Since 1 April 2018, new rules have been in force which, in accordance with European Directive 2016/343, guarantee the innocence of suspects or accused persons in criminal proceedings until proven otherwise. The Directive also guarantees that everyone has the right to attend his hearing. The families are angry, which they see as a slap in the face of justice. «They just don`t want to know,» says Peggy Legrand. The presumption of innocence was originally expressed by French cardinal and canonical jurist Jean Lemoine in the phrase «item quilbet presumitur innocens nisi probetur nocens (a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty)», based on the legal conclusion that most people are not criminals. [27] However, this referred not only to the fact that the burden of proof in criminal proceedings lies with the prosecution, but also with the protection that an accused should receive: prior notification of the charges against him, right to confrontation, right to legal assistance, etc.[28] It is literally considered evidence favorable to the defendant, that is automatically joined to the hearing. [29] It requires the trial judge, whether jury or judge, to proceed from the presumption that the state is unable to support his or her application. [27] In order to ensure respect for this legal protection, criminal procedure governs three interrelated provisions. The presumption means:[23] The «presumption of innocence» serves to emphasize that the prosecution is required to prove beyond a doubt any element of the crime (or some other standard of proof, according to the criminal justice system) and that the accused has no burden of proof. [23] This is often expressed in the phrase «presumed innocent until proven guilty», coined in 1791 by British lawyer Sir William Garrow (1760-1840)[24] at a trial at the Old Bailey. Garrow insisted that prosecutors be rigorously tested in court.
An objective observer in jury position must reasonably conclude that the defendant almost certainly committed the crime. [25] In 1935, the English Court of Appeal, in its judgment in Woolmington v. Director of Public Prosecutions, later described Garrow`s articulation as the «golden thread» linking both the burden of criminal proof and the presumption of innocence in the English criminal law network. [26] According to the aforementioned Roman law of Justinian, who lived in the early Middle Ages, the Byzantine Empire generally maintained its code of law, which includes the presumption of innocence. It also influenced neighboring states in its cultural sphere, such as the Eastern Orthodox, Slavic principalities such as Serbia. In many countries and legal systems, including common law and civil law (not to be confused with the other type of civil law dealing with non-criminal legal issues), the presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in criminal proceedings. It is also an international human right under Article 11 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In a letter to the editor published on January 31 entitled «A Legal Code on Guilt for Priests?», the author wrote that «in the Napoleonic Code, an accused is considered guilty until proven guilty.» In 1800, shortly after Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821) came to power in France, he appointed a commission of legal experts to group all French civil law into a single code. The process took four years; the so-called Civil Code came into force on March 21, 1804, the same year Napoleon proclaimed himself Emperor of France (which he did in December).
It has entered into force throughout France, Belgium, Luxembourg and other French territories and duchies in Europe. «We must emphasize that, as in the Philippines, the presumption of innocence is at the heart of the French judicial system until proven otherwise,» the embassy said in a statement. The presumption of innocence is a legal principle according to which anyone accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In the context of the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof therefore lies with the Public Prosecutor`s Office, which must present convincing evidence of the facts to the judge (judge or jury). If the charge does not prove that the charge is true, the person is acquitted of the charges. In most cases, the prosecution must prove beyond a doubt that the accused is guilty. If there are reasonable doubts, the accused must be acquitted. The reverse system is a presumption of guilt. In his invective response to a reporter`s question, Duterte said Callamard should not lecture him and that in their own country, the France, they can detain a person almost indefinitely «and French law says you are guilty and must prove your innocence.» Judicial Frenchman does not know his own strengths. He began destroying the Legrand family the day Daniel Legrand and his son, also named Daniel, now aged 52 and 23, were arrested by police. It was November 14, 2001. On the same day, the judicial system destroyed the lives of Dominique Wiel, 67, and Pierre Martel, 55, as well as those of their families.
The French embassy said Wednesday that Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte was wrong when he said French laws keep a person guilty until proven guilty. 1. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty by the Court in accordance with applicable law. «My husband told me, `Keep your head up, I`m innocent.` I did this for two and a half years,» says Christine Martel. «But if we had known then what was coming, I don`t think we would have resisted.» The Code represented a compromise between Roman law and general (or customary) law. In addition, it housed some of the radical reforms of the French Revolution (1789-99). The Civil Code establishes laws relating to individual liberty, property rights, inheritance, mortgages and contracts. He has had a great influence both in Europe and Latin America, where civil law prevails.
Unlike the common law of most English-speaking countries, civil law judgments are based on codified principles rather than precedents. For example, under the Civil Code, an accused is guilty until proven guilty (unlike the common law, which states that a person is innocent until proven guilty). The presumption of guilt was the rule in practice, if not in theory, in communist systems, mainly with the Soviet Union, especially in political processes. According to the Talmud, «Every man is innocent until proven guilty. Therefore, the imposition of unusual hardship on the accused must be postponed until his innocence has been successfully challenged. Thus, in the early stages of the trial, his defense arguments are as detailed as for any other man in court. It was only when his guilt became apparent that the precautions taken to protect the accused were removed. [14] In the Hungarian criminal justice system, «the most general concept is that any person (suspect, charged or not) must be considered innocent until a final verdict finds him guilty. But there is also another view – and it usually appears in international statements – which does not link the end of the presumption of innocence to a final verdict, but which is «satisfied» with any provision establishing guilt on the basis of the law. There is a significant difference between the two formulations.
The final verdict usually means the end of the criminal proceedings, which can still take place many years after the time of the offence. It may happen, for example, that in the case of caught in flagrante delicto, witness testimony or confession of the author, the author is presumed innocent for a few years until the final verdict is rendered despite the above-mentioned facts. [13] A civil law system is a modern legal system derived from the ancient Roman legal system (as opposed to the English common law system). The maxim and its equivalents have been adopted by many countries that use civil justice systems, including Brazil,[4] China,[5] France,[6] Italy,[7][8] the Philippines,[9] Poland,[10] Romania,[11] and Spain. [12] DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MAN AND OF THE CITIZEN OF 26 AUGUST 1789Article 9Since everyone is presumed innocent to the point of guilt, any undue hardship which is not necessary to protect his person shall be strictly limited by law if it is deemed necessary to arrest him. It is better for ten guilty people to escape than one innocent person to suffer. [30] The idea subsequently became part of legal thought in Anglo-Saxon jurisdictions and continues to be a subject of discussion. This right is considered sufficiently important in modern democracies, constitutional monarchies and republics that many have explicitly included it in their laws and constitutions: this claim is doubly false. First, the Napoleonic Code of 1804, commonly referred to by the French as the «Civil Code of the French French,» was a civil code, not a penal code or a code of criminal procedure, and did not deal with criminal cases at all. Second, in all civilized legal systems, including French, the rule is that the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
In continental Europe, the ancient rule of Roman law is usually followed: «In dubiis benigniora preferenda sunt», or in case of doubt, the problem must be solved for the accused. In American law, the formula is that guilt must be established beyond a doubt. The author is a retired law professor living in Sarasota.