Presumption - a proposal which constitutes a true until proven otherwise. Presume - so in good faith, conviction, assume a certain position a true until it is disproved. The presumption of innocence is one of the democratic principles of due process on which to build evidence in a criminal case, the adoption of judicial and investigative solutions, in short, all criminal proceedings.
The presumption of innocence was reflected in a detailed article 49 of the Constitution: "Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until his guilt is proven in accordance with law and installed by a valid court verdict."
The presumption of innocence follow four rules of investigation, which are of great practical importance and in their totality is true and sufficiently reflect the depth of its legal and moral meaning:
1. No one can be convicted on the assumptions about the guilt of a crime.
2.The burden of proof of guilt is not on the accused and the accuser
3. All the doubts raised about the guilt of the charges and shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant.
4. Unproved guilt absolutely legally equivalent proven guilty.
The first rule is that a conviction can not be based on assumptions and judgments only on the condition that at trial the defendant guilty of a crime is not proved. In other words, assumptions, opinions, inferences, conjectures, no matter how compelling and witty as they are and who they do not belong, in deciding a criminal case the main issue - the guilt - not taken into account. The value of this "food for thought" as proof of legally null and void.
The second rule - the burden of proof - meaning that neither the suspect nor an accused to prove their innocence and are not required in criminal proceedings under any circumstances can not be put to "prove that you're not a criminal." Stakeholders can actively demonstrate to prove their innocence (such as an alibi). But it is their right, but not an obligation. The accused (suspect) may take a position not to participate in its full justification and no one can accuse him of this.
The third rule - that all of doubt in a person's guilt must be interpreted in favor of the accused enshrined in the Constitution itself (Article 49, part 3). This means that if a thorough, comprehensive professional assessment of the evidence collected on the case gives rise to an investigator or a court of uncertainty about the guilt of the accused, and all the replenishment of the necessary evidentiary information have been exhausted, their legal obligation and moral duty is to fully rehabilitate the defendant. The investigator does this by a ruling to dismiss a criminal case and the court by his acquittal.
The fourth rule is that unproven guilt is tantamount to legally proven guilty means that the criminal justice process is unknown figure remains under suspicion in the legal sense.The citizen, whose guilt is not proven, as well as a citizen, whose innocence was proved indisputably a rehabilitated.
The presumption of innocence was reflected in a detailed article 49 of the Constitution: "Everyone charged with a crime is presumed innocent until his guilt is proven in accordance with law and installed by a valid court verdict."
The presumption of innocence follow four rules of investigation, which are of great practical importance and in their totality is true and sufficiently reflect the depth of its legal and moral meaning:
1. No one can be convicted on the assumptions about the guilt of a crime.
2.The burden of proof of guilt is not on the accused and the accuser
3. All the doubts raised about the guilt of the charges and shall be interpreted in favor of the defendant.
4. Unproved guilt absolutely legally equivalent proven guilty.
The first rule is that a conviction can not be based on assumptions and judgments only on the condition that at trial the defendant guilty of a crime is not proved. In other words, assumptions, opinions, inferences, conjectures, no matter how compelling and witty as they are and who they do not belong, in deciding a criminal case the main issue - the guilt - not taken into account. The value of this "food for thought" as proof of legally null and void.
The second rule - the burden of proof - meaning that neither the suspect nor an accused to prove their innocence and are not required in criminal proceedings under any circumstances can not be put to "prove that you're not a criminal." Stakeholders can actively demonstrate to prove their innocence (such as an alibi). But it is their right, but not an obligation. The accused (suspect) may take a position not to participate in its full justification and no one can accuse him of this.
The third rule - that all of doubt in a person's guilt must be interpreted in favor of the accused enshrined in the Constitution itself (Article 49, part 3). This means that if a thorough, comprehensive professional assessment of the evidence collected on the case gives rise to an investigator or a court of uncertainty about the guilt of the accused, and all the replenishment of the necessary evidentiary information have been exhausted, their legal obligation and moral duty is to fully rehabilitate the defendant. The investigator does this by a ruling to dismiss a criminal case and the court by his acquittal.
The fourth rule is that unproven guilt is tantamount to legally proven guilty means that the criminal justice process is unknown figure remains under suspicion in the legal sense.The citizen, whose guilt is not proven, as well as a citizen, whose innocence was proved indisputably a rehabilitated.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий