Suchergebnisse

The basic requirement underlying the reform of the Serbian criminal procedure legislation is to create and normatively regulate an efficient criminal procedure. The key issue in meeting this requirement is the choice of the criminal investigation concept: should the legislator retain the judicial investigation model predominant in the inquisitorial system of the European-Continental legal tradition, or follow in the footsteps of many other countries which have opted for the adversarial criminal investigation system underlying the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition? There is no doubt that this choice will determine not only the efficiency of criminal investigation but also the entire criminal procedure. On the other hand, the creators of the reform have to take into account the obligation to observe human rights and freedoms, enshrined not only in the Serbian Constitution but also in the ratified international law documents. By using a comparative method, this paper aims to present the advantages and disadvantages of the two criminal investigation concepts (the inquisitorial and the adversarial), to draw attention to the observed characteristics of the prosecutorial investigation in the Serbian criminal procedure law, and to propose possible modifications in light of observing the principles of procedural fairness. In particular, the author discusses whether the the selection of the adversarial model has been justified, and whether the envisaged criminal procedure framework has struck a balance between the need for procedural efficiency and the principle of procedural fairness in criminal investigation.

The basic requirement underlying the reform of the Serbian criminal procedure legislation is to create and normatively regulate an efficient criminal procedure. The key issue in meeting this requirement is the choice of the criminal investigation concept: should the legislator retain the judicial investigation model predominant in the inquisitorial system of the European-Continental legal tradition, or follow in the footsteps of many other countries which have opted for the adversarial criminal investigation system underlying the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition? There is no doubt that this choice will determine not only the efficiency of criminal investigation but also the entire criminal procedure. On the other hand, the creators of the reform have to take into account the obligation to observe human rights and freedoms, enshrined not only in the Serbian Constitution but also in the ratified international law documents. By using a comparative method, this paper aims to present the advantages and disadvantages of the two criminal investigation concepts (the inquisitorial and the adversarial), to draw attention to the observed characteristics of the prosecutorial investigation in the Serbian criminal procedure law, and to propose possible modifications in light of observing the principles of procedural fairness. In particular, the author discusses whether the the selection of the adversarial model has been justified, and whether the envisaged criminal procedure framework has struck a balance between the need for procedural efficiency and the principle of procedural fairness in criminal investigation. ; Reforma krivičnoprocesnog zakonodavstva Srbije trebalo je da ispuni osnovni zahtev - izgraditi i normativno urediti efikasan krivični postupak. Ključno pitanje u sprovođenju tog zahteva bilo je pitanje kom konceptu istrage se prikloniti: zadpžati sudsku istragu ili krenuti putem kojim su krenule mnoge zemlje kontinentalno–evropske tradicije opredelivši se, pod uticajem anglosaksonske pravne tradicije, za tužilačku ...

Judicial authorities have the difficult task to deal with the undermined public confidence in the judiciary and to reverse this trend in favor of a general appreciation of their work by citizens. Announced judicial reform which failed, the internal problems of the judiciary, as well as tabloidization by the media that create an unfavorable environment are the causes that have led to people doubting the achievements of justice and fairness conducted by the judicial authorities. Representatives of the judiciary can change such an image only with an active, not a passive attitude towards this problem. Reticence of the judiciary is not a good way to change the unfavorable picture of their work to the desired level. Consistent implementation of the principles of the publicity, demystification of the work of the judiciary, openness towards the media, is the path that leads to the establishment of trust in the work of the judiciary. Constant communication between representatives of the judiciary and journalists, in which it eliminates any doubt that the prosecution and the courts "are hiding something" is a necessity, not just a requirement. In particular, the authors point to the delicate boundary between the justified public's interests in knowing and the abuse of freedom of expression "up to the line" through which the right of the others would be violated. In this paper we point out the causes of the unfavorable environment in question, as well as the obstacles in the communication of courts and media that occur in the everyday work of both.