Magister Legum - LLM

Cette thèse traite des procédures de contrôle et de contentieux en droit fiscal marocain dans leur rapport avec les droits de l’homme. Il s’agit d’une analyse des textes fiscaux marocains qui encadrent le contrôle et le contentieux dans leur conformité avec les de l’homme, le tout en essayant de faire le rapprochement entre le traitement jurisprudentiel marocain et celui de la CEDH en la matière. Sans pour autant toucher à l’ensemble des Droits de l’Homme, cette recherche portera sur le droit de propriété et la liberté d’entreprendre telles que garanties par la Déclaration Universelle des Droits de l’Homme et confirmées par la Constitution marocaine. Elle traite aussi du procès fiscal et sa conformité aux garanties du droit au procès équitable notamment le délai raisonnable, le droit au juge, la présomption d’innocence et le droit de garder le silence. La finalité de cette recherche est de pousser le législateur marocain à prendre en considération la garantie de ces droits lors de l’élaboration de la norme fiscale en matière de contrôle et de contentieux. / The present study tackles the procedures pertaining to control and litigation in Moroccan tax law in connection with the economic and social rights. It undertakes an analysis of the Moroccan legislative texts governing the procedures of control and litigation and tax case law in their compliance with the economic and social rights, while also seeking to make some kind of benchmark with the European Court on Human Rights in this regard. This these is also aims at pinpointing infringements of these rights in the process of tax inspection procedures and fiscal proceedings that generally come as the ultimate outcome of a scrutiny process. While not addressing all economic and social rights, the present study will focus on owner ship property rights and economic freedom as guaranteed by the Declaration of the Right of Man and the Citizen, and confirmed by the Moroccan constitution . It also deals with the right to a fair trial, including reasonable time, right of access to the courts, the presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent. This study finally seeks to urge the Moroccan legislator to take into consideration the guaranteeing of these rights in the process of designing tax standards.

This thesis will explore the media's increasing impact on the criminal court system, specifically through prejudicial publicity given to criminal trials. In our society, the primary responsibility for gathering and disseminating information rests on the media. The media, consisting primarily of television and written publications, feel that they have a duty to provide citizens with important information about the community and the world. While the media have traditionally gathered news for informational purposes, they also provide news coverage of people and events for entertainment value. This is accomplished by focusing on the out-of-the ordinary and on stories of intrigue that capture the public's fancy. The media's desire to inform and entertain has carried over into the legal process, specifically the criminal court system. The media are typically drawn to cases that either provide a shocking, outrageous storyline, or that have a high-profile, famous defendant. The media love to exploit criminal trials for the suspense, drama, and sensationalism that they produce, as the viewing audience is longing for inside gossip and pure outrageousness. However, the media have the capability of publicizing a case beyond just mere hype, essentially turning the trial into a "media circus." Concerns arise when media outlets release prejudicial information before the case has been tried in front of the trier-of- fact, the jury. If the potential jurors consume this prejudicial, often-times inadmissible, information, then this increases the chances that jurors will pre-form opinions as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant prior to hearing the in-court evidence. If this occurs, the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury is in serious jeopardy. The media's First Amendment rights of free speech and press, coupled with a presumed right of access to criminal proceedings, lie in direct conflict with the defendant's Sixth Amendment due process rights. Exactly how courts go about balancing these rights delineated by the United States Constitution is still not definitive. The media feel that they can publicize criminal trials in any way they deem appropriate, while defendants argue that the jury pool is tainted by the media's coverage of the case. This prevents a truly unbiased jury from being chosen. Because of these constitutional issues, the United States Supreme Court has seen fit to enter the media publicity debate. While not providing, any definitive rules on when media publicity violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment's rights, the members of the Court have provided some recommendations and direction on these issues. When a case arouses the interest of media outlets nationally and internationally, the primary focus turns to the jury pool. Since jurors are seen as the trial participants most influenced by the media coverage, methods to keep the jury from being exposed to prejudicial pretrial publicity are utilized. At times, a skillfully and thoroughly conducted voir dire can find jurors unexposed to media coverage about the case. The judge's role has expanded in recent years as the media have become more pervasive in the criminal court system. The judge is responsible for supervising the media and for making sure that they do not infringe on the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. To accomplish this duty, the trial judge has a number of mechanisms that he or she can employ against the media in order to ensure that a fair and unbiased jury is chosen for the case. However, these mechanisms are loathed by media outlets as they assert that these tools violate their First Amendment rights. Attorneys have been impacted by the media; however this relationship is unique in that it is a reciprocal one. The media publicize the trial of the attorney's client. In turn, the attorney uses this publicity as a weapon to advocate his or her client's case and proclaim guilt or innocence. Concerns about these extrajudicial statements arise when attorneys themselves release prejudicial information through the media to the representative community from which the jury will be chosen. As a result, the American Bar Association and various states have enacted rules designed to limit attorney speech so as to prevent any possibility of prejudice to the defendant in his or her trial. Indeed, the media have become more pervasive in the criminal court system, projecting events to the world as they happen. The coverage also tends to focus on the entertainment value of the case, releasing details that play on the viewer's emotions. However, an aggressive media impacts the due process rights of the accused, thus harming the search for justice. These are all issues and concerns that would not have arisen in this context, but-for the media's continuing impact on the criminal justice system.

