Code of Criminal Procedure
Javad Salehi
Abstract
The ICC ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation by relying on Article 19(3) of the Statute at the request of the Prosecutor, results which have not been known before. The ICC jurisprudence in relation to the application of Article 19 of the Statute to the situation in the Myanmar has led to conclusions ...
Read More
The ICC ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation by relying on Article 19(3) of the Statute at the request of the Prosecutor, results which have not been known before. The ICC jurisprudence in relation to the application of Article 19 of the Statute to the situation in the Myanmar has led to conclusions that are important to examine. Therefore, reviewing the results of the ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation and identifying the exit strategy based on jurisprudence is one of the objectives and subject of this article. Research method is descriptive-analytical and relies on the Statute provisions and the ICC jurisprudence to answer research question. What are the results of the prosecutor’s request for a ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation? Research findings show that the ICC jurisprudence in the Myanmar situation not only did not prevent the loss of costs, according to the prosecutor under the concept of judicial economy, but only transferred it from the prosecutor’s office to the ICC. This view is based on two conclusions drawn from the ruling on jurisdiction in the Myanmar situation in light of the ICC jurisprudence.First, the issuance of ruling on jurisdiction did not preclude the need to consider the prosecutor’s future request for authorization of the investigation in the Myanmar situation. However, if the prosecutor had resorted to the provisions of Article 15(3) of the Statute from the outset, both the ICC jurisdiction would have been established and the investigation into the Myanmar situation would have been authorized. This is a cost that the Prosecutor has paid for by wasting time, energy and the ICC’s facilities with the theory of judicial economy in her opinion in the situation of the Myanmar. Although the Prosecutor tried to make this cost zero by resorting to the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute, but the ICC jurisprudence showed that this cost is not only not zero, but it is transferred from the Prosecutor’s office to the ICC. Of course, resorting to Article 15(3) of the Statute is subject to providing the necessary documents and reasons to prove the logical basis for the need to start a preliminary investigation in the situation in the Myanmar, which is obtained for the Prosecutor after a brief review of the issue and the supporting reasons according to Article 15(1) of the Statute. But there is a doubt that the Prosecutor was forced to resort to the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute. If the prosecutor was sure that the principle of objective territorial jurisdiction and the effect of the Bangladesh’s membership in the situation of the Myanmar is the basis for exercising the ICC’s jurisdiction, perhaps she would not resort the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute instead of the mechanism of Articles 15(3) and 18(2) of the Statute and preliminaries.Second, recourse to the mechanism of Article 19(3) of the Statute has led to the disregard of the requirements of Article 19(2) of the Statute governing Article 18(7) of the Statute, which is related to Article 15(3) of the Statute. The competent state’s objection to the ICC jurisdiction depends on the Prosecutor’s resort to the mechanism of Articles 15(3) and 18 of the Statute, which was missing in the process of hearing and issuing the ruling on jurisdiction in the situation of the Myanmar. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s resort to Article 19(3) of the Statute without observing the formalities in Articles 15(3) and 18 of the Statute had a negative impact on the position of the state objecting to the application of complementary jurisdiction of the ICC at the stage of issuing the decision to accept jurisdiction in the situation of the Myanmar. These requirements are one of the components of a fair trial and the granting of the opportunity to challenge the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction, which was fulfilled by the prosecutor in accordance with the procedures of Articles 15(3) and 18(2) of the Statute, but did not. The right to object to the application of the complementary jurisdiction of the ICC or to prevent it by using the mechanism in Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Statute is for the state claiming criminal jurisdiction in the crimes under the ICC jurisdiction in which the Prosecutor is applying for permission to start an investigation. According to Article 15(3) of the Statute, the Prosecutor requests permission to start a preliminary investigation, and the state claiming jurisdiction immediately objects to it by resorting to Articles 18 and 19(2) of the Statute to prohibit the ICC’s complementary jurisdiction. Although this possibility is weak in the situation of the Myanmar, it should not be prejudged. Therefore, the judicial procedure thought out a solution to avoid ignoring the rights of the competent state in this regard. Therefore, the competent state’s objection to the ICC jurisdiction at the stage of issuing the order accepting the ICC’s jurisdiction was postponed to the next stage, i.e. the stage of issuing the order for the prosecutor’s preliminary investigation in the Myanmar situation.
Javad salehi
Abstract
European Union Directive have same protection of the victim in territory of European Union’s member states. But, implementation of European Protection Order needs to unification of criminal laws in the European Union’s members. But, the European Union has not yet achieved the goal of unifying ...
Read More
European Union Directive have same protection of the victim in territory of European Union’s member states. But, implementation of European Protection Order needs to unification of criminal laws in the European Union’s members. But, the European Union has not yet achieved the goal of unifying the criminal laws in its member states. Accordingly, European Union Directive by creation, issuing and enforcing of European Protection Order have expectations of victim’s same protection, regardless of his/her nationality in throughout of the member states’ territory. European Protection Order is new mechanism of European Union’s criminal law and lacks a record in others criminal law. Therefore, European Protection Order by victim-state is issued for enforcement in the territory of offender-convicting state to defend the rights of the citizen based on domestic criminal law in the territory of the extraterritorial. The subject matter of paper is to examine the dimensions and achievements and its connection with criminal laws’ principals. Paper approach is descriptive and analytical relying European Union Directive. on Research question is: What is the status of victim’ European Protection Order in extraterritorial and its achievements in European Union criminal law? Findings of research indicate that exact implementation of European Protection Order also require.
Javad salehi
Abstract
Request for criminal or criminal prosecution of cross-border offenses in the territory of the European Union has a pattern of mutual cooperation, the principle of mutual recognition and the provision of criminal investigations. This is an alternative approach to the Transnational Criminal Procedure Code ...
Read More
Request for criminal or criminal prosecution of cross-border offenses in the territory of the European Union has a pattern of mutual cooperation, the principle of mutual recognition and the provision of criminal investigations. This is an alternative approach to the Transnational Criminal Procedure Code and to the harmonization of the internal rules of the member states of the European Union, which now does not provide for the conditions for its implementation in the European Union. It is believed that the field of harmonization of the domestic laws of member states is consistent with the principles of the criminal procedure with the experience of mutual cooperation, mutual identification and criminal investigation. However, the principle of mutual recognition and criminal investigations has serious gaps that, until these problems are resolved, there is no prospect of harmonizing the internal laws of the member states. Mutual identification or criminal investigation of non-criminal acts that are subject to the termination of the law, differences in the standards of criminal law, or in conflict with national sovereignty and red lines have failed. Same is true of the adoption of the Transnational Criminal Procedure Act and the harmonization of the laws of member states in the future.
Abstract
Rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", and the transformation of the defendant's cell phone the judicial procedures and former United States newAbstractThe rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", for inspection immediately after his arrest, the defendant is under the capture property until the reasons ...
Read More
Rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", and the transformation of the defendant's cell phone the judicial procedures and former United States newAbstractThe rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", for inspection immediately after his arrest, the defendant is under the capture property until the reasons for the police in charge of crime and security police of the potential risks arising from this property is preserved. Apply this rule in recent years relative to the cell phone with the accused faced hesitations that targets the cause of the this rule does not meet the. This issue has caused different procedures in the United States take shape. But in 2013 in the case of the Wurie argument can be a reflection of the High Court in denying extend this rule to cell phone charged provided that the unique of its kind and the theoretical and practical solutions in other courts and legal systems.KeywordsThe rule of the "Search-Incident-to-Arrest", Police, Accused, Cell Phone, Supreme Court of United State.
