The Principle of ne bis in idem in Afghan Legal System, International Instruments and Hanafi Jurisprudence

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Students

Abstract

The principle of “ne bis in idem” is one of the most important principles of criminal law which has been recognized in Afghan laws like most criminal justice systems around the world today. According to this principle, no one should be tried and punished for second times for the same offence. In addition to domestic laws, this rule has also been recognized in universal and regional human rights instruments and the statutes of international criminal courts. In Afghanistan’s law, legislature not only tends not to bring an accused to justice and punish him/her for a second time, but also counts the double jeopardy unfair. Double jeopardy is prohibited in the Hanfi jurisprudence as well and its theoretical bases therein are the same as secular law, and its applicability is not restricted to judgments of domestic courts. The application terms of this principle are the finality of the judgment, and the existence of the relation between the first and the second trials.

Highlights

-

Keywords

Full Text

-

References

21.Amnesty International (2014), Fair Trial Manual, Second Edition, Amnesty International Publications, Printed in the UK, London. Available at: www. amnesty.org/fairtrials
22.Badó, Attila (2014), Fair Trial and Judicial Independence Hungarian Perspectives, Springer International Publishing, Switzerland
 23.Bassiouni, Mohammd Cherif (1993), Human Rights in the Context of Criminal Justice: Identifying International Procedural Protections and Equivalent Protections in National Constitutions, Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol. 3.
24.Coffin, Kenneth G. (2010), Double Take: Evaluating Double Jeopardy Reform, Notre Dame Law Review, Volume 85 | Issue 2 Article 7.
25.Conway, Gerard (2003), Ne Bis in Idem and The International Criminal Tribunals, Criminal Law Frum, Vol. 14, pp. 351-383.
26. Cryer, Robert, Friman, Hهkan, Robinson Darryl and Wilmshurst, Elizabeth ((2010),) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure second edition, London, Cambridge University Press.
27.Guhr, Alexandra Hilal, Moschtaghi, Ramin and Knust, Mandana (Rassekh Afshar), (October 2005), Max Planck Manual on Fair Trial Standards in the Afghan Constitution, the Afghan Interim Criminal Code for Courts, the Afghan Penal Code and other Afghan Laws as well as in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 2nd Edition, Germany, Maxplanck Institute.
28. Harris, David (Apr., 1967), The Right to a Fair Trial in Criminal Proceedings as a Human Right, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 352-378.
29. Jun, Zhang, Changzong, Shan and Youshui, Miao (2002), China’s Theory and Practice on ne bis in idem; Intrnationl Review of Penal Law, Vol. 73, pp. 865-872.
30.Malekian, Farhad (2011), Principles of Islamic International Criminal Law, A Comparative Search, Second Edition, The Netherlands, Brill.
31.Neagu, Norel (2012), the Ne Bis in Idem Principle in the Interpretation of European Courts: Towards Uniform International Law.
32.Rudstein, David S. (2007), Retrying the Acquitted in England, Part I: The Exception to the Rule Against Double Jeopardy for "New and Compelling Evidence", San Diego Intternational Law Journal, Vol. 8.
33. ___________ (2005), A Brief History of the Fifth Amendment Guarantee Against Double Jeopardy, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Volume 14/ Issue 1, Article 8.
34. Schacht, Joseph (1964), An Introduction to Islamic Law, First Edition, Oxford University Press. Reprinted in Tehran by Saberian Publication, 2005.
35. Silke, Brammer (2009),CCoamsmeo NC M-2a9rk7et/0Law Review 46: 1685-Kluwer Law International, Printed in the 1696.
36. Trechsel, Stefan (2005), Human Rights in the Administration of Criminal Proceedings, First Edition, Academy of the European Law European University Institute, Oxford.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics