This thesis is dealing with the issue of a sportsman criminal liability in situations where he causes or attempts to cause injury and commits the offence against the health and life of a person. The thesis aims to describe and explain fundamental terms of the issue together with its the historical review, with regards to the autonomy of sport, the relationship of the sport rules with the legal rules of criminal law. The core part of the thesis devoted to the research of the issue with respect to relevant statutes, sport self governing rules, legal literature and judicial decisions. First part of the thesis is consisted of legal analysis on whether injury caused during sport can amount to criminal offence. Such legal analysis is conducted in a manner whereby the the individual ingredients of an offence are confronted with conduct of sportsmen. The author does not forget to apply circumstances excluding criminal liability in the field of sport injuries. The applicable circumstances are the consent of the injured, excusable risk, exercise of rights and permitted activity. The conditions for individial circumstances to apply are thoroughly analysed. These condition are confronted with the circumstances in sport`s field in light of sport injury. The thesis also deals with the theories of the criminal...

The thesis addresses the analysis and comparison of individual elements of defenses under Czech and German criminal legal statutes with respect to the conclusions, which are therefrom drawn in theory and practice. The aim of the thesis was to render overview concerning the distinctions in the defenses, provided that these are based on common reasoning, are generally acknowledged and theoretically elaborated, rather than to present an exhaustive commentary on all legal institutes which exclude illegality and as such come into mind. The fact that the defenses are mutually close in their character and meaning within both legal systems was a major prerequisite for the thesis. The thesis analyses the distinctions with regard to the individual preconditions of separate defenses. These distinctions are not limited only to the extent of the wording of a legal statute, they also greatly manifest in professional literature and case law. Owing to the brief and abstract nature of the respective provisions the courts and theorists developed large quantities of principles and rules which precise and sometimes even amend these provisions. The subject has been processed under consideration of the present-day legal regulation, the topics of origin and development of defenses has intentionally not been discussed....

Torture is proscribed in the majority of countries, and prohibited by numerous international instruments. However, torture is nowadays a practice that takes place in many countries, even though there exists a majority agreement in favor of absolute prohibition of this conduct.In the present article, the author analyzes the possibility of using legal defenses to exempt criminal responsibility for the crime of torture. In order to do this, the author examines historical, doctrinal and jurisprudential aspects, concluding than in certain situations it is possible to appeal to traditional legal defenses, particularly selfdefense. / La tortura se encuentra proscrita en la mayoría de países, y está vetada por diversos instrumentos internacionales. No obstante, la tortura es en la actualidad una práctica que se lleva a cabo en muchos países, a pesar de un discurso mayoritario de prohibición absoluta de la misma.En el presente artículo, la autora realiza un análisis sobre la posibilidad de aplicar eximentes en el juicio de imputación del delito de tortura. Para ello, examina aspectos históricos, doctrinales y jurisprudenciales, concluyendo que en determinadas situaciones límite se verifican los presupuestos y requisitos de las causas de justificación tradicionales, en particular de la legítima defensa.

La présente thèse a une vocation à la fois descriptive et prospective. Descriptive, d’une part, en ce qu’elle entend mettre au jour les fondements juridiques actuels de la responsabilité criminelle tout en déterminant l’étendue des rapports qu’ils entretiennent avec la notion philosophique de libre arbitre. Prospective, d’autre part, en ce qu’elle entend évaluer les chances de survie de ces fondements à la lumière de la nouvelle vision de l’homme qui se dégage des avancées récentes en neurosciences. Nous aurons pour ce faire à soupeser la vraisemblance de deux grandes prophéties concernant l’avenir de la responsabilité criminelle : l’une, que nous qualifierons de « scientiste », prétend que le concept juridique actuel de responsabilité criminelle est voué à tomber en désuétude en raison de son incompatibilité avec notre connaissance du cerveau. L’autre, que nous qualifierons de « légitimiste », prétend que c’est plutôt en modifiant les intuitions populaires en matière de responsabilité que les neurosciences bouleverseront l’édifice pénal. Dans les deux cas, nous découvrirons qu’une erreur de diagnostic quant au fonctionnement juridique et psychologique des jugements de responsabilité conduit à une erreur de pronostic. / This doctoral dissertation is both descriptive and prospective. Descriptive, on the one hand, by seeking to identify the current legal foundations of criminal responsibility and by trying to determinate the extent of their relationship with the philosophical notion of free will. Prospective, on the other hand, by seeking to evaluate the chances of survival of these foundations in the light of the new vision of man that emanates from advances in neuroscience. To this end, two great prophecies concerning the future of criminal responsibility will have to be weighed: one, which we will call ‘‘scientist’’, claims that the current legal concept of criminal responsibility is incompatible with what neuroscience teaches us and is, therefore, destined to fall into disuse. The other, which we will call ‘‘legitimist’’, claims that it is rather by altering the popular intuitions about responsibility that neuroscience will threat the penal edifice. In both cases, we will discover that a misdiagnosis concerning the legal and psychological functioning of the judgments of responsibility leads to an error of prognosis.