Thesis (LLM. (Management and Development)) -- University of Limpopo, 2014 / Every accused person has the right to a fair trial which encompasses the right to adduce and challenge evidence in court. Whilst the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa confers the right to legal representation, an accused person may still opt to conduct his or her own defence. Once an unrepresented accused opts to conduct his or her own defence, the presiding officer then becomes obliged to assist the undefended accused to present his or her own case. South Africa adheres to the accusatorial / adversarial system. Under the accusatorial / adversarial system the presiding judicial officer is in the role of a detached umpire, who should not descend the arena of the duel between the state and the defence for fear of becoming partial or of losing perspective as a result of the dust caused by the affray between the state and the defence. Under the accusatorial/adversarial system, a presiding officer may find it challenging to assist an unrepresented accused or may inadequately assist him or her. This may be so because a fair trial is not determined by ensuring exercise of one of the rights to a fair trial but all the rights to a fair trial. This mini-dissertation, on the injunction of section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa which makes provision for the rights to a fair trial, covers the different rights of an unrepresented accused. This is done alongside related provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 and pertinent case law. The fat that an unrepresented accused has waived legal representation at the expense of the state and has opted to conduct his or her own defence should not be to his or her peril. The court has a constitutional injunction to protect and advance the rights of an unrepresented accused. Justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done.

The present study asked two important questions: Does prejudicial pretrial publicity produce bias which may impair juror objectivity and, if it does, can voir dire remedy its untoward effects? Subjects were 68 college undergraduates whose political attitudes had been assessed and who had or had not read case-specific pretrial publicity one week before viewing a murder trial. Trial proceedings took place at the University of Miami law school. Voir dire, trial viewing, and deliberations were conducted in UM's moot courtroom. As predicted, analyses revealed main effects for both voir dire and pretrial publicity such that pretrial publicity increased conviction rate and the extended voir dire decreased conviction rate, but the extended voir dire failed to reduce the specific prejudicial effect of pretrial publicity. These findings suggest that prejudgment of a general nature (e.g., confusion about legal concepts) may be neutralized by an extended voir dire but that prejudice specifically created by exposure to inflammatory news stories is not offset by an extended voir dire format. There is reason to believe, however, that with more time spent explaining case facts and with greater attention to individual jurors, voir dire could eliminate even the specific prejudice created by pretrial publicity.

