DOCSLIB.ORG

Fair and Appropriate? FAIRCOM Report Part II

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Fair and Appropriate? FAIRCOM Report Part II Fair and Appropriate? FAIRCOM Report part II Fair and Appropriate? Compensation of Victims of Sexual Violence in EU Member States: Greece, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands and Spain Part II: State and Offender Compensation: Survey, Good Practices and Recommendations 1 November 2020 - o f f m e e t i i Project Partners - o f f m e e t i n g S e p t e m b e ii r The content of this report represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains. 3 Fair and Appropriate? FAIRCOM Report part II Authors Nieke Elbers,1 Arno Akkermans,1 Helena Soleto Muñoz,2 Anna Fiodorova,2 Aurea Grané,2 Josep Maria Tamarit,3 Laura Arantegui,3 Patrizia Patrizi,4 Gian Luigi Lepri,4 Ernesto Lodi,4 Doriana Chirico,4 Iluta Lāce,5 Lelde Vaivode,5 Juris Dilba,5 Antonia Brekasi,6 Nancy Zoidou Saripapa,6 Nicholas Spetsidis6 1 Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VU) - The Netherlands 2 University Carlos III of Madrid (UC3M) - Spain 3 Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC) - Spain 4 University of Sassari (UNISS) - Italy 5 Association Marta Centre (MARTA) - Latvia 6 Union of Women Associations of Heraklion Prefecture (UWAH) – Greece https://sexualviolencejustice.eu iii Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Vulnerability of victims of sexual crimes ................................................................ 1 1.2. The importance of fair and appropriate compensation ............................................. 3 1.3. European legislation and policy ............................................................................... 4 1.4. EU Strategy on victims’ rights 2020-2025 ............................................................... 6 1.5. This FAIRCOM Report Part II................................................................................. 7 2. Obligations of EU member states ..................................................................................... 9 2.1. Overview of legal instruments ................................................................................. 9 2.2. EU Compensation Directive of 2004 ..................................................................... 11 2.3. Council of Europe Istanbul Convention of 2011 ................................................... 12 2.4. EU Victims’ Rights Directive of 2012 ................................................................... 13 3. Method ........................................................................................................................... 17 3.1. Desk research ......................................................................................................... 17 3.2. Workshops .............................................................................................................. 17 4. Results ............................................................................................................................ 19 4.1. Desk research ......................................................................................................... 19 4.1.1. Offender compensation ............................................................................................................... 19 4.1.2. State compensation ...................................................................................................................... 24 4.2. Workshops .............................................................................................................. 31 4.2.1. Greece ......................................................................................................................................... 31 4.2.2. Italy ............................................................................................................................................. 35 4.2.3. Latvia .......................................................................................................................................... 41 4.2.4. Spain............................................................................................................................................ 48 4.2.5. The Netherlands .......................................................................................................................... 55 5. Discussion .......................................................................................................................... 60 5.1. Offender compensation ................................................................................................ 60 5.2. State compensation ...................................................................................................... 61 5.3. Other topics.................................................................................................................. 62 6. Recommendations .............................................................................................................. 65 6.1. Offender compensation ................................................................................................ 