DOCSLIB.ORG

1 Due Process and Competition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 Due Process and Competition Due Process And Competition Law: Global Principles, Local Challenges, An Argentine Perspective PABLO TREVISAN* Comisión Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia ABSTRACT: The right to due process is one of the fundamental guarantees on which the entire system of protection and respect for human rights is built. Due process plays a key role on competition enforcement proceedings. In this regard, competition authorities shall operate within a framework that ensures that fundamental due process rights of the parties concerned are respected. In this regard, when assessing the performance of authorities as well as of general antitrust law policy and enforcement in a specific country or region, the level in which due process is respected is fundamental. Argentina is no exception to this rule. We hope the enactment of the New Competition Act, as well as the recent improvements introduced under a rejuvenated enforcement, would provide the final launch of a vigorous enforcement and long term antitrust policy in Argentina, which shall show a definitive respect to the right of due process. All liberties are futile, if they cannot be claimed and defended in trial and if the order of this trial it is not based on respect for the human person Calamandrei1 I. Introduction: Concept of Due Process The right to due process is one of the fundamental guarantees on which the entire system of protection and respect for human rights is built, through which the limits of state power are framed. Due process of law is an inalienable guarantee enjoyed by all persons, since it establishes limits to the exercise of power by the various State bodies vis-à-vis natural persons, representing a fundamental protection for the respect of the rights of the individuals. Various constitutional texts speak of “due process”. Many of these expressions are related, directly or indirectly, to certain terms contained in the English Magna Charta and * Pablo Trevisan is a Commissioner at the Comisión Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia. The opinions expressed in this paper are the author’s opinions and not necessarily those of the CNDC. The author is extremely honored to participate in this tribute to Prof. Frederic Jenny. The author wishes to thank the editorial committee for giving him the chance of participating in this beautiful endeavor. 1 Piero Calamandrei, Processo e Giustizia, en Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Diritto Processuale Civile, Padova, 22 (1953). 1 its subsequent development in the United States. 2 More specifically, the Fifth Amendment introduced in 1791 to the Constitution of the United States, constitutes the direct antecedent of Section 18 3 of the Argentine National Constitution (National Constitution). Due process plays a key role on competition enforcement proceedings. In this regard, competition authorities shall operate within a framework that ensures that fundamental due process rights of the parties concerned are respected, and that appropriate safeguards are established to ensure the enforceability of those rights by the parties concerned. Throughout this paper, we will make a general approach to the topic of due process, its concept and the importance it has in all acts of the State. We will then examine this issue from the specific perspective of competition law. In the first place, we will consider what the main international organizations have said about due process in the area of competition law. Second, we will analyse the benefits and shortcomings of the different types of authorities, agencies or institutions in charge of competition policies and how the design of the institutions can impact antitrust due process. Then, we will make a brief reference to the issues related to the judicial review of cases previously resolved by competition institutions. We shall finish with a brief account of the Argentine case, considering the improvements offered by the new Competition Act 27,442,4 which was enacted by the Argentine Congress on May 9, 2018 (New Competition Act). II. Due Process and Proceedings Traditionally, the North American conception of due process overflows the field of procedural law. Thus, due process could unfold in two fields: the substantive or material and the adjective or procedural. All the organs of the State, both in the exercise of materially jurisdictional, administrative or legislative functions, must comply with legal due process. In this sense, substantive due process, says Couture,5 becomes, in a broad sense, the guarantee that arises from a regular and correct elaboration of the law; but it is also the guarantee that this law elaborated by the Parliament or legislature is reasonable, fair and 2 The most cited antecedent of due process of law is the English Magna Charta (Magna Charta Libertatum), from King John (also known as John Lackland) of June 15, 1215, in which it was established that: “No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.” 3 Section 18, CONSTITUCIÓN NACIONAL [NATIONAL CONSTITUTION]: “No inhabitant of the Nation can be punished without prior trial based on law prior to the fact of the process, or judged by special commissions, or removed from the judges appointed by law before the fact of the case. No one can be forced to testify against himself . The defence in the judgment of the person and of the rights is inviolable.” 4 Act 27,442: http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/310000-314999/310241/norma.htm. 5 Eduardo J. Couture,, El Debido Proceso como Tutela de los Derechos Humanos, La Ley 72, Buenos Aires, 802. 2 within the terms enshrined in the National or Federal Constitution. For its part, the concept of the judicial process, does not have a merely literal meaning, but also means the judicial application of the law and, by extension, the judicial interpretation of it. While substantive due process, as a guarantee of reasonableness, applies equally to decisions coming from any State organ, on the contrary, the determination of what due process guarantees of adjective due process—and with what scope—are applicable in the exercise of the different state functions, will depend on the particularities that are presented in each case and concrete process.6 For a process to satisfy this guarantee, it is necessary that it complies with the inescapable requirement of granting the individuals with the sufficient opportunity to participate with utility and sufficiency in said process. The guarantees of the process can be violated when the legislator institutes a form of unreasonable procedure, or when it deprives the basic elements so that a process can properly fulfil its purposes. Thus, a process will be due when it is fair in its development, ensuring the parties the broadest possible exercise of the defense. That is, this guarantee ensures that every individual—before the judge defines the fate of his claim (when he is a plaintiff) or the fate of the resistance to the claim of his opponent (when a defendant)—be heard broadly, arrange of the opportunity to offer and produce his proof and control the evidence offered by his opponent, to receive a sentence based on accredited facts and that is a consequence of the application of the current law.7 Currently, both in the Anglo-Saxon system and in the continental-European system, due process is considered a meeting point between constitutional law and procedural law. A fundamental human right and, also, an essential guarantee that opposes the abuse of power of the authorities, as well as the equalitarian contradiction in every type of process and enables the control of the constitutionality of lower courts’ rulings, of laws enacted by the legislative power and decisions of the administrator. In this sense, the constitutional support of substantive due process is found in Section 28 of the National Constitution, with respect to the laws, and in Section 18 of the same, in what refers to judicial decisions. The Argentine Supreme Court of Justice (CSJN, for its Spanish acronym) has stated that certain constitutional and conventional norms 8 “safeguard the right to effective 6 Federico G. Thea,, Las Garantías del Debido Proceso en la Toma de Decisiones Públicas, La Ley, SUPLEMENTO ADMINISTRATIVO, June 2009, 11 y ss. 7 Carlos Botassi, Debido Proceso, Fuentes Supranacionales y Procedimiento Administrativo, La Ley 2015- B, Buenos Aires, 41. 8 Certain conventional rules have been incorporated to the Argentine internal rules, being applicable to any situation that may be reached by them, after the National Constitutional reform of 1994. 3 administrative and judicial protection”, considering a guarantee that “supposes the possibility of occurring before the courts of justice and obtain a useful decision or decision from them”.9 In 1897, Joaquín V. González10 said that Section 18 of the National Constitution, as it contains all the guarantees in favour of the person, is the bulwark of individual liberty. This guarantee, in some way, constitutes a derivation of the principle of legality provided under Section 19 of the National Constitution, establishing that “no inhabitant of the Nation will be forced to do what the law does not mandate, nor deprived of what it does not prohibit”.11 The CSJN has said that “the guarantees of the natural judge, due process and defence in court demand that the court be established by law prior to the fact of the case” and that it be decided in a reasonable time, since “if the judgments could be delayed without a term, the rights may remain indefinitely without their proper application, with grave and unjustified prejudice of those who invoke it.”12 Likewise, it is important to highlight that in our country the sources of due process have been extended after the constitutional reform of 1994 that incorporated a series of human rights treaties into the National Constitution.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Four Models of the Criminal Process Kent Roach
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 89 Article 5 Issue 2 Winter Winter 1999 Four Models of the Criminal Process Kent Roach Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Kent Roach, Four Models of the Criminal Process, 89 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 671 (1998-1999) This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/99/8902-0671 THM JOURNAL OF QMINAL LAW& CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 89, No. 2 Copyright 0 1999 by Northwestem University. School of Law Psisd in USA. CRIMINOLOGY FOUR MODELS OF THE CRIMINAL PROCESS KENT ROACH* I. INTRODUCTION Ever since Herbert Packer published "Two Models of the Criminal Process" in 1964, much thinking about criminal justice has been influenced by the construction of models. Models pro- vide a useful way to cope with the complexity of the criminal pro- cess. They allow details to be simplified and common themes and trends to be highlighted. "As in the physical and social sciences, [models present] a hypothetical but coherent scheme for testing the evidence" produced by decisions made by thousands of actors in the criminal process every day.2 Unlike the sciences, however, it is not possible or desirable to reduce the discretionary and hu- manistic systems of criminal justice to a single truth.
