The composite right to meaningful and informed participation in the criminal process comprises the right to information, the right to understand, the right to be prepared, the right to be present, the right to confrontation and the right to present one’s case. The sub-rights are not of an overarching nature such as the right to legal representation and the right of access to the law. The various rights are grouped together because they show some connection with the ability of the suspect or the accused to participate in the criminal proceedings as a legal subject, and not as an object of the proceedings as in primitive times. These rights ensure that the accused will not participate in the criminal process from an unfavourable position. The heading ‟meaningful and informed participation” is therefore a collective term for these rights. These sub-rights form part of the comprehensive right to a fair trial. The thesis examines aspects of the position of the accused in South Africa and in foreign jurisdictions such as the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and Islamic systems. International instruments such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee are also considered. The thesis first considers the historical perspective of the accused in primitive times when he was regarded as an object of the criminal proceedings, to the present time when he is regarded as a subject of the proceedings. The study on foreign jurisdictions reveals that for the most part, our law is in line with the law of other countries. The study also demonstrates that the various rights are not absolute. In exceptional circumstances, some diminution of the accused’s rights is necessary to protect the interests of society. Nevertheless, the courts should act cautiously and not allow the exceptions to overtake the rule. The judiciary should strive to find a better balance between the constitutional rights of the accused and the interests of society. To this end, the judicial system must be objective yet vigilant. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.D.

The composite right to meaningful and informed participation in the criminal process comprises the right to information, the right to understand, the right to be prepared, the right to be present, the right to confrontation and the right to present one’s case. The sub-rights are not of an overarching nature such as the right to legal representation and the right of access to the law. The various rights are grouped together because they show some connection with the ability of the suspect or the accused to participate in the criminal proceedings as a legal subject, and not as an object of the proceedings as in primitive times. These rights ensure that the accused will not participate in the criminal process from an unfavourable position. The heading ‟meaningful and informed participation” is therefore a collective term for these rights. These sub-rights form part of the comprehensive right to a fair trial. The thesis examines aspects of the position of the accused in South Africa and in foreign jurisdictions such as the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, the United Kingdom and Islamic systems. International instruments such as the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee are also considered. The thesis first considers the historical perspective of the accused in primitive times when he was regarded as an object of the criminal proceedings, to the present time when he is regarded as a subject of the proceedings. The study on foreign jurisdictions reveals that for the most part, our law is in line with the law of other countries. The study also demonstrates that the various rights are not absolute. In exceptional circumstances, some diminution of the accused’s rights is necessary to protect the interests of society. Nevertheless, the courts should act cautiously and not allow the exceptions to overtake the rule. The judiciary should strive to find a better balance between the constitutional rights of the accused and the interests of society. To this end, the judicial system must be objective yet vigilant. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.D.

La question litigieuse en matière contractuelle correspond aux sanctions du contrat que les parties, à la suite d'un différend, décident d'introduire dans le procès civil. Le concept se présente comme un trait d'union entre le droit des contrats et la procédure civile : il offre ainsi une vision processualiste des sanctions du contrat, qu'il replace dans le contexte du procès civil, doublée d'une perspective contractualiste de la procédure civile, celle-ci étant chargée de la réalisation des droits substantiels des parties. La question litigieuse s'avère un instrument utile pour préciser la nature des sanctions du contrat que les parties peuvent solliciter ensemble et celles pour lesquelles il est nécessaire d'opérer un choix (en les hiérarchisant éventuellement par le mécanisme du subsidiaire). L'intérêt est également de spécifier le régime de l'évolution de la question litigieuse tout au long de l'instance. L'analyse révèle ainsi dans quelle mesure les parties peuvent la modifier en première instance, en appel, ou encore devant la Cour de cassation. De surcroît, lorsqu'un nouveau procès est entamé par un contractant, il faut s'assurer que la question nouvellement posée n'est pas identique à la précédente. Le concept encadre enfin les pouvoirs du juge appelé à trancher un litige relatif au contrat : il permet de savoir de quelle manière le juge peut ajouter ou substituer une sanction à celle choisie par les parties, et s'il dispose, à cet égard, d'un pouvoir ou d'un devoir d'y procéder. De la sorte, l'étude de la question litigieuse concourt à améliorer le traitement procédural du droit des contrats. / The litigious question in contractual matters corresponds to the contractual sanctions that the parties enter into in a civil trial. It is the link between contract law and a civil proceeding: it offers a procedural vision of the contractual sanctions because they are analyzed in terms of their implementation by the civil trial, it also allows to have a contractualist's perspective about the procedural civil law inasmuch as the comprehension of the litigious question is based on a study of contract sanctions.On the one hand, the litigious question concept is used to specify which are the contractual sanctions that the parties have the right to solicit together and the sanctions between which it is necessary to choose (potentially by using a subsidiary claim). On the other hand, it also allows to define the rules of its evolution on the parties' or the judge's initiative. The study of the litigious question reveals to what extent the parties can change the question in the first instance, in appeal or before the Supreme Court. One of them can call a new trial as well; it should be checked that the new litigious question is not the same as the precedent one. Likewise, the concept frames the authority of the judge before which the sanction is requested. It clarifies especially how to proceed to add or substitute another penalty for that chosen by the parties, and if it is a faculty or an obligation. The study of the litigious question thus contributes to improve the procedural treatment of contractual law.