Hello Aristia,

The criminal justice systems and processes around the world are united under one principle/theory: the right to FAIR HEARING. This principle constitutes the bedrock of criminal justice systems the world over, the absence of this compelling feature compromises the integrity of the trial proceeding and invalidates same. Constitutional & procedural safeguards in criminal trials have drawn overwhelming inspiration from this principle and definitively expanded the scope of elements that truly define legitimate criminal trial. Noncompliance with these safeguards exposes the trial to a judicial verdict of nullity, especially where miscarriage of justice has been occasioned in the process.

In other words, the theory of fair hearing recognized in local statutes, international law and conventions accentuates its prominently inevitable importance. Thus, the rights to counsel, interpreter, presumption of innocence, tried for only offense known to law, not to be tried on retroactive statutes, adequate time and facilities to prepare defense, cross examine accusers, call witnesses to his defense etc, are all inextricably tied to fair hearing, and therefore in my opinion, the theory of fair hearing is the sword employed by human right critics in disparaging the trial process, for it forms the scaffold for all other scrutinies and criticisms directed against the integrity of the trial.

Yes, indeed. So you don't need a "theory". It's common practice. And rightly so!

Christopher NOCK

In the jurisprudence my country (Nigeria, like in most common law countries), they are principles, not theories, each of which is sacrosanct in its application in regard to the rights of an accused person, thus: An accused person must be accorded the “presumption of innocence“ until proven otherwise by the crucibles of a fair trial; he/she must be (except the offence charged is of such a weighty nature) granted bail after plea or at any stage during trial; he/she must be notified of his/her offence; he/she must be accorded time and facility to make defence; he/she must be accorded protection from ‘self-incrimination‘; he/she must be heard from during the course of evidence to conduct his defence by himself or through a lawyer of his choic; he/she must be provided with a lawyer where the severity of the charge is of such a technical nature as to need legal aid counsel (and where he has none); he/she must be allowed to change plea (where he desires); he/she must must not be subjected to involuntary confessional statement ; he/she must be provided with an interpreter (where the language of the court is beyond his/her ordinary proficiency; he/she must be allowed post-trial opportunities,like filing notice of appeal before execution (in capital offences where death penalty has bee decreed),etc,etc, depending on the constitution and criminal jurisprudence of the legal system.

Article 6 ECHR

Hassan Syed

Hi,

natural law theory could provide a theoretical framework, as it states universal legal rules. In a civil law system the "Radbruch formula" is often consulted in such cases.

Thanks. Will check "Radbruch formula" Edgar Güldü

The human rights principles applicable to an accused person under the Nigerian Criminal Justice System include: the right to be presumed innocent until proven guitly according to law; the right to fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial court; the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention; and the right not to be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading

treatment or punishment.

Hassan Syed

In Canada, the accused have extraordinary privileges over other citizens.

They are systematically better treated than the victims by the judicial system thanks to article 11 of the unchangeable constitutional law that was imposed on Quebeckers by the father of current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in 1982.

As a result, the theory developed by the Supreme Court of Canada for 37 years is that "for there to be appearance of justice, the accused must be well treated by the justice system".

Consequently, the Supreme Court of Canada does not care about the fundamental rights of other citizens, including those more directly targeted by the crimes perpetrated by the accused.

It is section 52 of the 1982 Act that causes the most serious wrongs to honest citizens (and particularly to Quebeckers who have never allowed this constitutional decree to be forced against them by business politicians).

This supremacist article prevents the observance of the mandatory rules of universal law provided for in treaties including the ICCPR.

See: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11/latest/schedule-b-to-the-canada-act-1982-uk-1982-c-11.html

This problem particularly undermines the primary legal security of Quebeckers ...

The rules imposed by the confederal government, through federal laws passed by the 9 provinces and 3 English territories, as well as by the problematic common law developed by the Supreme Court of Canada, systematically crush the rules of Quebec civilist law system.

This implies that the efforts made by the French elected representatives of the National Assembly of Quebec to try to respect the peremptory rules imperatives of universal law (PRUL) can be systematically annihilated by the Common Law of the English provinces and territories.

It is still usually the opportunists trying to abuse power who benefit from this chaos, while others suffer the negative impacts of these injustices.

@ Martine Labossier

I appreciate your unusual perspective on this issue. I believe in some jurisdictions, including Nigeria, criminal suspects are empowered

by procedural lapses in statutes to take advantage of and abuse our constitutional safeguards. The abuse itself is now problematic precedent in the criminal justice system, so much so, that, potential criminal suspects violate criminal laws and anticipate that the lapses will work unwaveringly in their favour.