Comparative overview of the preliminary proceedings in the Republic of Serbia, Germany, and Italy
There have long existed two major criminal procedure systems in the world: the inquisitorial (civil law) system which originated and is predominant on the European continent, and the adversarial (common law) system which prevails in Great Britain and its former colonies. Countries such as Argentina,...
| Authors: | ; |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2018
|
| In: |
International journal of law, crime and justice
Year: 2018, Volume: 52, Pages: 47-57 |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (Resolving-System) |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Keywords: |
| Summary: | There have long existed two major criminal procedure systems in the world: the inquisitorial (civil law) system which originated and is predominant on the European continent, and the adversarial (common law) system which prevails in Great Britain and its former colonies. Countries such as Argentina, South Africa, Egypt, Russia, China, and Japan have criminal procedure systems derived from one of, and increasingly, a combination of, these models (Bradley, 2007, p. xvii). In the continental European system (i.e. the inquisitorial model), the court undertakes an active role in determining the truth of what has actually happened regarding a certain criminal matter and is responsible for introducing the relevant evidence necessary for the resolution of a dispute. In the adversarial system, two opposing parties, rather than the court, are responsible for the preparation and presentation of their cases before the court, and a court case often appears as a disputebetween two lawyers. Although these traditions seem quite different, the borrowings between the two systems have become so extensive that no one country's system in Western Europe can be described as demonstrating the pure version of either model. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1756-0616 |
| DOI: | 10.1016/j.ijlcj.2017.09.001 |