Bail is a right and not a privilege. Courts are inclined to grant bail unless the prosecuting authority can show that there is a likelihood of the accused not attending the trial or interfering with witnesses. All of these matters directly relate to the trail of the offence of which the accused is charged and not to any trial of some offence the commission of which has not taken place. The courts are entitled to require sureties to guarantee an accuser’s attendance at the trial and also to attach conditions to the bail, but so important do the courts regard the right to bail, excessive or unreasonable sureties or conditions are held to amount to an unconstitutional denial of
Thereby the article leaves leeway for articles 8 (war crimes) and 28 (responsibility of commanders and other superiors) of the ICC Statute, although these are merely exceptions to the rule laid down in article 30 of the ICC Statute. This also means that there is a higher mental standard for prosecution before the ICC than there was before the ad hoc Tribunals. To conclude the ICC Statute lays intent (both general and specific), knowledge and dolus directus down in article 30 and dolus eventualis and advertent recklessness in the articles 8 and 28. The ad hoc Tribunals considered all the aforementioned in their case law, including negligence- a type
There is no inherent power in the High Court under this section to alter or review its own judgement once it has been pronounced except in the cases where it was passed without jurisdiction or in default of appearance i.e without affording an opportunity to the accused to appear. It was discussed by the Supreme Court that The High Court cannot exercise its powers under section 482 if prima facie offences have been made out on the basis of the allegations made in the complaint without going into the truth or otherwise of those allegations. In another case it was held that where FIR disclosed Prima Facie cognizable offences and allegations of mala fide was not supported by evidence, it was held that other material need not be to looked into, and the FIR and investigation could not be quashed under Section 482 . In light of this, in other case where a Private Limited Company did not contribute towards the Employee provident Fund, the high Court refused to quash the complaint as it prima facie revealed the commission of an
Week 1: The conflict of laws in a commercial context Discussion Question: Conflict of laws rules and their benefits The conflict of laws rules enter into play when a case brought before a court involves so-called foreign elements. Before entering into the case itself, the court has to address a series of preliminary issues in order to ascertain which law applied and how to handle the case it is dealing with. The conflict of laws rules are a fundamental pillar of cross-border activities, in that they provide a mechanism to obtain justice in The main questions to be answered relate to a) the jurisdiction of the court that is seized with a matter, i.e. is the court competent to rule on the case, and – if the answer to a) is affirmative –,
To make binding laws within its territory, prescriptive jurisdiction is referring to the supremacy of the organs that constitutionally recognized of the state. Enforcement Jurisdiction has a meaning of the enforcement of the laws that only allowed within the state territory itself. A State cannot enforce its laws on the foreign territory without the permission or agreement from the host state; or else it will be liable for a violation of International Law. Judicial jurisdiction is concerning about a particular country’s power courts of to try cases in which a foreign factor is present. In criminal judicial jurisdiction, the range is from the territorial principle to the universality principle; and in civil judicial jurisdiction, the range is from the mere presence of the defendant in the country to the nationality and domicile principles.
If the evidence is inadmissible in court you will not be allowed to rely on it in your proceedings. The evidence which is admissible can have different weight depending on the type of evidence. Evidence includes witness evidence and evidence in the proceedings. CHAPTER II What Are Some Factors for Determining If Evidence Is Admissible? The general rule is that all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible and all relevant evidence is admissible.
The current international scenario is dynamic in nature, full of interstate interactions and full of subjects (if you can call them subjects under traditional international law) that are not states. After the Peace of Westphalia —and even prior to that— the “sovereignty” of states has been the driving force of most international relations; consequently, the states were considered to be the only subjects of intentional law disregarding individuals as subjects of international law. Another major issue of international law that derives form the notion of state sovereignty is law enforcement; because there is nothing above state sovereignty, and states should be regarded as the only subjects of international law, enforcement of treaties becomes
'A Court of competent jurisdiction'.- When there is a defect in the jurisdiction of a court, it cannot be cured under this section. Therefore, the section cannot cure the exercise of power not vested in the Magistrate while disposing of cases or doing something which is repugnant to the aim and object of a particular provisions of law. The Supreme court has explained this thing in a judgment as follows: There is no substance in the contention that s. 465 is restricted to any findings, sentence or order passed by a" Court of competent jurisdiction" and that a Special court under the SC/ST Act which is essentially a Session Court would have remained incompetent until the case is committed to it. The expression "a court of competent jurisdiction" envisaged in s.465 is to denote a validly constituted Court conferred with jurisdiction to try the offence or offences. Such a court will not get denuded of its competence on account of any procedural lapse.
He suggested a provision Article 15 of his draft that a treaty, or any of its provisions, is invalid if its performance involves an act which is illegal under international law and if it is declared so to be by the International Court of Justice." In his Comment he made it clear that the test was not inconsistency with international law pure and simple but inconsistency with such overriding principles of international law which may be as constituting principles of international public policy." Lauterpacht's successors as Special Rapporteurs of the International Law Commission, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice and Sir Humphrey Waldock, introduced the concept of consistency with a general rule or principle of international law having the character of jus
The right to self-determination has been largely interpreted in the international legal scholarship as the internal freedom of people to determine the way the government is organised and the external right of a group to reject claims of jurisdictions by another state. This main account of self-determination has generated a large set of critiques from feminist and critical legal theories. A feminist set of analyses concerns a critique of the western liberal accounts of legal personhood within a national legal structure that goes beyond a version of sovereign international self-determination which does not take into account the individual self-determination of its citizens. (H. Charlesworth and C.M. Chinkin, 2000; G. Heathcote, 2011) A second set of analyses stress the colonial roots of international law, affirming how it was created as a tool of colonisation and how it developed afterwards as a tool of legitimising colonial projects including those which extend into the League and the UN via the Mandate and Trusteeship system.