    [Show full text]
  • Is an Adversarial Legal System Well Suited For
    could probably chalk up the results to any number of imperfections—dispro- portionate access to evidence, disparate On Reconsideration advocacy skills, a misunderstood ques- tion, a mis-phrased answer, a key docu- ment that somehow disappeared and nev- IS AN ADVERSARIAL er became part of the evidence, a witness whose distorted memory was persuasively LEGAL SYSTEM WELL communicated and unjustifiably believed, an ambiguous email that created a false SUITED FOR DELIVERING impression, a litigation budget that sank under the weight of crippling discovery, JUSTICE? an arbitrary evidentiary ruling, a confus- ing jury instruction, an unfortunate gap between what someone said and what that person meant, an adjudicator whose hid- KENNETH R. BERMAN den biases led to an erroneous credibility Kenneth R. Berman is a partner at Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP in Boston and the author of Reinventing assessment or a mistaken legal ruling. The Witness Preparation: Unlocking the Secrets to Testimonial Success (ABA 2018). list goes on and on. In an adversarial system, the search for truth is a battle of narratives. The side with the more sympathetic, more plausible story usually wins, even if the truth belongs elsewhere. Generally, our “On Reconsideration.” That’s the banner of narratives, each of which is then put adversary system favors the better story, this new column. Here, we’ll test our as- through intensive questioning and critiqu- not necessarily the truer one. Emotion sumptions about how justice is dispensed, ing by the opposing lawyer, who fires ver- prevailing over logic. how truth is proven, how we litigators are bal cannonballs at everything attackable.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Access to Constitutional Justice
    Strasbourg, 27 January 2011 CDL-AD(2010)039rev. Study N° 538 / 2009 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) STUDY ON INDIVIDUAL ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL JUSTICE Adopted by the Venice Commission at its 85th Plenary Session (Venice, 17-18 December 2010) on the basis of comments by Mr Gagik HARUTYUNYAN (Member, Armenia) Ms Angelika NUSSBERGER (Substitute Member, Germany) Mr Peter PACZOLAY (Member, Hungary) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. http://www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2010)039 - 2 - Table of contents INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................6 GENERAL REMARKS....................................................................................................6 I. ACCESS TO CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW ...............................................................15 I.1. TYPES OF ACCESS .................................................................................................17 I.1.1. Indirect access...................................................................................................17 I.1.2. Direct access.....................................................................................................20 I.2. THE ACTS UNDER REVIEW ......................................................................................28 I.3. PROTECTED RIGHTS ..............................................................................................29 PARTIAL CONCLUSIONS OF CHAPTER
    [Show full text]
  • Unpacking the Mexican Federal Judiciary: an Inner Look at the Ethos of the Judicial Branch
