:

The Role of the Judicial Organ in Preventing and Suppressing

Corruption: A Comparative Study of the Supreme Courts Criminal
Division for Persons Holding Political Position

The Role of the Judicial Organ in Preventing and Suppressing Corruption :

A Comparative Study of the Supreme Courts Criminal Division
for Persons Holding Political Position

2555


... ...

...

...
361
11000

(1)

(
) . (
. ) . (
)

() ( ...)
()

.
()

(2)
1
()

() The

Role of the Judicial Organ in Preventing and

Suppressing Corruption

A Comparative Study of

the Supreme Courts Criminal Division for Persons

Holding Political Position.

1.

, (),
Master of Law (Golden Gate University, U.S.A.),
(089) 442-6036
2.

(),
(),
(081) 414-1471
3. .

( 2) ,
D.E.A. de droit public, lUniversit de Nantes ,
Doctorat de lUniversit de Nantes ,
(080) 628-0226

(02) 613-2133

,, 1
.. 2 ..

14 (5)

(3)

Abstract
Chronic problems of corruption that have occurred in Thailand
undermine political system and economic development of the country.
The effective prevention and suppression of corruption require the close
cooperation between civil societies and public authorities, particularly,
organs of the state dealing with the procedures of criminal justice such as
the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Attorney-General and the
Supreme Courts Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions.
Although these three organs of the state are vested with different functions,
they collaborate in preventing and combating corruption. The duties of the
National Anti-Corruption Commission are to initiate preliminary investigations
in tandem with making a report, including legal opinion. The prime responsibility
of the Attorney-General is to scrutinize a report summarized by the National
Anti-Corruption Commission and also to prosecute an accused before the
Supreme Courts Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions.
The Constitution vests the Supreme Courts Criminal Division for Persons
Holding Political Positions with a responsibility to adjudicate on a case
relating to an accusation of political graft and corruption committed by
politicians and/or high-ranking officials. The rules and procedures of the
Supreme Courts Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions
need to be revised in order to combat corruption efficiently and also to
ensure minimum guarantees of a fair trial.
This research focuses mainly on problems of criminal procedural
rules of the Supreme Courts Criminal Division for Persons Holding
Political Positions. The legal problems of procedure can be divided into
three stages namely, the pre-trial stage, in trial stage and post trial stages
that includes an appeal of court judgment and re-opening a closed case.
The research provides both international and national levels of proper
solutions. Internationally, the Thai government should make a reservation
or a declarative statement to the article 14 (5) enshrined in the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Domestically, the amendment of
relevant internal laws concerning law and rules of procedure of the
Supreme Courts Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions
is required.

(4)

(Transparency
International) .. 2011 (.. 2554) 80
182

2540

.. 2003

(5)

(6)

1.

(high-ranking officials)

(impeachment)

(impeachment)



(House of Commons)
(senator)

2.

2550 3

(...)

3.

.. 2540

9 3

(7)

(8)

(court of the first and last instance)
2550
2540
278 3 2550

4.

...


...
...


278
2550

(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights : ICCPR)
14 5

Article 14, paragraph 5 of the ICCPR stipulates
that Anyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to have their conviction
and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. 278

5.
(1) 2550 278

(2)
.. 2542
. a seriatim opinion
a per curiam decision (collegial
responsibility)


(dissenting opinion)
.
.

(3)

..

(9)

(10)

1




1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The problems of political corruption committed by politicians and high-ranking
officials seriously threaten the democratic regimes, political stability and development.
In Thailand, the problem of political corruption is viewed as such a chronic problem that
international non-governmental organization such as Transparency International ranked
Thailand 80th out of 182 nations in a recent survey. This indicator illustrates the
seriousness of corruption in Thai society and it needs to be resolved immediately.
Effective prevention and suppression of corruption depend mainly on several
factors such as awareness of civil society, a degree of educational and economic
development. Ever since the promulgation of the Constitution B.E. 2540 entered into
force, several independent organs such as the Office of the National Counter
Corruption Commission, the Attorney-General and the Criminal Division for Persons
Holding Political Positions of the Supreme Court have been vested with significant
powers to investigate, prosecute and adjudicate on an accusation of corruption
respectively. In particularly, the Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political
Positions of the Supreme Court plays a prominent role in adjudicating on criminal
offences committed by politicians. More importantly, the United Nations Convention
against Corruption (UNCAC) 2003 recognizes the role and importance of judicial
organs in fighting against bribes and political graft. Although the international
community unanimously admits that the judiciary is indispensable in the suppression
of the scourge of corruption, the normal legal system fails to effectively prevent and
suppress criminal offences committed by politicians who can exercise both political
power and influence to intervene the justice system. In addition, the ordinary process
of bringing an accused person to justice requires an inordinately length of time.
Furthermore, the process of appeal the decision to a court of appeals and the Supreme
Court takes more time. In this situation, politicians can wield their political power and
exercise political clout to intervene in legal system. Also, the normal legal system
lacks certain key elements to cope with corruption. This has led to a global trend to
create a specialized court vested with immense power to consider and rule on
accusations of political corruption and abuse of power perpetrated by politicians and
high-ranking officials. The content of research can thus be summarized as follows.

