52 research outputs found
Evaluation of unlawfully obtained evidence in light of the codification of the new Code of Criminal Procedure
BĂŒntetĆtĂĄrgyalĂĄs tartĂĄsa zĂĄrtcĂ©lĂș tĂĄvközlĆ hĂĄlĂłzat ĂștjĂĄn
As a general rule, general processual principles such as the principle of publicity, directness and verbalism shall be enforced in the judicial phase of criminal proceedings. However, as technology has progressed over time, we have come to a point where criminal proceeding trials can be conducted via closed-purpose telecommunication network in Hungary as well as in other countries. This new method involves hearing the witness or, in exceptional cases, the defendant by means of a special audio-visual device and provides for a cost-saving and time-saving solution that may help protect and spare both the defendant and the witness from potential inconveniencies while, at the same time, keeping in place the guarantees relating to trials. However, integrating a new technology (the machine) into criminal proceedings raises the questions whether classic processual principles are still completely enforced in criminal proceedings and whether the principle of equality of arms is broken, in terms of the right to a fair trial, in any way in trials conducted via a closed-purpose telecommunication network. This study focuses on the answers to these question by both reviewing international cases and presenting how trials conducted via a closed-purpose telecommunication network are applied (if applied at all) in Hungarian criminal proceedings subject to the exact legal provision
A tanĂș vallomĂĄsĂĄhoz kapcsolĂłdĂł relatĂv vallomĂĄstĂ©teli akadĂĄly(ok) ĂșjragondolĂĄsa(?)
Dans lâĂ©tude, jâai analysĂ© lâobstacle de lâaveu qui remplit avec contenu lâinterdiction de lâobligation de lâauto-incrimination parmi les causes dâimmunitĂ© qui sont affĂ©rents au tĂ©moin: âLe tĂ©moignage peut ĂȘtre refusĂ© par quelquâun, qui - sauf le cas dâalinĂ©a (4) - accuserait luimĂȘme ou son proche parent de commettre un dĂ©lit, dans les questions relatives Ă celle-ci, mĂȘme si le tĂ©moignage nâĂ©tait pas refusĂ© en vertu du point a)â [La loi de XIX. en 1998. sur la ProcĂ©dure PĂ©nale, paragraph 82. § alinĂ©a (1) point b)]. Cet obstacle a mĂ©ritĂ© une attention distinguĂ©e parce que le lĂ©gislateur avec la loi de CL. en 2011. [2012. 01. 01.] modifiant (aussi/Ă©galement) la loi sur la ProcĂ©dure PĂ©nale â confirmant cette interdiction â prĂ©voit que: si câest constatable que cet obstacle existe, au delĂ de lâavertissement gĂ©nĂ©ral, le membre de lâautoritĂ© compĂ©tente est obligĂ© dâavertir encore une fois le tĂ©moin quâil nâest pas obligĂ© de tĂ©moigner. Dans lâĂ©tude jâai cherchĂ© la rĂ©ponse Ă la question que pourquoi le lĂ©gislateur, Ă la suite de la modification, a fait bĂ©nĂ©ficier seulement cet obstacle relatif de lâaveu dâune protection distinguĂ©e; de plus, que cette rĂ©glementation nouvelle signifie un changement de paradigme au cours de lâaudition de tĂ©moin, ou âsimplementâ est-il question dâĂ©lĂ©vation au niveau lĂ©gislatif de la pratique dĂ©jĂ existĂ©e? Jâai rĂ©pondu Ă ces questions par lâindication du point critique du cours (procĂšs) de lâaudition de tĂ©moin, ensuite par la dĂ©monstration des deux Ă©lĂ©ments dâobstacle relatif de lâaveu, Ă©tant en relation avec la modification (dĂ©jĂ ) indiquĂ©e, soulignĂ©s par moi
A jogellenesen megszerzett bizonyĂtĂ©kok Ă©rtĂ©kelĂ©se az Amerikai EgyesĂŒlt Ăllamok bĂŒntetĆeljĂĄrĂĄsi jogĂĄban II. : a mĂ©rgezett fa gyĂŒmölcse doktrĂna Ă©s az ezĂŒsttĂĄlca elve
BizonyĂtĂĄsi tilalmak a magyar bĂŒntetĆeljĂĄrĂĄsban: a törvĂ©nysĂ©rtĆ (jogellenes) bizonyĂtĂ©kok kizĂĄrĂĄsa
- âŠ