La double incrimination est une condition « classique » en droit pénal international, que l'on trouve formulée dans les instruments normatifs relatifs à la coopération pénale internationale, ainsi que dans ceux consacrés aux compétences extraterritoriales. Dans ces deux domaines la condition de la double incrimination est considérée comme remplie lorsque les faits en question sont punis par les droits internes des deux États concernés (État requérant et État requis, ou État de poursuite et État de commission). Toutefois, l'application de cette condition n'est pas sans poser de difficultés, aussi bien sur un plan substantiel que sur un plan procédural. Des difficultés qui ont conduit les États européens à la remettre en cause, du moins pour partie ; une remise en cause totale de la double incrimination s'avérant, en l'état, impossible. / Double criminality is a “classic” condition in international criminal law, which is found in normative instruments relating to international cooperation in criminal matters, as well as those relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction. In these two fields, the condition of double criminality is considered fulfilled when the conduct in question is punishable under the domestic law of both states (the requesting state and the requested state, or the prosecuting State and the State in which the act was committed). Moreover, the application of this condition continues to pose difficulties, not only in substance but also in procedure. The difficulties have driven the European states to call the condition into question, at least partially; even though a total removal of the condition in its current state is impossible.

O direito fundamental à não-autoincriminação encontra seu fundamento jurídicoconstitucional na conexão dos princípios constitucionais da dignidade humana, do procedimento correto, da ampla defesa e da presunção de inocência. Todas as condutas passivas cuja adoção diga respeito a uma opção tomada pelo acusado na condição de sujeito processual – dentre as quais o exercício passivo da autodefesa no interrogatório judicial – estão prima facie protegidas pelo direito de não se autoincriminar. O problema da influência do silêncio do acusado no interrogatório judicial apresenta uma colisão do direito à nãoautoincriminação com o bem coletivo da eficiência da justiça penal e exige, consequentemente, soluções de acordo com os critérios da teoria dos princípios e da argumentação jusfundamental. A busca da concordância prática dos princípios colidentes exige a consideração de que, embora o comportamento processual do acusado não esteja sujeito a valorações, a omissão do acusado em responder ao interrogatório pode privar a defesa de uma oportunidade para contribuir à refutação ou ao enfraquecimento do grau de confirmação da hipótese acusatória. / The fundamental right against self-incrimination has its legal-constitutional basis in the connection of the constitutional principles of human dignity, fair trial, ample defense against criminal charges and presumption of innocence. All the passive conducts of which adoption refers to a choice of the accused in the condition of subject of the process – such as the passive exercise of self-defense at the examination – are prima facie protected by the right against self incrimination. The issue of the charged’s silence influence in the judicial examination presents a collision of the right against self incrimination with the collective good of the criminal justice efficiency and demands, therefore, solutions according to the criteria of principles theory and fundamental-legal arguing. The search for practical compliance of the colliding principles requires considering that although the processual behavior of the charged is not submitted to judgments of value, the omission of the accused in answering the examination may deprive defense the opportunity to contribute in denying or minimizing the confirmation degree of the accusatory hypothesis.

O direito fundamental à não-autoincriminação encontra seu fundamento jurídicoconstitucional na conexão dos princípios constitucionais da dignidade humana, do procedimento correto, da ampla defesa e da presunção de inocência. Todas as condutas passivas cuja adoção diga respeito a uma opção tomada pelo acusado na condição de sujeito processual – dentre as quais o exercício passivo da autodefesa no interrogatório judicial – estão prima facie protegidas pelo direito de não se autoincriminar. O problema da influência do silêncio do acusado no interrogatório judicial apresenta uma colisão do direito à nãoautoincriminação com o bem coletivo da eficiência da justiça penal e exige, consequentemente, soluções de acordo com os critérios da teoria dos princípios e da argumentação jusfundamental. A busca da concordância prática dos princípios colidentes exige a consideração de que, embora o comportamento processual do acusado não esteja sujeito a valorações, a omissão do acusado em responder ao interrogatório pode privar a defesa de uma oportunidade para contribuir à refutação ou ao enfraquecimento do grau de confirmação da hipótese acusatória. / The fundamental right against self-incrimination has its legal-constitutional basis in the connection of the constitutional principles of human dignity, fair trial, ample defense against criminal charges and presumption of innocence. All the passive conducts of which adoption refers to a choice of the accused in the condition of subject of the process – such as the passive exercise of self-defense at the examination – are prima facie protected by the right against self incrimination. The issue of the charged’s silence influence in the judicial examination presents a collision of the right against self incrimination with the collective good of the criminal justice efficiency and demands, therefore, solutions according to the criteria of principles theory and fundamental-legal arguing. The search for practical compliance of the colliding principles requires considering that although the processual behavior of the charged is not submitted to judgments of value, the omission of the accused in answering the examination may deprive defense the opportunity to contribute in denying or minimizing the confirmation degree of the accusatory hypothesis.

