Abstract
It is widely recognised that a fair criminal trial necessitates the involvement of private parties in fact-finding, since their involvement in criminal proceedings not only sets the necessary conditions for the proper protection of the defence’s rights but also contributes to reliable decision-making. In recent times, awareness of the decisive role of the defence has grown worldwide as a result of the increasing influence of common-law procedure. This has lead to the rise of clear adversarial tendencies even in civil-law countries, which have progressively reduced the weight of out-of-court fact-finding, typical of the inquisitorial tradition.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For instance, the penal order proceeding, typical of the countries of Roman-German tradition and later transposed into Italian criminal justice since the 1913 code of criminal procedure. Cf. Ruggeri (2008), p. 3ff.
- 2.
A clear example is provided by the Italian Constitution, which enables the legislature to depart form the principle of contradictoire in the field of evidence-gathering and for the purposes of the decision on the merits in the case of the consent of the accused. Cf. Art. 111(5) Const.-Italy.
- 3.
- 4.
This risk is apparent in the field of in absentia trials because of the national rules on judicial service.
- 5.
For a comparison between Mercosur and European Union see Pereira and Ambos (eds) (2006).
- 6.
Jackson and Summers (2012).
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10.
Chapter 16.
- 11.
- 12.
On the perspective of a transcultural criminal law see Vogel (2010), p. 1ff.
References
Balsamo A, Lo Piparo A (2008) Principio del contraddittorio, utilizzabilità delle dichiarazioni predibattimentali e nozione di testimone tra giurisprudenza europea e criticità del sistema italiano. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 333–372
Gleß S (2006) Beweisrechtsgrundsätze einer grenzüberschreitenden Strafverfolgung. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Jackson JD (2005) The effect of human rights on criminal evidentiary processes: towards convergence, divergence or realignment? Mod Law Rev 68:737–764
Jackson JD, Summers SJ (2012) The internationalisation of criminal evidence: beyond the common law and civil law traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Jescheck H-H (1955) Entwicklung, Aufgaben und Methoden der Strafrechtsvergleichung. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Kostoris RE (2008) Verso un processo penale non più statocentrico. In: Balsamo A, Kostoris RE (eds) Giurisprudenza europea e processo penale italiano. Giappichelli, Torino, pp 3–10
Pereira AC, Ambos K (eds) (2006) Mercosul e União Europeia. Lumen Juris, Rio de Janeiro
Ruggeri S (2008) Il procedimento per decreto penale. Dalla logica dell’accertamento sommario alla dinamica del giudizio. Giappichelli, Torino
Sieber U (2006) Strafrechtsvergleichung im Wandel – Aufgaben, Methoden und Theoriensätze der vergleichenden Strafrechtswissenschaft. In: Sieber U, Albrecht H-J (eds) Strafrecht und Kriminologie unter einem Dach. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, pp 78 ff.
Vogel J (2010) Transkulturelles Strafrecht. Goltdammer’s Archiv für Strafrecht 157:1–13
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ruggeri, S. (2017). Preliminary Issues. In: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54572-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54573-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)