction of its freedom in exercising criminal prosecution proceedings, it constitutes an obstacle to the public prosecutor in appreciating the public action in both normal and exceptional offences, because of the kinship relationship.

According to the Article 27, paragraph 1 of the Constitution of Republic of Serbia (2006), the right to liberty is guaranteed to all domestic and foreign persons, which is derived from the constitutional provision that the holder of this right is “everyone”. Everyone has the right to move freely, to settle in Republic of Serbia, to leave it, and to return to it. This freedom may be restricted by law if it is necessary to conduct a criminal proceedings, protect the public order and peace, prevent the spread of infectious diseases, or defense of Republic of Serbia (the Constitution of Republic of Serbia, 2006, the Article 39, paragraph 2). Deprivation of liberty is allowed only for legal reasons and in the procedure provided by law. Both minors and adults may be deprived of their liberty. A person who has not reached the age of 14 is considered a child, and he/she cannot be deprived of liberty in the pre-investigation procedure because, according to our legal regulations, children are not subject to criminal liability. The aim of this paper will be to explore the concept of deprivation of liberty by arresting and/or detaining a suspect in the pre-investigation procedure according to the criminal procedure legislation of Republic of Serbia, with examples from previous practice and a proposal for some legal improvements.

The principle of legalism places upon the public prosecutor the obligation o pressing charges to a court of law and then to support this claim in the course of the lawsuit. It seems obvious that in order to execute this duty in an appropriate manner, the public prosecutor should attend the trial and actively participate in it. However, in regulation Art. 46 §2 k.p.k., which was introduced by way of an amendment issued on 11 March 2016, the legislator stipulated a regulation which permits the public prosecutor not to appear during the trial, if the preliminary legal proceedings concluded in the form of investigation. Obviously, the task of this regulation is to accelerate the proceedings in cases of lesser calibre, which are cases in which an investigation is conducted. However, it is necessary to consider the aforementioned regulation in the context of the basic principles of a criminal lawsuit and the analysis of the consequences of such regulations. Therefore, in the first instance one made reference to the most important regulations contained in the basis acts of international law, i.e. the European Convention of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which emphasise above all the significance of independence and impartiality, as well as the principle of a quick and efficient operation of the procedure. It was also necessary to refer the substantive regulation to the principle of the contradictoriness of the criminal lawsuit, which stipulates inter alia the separation of lawsuit-related roles and the passivity of the court in reference to the initiative of the parties who argue their cases.

Copyright of Internal Security is the property of Police Academy in Szczytno 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 interrogates the main events in procuratorial development from 1949 to 1961. Its aim is to better understand the procuracy during the Maoist era by reframing debates about its development along a spectrum: from primarily internal debates that challenged the development of the institution to external debates that challenged the role of the institution. These two dimensions also clarify how the procuracy reflected the politics of the time, especially issues of state construction and building legal knowledge, both within the state and among the "people." The article shows that "internal" debates stemmed from the largely elite-centered and technocratic concerns of internal organization; "external" debates connected, instead, to broader concerns about the socialist legal project and the procuracy's place in it. Reframing the institution's history in this way enables us to understand the concepts and issues shaping the procuracy that crossed "period" boundaries and how responses to those challenges changed over time. Internal limitations (due to lack of resources) and external challenges (to develop flexible methods for accomplishing institutional goals while appearing to serve national objectives) are entwined, making the procuracy from 1949 to 1961 a site of tension between law and policy as well as a locus of contestation about the role of law in Maoist China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the focus of this paper are some issues of the role of an authorized prosecutor in the pre-criminal and criminal proceedings. For the purpose of calling the prosecutor, s activity, the function of the charge or the function of prosecution, the author reverses in favor of this last. One part of the paper is devoted to the analysis and riticism of some unacceptable definitions of the prosecution function. The author states that the prosecution function consists of a pre-processing and process part. The prosecution function was also considered through the prism of certain historical types of criminal proceedings, as well as through the prism of certain authorized prosecutors.

This paper examines the role of a public prosecutor in the protection of domestic violence victims in the legal system of the Republic of Serbia. Prior to the analysis of relevant provisions of the laws referring to the authority and competences of the public prosecutor in relation to the protection of domestic violence victims, the term ’victim’ in the legal system of Serbia is defined. The term ‚victim‘ is commonly used in the legal texts, but it is not defined; thus, it is necessary to specify certain aspects of this term. In the analysis of certain legal provisions, the focus is on some of the most significant criminal, misdemeanor and family law institutes, as well as on the provisions of the Law on the Prevention of Domestic Violence, which could affect the role of the public prosecutor in prevention of domestic violence and protection of its victims. In the final part the authors propose certain solutions which should enhance implementation of existing mechanisms available to the public prosecutor in practice, which could contribute to better protection of domestic violence victims.