65 6.2. State compensation ...................................................................................................... 65 References .............................................................................................................................. 67 Appendix 1 - Questions regarding compensation at the EU justice portal ......................... 69 Appendix 2 – Overview of information on offender compensation ................................... 71 Appendix 3 - Overview of information on state compensation .......................................... 78 Appendix 4 – Fact sheet ..................................................................................................... 89 v 1. Introduction 1.1. Vulnerability of victims of sexual crimes The last 20 years, victims of crime have received increased attention in the criminal trial process. Various EU legislation, in specific the Victims’ Rights Directive 2012/29/EU,1 has established important victims’ rights, such as the right to receive information, respectful treatment, legal support, victim support and compensation. Most EU member states have implemented the legislation and the position of victims has clearly been strengthened. Now that victims of crime are in the spotlight, it is a good opportunity to also focus on specific vulnerable groups of victims in criminal law: victims of sexual crimes. Victims of sexual crimes require special attention for several reasons. Firstly, the scale in which sexual violence occurs is significant: according to a report of the European Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), it is estimated that 3.7 million women in the EU are subjected to sexual violence every year.2 In total 11% of women have experienced some form of sexual violence since they were 15 years old. 5% of women have been raped since the age of 15.3 The FRA did not include sexual violence to men. What is known about men is that 10% of victims of violent sexual crimes are men, the majority (90%) of the victims are women.4 Of the perpetrators, 99% are men, 1% are women.5 Secondly, victims of sexual crimes need support in their search for justice. Only 14% of victims of sexual violence report their offense to the police.6 Sexual crimes are often associated with shame and stigma and often mentioned in relation to secondary victimisation. About 25% of victims of sexual crimes do not dare to report the crime because of shame and 12% does not report because they think they will not be believed. Victims of physical violence also do not report because of shame or not being believed but the percentages are much lower, respectively 8% and 2%.7 Of the victims of sexual crimes who report to the police, about 46% are not satisfied with the treatment received by the police.8 Reporting rates seem to vary hugely between countries. According to Eurostat, the number of sexual violence offences - relative to the population - is highest in Sweden, with 178 violent sexual crimes per 100 000 inhabitants, ahead of Scotland (163), Northern Ireland (156), England & Wales (113) and Belgium (91). For rapes, the highest rates were recorded in England & Wales (62 rapes per 100 000 inhabitants) and in Sweden (57). The rape statistics 1 Directive 2012/29/EU establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, OJ 2012, L 315/57, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/2012/29/oj 2 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) (2014). Violence against women: an EU-wide survey. Main results report. See https://fra.europa.eu/en/data-and-maps/violence-against-women- survey/survey-information. 3 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), 2014. 4 Eurostat, see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20171123- 1?inheritRedirect=true 5 Eurostat, see https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/EDN-20171123- 1?inheritRedirect=true 6 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), 2014. 7 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), 2014. 8 European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), 2014. 1 Fair and Appropriate? FAIRCOM Report part II for the countries participating in the FAIRCOM project were from high to low: The Netherlands (10), Latvia (8), Spain (3), Greece (1) and Italy (0 per 100 000 inhabitants). For Italy, it should be noted that the law talks about sexual violence
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Supreme Court Yearbook 2020 the Supreme Court Yearbook 2020 CONTENTS