    Esta revista forma parte del acervo de la Biblioteca Jurídica Virtual del Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas de la UNAM http://www.juridicas.unam.mx/ https://biblio.juridicas.unam.mx/bjv https://revistas.juridicas.unam.mx/ DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/iij.24485306e.2018.1.12511 exican M Review aw New Series L V O L U M E XI Number 1 UNPACKING THE MEXICAN FEDERAL JUDICIARY: AN INNER LOOK AT THE ETHOS OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH Gabriel FERREYRA* ABSTRACT: Based on 45 interviews conducted in 6 different jurisdictions in Mexico, this article presents a close examination of the distinctive attributes and practices that characterize the Mexican Federal Judiciary (Poder Judicial Fed- eral). Interviewees included typists, clerks and court clerks, judges, and justices, as well as scholars and experts with an in-depth knowledge of this institution. From an insider perspective, the article sheds light on idiosyncrasies, customs, and orga- nizational patterns that are not well known outside the MFJ, such as its strong hierarchical structure, the nature of the work done, employee salaries, the practices of legalism, the risks of drug-related trials, and structural gender inequalities. It also discusses phenomena like influence peddling, cronyism, and nepotism, all of which are widely practiced within the MFJ but kept undisclosed. These practices do not necessarily have a negative connotation within the federal judiciary because they have become normalized due to their widespread use. In fact, the notion of corruption is somehow ambiguous for many judicial employees. Despite all this, the MFJ has become a more professionalized branch where the vast majority of employees performed their job competently and efficiently.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Armenia
    (not official copy) CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE OF THE REPUBLIC OF ARMENIA GENERAL PART Section One : GENERAL PROVISIONS CHAPTER 1. LEGISLATION ON CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Article 1. Legislation Governing Criminal Proceedings Article 2. Objectives of the Criminal-Procedure Legislation Article 3. Territory of Effect of the Criminal-procedure Law Article 4. Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law in the Course of Time Article 5. Peculiarities in the Effect of the Criminal-Procedure Law Article 6. Definitions of the Basic Notions Used in the Criminal-procedure Code CHAPTER 2. PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS Article 7. Legitimacy Article 8. Equality of All Before the Law Article 9. Respect for the Rights, Freedoms and Dignity of an Individual Article 10. Ensuring the Right to Legal Assistance Article 11. Immunity of Person Article 12. Immunity of Residence Article 13. Security of Property Article 14. Confidentiality of Correspondence, Telephone Conversations, Mail, Telegraph and Other Communications Article 15. Language of Criminal Proceedings Article 16. Public Trial Article 17. Fair Trial Article 18. Presumption of Innocence Article 19. The Right to Defense of the Suspect and the Accused and Guarantees for this Right Article 20. Privilege Against Self-Incrimination (not official copy) Article 21. Inadmissibility of Repeated Conviction and Criminal Prosecution for the Same Crime Article 22. Rehabilitation of the Rights of the Persons who suffered from Judicial Mistakes Article 23. Adversarial System of Criminal Proceedings Article 24. Administration of Justice Exclusively by the Court Article 25. Independent Assessment of Evidence CHAPTER 3. CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL CASE Article 26. Conduct of Criminal Case Article 27. The Obligation to institute a criminal case and resolution of the crime Article 28.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Right to Jury Trial: Contributing to the Process of Armenia’S Democratization?
