Suchergebnisse

Detention, as a preventive measure, can be taken on the basis of an ordinance, with respect to human dignity, the rights and freedoms of citizens, the free development of the human personality, and justice, which are supreme and guaranteed values. The detention measure cannot be ordered on simple suspicions or assumptions, as it requires strong evidence or clues that a person has committed a crime.

Since the application of precautionary measures necessarily involves the implication of an authority who accomplishes it into a person's home, even against that person's will, in order to identify and evaluate the belongings found, or to confiscate it if necessary, it is imposed conclusively that the legislator- within the limits of the Constitution-empowered the authorities invested with such an attribution with the right to enter the house of those to whom the precautionary measure is to be applied, legally ordered. Thus, it would lead to the unacceptable conclusion according to which the authority applying the precautionary measure is presenting itself without the prosecutor's authorization at the residence of the person to whom it is to be applied, as the law does not provide for such an authorization- in case of resistance to entering the residence, the authority will have to interrupt the application of the measures until the authorization is obtained, thereby jeopardizing the efficiency of the enforcement measure.

The international liability of states does not have a consensual regulation, it is based on the perpetration by the state of an act that can be considered illegal, consisting in the violation of an international obligation, and in order to engage the international liability of states, it must be analyzed, in each concrete case, if the constitutive elements of the liability are met, starting with the existence or not of an international obligation for the state in question, but not in a normative framework as strict as in the case of the international criminal liability of individuals.