    The Supreme Court Yearbook 2020 The Supreme Court Yearbook 2020 CONTENTS FOREWORD BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT _____6 2. 3. 3. Statistical Data on the Activities of the Supreme Court’s Civil and Commercial Division ________________________________________ 26 1. THE SUPREME COURT AS THE HIGHEST JUDICIAL 2. 3. 4. Selection of the Important Decisions of the Supreme Court’s Civil and AUTHORITY IN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL MATTERS _____________8 Commercial Division ________________________________________ 30 2. 4. The Supreme Court Criminal Division in 2020 __________________ 44 1. 1. Composition of the Supreme Court ____________________________ 9 2. 4. 1. Summary of Decision-Making Activity of the Supreme Court’s 1. 2. Seat of the Supreme Court___________________________________ 11 Criminal Division ___________________________________________ 44 1. 3. Organisational Structure ____________________________________ 12 2. 4. 2. Unifying Activity of the Supreme Court’s Criminal Division _________ 48 1. 4. Supreme Court Justices in 2020 ______________________________ 14 2. 4. 3. Statistical Data on the Activities of the Supreme Court Criminal 1. 4. 1. Supreme Court Trainee Justices in 2020 _________________________ 15 Division __________________________________________________ 50 1. 4. 2. Curricula Vitae of Newly Assigned Supreme Court Judges__________ 16 2. 4. 4. Selection of Important Decisions of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court in 2020 _______________________________________ 52 2. DECISION-MAKING_____________________________________ 17 2. 5. Special Panel Established under Act No 131/2002 Sb. on 2. 1. Supreme Court Plenary Session ______________________________ 17 Adjudicating Certain Jurisdiction Disputes _____________________ 68 © The Supreme Court 2. 2. Reports of Cases and Opinions _______________________________ 17 2. 6. Awards for Supreme Court Judges ___________________________ 69 © Photographs: Supreme Court archives, Hana Brožíková – Office of 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Report Victims in Europe
    Acknowledgements The team involved in Project Victims in Europe, promoted by the Portuguese Association forÊ Victim Support (APAV) on behalf of Victim Support Europe, wants to thank all the professionals and organisationst hatc ooperatedwi thus. Firstly, we want to extend our thanks to the Ê national and european partners: Victim Support Europe (Netherlands); Ê Intervict, Tilburg University(Netherlands), Portuguese Ministry of Justice (Portugal);Ê Bíly Kruh Bezpecí (Czech Republic); Victim Support Malta (Malta); Weisser Ring (Germany);Ê Brottsofferjourernas Riksförbund (Sweden); Fehér Gyuru Közhasznu Egyesület (Hungary);Ê INAVEM (France); Pomoc Obetiam Násilia (Slovakia); Slachtofferhulp Nederland (The Netherlands);Ê Steunpunt Algeemen Welzijnswerk (Belgium); Supporting Victims of Crime and CombatingÊ Corruption Foundation (Bulgaria); Victimology Society of Serbia (Serbia); Victim Support England & Wales (England); Victim Support Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland); Victim Support Scotland (Scotland);W eisserRi ngAust ria( Austria). We would also like to express our appreciation to Dame Helen Reeves, for the valuable contribu- tionsa ndc ommitmentt ot hePr oject. Wew ouldl iket oe xtendsp ecialt hanks to all the invited plenary/workshop speakers and leaders. We deeply thank all the organisations that helped us disseminating this Seminar in different countries. Many thanks to Caroline Morgan and Levent Altan for their support to the victims’ rights in Europe. We would also like to extend our appreciation to the trainee Thomas Adcock for the workÊ developed in the final phase of the Project. Authors Intervictt eam:Suza nva nd erAa LLM ,Re néva nM errienboerLLB,An tony Pemberton PhD APAVt eam:Jo ãoLá zaro,C armen Rasquete,C arlaAma ral,F rederico Marques, Marta Pita ISBN978- 972-8852-27-6 APAV Rua José Estevão, 135 - A ProjectV ictimsi nEur ope 1150-201 Lisboa 2009© AP AV- Asso ciaçãoPo rtuguesad eAp oioà Ví tima Portugal Tel.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategy for Reform of the Criminal Legislature
    Republic of Macedonia MINISTRY OF JUSTICE STRATEGY FOR REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL LEGISLATURE Skopje, July 2007 Expert team: Professor Davor Krapac, Phd., Professor of criminal-procedural law at the Law Faculty- Zagreb Academic Professor Vlado Kambovski, Phd., Professor of criminal law at the Law Faculty – Skopje Docent Gordan Kalajdziev, Phd, Professor of criminal law at the Law Faculty - Skopje Docent Gordana Buzarovska, Phd., Professor of criminal-procedural law at the Law Faculty - Skopje 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS А) REFORM OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………............................................... …………….8 1) Current state of the relevant sector………………….........................8 2) Reform Objectives........................... ................................................8 2.1. Problems to be solved..........................................................8 2.2. Wider Reform Objectives.....................................................9 2.3. Specific Reform Objectives..................................................9 2.4. Expected Results...............................................................10 3) Hypotheses and Risks....................................................... .............10 2.1 Hypotheses.........................................................................10 2.2. Risks...................................................................................10 4) Time Table – February 2007 – February 2008........... ..........................11 5) What comes after......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Report of the Czech Republic on the Implementation of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance
    INITIAL REPORT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIC ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM ENFORCED DISAPPEARANCE General and cross-cutting issues Constitutional protection from enforced disappearance 1. In the Czech Republic’s legislature, the ban on enforced disappearance is constitutionally derived from Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”), which guarantees every individual’s personal liberty and provides that no one may be prosecuted or deprived of liberty other than on grounds and in the manner laid down by law. The Criminal Code1 elaborates on this, defining enforced disappearance as a criminal act and classifying this phenomenon as described below. International conventions on protection from enforced disappearance 2. The Czech Republic is not currently bound by any other international convention specifically regulating protection from enforced disappearance. Nor is it a state party to any bilateral or multilateral agreements specifically dealing with this area. 3. The key document guaranteeing the protection of personal liberty on an international scale that is binding on the Czech Republic is the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Article 5 of that Convention guarantees the right to liberty and security of person and precisely defines, in paragraph 1, what forms of restriction of personal liberty are admissible and under what conditions. This is an exhaustive list and cannot be extended to include further grounds. The same article also requires the state authorities to notify arrested persons immediately of the reasons for their arrest and any charges brought against them, and then to bring them before a judge, who shall decide whether the deprivation of their liberty is lawful or whether they are to be released.
    [Show full text]
  • Selected Rights of Crime Victims in Criminal Proceedings
    Selected rights of crime victims in criminal proceedings JUDr. Tomáš Durdík1 1. Definition of terms A natural person who suffered an injury to health, pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage or at whose expense the perpetrator enriched him/herself as a result of a criminal offence pursuant to Art. 43 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has the position of victim in an ongoing criminal proceeding regardless of the victim’s age or the nature of the criminal offence, with all the procedural rights, to which a crime victim is entitled pursuant to the law. Also legal entities have an identical position of victim in a criminal proceeding if they suffered e.g. pecuniary damage as a result of a criminal offence or if the perpetrator enriched him/herself as a result of a criminal offence at their expense. A crime victim and thus holder of procedural rights pursuant to the law, on the other hand, is not a person/entity2 feeling to have suffered moral or other damage as a result of a criminal offence if the incurred damage was not caused by the perpetrator’s intentional act or if there is not a direct causal correlation with the criminal offence (Art. 43 par. 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure). With effect from 1 August 2013 natural persons who suffered (or allegedly suffered) an injury to health, pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage or at whose expense the perpetrator enriched him/herself as a result of a criminal offence are considered in the way like the next of kin, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • VOCIARE Synthesis Report
    AUTHORS VICTIM SUPPORT EUROPE ALEKSANDRA IVANKOVIĆ LEVENT ALTAN APAV ANDRÉ CARPINELLI MARTA CARMO MAFALDA VALÉRIO DISCLAIMER All views expressed in the present report are those of the authors and not of the European Commission. Most findings of the report are based on the research conducted by national researchers, between June 2018 and March 2019, and any inaccuracies in the interpretation of national results lays with the authors of the present report only. Additional support research, in particular regarding international experiences, was conducted by the authors of the present report. The findings compiled in the present report represent, to the best of authors’ abilities, the current situation of the practical implementation of the EU Victims’ Rights Directive. Given its scope and ambition, authors are aware that some elements may be inaccurate or out of date. However, it was still important to offer the first overall picture, even if incomplete, of the practical implementation of the Directive, to inform future work of Victim Support Europe, its members and the policy initiatives at the EU and national level. Future efforts will be plan to improve the findings and provide a more detailed analysis of key rights defined in the Directive. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 SECTION I - Introduction 14 SECTION II - How the victims rights directive works for victims of crime in practice 16 ARTICLE 2 - Definitions 16 ARTICLE 3 - Right to understand and be understood 19 ARTICLE 4 - Right to receive information from
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Status Report on Trafficking in Human Beings in the Czech Republic
    2014 STATUS REPORT ON TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS IN THE CZECH REPUBLIC Security Policy and Crime Prevention Department Prague 2015 Obsah: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 1. SITUATION DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 4 2. TRENDS IN TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS .......................................................... 5 3. CRIMINAL STATISTICS ................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Number of detected crimes .......................................................................................... 8 3.2. Perpetrators in criminal proceedings ........................................................................... 8 3.2.1 Czech perpetrators abroad ................................................................................... 9 3.3 Forms of trafficking in human beings ..........................................................................10 3.3.1 Sexual exploitation ...............................................................................................10 3.3.2 Labour exploitation...............................................................................................10 3.4 The regional aspect of trafficking in human beings .....................................................11 3.5 Victims of Trafficking in human beings ........................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Dg Justice Guidance Document
    Ref. Ares(2013)3763804 - 19/12/2013 EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DG JUSTICE, December 2013 DG JUSTICE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT related to the transposition and implementation of Directive 2012/29/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 establishing minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime, and replacing Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA The purpose of this guidance document is to facilitate the effective and timely transposition of Directive 2012/29/EU by the European Union (EU) Member States that are bound by its provisions. This document is intended to assist the Member States to have a common understanding of the provisions contained in the Directive. This document is the result of a process of consultation of the various interested parties (Member States' national authorities, victims' support organisations, other concerned NGOs). This document is not legally binding and is intended for guidance only. It will not serve as a checklist for assessing Member States’ compliance with the Directive’s provisions. The authoritative interpretation of EU law remains within the sole remit of the European Court of Justice (CJEU) in accordance with the TFEU and TEU Treaties1. This document can therefore neither provide a formal interpretation of EU law, nor provide legal advice on issues of national law. Obligations imposed on the Member States stemming from this Directive will demand transposition by a legislative instrument, while practical and technical implementation to achieve objectives of the Directive might be ensured by appropriate non-legislative measures. Member States have to put in place a specific legal framework to enable individuals to recognise clearly their rights and obligations under this Directive.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary and Protection of Victims
    Project of the Judicial Academy of the Slovak Republic in the Field of Criminal Justice 2014-2015 C Co-funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union Judiciary and protection of victims This project is implemented with the cooperation of Visegrad judicial academies Krajowa Szkoła Sądownictwa i Prokuratury Országos Bírósági Hivatal Justiční Akademie http://www.ja-sr.sk/victimsprotection Co-funded by the Criminal Justice Programme of the European Union Table of contents Table of contents ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Detailed content ................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vladimár Cehlár: Saturation of the Needs of Victims via Criminal Mediation. ................................................ 8 Martin Lulei: Selected aspects of criminal policy and tools to measure recidivism risk in probation............ 28 Peter Horvath: Rights of the victim of a criminal offence arising from Article 2 of the Convention on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms .............................................................................................. 42 Peter Horvath: Rights of the victim of a criminal offencearising from Article 6 of the Convention on the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms .............................................................................................. 62 Peter Horvath: Link
    [Show full text]
  • Discovering Trafficking in Human Beings for the Purpose of Labour Exploitation and Forced Labour: European Perspective
