Statutarno kazneno pravo u Europi je bilo primjenjivano u razdoblju srednjeg vijeka, a obilježavao ga je partikularizam, tj. važenje propisa lokalnih zajednica samo na njihovu području. Dalmatinski su gradovi u statutima po uzoru na talijanske gradove uređivali javnopravne odnose (organizaciju vlasti, utvrđivanje kaznenih djela, uređivanje sudskog postupka), te privatnopravne odnose (posvećene osobnom, stvarnom, obiteljskom, obveznom i nasljednom pravu). Izvršna vlast nije bila odvojena od sudske. Kazneni postupak se prema dalmatinskim statutima može okarakterizirati kao prijelazni kazneni postupak s akuzatornog na inkvizitorni s naglašenim akuzatornim elementima, a temeljio se na normativnim zbirkama i sudskoj praksi. Slavenski utjecaj na kazneni postupak očitovao se u postojanju kolektivne odgovornosti, primjeni vražde, te značajnoj ulozi prisege koja je obvezivala svjedoke na iskazivanje istine u postupku. Prema Dubrovačkom statutu, pokretanje kaznenog postupka vršilo se po službenoj dužnosti (ex officio) ili privatnom tužbom. Sud je u potpunosti upravljao kaznenim postupkom, a optuženik je bio u pasivnom položaju. Iako je prema zakonskoj dokaznoj teoriji sud bio vezan za statutarne odredbe o broju i kvaliteti dokaza, sudska praksa nije se strogo držala svih pravila. Primjena torture je za razliku od europskih gradova bila rijetka, a koristila se samo za rješavanje teških delikata. Postojale su tri moguće presude: osuđujuća i oslobađajuća presuda, te za razliku od drugih dalmatinskih gradova, i tzv. puštanje ispod suđenja. U slučaju neupuštanja optuženika u kazneni postupak, donosila se osuđujuća osuda (presuda iz ogluhe). Postojala je mogućnost pomilovanja i pokretanja drugostupanjskog postupka, te dvije vrste imuniteta: pravo azila i pravo slobodnog prolaza.
U vrijeme masovnog progona čarobnjaka i vještica u Europi, kazneni procesi protiv čarobnjaka u Dubrovniku nisu bili česti. U sudovanju sa strancima važna je bila uloga stanka, kao suda za rješavanje sporova između Dubrovčana i stranaca.Statutory criminal law was in use in Europe during the Middle Ages and it was characterized by particularism of regulations (regulations of local communities were validonly in their areas). Dalmatian municipal statutes were published on the model of the
statutes of Italian municipalities. Relations devoted to public law (authority organisation, criminal offences, criminal and civil procedure) and private law (personal law, law of property,
family law etc.) were arranged in the statutes. Executive and judicial powers were not divided in Dalmatian municipalities.
Criminal procedure in Dalmatian municipalities could be described as a transitional form of accusatorial to inquisitorial system with emphesized accusatorial elements and it was based on normative collections and judicial practice. Slavic infl uence on criminal procedure was manifested trough shared liability, application of «vrazda» and importance of jurors in criminal procedure.
According to Dubrovnik’s statute, criminal charges could be brought by offi cial duty (ex offi cio) or by pressing charges by a private person. The criminal procedure was completely carried out by court. Defendant was passive during the procedure. In spite of legal proof theory, the Criminal court in its practice was not strictly bound by provisions proscribed by Statute. In contrast to other municipalities in Europe, application of torture was rare and was used only to solve diffi cult criminal offences. There were three possible sentences: condemntion, acquital and, in contrast to other municipalities in Dalmatia, let underneath the trial. If the accused failed to appear in court, he was condemned. A possibility of amnesty and the second degree criminal procedure were present, such as two kinds of immunity: asylum and safe-conduct. During the great witch-hunts all around Europe, criminal procedures against witches were rare in Dubrovnik. There was a great importance of «stanak», that was a kind of court for solving disputes between strangers and the citizens of Dubrovnik
