The positioning of the Prosecution Service in the Netherlands and England and Wales: Lessons from one extreme to another

It has been widely acknowledged that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), has since it came into existence, had an unsteady start. Part of the problem relates to its relation and communication with its criminal justice partners, by which we mean courts, police and local and central government. A key issue in this respect appears to be striking a balance between independence and autonomy on the one hand, and close contact and the establishment of `partnership' on the other hand. This paper examine show this balance is struck in the Netherlands, where the Prosecution service (Openbaar Ministerie) is strikingly different in nature, but faces very similar problems. It will be argued that a slightly more relaxed attitude on the CPS's independence might open the door to more fruitful relationship with the criminal justice partners in the field. Several examples concerning this in the Netherlands will be presented and discussed. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Bringing Protection Home: Healing the Schism Between International Obligations and National Safeguards Created by Extraterritorial Processing

Extraterritorial processing schemes are designed to preventand deter access to statutory and judicial safeguards in thecountry responsible for the interception and transfer of asylumseekers to a third country. In line with this objective, theyincorporate interdiction, transfer and processing practicesand standards that are deliberately isolated from the nationallegal and institutional protections within either the interceptingstate or the third country where processing occurs. Australia'srecent disbandment of its extraterritorial processing centresin third countries highlights the fact that extraterritorialprocessing schemes have proven unworkable as a matter of internationallaw, as they negate the national safeguards fundamental to thesatisfaction of a state's protection obligations.     

Radiological, forensic, and anthropological studies of a concrete block containing bones

Multidisciplinary forensic, anthropological, and radiological studies of bone fragments encased in a concrete block were carried out to determine whether or not the bones were human. Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) investigation was performed before the bones were removed from the concrete. MSCT study pinpointed the location of the bone fragments within the concrete block, which was helpful for their extraction and recovery, and identified most of their types and nature. Osteological study on dry bones provided more accurate identification of the bones and of their side. According to both methods, the human skeletal remains were compatible with those of a child, aged 8-13 years old, with a minimum height of 128 cm. Neither investigation identified sex or racial phenotype. Both studies identified the skeletal remains as consisting of two animal and five human bones. Furthermore, both methods revealed that the concrete completely encased bones, suggesting a secondary burial.     

Beyond "safe and effective": the role of the federal government in supporting and disseminating comparative-effectiveness research

Over the past century, medical advancements have resulted in tremendous health gains for Americans. Although the federal government has played a prominent role in ensuring that new treatments are safe and effective, questions about which medical treatments work best under which circumstances have largely remained unanswered. Thus, the federal government's recent major investments in comparative-effectiveness research have potential to play a significant role in helping both patients and health care providers navigate the vast array of available treatment options, as well as in improving the quality, efficiency, and delivery of health care system-wide. Yet, the controversial nature of the government's foray into comparative-effectiveness research also suggests that the path toward realizing these goals may be treacherous. This Article describes the rationales for federal support of comparative-effectiveness research and potential models for that involvement, analyzes the federal government's recent investments in the research, and concludes with predictions about the probable outcomes of these investments. While increased federal support for comparative-effectiveness research is unlikely to achieve all of the benefits anticipated by its supporters, it is a crucial step toward ensuring that Americans are able to take full advantage of the benefits of medical innovation