Made available in DSpace on 2016-08-10T10:47:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 INACIO BELINA FILHO.pdf: 614250 bytes, checksum: 96b275d653d6cf2bfe175c400ba56e96 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-05-25 / This present study aims to analyze the institute of the Jury Trial under two plans: the first has a constitutional nature, emphasizing its origin, its historical evolution both inside and outside the giant of South America", pointing out its position in the Federal Constitution of 1988, as a fundamental right; the second one examines all the regulation foreseen in the Decree-Law n#. 3689/41 (Code of Criminal Procedure) emphasizing the challenging controversies implemented by the Law 11.689/2008, which triggered profound changes throughout the procedure, both first degree and in the appellate stage. From a critic perspective, this paper work seeks to study the mentioned reform investigating whether these changes have brought benefits to forensic routine or if they were mere political rhetoric. / O presente estudo tem por escopo analisar o instituto do Tribunal do Júri sob dois planos: o primeiro, de natureza constitucional, ressalta sua origem, sua evolução histórica tanto fora quanto dentro do gigante da América do Sul , salientando, sua posição na Constituição Federal de 1988, enquanto direito fundamental; já o segundo, disseca toda a regulamentação prevista no Decreto Lei nº. 3.689/41 (Código de Processo Penal), enfatizando as controvérsias desafiadoras implementadas pela Lei nº. 11.689/2008 à luz do princípio da duração razoável do processo, que desencadeou profundas transformações em todo o procedimento, tanto de 1º grau quanto na fase recursal. De forma critica, procura-se estudar a citada reforma, apurando se tais alterações trouxeram benefícios no cotidiano forense ou se foram mera retórica política.

刑事訴訟法是確定國家刑罰權之程序法，刑事訴訟程序進行中，難免侵害人民之基本權。因此，刑事偵查應遵守程序正義，以保障人權。偵訊係將被告、犯罪嫌疑人拘束於特定之地點，即地檢署之偵查庭或司法警察機關之詢問室，且接受檢察官、司法警察人員之訊（詢）問。基於偵查不公開原則，當事人若未委任律師到場陪同，外界難以窺探了解偵訊之過程。為避免發生不當偵訊，刑事訴訟法第100條之1第1項前段規定，訊問被告，應全程連續錄音；必要時，並應全程連續錄影，即在擔保偵訊時當事人陳述之任意性及偵訊筆錄記錄之正確性。第2項規定，筆錄內所載之被告陳述與錄音或錄影之內容不符者，除有急迫情況且經記明筆錄者外，其不符之部分，不得作為證據。因此，被告之陳述若與錄音或錄影之內容不符，偵訊筆錄將受證據排除，而不具證據能力。 實務上偵訊筆錄之製作，並無法與當事人之陳述同步，且偵訊筆錄之記錄，係由訊（詢）問之檢察官、司法警察（官）於整理當事人陳述後，擇與案情有關部分記錄於偵訊筆錄，換言之，偵訊筆錄之記錄，並非逐字記載當事人之陳述，則偵訊筆錄之記錄是否為當事人陳述之真意，迭生爭議。 本研究以文獻分析法、歷史分析法，探討偵訊筆錄記錄完整性與證據能力之研究，並分析刑事訴訟法有關訊（詢）問之相關規定及司法實務上偵查筆錄記錄之現況，經綜合分析提出建議如下： 一、偵訊實務建議 在偵訊實務方面之建議，偵查機關應建立偵訊養成教育之完整計畫，偵訊工作需由專業之執法人員擔任；強化偵訊錄影音監督機制，俾加強對偵訊筆錄記錄正確性及任意性之監督。 二、偵訊教育之完整計畫 偵查機關應將偵訊工作相關法律規範，彙編成冊，並依據法律規定，訂定偵訊標準化、類型化作業程序，依據不同案件類型，編訂擬問問題之標準作業手冊。 三、偵訊錄影音監督機制 為避免證人、被告、犯罪嫌疑人，在檢察官、司法警察（官）泛談前即受到威嚇或脅迫，其到達司法機關後，應即進入詢問室，並立即進行全程錄影，避免在偵訊前即受到脅迫；證人、被告、犯罪嫌疑人到達訊（詢）問地點時間與真正開始製作偵訊筆錄之時間應記錄明確，俾供查核。 四、偵訊筆錄記錄 偵查筆錄之記錄，係經偵訊者整理當事人陳述後，記錄於偵查筆錄，偵訊者應客觀、中立，並以最大之可能性，完整記錄當事人陳述，始符合正當法律程序原則。 五、偵訊筆錄記錄人員 設置專責偵訊筆錄記錄制度，以專門職業訓練認證及考選，納入考選部之「專門職業及技術人員」考試類別，以解決筆錄製作須具公務員之身分問題。 六、偵訊筆錄記錄輔助系統 為提升偵查筆錄記錄之完整性及正確性，可利用電腦科技，建置常用之片語快捷，以減少筆錄編輯時間。 七、修正刑事訴訟法第40條規定 偵查筆錄以電腦記錄，最後列印之筆錄文書，並不會呈現增、刪過程紀錄，建議修正刑事訴訟法第40條規定：「公務員制作之文書，不得竄改或挖補；如有增加、刪除或附記者，應蓋章其上，並記明字數。以電磁記錄製作文書者，其刪除處應留存原字跡，俾得辨認。」 / A Study on the Completeness and Evidentiary Value of Written Interrogation Records The Code of Criminal Procedure is a procedural law for stipulating state power of punishment. In the process of judicial proceedings, it is inevitable that people’s rights might be violated. Therefore criminal investigation should abide by procedural justice in order to protect human rights. Interrogation is to detain defendant or criminal suspect at a certain place, namely investigation room of District Prosecutors Office or interrogation room of judicial police agencies, where the defendant or criminal suspect will be interrogated or questioned by prosecutor or judicial policeman. Based on the principle of secret investigation, the person in question, if not accompanied by a hired lawyer, the investigation process will not be known to the public. To prevent unjustified interrogation, the first part of sub-item 1 of Article 100-1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that when interrogating a defendant, the whole process should be tape-recorded. When necessary, the whole process will be video recorded. This is meant to guarantee the willfulness of defendant’s statement of when being interrogated as well as the correctness of interrogation record. Sub-item 2 of Article 100-1 of The Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that