O direito fundamental à não-autoincriminação encontra seu fundamento jurídicoconstitucional na conexão dos princípios constitucionais da dignidade humana, do procedimento correto, da ampla defesa e da presunção de inocência. Todas as condutas passivas cuja adoção diga respeito a uma opção tomada pelo acusado na condição de sujeito processual – dentre as quais o exercício passivo da autodefesa no interrogatório judicial – estão prima facie protegidas pelo direito de não se autoincriminar. O problema da influência do silêncio do acusado no interrogatório judicial apresenta uma colisão do direito à nãoautoincriminação com o bem coletivo da eficiência da justiça penal e exige, consequentemente, soluções de acordo com os critérios da teoria dos princípios e da argumentação jusfundamental. A busca da concordância prática dos princípios colidentes exige a consideração de que, embora o comportamento processual do acusado não esteja sujeito a valorações, a omissão do acusado em responder ao interrogatório pode privar a defesa de uma oportunidade para contribuir à refutação ou ao enfraquecimento do grau de confirmação da hipótese acusatória. / The fundamental right against self-incrimination has its legal-constitutional basis in the connection of the constitutional principles of human dignity, fair trial, ample defense against criminal charges and presumption of innocence. All the passive conducts of which adoption refers to a choice of the accused in the condition of subject of the process – such as the passive exercise of self-defense at the examination – are prima facie protected by the right against self incrimination. The issue of the charged’s silence influence in the judicial examination presents a collision of the right against self incrimination with the collective good of the criminal justice efficiency and demands, therefore, solutions according to the criteria of principles theory and fundamental-legal arguing. The search for practical compliance of the colliding principles requires considering that although the processual behavior of the charged is not submitted to judgments of value, the omission of the accused in answering the examination may deprive defense the opportunity to contribute in denying or minimizing the confirmation degree of the accusatory hypothesis.

Nearly 700,000 suspects with mental disorders are arrested and Mirandized each year. The current study systematically examined the effects of cognitive deficits and psychological symptoms on both Miranda comprehension and reasoning. The current sample was comprised of 85 adult psychiatric inpatients recruited from University Behavioral Health (UBH), a private psychiatric hospital in North Texas. Unexpectedly, most inpatients demonstrated pervasive deficits in their immediate recall of a representative Miranda warning, omitting approximately four-fifths of its content. In addition, the majority of inpatients evidenced damaging errors in their reasoning about waiver decisions. As a result, 64.7% waived and subsequently confessed after only a 3-5 minute interrogation. Interestingly, impaired verbal ability but not the severity of their symptoms predicted greater deficits in Miranda comprehension.

