with the scientific collaboration of
ISSN 2611-8858

Topics

Fair Trial

Oral Hearings During the Pandemic in Chile. What About Due Process?

The text is a synthetic report of how the Chilean criminal justice system has reacted to the movement restrictions generated by the COVID pandemic. At first the problems were focused on giving continuity to the hearings on guarantees, especially those that affect people's freedom. Now the great challenge of the system is to verify the possibility of conducting oral trials, respecting the basic guarantees of due process

The Court of Justice of the European Union on the Relation Between the Repetition of Oral Evidence Due to a Change in the Bench Composition and the Orotection of Crime Victims

Court of Justice of the European Union, First Chamber, judg. 29 July 2019, case C-38/18, criminal proceedings against Massimo Gambino, Shpetim Hyka

Granting Due Process of Law to Suspected and Accused Persons Involved in Parallel Criminal Proceedings in the EU

This paper aims to reflect on the deficiencies, from the criminal safeguards perspective, that can be found in the current procedure for the settlement of conflicts of criminal jurisdiction in the European Union. After a brief introduction and overview of the legal framework on conflicts of jurisdiction and the system of protection of rights and procedural safeguards in the European Union, the paper is divided into two different parts. The first part will focus on identifying and examining the principles, rights and safeguards at stake in a transnational situation of conflict of criminal jurisdiction between Member States. In the second part of this paper, the author will reflect on the improvements that should be adopted to grant a better standard of protection for the suspected or accused person, including the critical analysis of proposals made by scholars on this matter.

Remote Participation in a Trial vs. “Self-defence”?

The phenomenon of remote participation in a trial, introduced in Italy in 1998 with a 'sunset clause’ first relegated to implementing provisions and subsequently consolidated, has been progressively expanded. The Iaw of 23 June 2017, no. 103, radically changes its scope by actually turning an exception into a rule, whose reflections on the efficacy of a cross-examination and on the exercise of right to defence are indisputable, since 'virtual' participation cannot be compared to the defendant's physical presence in court. Hence the need to reconsider the conclusions outlined by the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights with regard to previous legislation, also in order to avoid the risk that remote participation may in future become the ‘norm’ in a trial involving parties in vinculis, whatever the procedure that originated the status detentionis may be.