    Discovering Trafficking in Human Beings for the Purpose of Labour Exploitation and Forced Labour: European Perspective Vít Střítecký, Daniel Topinka et al. The preparation and publication of this work has been made possible by the financial assistance from the project of "Discovering Trafficking in Human Beings for the Purpose of Labour Exploitation and Forced Labour". PhDr. Vít Střítecký, M. Phil., Ph.D., PhDr. Daniel Topinka, Ph.D. et al. Discovering Trafficking in Human Beings for the Purpose of Labour Exploitation and Forced Labour: European Perspective La Strada Česká republika, o.p.s.., Prague 2013 The text has not been proofread. © Vít Střítecký, Daniel Topinka, 2013 © La Strada Česká republika, o.p.s., Prague, 2013 PHDR. VÍT STŘÍTECKÝ, M. PHIL., PH.D., PHDR. DANIEL TOPINKA, PH.D. ET AL. 2 1. Introduction 12 2. Trafficking in human beings –Making Sense of the Concept in Practice 13 3. Sexual exploitation in prostitution, consensual sex work, and trafficking 15 4. The fight against ‘illegal’ migration 18 5. The fight against organized crime 20 6. Forced labour, slavery and exploitation 21 7. New insights and developments 24 7.1. Movement as one of the defining elements of trafficking 24 7.2. Abuse of a position of vulnerability 27 7.3. Non-criminalization and non-punishment of trafficked persons 29 7.4. Emerging forms of exploitation and trafficking involving Persons 30 7.5. Coerced involvement in petty crime, drug smuggling and drug cultivation 31 7.6. Trafficking in Persons for the purpose of organ removal 31 7.7. Coerced involvement in benefit and other types of fraud 32 7.8.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations CRC/C/OPSC/SVK/Q/1/Add.1
    United Nations CRC/C/OPSC/SVK/Q/1/Add.1 Convention on the Distr.: General 5 December 2012 Rights of the Child English only Committee on the Rights of the Child Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography List of issues concerning additional and updated information related to the consideration of the initial report of Slovakia (CRC/C/OPSC/SVK/1) Addendum Written replies of Slovakia* ** * In accordance with the information transmitted to States parties regarding the processing of their reports, the present document was not edited. ** Annexes can be consulted in the files of the Secretariat. GE.12- CRC/C/OPSC/SVK/Q/1/Add.1 Reply to the issues raised in paragraph 1(a) and (b) of the list of issues (CRC/C/OPSC/SVK/Q/1) 1. The statistical data of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic (disaggregated by sex, age, ethnic group, socio-economic background, or affiliation to social group) on the number of perpetrators, type of penalties imposed and on the number of child indemnitees, elaborated on the grounds of statistical forms regularly filled out and forwarded by the courts (which are annually published in the form of Statistical yearbook of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic), are provided in the annex to this additional report . The indicator “rural or urban residence” does not occur in the statistical forms used by the Ministry of Justice therefore the requested statistical data cannot be evaluated according to this indicator. Since 1 January 2012 the Ministry of Justice monitors and evaluates also the age of the child victims.
    [Show full text]
  • Czech Criminal Justice Systém
    Czech Criminal Justice System Jaroslav Fenyk Criminal Procedure in the Czech Republic Common Rules and Institutions of Criminal Procedure Fundamental Principles of the Czech Criminal Procedure Legality prosecution (regular lawful procedure, nullum crimen sine lege) According with article 8 par. 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms "nobody may be prosecuted or deprived of their freedoms other than for the reasons and in the manner stipulated by the law". Similar definition is under section 2 par. 1 of Criminal procedure Code. Procedural expression of the principle is presumption of innocence (article 39 of the Charter and section 2 par. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Code - "an individual may not be viewed as guilty until the court passes a legitimate conviction"). Mandatory prosecution According section 2 par. 3 of the Criminal procedure Code a public prosecutor is obligate to prosecute all criminal acts that are made known to him/her, unless a code or an international agreement to which the Czech Republic is bound stipulates something different. Officiality prosecution According with section 2 par. 4 Criminal Procedure Code (police, public prosecutor and court) are to proceed with their official duties unless this code stipulates something different; they must deal with all criminal matters as fast as possible (especially custody cases and the cases with freezing of assets) and with a full inquiry of civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Guilty beyond reasonable doubts According with section 2 par. 5 of the Criminal procedure Code the authorities responsible for criminal proceedings are to proceed in a manner which will determine the real state of an affair which is beyond reasonable doubts and to the extent that is necessary for their decision.
    [Show full text]