▾

External sources (not reviewed)

In particular, it should improve methods of criminal investigation to end practices whereby confession is relied on as the primary and central element of proof in criminal prosecution, in some cases in the absence of any other evidence.

In accordance with article 15 of the Convention against Torture, a State party shall ensure that any statement which is established to have been made as a result of torture shall not be invoked as evidence in any proceedings, except against a person accused of torture as evidence that the statement was made.

The authors of Joint Submission 1 refer to recommendation 14, which Benin accepted, and call on the authorities, pursuant to this recommendation, to amend the Criminal Code to stipulate that no statement obtained under torture may be invoked in proceedings, except against the person accused of torture, and that orders from a superior may not be invoked as a justification of torture.36 31.

And, as the word “likewise” in [...] [...]

(c) Providing legal aid, advice and court support services in all legal proceedings to female victims of violence in order to ensure access to justice and avoid secondary victimization and other such services, which may include the translation of legal documents where requested or required.

While building on existing international norms and standards, that procedure would: contribute to the preservation of the holistic nature of the Convention; take into account the general principles of the Convention in the consideration of allegations; propose measures to prevent the child from being subjected to reprisals for having submitted complaints; apply a gender-sensitive approach; guarantee the right of the child to be heard in proceedings affecting him or her; and complement the reporting function of the Committee, which would thus be in a position to call on relevant bodies to support countries in any follow-up to its recommendations, including by addressing root causes of violence against children.

A few participants, however pointed to a danger that the term “quality education” tended to become too broad complicating any assessment of outcomes or measurement of results, and that an agreed-to definition was warranted.

[...] [...] arbitrations and other litigation arising in peacekeeping [...] [...]

It was also suggested that FAO should undertake technical work in the following five priority areas to assist States and RFMOs implement resolutions 61/105 and 64/72 and the FAO Guidelines: (i) improving and expanding application of the criteria for the identification of VMEs beyond corals, sponges, seamounts and hydrothermal vents; (ii) developing guidance on impact mitigation measures and best practices for developing and applying encounter protocols relevant to VMEs, particularly by RFMOs; (iii) developing guidance on what and how information should be collected to implement measures for managing fishery impacts on VMEs; (iv) defining certain terms that could clarify implementation of the FAO Guidelines; and (v) developing guidance on best practices for conducting assessments.

There were cases where issues concerning the application of universal jurisdiction, usually along side other bases of jurisdiction, were provided for, either expressly or impliedly, in their domestic penal codes (e.g., Austria, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Costa Rica, Estonia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Iraq, Israel, Malaysia, Norway, Peru, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland), including the military penal codes (e.g., Switzerland), the Penal Law (e.g., Israel), criminal codes (e.g., Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, the Republic of Korea) or codes of criminal procedure (e.g., Armenia, Belarus, Belgium, Cameroon, France, Germany, Iraq, Norway, Sweden, Tunisia), or the criminal law (e.g., China) or acts on powers of judiciary, such as courts acts (e.g., Mauritius) or Courts of Judicature Act (e.g., Malaysia).

After discussion, the Working Group agreed that the questions for further consideration on that matter would include (A/CN.9/717, para. 143): (i) whether a provision on protection of the integrity of the arbitral process should be in the form of a general formulation or should contain specific instances that were meant to be specifically addressed; (ii) the interplay between the protection of the integrity of the arbitral process and the provisions in the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules already dealing with that issue; and (iii) how to determine the threshold for a limitation to transparency based on the ground of the need to protect integrity of the arbitral process.

Republic of Moldova adopted a list of normative acts that regulate the migration processes, the status of foreign citizens and stateless persons present on the territory of the country: Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Moldova (art. 454–456) and the Civil Code of the Republic of Moldova (Fifth part), Law on migration, Law on the status of foreign citizens and stateless persons in the Republic of Moldova, Law on the status of refugees, Law on departure and entry in the Republic of Moldova, Rules on stay of foreign citizens and stateless persons in the Republic of Moldova, Government Decision on temporary employment of migrant workers, Regulations on education of foreign citizens and stateless persons in the educational institutions of the Republic of Moldova.