The European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is one of the most used mechanisms in judicial cooperation in criminal matters. It consists of simplified procedure for cross-border surrender for purposes of prosecution or executing a prison sentence or detention order, thus replacing the traditional system on cooperation including the political authorities of member-states. The paper aims to explain the role of Public Prosecutors in the procedure of issuing the EAW through the practice of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The paper deals with two parts: first, it elaborates case law by which the Court secured additional clarification of the long-standing question regarding the definition of ―judicial authority‖ responsible for issuing the EAW and second, it elaborates the jurisdiction of public prosecutors in member-states in their capacity to issue the EAW. Both parts explain court cases and judgements brought upon. The first part covers court rulings relating to the relationship between the EAW and the National Arrest Warrant (NAW), which establishes the existence of an NAW at the time of issuing the EAW. After establishing such a relationship, the paper proceeds to define the term "judicial authority", although it is up to the member-states to determine the competent authorities under their domestic law. However, involving bodies of several member-states, the Court in its judgments defines some of them as competent authorities for the issuance of the EAW, while other bodies the Court does not accept as competent for the issuance of the EAW. The latter cases relate to the central part of the papers, with cases involving public prosecutors and their role in domestic systems as a "judicial authority" authorized to issue an EAW under the Framework Decision of the European Arrest Warrant (FDEAW). The degree of independence of public prosecutors and their relationship with the political authorities, especially the relationship with the executive and the possibility for the public prosecutor to receive guidance and instructions in the decision to issue the EAW, is elaborated. With these judgment, the CJEU further develops its jurisprudence regarding the functioning of the EAW in the criminal justice area. The conclusion explains the impact of these judgments in national law of member-states, as well as on the whole area of criminal justice in the EU, implying the need of evaluation and possible reform of criminal justice organization in certain member-states. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper we analyze the results of a quantitative survey conducted with members of the Brazilian Public Prosecutor’s Office (MP) in order to answer three questions: Who are the members of the MP? Does the Public Prosecutor deserve the title of Guardian of Democracy? Are the members of the MP promoters of criminal prosecution or true guarantors of a more just society? The results indicate that persons in the MP are from the Brazilian elite, and they focus their actions on the criminal process, assuming the function of guaranteeing broad, collective and homogeneous individual rights. In addition, their work is office‑based, thus hindering an effective involvement with demands coming from the population. The MP is, thus, an old institution that has not effectively assumed its new functions, granted at the time of re‑democratization.

This article intends to analyze the Italian situation and the main discussions related to the principle of mandatory prosecution in criminal procedure and to the possibility of regulating criteria of prioritization to relativize that premise. This is a primordial issue considering the widespread overload of criminal justice, especially because of the expressive and long-described phenomenon of the overcriminalization. Thus, the following problem arises: Is sustainable the idea of an absolute mandatory prosecution, which establishes a duty to the public prosecution in all cases of a crime and existence of sufficient evidence to substantiate it? Based on this study, it will be argued that some criteria should be provided for rationalization of this principle, through parliamentary guidelines and integrative activities of the prosecutor's offices, with standards distinct from the exclusive occurrence of a crime and sufficient evidence to prove it, regulated in such a way as to be generalizable and controllable, with objective assumptions, thus respecting the need for equal treatment between citizens.

Limitation of the right to freedom of a person is a very sensitive issue, both from the aspect of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and many international charters and conventions, national laws, and primarily the Criminal Procedure Code. There are various types of limitation of the freedom of movement of a person. However, this papers will mainly deal with detention of the suspect. The suspect may be detained on several legal grounds, and the subject of our research is detention in compliance with provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Serbia. Therefore, special attention has been paid to positive legislation in the Republic of Serbia, critical analysis of some law solutions with an emphasis on some illogicality and incompleteness of particular legislative provisions. Moreover, some comparative law solutions in Germany, Italy and Russia have been presented, as well as different possibilities when it comes to detention of the suspect in accordance with provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, and some concrete suggestions de lege ferenda have been offered.

The work is divided into three major parts. In the first part, the author discusses the principle of a fair trial in criminal proceedings. In the second part, the author deals with the problem of knowledge of public prosecutors in the field of criminalistics. The third part is the conclusion, in which the author points out that the state of the art equipment, methods or legislation cannot bring the desired results, if the public prosecutor does not have the necessary expertise and knowledge, primarily knowledge on criminalistics.