(11)

(12)

1. The Prosecution of Politicians in Foreign Countries

The monitoring and controlling of public power wielded by politicians and
high ranking-officials are deemed essential matter because the abuse of public power
for private gain undermines the public interest and the Rule of Law. For this reason,
many constitutions around the world design a system of monitoring and controlling of
exercising public power. In general, the existing system of monitoring and controlling
of misuse power can be divided into two mechanisms. The first is an impeachment, a
political control by a parliament that widely practiced in the common law world. In
England, it is the House of Commons that hold the power of initiating an
impeachment. And also the Constitutional practice authorizes the House of Lords to
impeach the accused. In the United States, the House of Representatives that holds the
power of constituting the formal allegation or allegations and then the Senate the sole
power to set in motion a process of impeachments. The second is judicial control that
empowers a court i.e. a supreme court, a specialized court or a constitutional court, to
decide the legal problems of corruption claims.

2. The Role of the National Anti-Corruption Commission and the

Attorney-General relating to a Process of Prosecution of Politicians
According to the current Constitution B.E. 2550, three independent institutions,
i.e. the National Anti-Corruption Commission, the Attorney-General and the Criminal
Division for Persons Holding Political Positions of the Supreme Court, play an
important role in preventing and suppressing criminal offences committed by
politicians. The National Anti-Corruption Commission has prime duties to collect and
to investigate evidence. The prosecution of criminal offences committed by
politicians is primarily lodged with the Attorney-General. And the Criminal Division
for Persons Holding Political Positions of the Supreme Court is responsible for
adjudicating any criminal charges. To be able to prevent and suppress corruption and
abuse of power effectively, the legal mechanisms and the coordination between the
three organs must be improved. The method of collecting and investigating of
evidence done by a sub-committee of The National Anti-Corruption Commission is a
case in point. The Attorney-General must evaluate a report made by The National
Anti-Corruption Commission with extreme caution. In every case of doubt, the

Attorney-General has to consult with the National Anti-Corruption Commission in

order to reach a practical solution. And, finally, the Criminal Division for Persons
Holding Political Positions of the Supreme Court should, at the discretion of the
learned judge, not be actively involved in investigating the undisputed facts of the
case described in the report of the National Anti-Corruption Commission.

3. The Role of the Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political

Positions of the Supreme Court in Suppressing Corruption
The Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions of the Supreme
Court in Suppressing Corruption was first established under the previous Constitution
B.E. 2540. The drafting committee of the Constitution, at that time, started to realize
that the ordinary process of legal justice failed to prevent and punish criminal
offences orchestrated by politicians and high-ranking officials. Because politicians
and high-ranking officials had both political power and financial influence, they can
interfere, directly or indirectly, in the criminal justice system. Therefore, the drafting
committee of the Constitution decided to authorize the jurisdiction of the Criminal
Division for Persons Holding Political Positions of the Supreme Court, a specialized
court, to hear and decide corruption cases committed by politicians and high-ranking
officials.

There are several salient features of the Criminal Division for Persons Holding
Political Positions of the Supreme Court. First, the Criminal Division for Persons
Holding Political Positions of the Supreme Court strongly adheres to the inquisitorial
system as opposed to the adversarial system. The composition of this specialized
Court consists of 9 judges whereas the composition of the Supreme Court comprises 3
judges. In the ordinary criminal system, a defendant is legally entitled to appeal
against a decision. In contrast, the Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political
Positions of the Supreme Court acts as the court of the first and last instance, so a
judgment shall be final and conclusive judgment or widely known as res judicata.
However, according to the current constitution B.E. 2550, a defendant has a right of
appeal to the plenary assembly of the Supreme Court. A motion, however, to appeal
against a decision must state new facts or fresh evidence.