if defendant’s statement in interrogation record is not in accordance with contents of interrogation tape record or video record, the Inconsistent part shall not serve as evidence, with the exception of emergency which is especially marked in the said record. Therefore, if defendant’s statement is not in accordance with contents of tape record or video record, the interrogation record will be excluded as evidence，meanwhile losing the credibility of the evidence. In practice, the production of interrogation record is not possible to synchronize with defendant’s statement. The interrogation record is produced by selecting part of defendant’s statement that is related to the case after statement organizing by the prosecutor or judicial police officer who interrogated. In other words, interrogation record is not the word-for-word defendant’s statement. Disputes often happen on whether interrogation record agrees with the true meaning of the defendant’s statement. This research has explored completeness and evidential power of interrogation record through documentary analysis, historical analysis, and comparative analysis. It has also conducted analysis on relevant regulations regarding interrogation (questioning) and current status of actual interrogation record. The research offers the following suggestions after a comprehensive analysis: A. Suggestions on interrogation practice Regarding suggestion on interrogation practice, the investigation organ should draw a complete plan to cultivate qualified investigators, so that the interrogation could be handled by professional law enforcement officials. A supervising mechanism for interrogation tape and video record should be further strengthened in order to supervise the correctness and willfulness of interrogation record. B. Complete Plan for Investigators Cultivation The investigation organ should draw complete plan to cultivate investigators and compile laws and regulations relevant to the work of interrogation into books. Interrogation should be standardized and classified, with the establishment of operational procedure. Based on the nature of different cases, various standard operational manuals with prepared questions should be produced. C. Mechanism to Supervise Tape or Video Record of Interrogation To avoid the threat or intimidation happened before wide-ranging questioning of prosecutor and judicial police officer, the witness, defendant, and suspect will immediately be led into the interrogation room once arriving at the judicial office. Whole-process video recording will be conducted immediately to prevent him from being threatening before interrogation. The exact time and place that the witness, defendant, and suspect arrive at for interrogation (questioning) and the start time of interrogation record should be clearly recorded for checking. D. Interrogation Record Interrogation record, after being compiled by investigator, is being recorded. The investigator should be objective and neutral, and record the statement of the person in question as complete as possible, which conforms to the principle of due process of law. E. Stenographer of Interrogation Record Stenographers must obtain certification after receiving professional training and pass examination. Taiwan has special professional training programs for stenographer. Stenographer is listed in examination category of “professionals and technicians” of Ministry of Examination, which meets the requirement that stenographers have to be civil servants. F. Secondary System of Interrogation Record In order to improve the completeness and correctness of interrogation record, computer technology can be applied to create shortcuts for commonly used phrases，reducing time for recording and compiling. G. Revising Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Interrogation record is recorded by computer. The printed final written version of the record will not show previous processes of addendums and deletions. Suggestion is given to revise Article 40 of the Code of Criminal Procedure according to the following quoted text: “Documents made by public functionaries are forbidden to revise or edit. Should there are addendums, deletions, or notes added, chops should be placed where such amendment occurs, with the number of altered words noted. When documents are made with computer, original texts should be kept for identification purpose.