Since 1890, Serbia had judicial investigation, but in 2011 a new law was brought. That was the way of transition from judicial to prosecutorial investigation. The author tried to find which of this two types of investigation is more efficient. By comparing pros and cons of judicial investigation and prosecutorial investigation author made a conclusion that prosecutorial investigation is more efficient than judicial investigation. Prosecutorial investigation provides possibility to the court to concentrate on his basic function-judgement. It also provides possibility to the prosecutor to research more than he could in judicial investigation. Prosecutorial investigation proclaims prosecutor as unbiased party in criminal procedure. It also obligates him to collect proofs at the expense and in favor of the defendant and that is problem. In addition to the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the judicial investigation and prosecutorial investigation author also presented features of the prosecutorial investigation under the Serbian Criminal Procedure Code from 2011.and the problems that arise there.

In Geneva, examination of victims of sexual assault is performed by a gynecologist and a medical examiner. 48% of the victims file a complaint and we wanted to investigate the factors leading to file a complaint, those leading the Prosecutor to go to trial, and those influencing a conviction. Between 2006 and 2012, 676 victims of sexual assault were investigated (averaged age 26 year, mean 22). Information on injuries, perpetrators, and circumstances of the assault was collected and analyzed. The attacker being the ex‐spouse or a friend and the presence of semen were factors leading to file a complaint. The assailant being a family member or ex‐spouse and the presence of genital/anal lesions were factors influencing the Prosecutor. The presence of nongenital lesions, the assailant being known by the victim, influenced conviction. This study shows that the medical examiner plays a vital role in the investigation of cases of sexual assault. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public administration of forests is one of the most important sectors of ecological public administration at the national and local levels. Forest legislation is the legal basis for management, whose quality and regulatory capacity ensure the effectiveness of state power activities aimed at sustainable use, protection and regeneration of forests. The need for reforming and properly updating forest legislation and law enforcement is long overdue, which is confirmed by scientific studies and actual facts. A basic problem of forest management is the absence of an official definition of «forest» and «urban forest». Problems of forest fire protection and management problems in the forest sector (e.g. related to the provision of forest plots and the sale and purchase of forest stands) are widespread. Management problems also cover a mismatch of legislative activity of the competent entities regarding the regulation of forestry relations, the one-time combination of regulatory and supervisory functions in the same bodies, as well as the lack of a single current and objective system of state cadastral registration. The paper mentions peculiarities of identifying legal responsibility for forest offenses. It is noted that office of public prosecutor, being a central supervisory agency of the state due to the nature of its job and position in a system of separation of powers, has vast (if compared with other subjects of administrative relations) opportunities to identify, overcome and eliminate the problems of management of forests. The paper considers separate case materials that show an active role of the national public prosecutor’s office in supporting law and order in the examined field. Generalized conclusions are drawn based on the results of the study.

Contemporary trends in criminal procedure legislation are deliberately looking for efficiency as well as the instruments of implementation of international standards both in its quantitative and qualitative aspects. Doctrinal considerations find their footing in the decades-long reform of criminal procedural legislation of the Serbia, whereas the question that has always represented one of the most significant characteristics of criminal procedural legislation in general is the correlation between the public prosecutor and the police and its contribution to the efficiency of criminal proceedings. Serbia adopted new Criminal Procedure Code in 2011, which entered into the force during the 2013. According to the abovementioned, the authors pay special attention to the following issues: first, the notion of the police and the police functions; secondly, the correlation of the public prosecutor and the police as a factor in the efficiency of criminal proceedings; thirdly, empirical research and proposals de lege ferenda.

The question of efficiency of a criminal procedure is analyzed in this paper from two aspects. First, there are general remarks on efficiency of criminal procedure as international legal standard and as a key goal of the reform of criminal procedure legislation of Serbia within which some questions are particularly prominent that relate to criminal-political reasons of practical efficiency of criminal procedure and the reasons why it is necessary to implement criminal-procedural instruments of efficiency of criminal procedure into national criminal procedure legislation. Second, there is expert and critical analysis of certain assumptions of practical realization of efficiency of criminal procedure within which special attention is paid of legal standards as a key factor of efficiency of criminal procedure. However, in addition to this there is also, only within necessary scope, the review of other factors of efficiency of criminal procedure (complexity and severity of a concrete criminal case; judicial organization; mutual relationships and cooperation of criminal-procedure subjects; abuse of law; expertise and involvment of certain procedural subjects and their motivation - which is particularly epxressed in courts, public prosecutor's offices, police and expert defense). Finally, we should point out that the paper presents certain suggestions de lege ferenda which, according to the author's opinion, should contribute to the increase of criminal procedure efficiency, and thus to the achivement of the key goal of almost fifteen-year long reform of criminal procedure legislation of Serbia.

The article presents issues concerning the legal qualification of a criminal act by the prosecutor, including the public prosecutor, the legal qualification of the fact, and the significance of this procedural act for the defendant's ability to defend himself effectively. The relationship between the limits of accusation and the limits of examination of a criminal case and the scope of defence were presented. The author discusses the indication of changes in the legal qualification to the suspect or defendant and the court's authorisation in this respect, with particular emphasis on the regulation provided by Article 399 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Doubts about the application of Article 80 of the Code are discussed as well as its influence on the use of the institution of obligatory defence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Public Prosecutor has a role to play in assisting the courts in sentencing. However, the extent of this role remains controversial with different jurisdictions drawing the line at different points. It is generally accepted that the Public Prosecutor, as a member of the Executive, should not be empowered to determine the sentence, as doing so would violate the doctrine of the separation of powers. This article examines the role of the Public Prosecutor in sentencing in the context of drug trafficking offences that carry the death penalty in Singapore. The Government has abolished the mandatory death penalty and replaced it with discretionary sentencing when certain conditions are met, one of which is that the Public Prosecutor has certified that the offender has rendered substantive assistance in disrupting drug trafficking activities. This discretionary power is largely protected from judicial review, raising an important constitutional question pertaining to the separation of powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article the author ascertains that the procedural position of a citizen who finds him/herself in the role of a suspect in the commencement of the newly established prosecutorial investigation is much less favourable in comparison to the position in which he/she would have been in the earlier judicial investigation. The suspect does not have a right to appeal the public prosecutor's order for commencement of an investigation, which makes the investigation an absolute monopoly of the public prosecutor, without any judicial supervision. The suspect does not enjoy judicial protection from unlawful (arbitrary) initiation of the investigative procedure even though it is undoubtable that the decision on commencement of criminal investigation seriously affects his/her rights and interests. Such a decision can be made when there is a slightest level of suspicion that a person has committed a criminal offence, hence, based on very remote and circumstantial indications, with the novelty being in the possibility to open an investigation towards an unknown perpetrator. The order to commence a criminal investigation is not conditioned with prior hearing of the suspect nor that action is envisaged as mandatory among the first investigative actions, even not as an obligatory investigative action. The provision of the Criminal Procedure Code on the submission of the decision on commencement of an investigation also deserves criticism and reconsideration because the envisaged method of submission limits the right to personal defence of the suspect as well as other rights of defence guaranteed to the suspect by the Serbian Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights and enables procedural abuses. The author believes that resolution of the mentioned issues relating to commencement of criminal investigation should not depend on the less formal nature and lesser procedural importance of actions undertaken in this phase of criminal procedure, but whether or not they interfere with human rights of those against whom the investigation is undertaken. Finally, the author points out that an investigation will be undertaken in a small number of cases, since it is excluded in summary proceedings, and that it is not mandatory even for the most serious crimes. This bears a danger of the main trial being overburdened with a large number of illfounded indictments.

In this article the main subject is the judicial inspection. I have researched between The Hashemite kingdom of Jordan and The state of Romania. The independence of the judiciary is an important guarantee for the proper performance of the judges by the tasks entrusted on them in a proper manner. It is a preventive fortress that enables them to avoid any possible immoral behavior. Judges must act in accordance with moral principles to this end. It has shown how the inspection council is formed and the extent of its association or independence from the Judicial Council or the Ministry of Justice. This will insure the independent body is fully neutral in its work without any influences. It also examines the guarantees available to the judges or the public prosecutors in order to protect them in their performance for their duties and thus the obligations of their performance in order to commit neutrality and impartiality in their decisions to any of the parties to the case. The research also includes the extent of the civil liability of the judge to the parties to the case in the event of the issuance of the provisions of the statement of the law that may harm one of the parties to the case. Hence indicated that this principle is not applied in Jordan, but it is applied in the State of Romania. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In case of a crime, it's the responsibility of the state to bring the offender to book. The process largely depends on the performance of the public prosecutors. Lawyers appointed by the state to conduct criminal cases on its behalf are called Public Prosecutor. Prosecutors are amongst those influential stakeholders who play a pivotal role in providing justice in criminal cases. Unfortunately Bangladesh is having a prosecution system which suffers from many problems and drawbacks, e.g. disposable nature of the prosecution team, serious flaws in appointment procedure, vesting the prosecutors with a number of powers worth enforcing arbitrarily and want of political will to make the prosecution effective that are bringing out huge miseries for justice-seekers. This paper aims to look into the current state of the public prosecutorial service in Bangladesh with its problems, and make recommendations to improve the situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]