    _____________________________________________________________ Constitutional right to Jury Trial: Contributing to the process of Armenia’s democratization? By Tigran Harutyunyan Tigran Harutyunyan would like to recognize the generous support received from the Caucasus Research Resource Centers (CRRC) Armenia, a program of the Eurasia Partnership Foundation (EPF). This project was completed through the CRRC Publication Fellowship Program, with funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York. The views of this article do not necessarily represent the views of CRRC, EPF or the Carnegie Corporation of New York and are wholly the views of the author. Yerevan - 2008 Constitutional right for Jury Trial: Contributing to the process of Armenia’s democratization? Table of content Abstract........................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................... 3 Body ............................................................................................... 6 Russia and Georgia: the tendencies and current state of situation6 Armenia: the current state of situation......................................... 9 Survey results: ........................................................................ 10 Recommendations: ................................................................. 15 Conclusion.................................................................................... 17 Bibliografy...................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial Gary Goodpaster
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 78 Article 3 Issue 1 Spring Spring 1987 On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial Gary Goodpaster Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Gary Goodpaster, On the Theory of American Adversary Criminal Trial, 78 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 118 (1987-1988) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/84/7801-118 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 78, No. 1 Copyright 0 1987 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in U.S.A. ON THE THEORY OF AMERICAN ADVERSARY CRIMINAL TRIAL* GARY GOODPASTER** I. INTRODUCTION The adversary system is a foundational feature of our legal sys- tem. Many of the activities in our legal system are overtly adver- sarial, and virtually all of our public legal decisions are processed in an adversarial fashion. The adversary premise also underlies all of our law and our thinking about law. While the adversary system is important, there has been relatively little study of this adversary sys- tem premise.' This premise is a foundational axiom so embedded in our thought processes and actions that we build on it without questioning why we use this footing. The use of an adversarial system to generate decisions about * I would like to thank David Baldus, Florian Bartosic, Richard Delgado, Floyd Feeney and Robert Hillman for their encouragement and comments on the first draft of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • The Reliability of the Adversarial System to Assess the Scientific Aliditv Y of Forensic Evidence Andrew D
    Fordham Law Review Online Volume 86 Article 13 2017 The Reliability of the Adversarial System to Assess the Scientific aliditV y of Forensic Evidence Andrew D. Goldsmith U.S. Department of Justice, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flro Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Evidence Commons Recommended Citation Goldsmith, Andrew D. (2017) "The Reliability of the Adversarial System to Assess the Scientific alV idity of Forensic Evidence," Fordham Law Review Online: Vol. 86 , Article 13. Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flro/vol86/iss1/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review Online by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE RELIABILITY OF THE ADVERSARIAL SYSTEM TO ASSESS THE SCIENTIFIC VALIDITY OF FORENSIC EVIDENCE Andrew D. Goldsmith* INTRODUCTION Last fall, the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules began to consider whether to amend Federal Rule of Evidence 702 to create a separate and additional standard for forensic science expert witness testimony. Proponents of these amendments contend that: (1) judges are failing to apply Rule 702 and U.S. Supreme Court precedent for forensic expert testimony,1 and (2) defense attorneys are incapable of adequately establishing the potential limitations of forensic science testimony through cross-examination.2 They further claim that this causes juries to give inappropriate weight to forensic expert testimony.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Adversarial Criminal Justice in 21St Century Britain
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 35 Number 2 Article 3 Winter 2010 The Future of Adversarial Criminal Justice in 21st Century Britain Jacqueline S. Hodgson Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Recommended Citation Jacqueline S. Hodgson, The Future of Adversarial Criminal Justice in 21st Century Britain, 35 N.C. J. INT'L L. 319 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol35/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Future of Adversarial Criminal Justice in 21st Century Britain Cover Page Footnote International Law; Commercial Law; Law This article is available in North Carolina Journal of International Law: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol35/ iss2/3 The Future of Adversarial Criminal Justice in 21st Century Britain Jacqueline S. Hodgson t I. Introduction ....................................................................... 3 19 II. England and Wales: A Mixed System with Adversarial R oots .................................................................................. 320 III. Miscarriages of Justice: The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and System Rebalancing ........................ 325 IV. The Defense Under Attack ................................................ 331 V. The Rise
