Explore the vast range of titles available.

Within the annals of Romanian legal practice, the mediation process has long been entrenched, holding its ground as a voluntary recourse for resolving conflicts entangled within criminal matters, alongside other mechanisms designed to absolve criminal culpability. This paper endeavours to scrutinize the milieu wherein this legal framework may encroach upon the sacrosanct principle of the benefit of the doubt, surveying the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and the prevailing domestic judicial ethos.

One of the most debated topics in the world is the legalization or non-legalization of euthanasia and medically assisted suicide, a fact that has given rise to many questions starting from extreme situations, whom both legislators and health professionals, as well as patients tried to give answers of the most diverse seemingly, but which have in view only a few attributes that are reduced to ethics, morality, religion. This analysis is therefore interdisciplinary, for the elucidation of which it is necessary that professionals of several professions express their point of view. Last but not least, we appreciate that the one who must be the center of the analysis is the patient, the one who is in a desperate and unsolved medical situation and needs this last release.

The purpose of this thesis is to raise the level of awareness regarding the degree in which such persons, duly diagnosed with this type of deviant behaviour, pose a threat to society, and to also consider the response to such conduct, which should consist in security measures that are able to contain urges of such kind, desires that most of the times escape some of the aggressors' ability to control on their own. [...]we emphasise that, in order to prevent more people from falling victim to such persons, a firm reaction of the legislators is considered mandatory, followed by a similar reaction from the judicial bodies, especially in regard to those who admit and accept the fact that they suffer from this type of conditions, as we are about to demonstrate. According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV), paraphilias are intense reoccurring sexually arousing fantasies and impulses of types of behaviour that involve in general the use of object, causing the subject to experience pain or degradation or causing the same to the partner thereof, to children or to other non-consenting person, as long as such fantasies or impulses are present for six or more months. According to specialised literature, individuals known to have sexually approached several children will deny having an attraction towards children, but refuse to admit there was any sex-related behaviour or any physical contact.5 The sexual seduction of a child is a tool of vengeance. [...]if transgression of the laws is a particular form of deviant behaviour, a mental disorder is a different type of deviance, since the patient, as a result of their behaviour, strays from the requirements of normalcy, which are integrated in the very concept of mental health.

In preparing this particular research, we aimed to put under scrutiny the concept of the material object by analysing it in special given situations, in connection to the criminal offences that are most frequently encountered in practice, and thus to underscore the importance of this concept as a factor in the evolution of the legal framework. The challenges that appear to be inherent when categorising criminal offences into conduct crimes and result crimes do not constitute a novelty in the works of legal scholars, and even less so in practice, but in order to submit them to a proper analysis, it proves imperative that we possess a good grasp of the material object of the criminal offence, in order to establish the perpetrator\"s level of criminal intent, as well as the manner in which criminal liability can be triggered.

The regulations falling under the scope of this study are essential for the observance of convicted persons' rights, their right to free access to a court of justice (art. 21 of the Romanian Constitution), and to a fair trial, in proceedings related to challenges against the resolutions passed by the custodial supervisory judge in response to applications by inmates regarding the observance of their rights and against the decisions of the disciplinary board in matters relating to the customisation or the amendment of their custodial regime. (6) of Law no. 254/2013, and the resolution is notified to the detainee and to the prison administration, within 3 days of the adjudication date. [...]the reasoning of the custodial supervisory judge will remain unbeknown to the detainee, who will not be able to learn why the court decided upon a certain solution, nor will they know what the prison administration argued in regard to the situation brought before the court. The only possibility of a convicted person to consult the documents in their respective case file is, therefore, as mentioned above, to develop a request to consult and make photocopies of the case file and to submit it to the court, which represents a significant financial effort, in order for the prisoner to gain access in person to the court archives, and some inmates are unable to sustain such expenses. [...]in the trial phase before the custodial supervisory judge, the detainee is deprived of an effective possibility to consult the case file registered in the wake of their application, also being unable to be informed of the arguments of the prison administration or to study other documents therein. (17) from Law no. 254/2013, the „prosecutor and the prison administration representative will take part in the proceedings and submit arguments\", meaning that the trial phase will be completed without any contribution from one of the parties (namely, the convicted person), which constitutes a lack of proportion that breaks the balance between prosecution and defence taking part in criminal proceedings, in terms of procedural means. [...]the proceedings before the custodial supervisory judge are assimilated, mutatis mutandis and de plano, to a first instance adjudication on the merits of a case, and the judicial procedure before a trial court - where the resolution of the custodial supervisory judge is challenged - becomes assimilated to an avenue of appeal.

These considerations are brought about by Decision no. 9 of 12 April 2016 of the High Court of Cassation and Justice, the Panel for the settlement of matters of criminal law. The panel was called to rule on the following matter of criminal law: \"whether the material element of the objective side of the criminal offence of public order and tranquility disturbance provided for in Article 371 of the Criminal Code needs to be directed at several individuals and whether, in the case where the action described above referred to only one person, de-criminalization operates in accordance with Article 4 of the Criminal Code. \"

One of the most debated topics in the world is the legalization or non-legalization of euthanasia and medically assisted suicide, a fact that has given rise to many questions starting from extreme situations, whom both legislators and health professionals, as well as patients tried to give answers of the most diverse seemingly, but which have in view only a few attributes that are reduced to ethics, morality, religion. This analysis is therefore interdisciplinary, for the elucidation of which it is necessary that professionals of several professions express their point of view. Last but not least, we appreciate that the one who must be the center of the analysis is the patient, the one who is in a desperate and unsolved medical situation and needs this last release.1

In the reality of practical cases and in certain special situations, self-defence may present some complex forms consisting either in accidental amplification of the issue in fact when self-defence is claimed, or in the correlation in fact of self-defence to other cases which remove the criminal nature of act1. For these reasons, we decided to analyse few of such special situations.

Criminal legislations of other States regulate self-defense in approximately similar manners, without major differences as compared to the conditions required by the Romanian law-maker to be fulfilled in order for the offence to become justifiable/exempt from liability. In this study, we chose to make a comparison in respect of self-defense from the perspective of 18 States1 around the world and, in the end, we will summarize several conclusions on the extent to which the Romanian law-maker could draw inspiration from their legislations.

In the reality of practical cases and in certain special situations, self-defence may present some complex forms consisting either in accidental amplification of the issue in fact when self-defence is claimed, or in the correlation in fact of self-defence to other cases which remove the criminal nature of act1. For these reasons, we decided to analyse few of such special situations.