疑罪从无处理的程序法规制

疑罪从无处理程序的法治化,是贯彻疑罪从无原则的客观需要,又是提升疑罪案件从无处理过程及结果社会认同度与司法公信力的必然要求。为解决疑罪从无处理程序规范不足与司法实践随意性大等问题,应依法规制疑罪从无处理权,明确赋予侦查机关疑罪从无处理建议权,类型化配置存疑不起诉决定权,完善审判机关证据不足无罪判决权以及司法救济权;应依法规制证据不足的判断标准,重视证据不足判断标准的相对独立性,完善与细化现行证据不足的判断标准,强化证据不足无罪判决与存疑不起诉决定的说理制度;应依法规制疑罪从无处理过程,设立相对独立的疑罪处理程序,全面实现疑罪处理程序的多重功能。     

疑罪不诉的证据问题研究

疑罪不诉蕴含着"有利于被告人"的司法理念和原则,它是检察机关适用法律强制性规范的结果,是检察机关履行法定职责的体现。本文指出证据问题是疑罪不诉的核心问题,因此,有必要对疑罪不诉的证明对象、证明责任和证明标准进行研究。     

我国疑罪从无的理论省察及规则重述

疑罪是刑事诉讼在司法实践中必然遭遇且无法绕开的实然性难题。刑事诉讼立法抑或刑事司法或显或隐地借助于从无来摆脱其困境。疑罪从无作为一项诉讼原则被我国理论所倚重,理论上不仅将其视为国外司法活动的惯常做法,在叙事上也将其与证据不足相等同,甚至还将其功能扩展到作为根治冤假错案的惟一途径。坚持疑罪从的无国家存在冤假错案的现实,与我国理论对其功能表达形成相当的反差,特别我国司法实践未遵从理论指导的现实样态,又使得人们对理论阐述衍生迷思并陷入困惑。实质上,疑罪从无是一种分配错误的裁判规则,是法官认定事实时存疑且心证无法形成情形下选择配置错误的一种方式,其本身不是减少错案的防范性规范,在证据理论层面不同于证据不足,理论也不宜作为纠正冤案的基本惟一准则。一般而言,对于有罪与无罪均有证据证明而难分伯仲时,疑罪应当从无;对于达到证明标准或者辩方自愿认罪而法官心证仍未形成,且对有罪无法排除合理怀疑的,此种情形下的疑罪也可以从轻。     

论疑罪不诉中的证据“说理”机制

由于疑罪不诉的适用条件和证明标准在操作层面较为笼统,尤其是在法律文书上证据"说理"不充分、不全面,影响了疑罪不诉的安定性和检察权的公信力,进而降低了其适用率。实现疑罪不诉中的证据"说理",可借鉴国外"对话证明模式"和"涵摄证明模式",明确"证据不足"中证据能力要求、确立不起诉书证据"说理"原则、强化说理中的程序参与、加强说理机制的监督制度、完善办案人员的业务素质能力。     

疑罪不诉的证据问题探讨

通过调查研究和实证分析,可以发现我国现行疑罪不诉证据运用中存在存在这样一些问题：（1）对疑罪不诉案件缺乏类型化的研究;（2）对疑罪不诉的适用条件存在认识误区;（3）对疑罪不诉的证据标准认识不统一;（4）侦查人员的证据意识不强;（5）对疑罪不诉决定作出后发现“新证据”如何处理意见不一。对于这些问题,可以通过以下方面的制度完善来加以解决：细化公诉证明标准、完善疑罪不诉条件、赋予辩护律师广泛的调查取证权、建立证人保护和经济补偿制度以及证据开示制度等。     

疑罪不诉的法源论

疑罪不诉，即指证据不足不起诉。其法源旨在体现尊重与保障人权的宪法原理、罪刑法定的实体法原理和疑罪从无的程序法原理。     

疑罪问题研究

疑罪是指在刑事诉讼活动中,因证据不足而对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人是否构成犯罪以及罪行轻重、此罪彼罪与一罪数罪等方面难以作出正确判断的情况。疑罪的基本特征是证据不足。疑罪可分为罪与非罪之疑罪、情节轻重之疑罪、此罪彼罪之疑罪和一罪数罪之疑罪。疑罪产生的原因是多方面的。认定疑罪要注意与疑难刑事案件相区别,把握好疑罪的认定标准,掌握好疑罪的处理原则:罪与非罪之疑适用疑罪从无;情节轻重之疑、此罪彼罪之疑和一罪数罪之疑适用疑罪从宽。贯彻好疑罪的处理原则有着重要的理论和实践意义。文章还就刑事诉讼各阶段如何具体贯彻疑罪的处理原则提出了建设性的意见。     

疑罪的认定与处理

疑罪是指在刑事诉讼活动中,因证据不足而对犯罪嫌疑人、被告人是否构成犯罪以及罪行轻重、此罪与彼罪、一罪与数罪等方面难以作出正确判断的情况。实践中要注意将疑罪案件与疑难案件区别开来,掌握好疑罪的认定标准与处理原则。     

浅谈存疑不诉案件的刑事赔偿

存疑不诉案件的刑事赔偿,在检察机关所办理的刑事赔偿案件中,处于突出的地位.但是理论界和司法实务界存在较大分歧,我们应完善补充存疑不诉赔偿立法、设立赔偿审查独立机构、细化"证据不足"的标准与其扩大非羁押措施的运用.     