    [Show full text]
  • Ad Hoc Report in 2009
    1 ! ! ! PUBLIC AD-HOG REPORT! ENS$RIN' RI'HT TO A FAIR TRIAL IN THE REP$BLIC OF ARMENIA YEREVAN 2009 2 ! ! ! PUBLIC AD-HOC REPORT 3 Content Section 1. Equality of parties and adversarial process as an element of the right to a fair trial and ensuring thereof in criminal proceeding ………………………………………………….….. 1.1. Introduction ………………………………………………….. 1.2. General provisions on equality of parties and adversarial process ………………………………………………………. 1.3. Participation of the Defense Counsel in court trial ………………………………………………………….... 1.4. Discussion and resolution of motions of parties by court ………………………………………………………….. 1.5. Adversarial process and submission of evidence ………….. 1.6. Determination of the manner of examining evidence at trial ……………………………………………… 1.7. Proper assessment in the judgment of evidence examined in the case ………………………………………… 1.8. Equality in relation to liability for contempt of court ………………………………………………………….. 1.9. Conclusion …………………………………………………… 4 PUBLIC AD-HOC REPORT Section 2. Ensuring fair trial in examining property disputes 2.1. Introduction 2.2. Impeding access to justice Returning of a statement of claim/application Suspension of civil proceedings 2.3. Denial of justice Rejection of statement of claim/application Rejection of the claim of person that is not a participant of the case “Immunity” of apparently ungrounded judgments Non-perception of correlation between criminal and civil proceedings 2.4. Confusion of civil/administrative institutions in the process of “expropriation of the property” Judicial interpretation of “expropriation agreements” Judicial review of compensation process Involvement of quasi-independent public institutions PUBLIC AD-HOC REPORT 5 Section 1. Equality of parties and adversarial process as an element of the right to a fair trial and ensuring thereof in criminal proceeding 1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Role and Rights of Victims of Crime in Adversarial Criminal Justice Systems: Recommendations for Reform in England & Wales
    The role and rights of victims of crime in adversarial criminal justice systems: Recommendations for reform in England & Wales Jane Gordon Alison Gordon December 2020 C 1 Foreword Victims can suffer badly from their treatment by the criminal justice system, worsening any harms the crime has caused. This is often through disregard by agencies like the police and CPS and it is easy to see why. Crimes are seen as an attack on the state and not against the victim. So proceedings are not there to put right the victim’s wrong but to enable the state to inflict punishment and affirm the rule of law. If a case is brought, the victim can be compelled to be a witness but not to talk about what they have personally suffered, merely, like a bystander, to tell the court what the defendant did. In the adversarial system, the defendant is at the centre of the court process. The prosecution prosecutes them; the defence defends, the jury determines guilt and the judge ensures that their trial is lawful. This centrality is not to be criticised and defendants’ rights need fully to be protected. However, all the agencies tend to lean in towards this focus and see victims as temporary and marginal – ‘witness fodder’ as one academic has described. Yet, victims may have suffered serious injury, sexual assault or the death of a loved one. They are intimately involved from the day of the offence through the criminal justice process and often beyond far into their future. The notion that the state prosecutes on behalf of all of the public does not capture that special involvement and by failing to do so it fails to assure the rights needed to support victims.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future of Adversarial Systems: an Introduction to the Papers from the First Conference
    NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW Volume 35 Number 2 Article 1 Winter 2010 The Future of Adversarial Systems: An Introduction to the Papers from the First Conference Michael Louis Corrado Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj Recommended Citation Michael L. Corrado, The Future of Adversarial Systems: An Introduction to the Papers from the First Conference, 35 N.C. J. INT'L L. 285 (2009). Available at: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol35/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Future of Adversarial Systems: An Introduction to the Papers from the First Conference Cover Page Footnote International Law; Commercial Law; Law This article is available in North Carolina Journal of International Law: https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncilj/vol35/ iss2/1 The Future of Adversarial Systems: An Introduction to the Papers from the First Conference Michael Louis Corradot" The four papers that follow are from a conference that took place on the campus of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on April 8, 2009. The conference was the first in a planned series of conferences,' the aim of which is to stimulate comparative conversations on the future of adversarial systems, in particular in connection with criminal procedure. I. What an adversarial system is. Our system of criminal procedure is adversarial.
    [Show full text]