Puisque l'institution judiciaire dans les sociétés démocratiques est le garant des droits et libertés des individus, cette institution doit disposer tous les atouts qui lui garantissent de jouer ce rôle. La Mauritanie a connu à l'époque moderne l’instauration de ce pouvoir judiciaire, durant deux étapes importante, la première sous le contrôle du colonialisme français, qui a soumis le pays depuis plusieurs décennies, et la dernière après l’indépendance où la codification de la première organisation judiciaire en Mauritanie en date du 27 juin, 1961 avec la loi N° 61-012. En Mauritanie la justice dans son ensemble souffre de certain de maux, et l’accès à la justice pour l’ensemble des citoyens est entravé par beaucoup d’obstacles, et menacé par un certain nombre des insuffisances, et de nos jours, le droit à un procès équitable est un droit primordial, garanti par un ensemble de principes issus des conventions internationales dans le domaine de protection de droit de l’Homme. Le droit à un procès équitable est donc parmi des droits fondamentaux de l'être humain .il y a un certain nombre de conditions qui doivent être remplies pour assurer un procès équitable afin de protéger les droits des personnes. Afin de mettre en évidence et de clarifier les obstacles observés sur ces aspects, cette étude passe en revue l’organisation de la justice au pays, ainsi qu’une analyse des lieux des faille, tant sur le plan des empêchements issus des raisons socioéconomiques et organisationnelle, que celui de la non-conformité aux exigences internationales en la matière. Cette étude a présenté un ensemble de propositions, soient la révision de nos textes afin d’introduire davantage une manière plus efficace de ces principes, en particulier le principe de la collégialité, la publicité, et les droit des défenses. En renforçant les compétences du juge unique au niveau des tribunaux de première instance. Sans oublier d'assurer une plus grande spécialisation des magistrats tant au niveau des tribunaux des premières instances qu’au niveau de la cours d'appel. Toutes ces propositions ont pour but d’essayer d‘améliorer la situation actuelle, pour faire en sorte qu’il ait au moins l’existence de conditions minimales pour un procès équitable, car la violation du droit à un procès équitable, reste toujours une cause de préoccupation pour toute l’humanité. / As the judicial institution in democratic societies is the guarantor of the rights and freedoms of individuals, such institution must have all the means that allow it to play this role. Mauritania has known in its modern history the establishment of the judicial power, through two important steps. First was in the French colonialism, which has ruled the country for several decades, and the last was after independence with the codification of the first judicial organization in Mauritania on June 27, 1961 by Law No. 61-012. In Mauritania, justice had as a whole suffered from several problems and access to justice for all citizens is hindered by many obstacles, and threatened by a number of shortcomings. Today, the right to a fair trial is a primary right, guaranteed by a set of principles derived from international conventions as a part of human rights. The right to a fair trial is recognized as the fundamental among the human being rights but there are some conditions that must be met to ensure a fair trial in order to protect the rights of individuals. In order to highlight and clarify the obstacles observed in these aspects, this study reviews the organization of justice in the country, as well as it tries to provide an analysis of the places of the deficiencies as well as the impediments causing by socioeconomic reasons and organization and also the non-compliance with the international requirement in this area. This study gives some proposals, through the revision of the texts by introducing more strongly some principles. in particular the principle of collegiality, and the right of defense and by strengthening the prerogatives of the unique judge in the first instance courts and also in providing more specialization of the magistrates as well at the courts of the first instances as at the level of the appeal court. All these proposals aim to improve the current situation, for setting up the minimal conditions for a fair trial, because the violation of the right to a fair trial remains great concern for all humanity.

The purpose of my thesis is to provide an analysis of the principle of contradictority and its application in criminal proceedings. I have decided to use the term "contradictory proceedings" even though The European Court of Human Rights that developed the concept usually uses the term "adversarial proceedings". The reason consists in the difference between adversarial proceedings as a special kind of criminal proceedings which is typical for countries within the Anglo-American legal culture and adversarial/contradictory proceedings as a wider concept of proceedings which is based on a respect for the rights of people charged with criminal offences and which can be (and actually is) used both within the Anglo-American legal system and the legal system of the countries in the continental Europe. In this sense, the correct translation into Czech language is "kontradiktorní řízení". The thesis is composed of six basic chapters. Chapters One and Two provide introduction, presenting some theoretical approaches to what contradictory proceedings could or should be. Chapter Three is subdivided into three subchapters. First two of them examine the evolution of adversarial and inquisitorial models of criminal proceedings, dealing with their similarities and differences. The third one summarizes why both of...

L’enjeu de tout procès pénal est de garantir l’équilibre entre deux intérêts opposés et sacrés : d’une part, la protection de l’ordre public, qui n’est autre que l'intérêt général de la société, et d’autre part, l'intérêt de la personne se trouvant dans les mailles d’un procès pénal, qui exige la certitude d’exercer ses droits de la défense contre l’arbitraire et les abus de l’appareil judiciaire. La sauvegarde de cet équilibre par l'établissement de normes législatives et des mécanismes judiciaires internationaux et nationaux, s’est vue imposer une approche protectrice des droits de l’individu aux prises avec l’appareil juridictionnel afin de déterminer son innocence ou sa culpabilité. En effet, la présomption d’innocence est une supposition fondée sur des signes de vraisemblance ou encore une anticipation sur ce qui n’est pas prouvé, ce qui interdit à toute juridiction de déclarer une personne coupable des faits qu’ils lui sont reprochés tant qu’elle n’a pas été déclarée coupable par celle-ci. Alors que, la présomption de culpabilité est une exception fixée par le législateur ou par la jurisprudence, par opposition au principe de présomption d’innocence, dont la consécration est supralégislative, comme étant une garantie issue du droit à un procès équitable. C’est un devoir de prudence qui s'impose, face à un nouvel ordre mondial caractérisé par une nouvelle forme de criminalité, en particulier le terrorisme, dont la lutte se manifeste par des conventions internationales et régionales sous l’égide de l’ONU, en mettent en place une stratégie fragmentée et sectorielle contre les crimes associés au terrorisme. Or, si le mécanisme de la présomption de culpabilité semble prendre le dessus sur la légalité, la légitimité et la sagesse du principe de présomption d’innocence, sous l’impulsion d’une nouvelle doctrine qui émerge en l’occurrence le ‘’ droit pénal de l’ennemi ‘’ au nom de la lutte contre le terrorisme, le respect des droits de la défense demeure le gardien absolu contre toute dérive et arbitraire judiciaire. Il s’agit ainsi de concilier lutte efficace contre le terrorisme et respect des droits et libertés fondamentales. Ceci étant, les présomptions (d’innocence ou de culpabilité), constituent un thème audacieux dans la mesure où elles incitent à confronter des débats doctrinaux contemporains à l’une des sources du droit pénal et du droit procédural. Ce modeste travail a trait d’un principe de droit universellement reconnu à savoir : la présomption d'innocence, d’où l’intérêt est de savoir à quel point la lutte contre le terrorisme et la protection de la présomption d’innocence, qui sont soumis à une procédure régulière et spéciale, peuvent être homogènes. / The aim of any penal procedure is to guarantee the balance between two opposing and sacred interests: on the one hand, the protection of public order, which is not other than the general interest of society, and on the other hand, the interest of the person in the meshes of a criminal trial, which requires the certainty of exercising his rights of defense against the arbitrariness and abuses of the judicial system. Safeguarding this balance through the establishment of international and national legal norms and judicial mechanisms, has been imposed a protective approach to the rights of the individual struggling with the jurisdictional apparatus to determine his innocence or guilt. In fact, the presumption of innocence is an assumption based on signs of likelihood or an anticipation of what is not proven, which prohibits any jurisdiction from declaring a person guilty of the facts he is accused of so much that he was not convicted yet whereas the presumption of guilt is an exception set by the legislator or by the case law, as opposed to the principle of presumption of innocence, whose consecration is supra-legislative, as being a guarantee resulting from the right to a fair trial. It is an obligation of caution that is needed in a new world order characterized by a new form of crime, especially terrorism, whose fight is manifested in international and regional conventions under the auspices of the United Nations which implements a fragmented sectorial strategy against crimes associated with terrorism. Therefore, if the mechanism of the presumption of guilt seems to override the legality, legitimacy and wisdom of the principle of presumption of innocence, under the impulse of a new doctrine that emerges in this case the "right" criminal of the enemy '' in the name of the fight against terrorism, respect for the rights of the defense remains the absolute guard against any arbitrary judicial drift. It is thus a question of reconciling effective fight against terrorism with respect for fundamental rights and freedoms. That being said, the presumptions (of innocence or guilt) are a daring theme insofar as they incite to confront contemporary doctrinal debates in the light of the sources of penal law and procedural law. This modest work deals with a universally recognized principle of law: namely, the presumption of innocence, hence the interest in knowing how much the fight against terrorism and the protection of the presumption of innocence, which are subject to a regular and special procedure, may be homogeneous.

Thesis (doctoral)--Universität, Leipzig, 2003.

Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2009. / Summaries in English and Afrikaans. Includes bibliographical references.