清代的疑罪处理——原则、例外与价值追求

不承认疑罪结案并且不允许适用刑讯是清代疑罪处理的原则,而立法上承认某些特殊案件可以按疑罪处理及实践中适用刑讯则是疑罪处理原则的例外。疑罪处理的原则与例外体现了清代立法者注重案件真实、仁政、司法效率、生命等价值,而司法者对自身利益的关注导致清代疑罪处理的司法实践与立法相脱节。     

Above the Law? A Comparative Study of National Prosecutions of Heads of State

Official polices on the appropriate government response to crimes committed by a head of state are seldom dictated by strict principles of justice. Deciding whether to bring an errant leader to justice is often influenced by political expediency. Given the number of documented cases of official abuse, there is a need to understand why some governments choose to prosecute a former or sitting head of state while others do not. Yet, few studies have been done on this subject. This study reviews 52 cases of heads of state accused of crimes and explores how their own national governments responded to such accusations. Using data culled from various documentary sources, it employs a grounded theory approach to focus on the process that drives the decision to prosecute. Analysis indicates that political legitimacy, perception of threat, political stability, and degree of politicization of the military influence the decision to prosecute. The article concludes with a discussion of the significance and implications of these findings and suggestions for future research.     

论检察机关如何应对食品安全问题

检察机关在应对食品安全问题时,应建立健全行政执法与刑事司法衔接机制,严厉打击食品安全背后的职务犯罪,坚持快捕快诉,及时高效地打击食品安全犯罪,强化食品安全诉讼监督,维护司法公正,切实履行控申检察职能,积极防控食品安全群体性事件,积极面对社会公众,展现检察机关公信力和法律权威,同时加大对危害食品安全犯罪的调研力度。     

论人民检察院对行政处罚权的刑事法律监督

人民检察院通过对职务犯罪行使侦查权实现对行政权的监督是我国行政法学和检察学的传统理论。现实中行政处罚以罚代刑,不移送涉嫌犯罪案件等违反刑事法律问题普遍存在,行政执法与刑事司法衔接机制存在局限性。应对传统理论进行反思,确立人民检察院在行政处罚程序中的刑事法律监督地位,设置相应的检察监督机制,以有效地预防职务犯罪和惩治经济犯罪。     

Seeking Justice for the Holocaust: Herbert C. Pell Versus the US State Department

Herbert C. Pell served his nation as an Ambassador and member of the US House of Representatives, as well as US Representative on the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC). This article presents his struggle with the US State department and the bureaucratic and legalistic dispute that developed over the UNWCC particularly with respect to policy considerations surrounding whether or not to prosecute crimes against humanity committed by the Nazis in Germany and satellite territories. The article traces Pell’s initial difficulty engaging with the work of the UNWCC due to the State Department’s delaying techniques and the absence of clear instructions from either the State Department or the President. Moreover, it is shown how Pell struggled to convince the State Department and his fellow UNWCC members to include the above-mentioned crimes. This debate and Pell’s role has remained largely unknown to a public that considers the post-war Nuremberg war crimes trials an achievement in the advancement of international law and justice. To whatever extent those trials were such, particularly in advancing international human rights law by adjudicating Axis war criminals for crimes against humanity, it is singularly noteworthy that Axis war criminals might not have been prosecuted at all for these crimes were it not for the efforts of Herbert Pell.     

Military Courts and Prosecution of Offences by National Defense Forces in the Dawn of the Complementarity Regime: The Case of Uganda

With the coming into force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC Statute) and its complementarity regime, much emphasis has been placed on the role of national courts in prosecuting international crimes. Some states have demonstrated their commitment to this regime by; inter alia, ratifying the ICC Statute, enacting national legislation to implement the ICC Statute and establishing national judicial forums for prosecution of international crimes. Uganda is a prime example of states rising up to this challenge. Uganda ratified the ICC Statute in 2002. In 2008, it established the International Crimes Division (ICD) to prosecute international crimes and in 2010, it enacted the International Criminal Court Act to implement the ICC Statute. Even before these reforms, Uganda’s military courts had always relied on service offences to prosecute members of the national defence force. Worthy to note, members of the Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces (UPDF) have been implicated in a number of atrocities, some of which can be categorised as international crimes. However, military courts continue to prosecute UPDF soldiers for these atrocities on the basis of service offences. The situation current in Uganda highlights a number of legal issues relating to: first, the adequacy of service offences to advance accountability for the international crimes allegedly committed by UPDF soldiers; secondly, the jurisdiction of military courts over international crimes; and thirdly, the effect of concurrent jurisdiction by the ICD and military courts on the rule against double jeopardy.     

Shedding the blanket of immunity: a commentary on the global principle of ending impunity,realpolitik, and legal precedent

Over the course of the past two decades, there have been attempts by governments and the international political community to limit the scope of immunity granted to heads of states. Nevertheless in recent years we have witnessed former heads of state being brought to justice through ad hoc international criminal tribunals and the permanent International Criminal Court. Yet, head of state immunity remains one of the leading points of contention in international law. The issue is further compounded with the multiplicity of national systems that fall short of their duty to prosecute foreign heads of state if they have committed heinous crimes, those considered jus cogens which constitute peremptory norms. As such, there is a need to examine immunity from prosecution by another state separately from immunity from an international tribunal and/or court. This is especially the case given the problems of initiating ad hoc tribunals and the limited abilities of the ICC, highlighting the need to ensure cooperation of states’ willingness and ability to prosecute. In doing so, I draw from the infamous case of former President of Chile, Augusto Pinochet, and subsequent attempts by national systems to hold accountable foreign heads of state. I conclude by suggesting that the optimism for ending impunity is not only premature, but misguided given the realpolitik surrounding national progression for ending head of state immunity and ensuring their legal obligations to prosecute.     

Negotiating Nolle Prosequi at Nuremberg: The Case of Captain Zimmer

It is well known that plea bargaining as such was not providedfor by the Nuremberg Charter, nor is there any instance of pleabargaining in the trials conducted by the occupation tribunalsunder Control Council Law no. 10. However, as shown in thispaper, in connection with war crimes committed in the SecondWorld War, there were negotiations between the Allies and personswho could have potentially been charged with war crimes. Thecase of Captain Guido Zimmer is exemplary in this respect. Hecould have been accused of war crimes and tried by a competenttribunal: instead, since he cooperated with the Allies (in particularwith US intelligence), the decision not to prosecute him wastaken.     

War Crimes Prosecution in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1992-2002): An Analysis through the Jurisprudence of the Human Rights Chamber

The authors examine the efforts to bring persons suspected ofwar crimes committed during the 1992–1995 war in Bosniaand Herzegovina (BiH) to justice before the national judiciary.The analysis is based on the case law of the Human Rights Chamberfor BiH, which from 1996–2003 was the highest court competentto adjudicate violations of human rights in post-war BiH. TheChamber heard complaints linked to war-time atrocities fromtwo main perspectives: (i) that of persons put on trial forwar crimes and (ii) the perspective of the relatives of war-crimesvictims complaining about the failure to investigate and prosecute.The Chamber cases establish that (a) the few prosecutions whichtook place were nearly exclusively directed against suspectsbelonging to the war-time adversary, (b) the authorities failedto comply with the Rules of the Road (a procedure put in placeto enable the International Criminal Tribunal for the formerYugoslavia (ICTY) to supervise Bosnian war-crimes prosecutions)and (c) suspects were often severely ill-treated to extort confessionsand denied a fair trial. The rule, however, was the lack ofany investigatory or prosecutorial action, with the exceptionof the so-called ‘ethnically mixed’ Cantons of theFederation of BiH, where proceedings were sometimes initiatedbut failed to yield an appreciable outcome. The authors discussthree reasons for the poor record: (i) ethnic bias among theauthorities, (ii) disempowerment and passivity of the victimsand (iii) failure to enact legislation that would give effectto and clarify the BiH side of the obligation to exercise jurisdictionconcurrently with the ICTY. They finally set forth some suggestionson lessons to be learned for future attempts to bring justiceto a war-torn society by the concurrent exercise of criminaljurisdiction by an international court and the judiciary ofthe country in transition.     

The Relevance of the Work of the International Criminal Court to Refugee Status Determinations

This article considers the work of the International CriminalCourt (ICC) and its overlaps with refugee law and practice.It focuses on ICC complementarity determinations. These involvethe organs of the ICC considering whether a state is willingand able to prosecute individuals accused of international crimes.The article draws attention to the fact that such determinationsprovide information on the extent to which state legal systemsare functional and non-discriminatory, and thus able to ensurethat those who violate human rights are brought to justice.Such information, it is suggested, can and should be drawn uponin deciding whether there is a real chance that an applicantfor refugee status will be able to receive the protection oftheir state through its justice system. The paper draws on thisoverlap between the work of the ICC and refugee law and practiceto support its concluding recommendation that refugee practitionersshould see, and take advantage of, the overlap between the workof the ICC and refugee status inquiries. It is suggested thatthis will help to ensure that persons deserving internationalprotection get it. It will at the same time bring us anotherstep closer to the development of a fully integrated systemfor the protection and promotion of human rights.