Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article focuses on applying the provisions of the Criminal Intelligence Law to detect criminal offences. Based on the recent case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, the author provides insights into the problematic aspects of the application of certain provisions of the Criminal Intelligence Law. It examines the extent to which the tools of criminal intelligence can legitimately invade a person’s private life. The conditions for provocation by criminal intelligence, the criteria for (non-)recognition of evidence collected by private individuals, the problems of establishing a factual basis for initiating a criminal intelligence investigation, and the nuances of the duration of non-public actions are discussed. The Code of Criminal Procedure does not regulate the conditions for the use in criminal proceedings of data obtained in the course of a criminal intelligence investigation; therefore, it is decided on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, inter alia, the case law of the Supreme Court of Lithuania, and whether the information obtained in the course of a criminal intelligence investigation meets the requirements for evidence set out in the Code.

Pre-requisites of the research are the establishment of cassation courts of general jurisdiction in Russia, as well as no clear procedure in the Russian Federation Criminal Procedure Code for returning criminal cases to the prosecutor by the cassation court upon the grounds causing the impaired position of the convict (or acquitted person). The research purpose is to formulate requirements based on the principle of justice to the legal institute of returning criminal cases to the prosecutor by the cassation court for circumstances showing the need to impair the position of the convict (or acquitted person). The Methods are abstraction, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, modeling, ascending from abstract to concrete. The article substantiates that the grounds to return a criminal case to the prosecutor provided for in the Russian Federation Criminal Procedure Code causing remission of a sentence under a cassation procedure represent a type of material breaches of criminal procedure law that affect the outcome of the case. When such circumstances cause an impaired position of the convict (or acquitted person), they must comply with the requirements of justice.

With Judgment No. 21995/2019 (the Judgment), the Italian Court of Cassation (Court of Cassation) once again tackled the limits of sovereign immunity with regard to crimes against humanity (para. 7). The Judgment is part of litigation originating in Greece with the Leivadia Tribunal's 1997 Distomo decision, confirmed in 2000 by the Areopago (Hellenic Supreme Court), which ordered Germany to pay compensation and legal costs of approximately 50 million euros to the relatives of 218 victims of the Distomo massacre committed by the German military in 1944. In this Judgment, the Court of Cassation addressed whether sovereign immunity blocked the seizure of German assets located in Italy as part of that compensation order. The Court of Cassation's decision is noteworthy because it takes the discussion on sovereign immunity from jurisdiction and crimes against humanity one step further by addressing, in particular, the question of compensation and attachment of claims and rights held by the debtor against third parties.

العقوبات | مصر | القانون الجنائي | الكويت | محاكم التمييز | المحاكمات.

العقوبات | مصر | القانون الجنائي | الكويت | محاكم التمييز | المحاكمات.

العقوبات | مصر | القانون الجنائي | الأحكام | محاكم الإستئناف | الكويت | محاكم التمييز | العلوم القانونية.