La constitution du 22 janvier 2001 dispose expressément que la République du Sénégal garantit la liberté de la presse et le droit à l’information plurielle. Néanmoins, le journaliste sénégalais est resté justiciable des codes pénal et de procédure pénale, adoptés dans l’élan répressif des années 1960. Ce droit pénal commun qui intègre paradoxalement la loi française spéciale du 29 juillet 1881 sur la liberté de la presse, héritée de la colonisation, apparaît comme dépassé par l’évolution de la démocratie sénégalaise et l’aspiration du peuple à l’épanouissement et au progrès social. L’activité journalistique est une activité potentiellement délinquantielle. Il peut arriver que le journaliste abuse de la liberté d’expression en foulant au pied la loi et les règles de la déontologie de sa profession. La justice du droit pénal a vocation à lui être applicable. Mais, ce constat ne doit point occulter la nécessité dans laquelle se trouve le législateur de rendre sauve la liberté de la presse dans l’exercice de sa compétence exclusive de fixation et de détermination des abus intolérables de ladite liberté. Pour ce faire, l’adoption d’une législation spéciale, détachée de l’emprise tutélaire des codes pénal et de procédure pénale, s’impose. C’est une condition nécessaire, mais non suffisante. La prévisibilité de la loi applicable à la responsabilité pénale du professionnel de l’information, l’indépendance du juge qui l’applique, la non-ingérence du pouvoir politique dans la liberté d’informer du journaliste sont autant de conditions nécessaires à la répression des abus de la liberté de la presse. / Senegalese Constitution dated 22th January 2001 clearly provides that the country guarantees the freedom of the press and the right to multi-sourced information. And yet the Senegalese journalist remains subject to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure adopted in the repressive surge of the 1960’s.The local Criminal law which paradoxically includes French special 29th July 1881 Act on the freedom of the press seems outdated and overtaken by the evolution of the Senegalese democracy and the people’s yearning for development and social progress. The journalistic activity potentially brings forth offences. The journalist may take too much advantage of the freedom of the press violating thereby the law and his own deontology. Criminal law justice must therefore be applicable to them. However this must not conceal the law-maker‘s necessity to safeguard the freedom of the press. To that end it is necessary to set up a special legislation free from the Criminal Code and from the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is a necessity though insufficient. The predictability of the law applicable to the criminal liability of the journalist, the independence of the applying judges and the non-interference of the political power in the journalist’s freedom of speech are prerequisites to the repression of the abuses of the freedom of the press. Our present thesis aims on the one hand to diagnose the criminal liability regime of the Senegalese journalist and also to prove the inadequacy of the criminal law with its legal liability. We will then suggest a particular criminal liability system more respectful of the freedom of the press.

This diploma thesis addresses issues of the institute of settlement in. The institute of settlement is one of the diversions in criminal proceedings. Diversions (divergences) in criminal proceedings are construed as special types of criminal proceedings, alternative to standard hearing of a case in main trial, within which the criminal case can be settled. The institute of settlement was incorporated into the Czech Criminal Procedure Code by the amendment n. 152/1995 Sb., that became effective on 1st September 1995. The essence of the institute of settlement is a conclusion of an agreement between the accused person and the damaged person. Such agreement is then approved and the criminal prosecution against the accused person is therefore terminated. It is thus achieved the settlement and elimination of the confrontation which was caused as a result of the committed crime between the accused person and the damaged person concerned. Title: Settlement in criminal proceedings Key words: Settlement; settlement of the confrontation between the accused person and the damaged person; approval of the settlement; diversion in criminal proceedings; Code of criminal procedure; restorative justice