Dans la présente thèse de doctorat, l'auteur étudie la signification et le rôle du silence de l'accusé dans le cadre du procès pénal. Étant donné que l'accusé, en vertu de l'alinéa 11c) de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés, a le droit de ne pas témoigner à son procès, les tribunaux ont interdit l'utilisation en preuve de son défaut de témoigner, sauf lorsque ce défaut survient dans le cadre d'une défense d'alibi. Il n'est normalement pas autrement pertinent. Pourtant, le silence, selon les circonstances, n'est pas nécessairement dépourvu de signification, d'intérêt. L'auteur étudie les raisons d'être historiques et actuelles du droit au silence, l'interaction entre la portée du principe interdisant l'auto-incrimination et le droit au silence et, dans un dernier temps, la pertinence du silence à la lumière des règles régissant l'admissibilité de la preuve lors du procès pénal. La présente thèse de doctorat se divise en trois parties. La première partie consiste en une étude des raisons d'être du droit au silence dans les systèmes juridiques américain et canadien. La deuxième partie aborde plus spécifiquement, dans un premier temps, l'historique jurisprudentiel et la situation actuelle prévalant au Canada à l'égard de l'exercice du droit au silence par l'accusé et, dans un second temps, l'état du droit au Royaume-Uni à la suite de l'adoption de la Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. La législation du Royaume-Uni permet d'avoir recours en preuve au défaut de témoigner de l'accusé lors de son procès. La troisième partie aborde l'évolution souhaitable du rôle du silence de l'accusé dans le cadre du procès pénal au Canada à la lumière des raisons d'être actuelles du droit au silence, de l'expérience du Royaume-Uni et des règles régissant l'admissibilité de la preuve lors du procès pénal. / Les conclusions de l'auteur l'amènent à proposer un réaménagement partiel des principes actuels et à recommander notamment une réforme destinée à ce que le défaut de témoigner de l'accusé puisse être utilisé afin d'évaluer la crédibilité des aspects de sa défense à l'égard desquels il aurait pu raisonnablement témoigner en raison de la connaissance personnelle qu'il devrait en avoir. Les propositions de l'auteur s'inscrivent dans le respect des objectifs du système de justice. L'utilisation d'une preuve pertinente lors du procès, en l'occurrence le silence de l'accusé, contribue à la recherche de la vérité. Ainsi, les propositions de l'auteur participent à la préservation de l'intégrité du système de justice. Son intégrité sera maintenue en évitant qu'une personne non coupable soit condamnée. Au soutien de ses propositions de réforme, l'auteur procède à une étude de la jurisprudence et de la doctrine canadiennes, américaines, britanniques et européennes.

我國所得稅係採年度申報自繳制度，具有大量、反覆之特性，因此稅捐稽徵機關在所得稅申報期間之前，即已進行各種課稅資訊之蒐集活動，除藉此定出各類所得、費用標準，以作為核課依據外，嗣人民申報其年度所得稅後，即將蒐集之課稅資料與申報資料互相勾稽，作為選定事後審查對象及釐正申報資料與核定所得額之依據；當年度之所得稅申報資料及核定情形復又成為次一年度之課稅基本資料來源及比較對象，二者環環相扣，互為因果關係，形成一個獨立體系，而得以單獨作為研究之對象。次為掌握稅務調查制度之全貌，必須對其作全面性之審視及檢討，故本文採用源自日本之行政法學研究方法「行政過程論」從實現稅務行政目的之過程，歸納、整理所得稅事前課稅資訊蒐集活動及事後審查階段之調查手段、程序、屬性、相關人之法律關係、調查效果及其救濟途徑，以宏觀角度檢視現行法制下之稅務調查制度，藉以發現問題並試圖提出解決方法或修法建議。 / Taiwan adopts an annual self-reporting system for income tax return. Such reporting system involves massive and recurrent information. Hence tax authorities would collect all kinds of tax information before the annual income tax reporting period and use such information to set out the norms for different types of income and expenses as basis for taxation. Upon receiving the annual income tax returns filed by taxpayers, tax officers would check the filed data against the collected tax information, and based on the results, determine the taxpayers to be audited and the assessed income tax. The information contained in an annual income tax return and the results of assessment become the source of basic tax information and comparison for following year’s return. Hence income tax returns of two successive years are interrelated and can form discrete units for research purpose. In order to grasp the full view of the tax investigation system, comprehensive examination of the system is necessary. Thus this study employs the methodology of the “theory of administrative process” originated in Japan to examine the tax investigation system under the prevailing law in a macroscopic manner, from the process of tax administration, pre-filing tax information collection, the means, procedure and attributes of post-filing investigation, legal relationship of the parties concerned, to the effect of investigation and remedies available. This study attempts to discover problems, and based on which, propose solutions or suggestions for regulatory amendment.

Not available / text

Teisė nekaltinti savęs, apimanti draudimą versti duoti parodymus prieš save, savo šeimos narius ar artimus giminaičius - tai kiekvieno asmens konstitucinė garantija, užtikrinanti žmogaus ir valstybės santykių suderinamumą šiandieninėje konstitucinėje visuomenėje sprendžiant teisingumo klausimus. Asmuo turi teisę apginti save ir savo artimuosius nuo bet kokio pobūdžio ar sunkumo kaltinimo. Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principas kildinamas iš žmogaus orumo principo ir teisės į laisvą asmens vystymąsi, todėl šis principas turi būti aiškinamas neatsiejamai nuo kitų konstitucinių principų ar nuostatų, susijusių su teisingumo, draudimo piktnaudžiauti valdžia samprata, nukentėjusiųjų nuo nusikalstamų veikų bei kitų proceso subjektų interesų apsauga. Magistro baigiamajame darbe pateikiama teisės nekaltinti savęs analizė kitų konstitucinių principų kontekste. Skirtingose šalyse draudimo versti duoti parodymus prieš save principo, taikomo siekiant apsaugoti įtariamųjų ir liudytojų procesinius interesus, veikimo mechanizmas nėra vienodas. Priklausomai nuo baudžiamųjų procesinių santykių konstrukcijos bei nuo šiuose santykiuose vyraujančio teisinio reguliavimo metodo ir teisinio proceso principų, šios garantijos pobūdis ir apimtis skirtingose baudžiamojo proceso teisės doktrinose vertinami nevienodai. Tačiau, tiek bendrosios, tiek kontinentinės teisės sistemose draudimas versti duoti parodymus prieš save ar savo artimą vertinamas kaip valstybės nustatytas imunitetas, apsaugantis nuo... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The right of non-self-incrimination, that includes prohibition to compel to give evidence against oneself, family members or close relatives - is every person's constitutional guarantee to ensure human and public relations compatibility in today's constitutional society, dealing with justice issues. A person has the right to defend himself and his relatives from any type or severity of accusation. Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare principle derived from the principle of human dignity and the right to the free development of the individual. Bearing this in mind, this principle must be interpreted through other constitutional principles or provisions relating justice, concept of prohibition of power abuse, interests protection of victims and other entities of process. Master's thesis provides the analysis of the right of non-self-incrimination in the context of other constitutional principles. In different countries the mechanism of functioning of the principle of the prohibition to compel to give evidence against oneself, applicable in order to protect suspects and witnesses interests in proceedings, is not the same. Depending on the criminal procedural relations structures and prevailing legal regulation method in these relations, the legal process principles, the nature and scope of this guarantee is treated differently in various criminal law doctrines. However, in both common and civil law systems the prohibition to compel to give evidence against oneself and family members... [to full text]

[pt] O princípio nemo tenetur se detegere, em seu duplo aspecto vedação à autoincriminação e direito ao silêncio, é uma conquista civilizatória das sociedades democráticas. A importância do princípio, muitas vezes não explicitada nas discussões sobre a constitucionalidade dos institutos e leis, é de tamanha monta que, conjuntamente com o princípio da presunção de inocência, forma a base axiológica de todo o sistema processual penal democrático. Contudo, o poder Estatal, diante do apelo popular e em resposta aos altos índices de criminalidade e episódios notórios de corrupção no Brasil tem, nos últimos tempos, a partir de uma continuidade cronológica de legislações, relativizado ou erodido os sustentáculos do princípio nemo tenetur se detegere. Tal postura Estatal consubstancia o que na criminologia se denomina de direito penal do inimigo, que servirá de substrato teórico para explicar o porquê do fenômeno de hipercriminalização e recrudescimento Estatal. A pesquisa visa, portanto, reafirmar o valor do nemo tenetur se detegere, acentuando os casos em que está a sofrer ataques e oferecer, a partir de pesquisa doutrinária e da análise jurisprudencial nacional e estrangeira, possíveis salvaguardas ao princípio com vistas a garantir que o processo penal brasileiro continue a respeitar os direitos individuais inerentes a uma ordem constitucional de fato e não meramente de direito. / [en] The principle nemo tenetur se detegere, in its double aspect privilege against self-incrimination and right to silence, is a civilizational conquest of democratic societies. The importance of this principle, which is often not made explicit in the discussions on the constitutionality of institutes and laws, is so significant that, together with the principle of presumption of innocence, forms the axiological basis of the entire democratic criminal procedural system. However, the State power, in the face of popular appeal and in response to high crime rates and notorious episodes of corruption in Brazil, has recently, from a chronological continuity of legislation, relativized or eroded the pillars of the nemo tenetur se detegere principle. This state posture consubstantiates what in criminology is called the criminal law of the enemy, which will serve as a theoretical substrate to explain the phenomenon of hypercriminalization and State recrudescence. The aim of the research is to reaffirm the value of the nemo tenetur, to highlight the cases in which it is under attack and to offer possible safeguards to the principle, based on jurisprudencial research and national and foreign case analysis, with a view to ensuring that the Brazilian criminal proceeding continues to respect the individual rights inherent in a constitutional order of fact and not merely law.