À la suite d’une décision orale rendue le 28 janvier 2009 par la Chambre de première instance I dans l'affaire Lubanga, la Cour pénale internationale a institué un nouvel acteur du procès pénal international : le témoin susceptible d'auto-incrimination qui, à ce titre, est assisté d'un conseil. Ce « témoin assisté » a en commun avec le suspect leur suspicion, et, avec le témoin ordinaire, leur comparution à l’audience ès qualité de témoins. Il n’est cependant ni totalement un suspect – parce que non poursuivable devant la Cour – ni totalement un témoin, parce que notamment impliqué dans la procédure principale. L’évolution de cet acteur singulier du procès pénal international aura eu le mérite de permettre à la Cour de revisiter des notions classiques du droit international pénal. Grâce à lui, la qualité de « parties » n’est plus une forteresse réservée à l’accusation et à la défense. Le témoin ordinaire, considéré comme tiers passif à l’instance, partage désormais la barre avec un « témoin » actif pouvant diligenter des procédures « détachables » de la procédure principale. En sept ans d’existence, le témoin assisté a tellement impacté la procédure pénale internationale qu’une révision des textes fondamentaux de la Cour s’impose pour mettre un terme à la cacophonie jurisprudentielle des chambres sur l’étendue de ses droits et obligations. / Following an oral decision given by the Trial Chamber I in the Lubanga case, the International Criminal Court has introduced a new player into international criminal cases: the self-incriminating witness, who is assisted by a counsel. This "assisted witness", like the suspect, is under suspicion, and like an ordinary witness appears before the Court to testify. However, he is neither completely a suspect, since he cannot be convicted by the Court, nor completely a witness, since he is implicated in the criminal proceedings. The evolution of the role of this singular player in international criminal cases has given the Court the opportunity of reviewing traditional notions of international criminal law. Thanks to this situation, the status of the different parties is no longer restricted to prosecution and defense. The ordinary witness, considered as a passive third party in the trial, now shares the stand with an active witness who is able to speed up proceedings that are separable from the main proceedings. In seven years of existence, the assisted witness has had such an impact on criminal proceedings that it has become necessary to revise the core texts of the Court in order to put an end to the legal confusion among the different chambers regarding the extent of this witness's rights and obligations.

In this article, the author attempts to establish the limitations and consequences resulting from the use of evidence that, being obtained from the exercise of the powers of investigation and enforcement that owns the Treasury, then is carried to the tax criminal proceedings, as the basis for the complaint made by the Tax Administration. For this, the author approaches the taxpayer’s right against self-incrimination (or not to incriminate himself ) as well as some general concepts of the state of innocence, and then analyzes how these concepts are related to the tax law, specifically with the evidence inside it. The article also contains a number of ideas that attempts to summarize the thoughts and positions taken on the issue in current doctrine and jurisprudence in Argentina, establishing in turn, parallel situations and comparisons with the Peruvian tax system.

Each year, an estimated 318,000 defendants who do not comprehend the Miranda warnings waive their rights and provide incriminating evidence without the protection of counsel (Rogers, 2008), which make Miranda-related competencies one of the most pervasive pretrial issues. A wide range of issues could potentially affect an individual's capacity to provide a knowing and intelligent waiver. Previous Miranda research has focused narrowly on the effects of cognitive and developmental factors. The current study added to the Miranda literature by examining the impact of two highly prevalent conditions found in correctional populations, attention deficits and substance abuse. Adult defendants in custody (N = 118) were evaluated within 36 hours of arrest in order to assess both chronic psychological disorders and situational variables. Results indicate that attention deficits have a significant impact on defendants' ability to provide a knowing Miranda waiver, whereas substance use profoundly affected their reasoning about Miranda waiver decisions. This study represents the first systematic investigation of the effect of transient mental states on Miranda-related abilities with criminal defendants. Important implications for forensic practice are addressed.

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.

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]