(13)

(14)

4. Legal Problems concerning the Criminal Processes of the Criminal

Division for Persons Holding Political Positions of the Supreme Court
The legal problems of criminal procedures of the Criminal Division for
Persons Holding Political Positions of the Supreme Court can be divided into three
stages, namely, pre- trial, on trial and post-trial. In the pre-trial process, for instance,
what does it means when an organic law stipulates that the Supreme Court must
strongly adhere to a report prepared by the National Anti-Corruption Commission.
Can the Supreme Court further investigate witnesses and evidence? On trial, the
individual judge must write his or her individual opinion widely couched in Latin
term a seriatim opinion as opposed to a per curiam decision, the decision
rendered is made by the court (or at least, a majority of the court) acting collectively
and anonymously. This requirement results in an unnecessary workload for an
individual judge. One of the problems of criminal procedural of post-trial is the right
of appeal against a decision. The right of appeal depends exclusively on a new fact
or cogent evidence. In particularly, some academics take the view that article 278 of
the present constitution B.E. 2550 is at variance with article 14 (5) enshrined in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The article 14 (5) of
the ICCPR stipulates that Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his
conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to ... The
article 278 of the Thai Constitution B.E. 2550 stipulates that In the case where a
person who has been sentenced by a judgment of the Supreme Court of Justices
Criminal Division for Persons Holding Political Positions finds newly-discovered
evidence which may alter the fact of the case materially, he may appeal to the general
meeting of the Supreme Court of Justice

5. The Proposed Research

(1) The amendment of article 278 of the present constitution B.E.2550
relating to right of appeal.
(2) The amendment of an organic law on criminal procedure for persons
holding political positions
(3) The amendment of regulation of plenary assembly of the Supreme Court
relating to a right of appeal in case of finding a new fact B.E. 2551

There are two key legal issues that need to be revised. The first is the quorum
of qualified judge. According to the regulation, a process of preliminary admissibility
of an appeal filed by a defendant does not allow a quorum of qualified judges who
adjudicated the merits of the claims. In contrast, the appeal process does not prohibit a
quorum of qualified judges hearing and ruling on the merits of claims to vote in favor
of or against on an admissibility of an appeal.
Another legal issue is the finding of newly-discovered evidence. Due to the
fact that a right of appeal is considered a fundamental right of a defendant so the
discovery of new or flesh evidence is irrelevant to the filing of an appeal. The main
purpose of a right of appeal is to correct a matter of fact or/and law. In case of judicial
review, a defendant is entitled to argue that an interpretation and application of law is
judicial error. A right of appeal does not depend on the discovery of new or
convincing evidence because a defendant asks the court to correct an error of law not
error of fact.

Therefore, the proposed solution is to delete the element of the

discovery of new or convincing evidence, thereby enabling a defendant to file an

appeal to a higher court in order to review the lower court's decision for judicial
mistake. The recognition of the right of appeal is viewed as a guarantee of fair trail
clearly enshrined in the Constitution and the ICCPR.

(15)

.
..
1 ...
2 .
...

(1)
(2)
(2)
(3)
(5)

1 ........................................................................................................
1.1 .......
1.2 .......
1.3 .....
1.4 ......
1.5 .....

1
1
4
6
6
7

2.1
.
2.1.1 ...
2.1.2 ..
2.2
(impeachment) .................................................................
2.2.1 ..
2.2.2 ..........................................................
2.2.3 ......................................................................

8
8
11
13
13
14
16

 : 2 ()
2.3 ..........................................
2.3.1 ..................................................................
2.3.2 .......................................................................
2.3.3 ...
2.4 : .
2.5 .........................................................................
2.5.1
2540 ..
2.5.2
2540 ..

16
16
17
20
34
36
39
41

3
..... 43
3.1 .
3.1.1
3.1.2
...
3.1.3 .....
3.2 ......
3.2.1
....
3.2.2 ..
3.2.3 ....
3.3 .
3.3.1 ....
3.3.2
....
1)
.
2) .....................................................

43
43
45
47
49
49
49
53
60
60
63
63
66

 : 3 ()
3.3.3 ..
1) ..
2) ....
3.3.4

67
67
69
70

4
. 75
4.1 ......................................................... 76
4.1.1
... 76
4.1.2 .. 79
4.1.3 .. 83
4.1.4 . 84
4.1.5 . 84
4.2 .. 86
4.2.1 .. 86
4.2.2

. 88
4.3 . 89
4.3.1 .. 89
1) .. 89
2) 92
3) .. 93
4) ... 94
4.3.2 .. 95

 : ()
5
....
5.1 : ..
5.1.1 .
1) (appellate review) .
2) ...
) ..
)
..............................................
)
3) ..
)
.
)
..
5.1.2

1) ...
) .
)

)
) ................................................
)
)
2)
)
) .
3)

98
98
98
98
99
99
100
100
101
101
101
101
101
102
102
116
118
120
122
124
124
126
128

 : 5 ()
5.2 :
.
5.2.1
5.2.2
....
5.2.3 ...

133
133
134
135

6 ........ 141
6.1
141
6.2 . 144
6.2.1 2550
278 .. 144
6.2.2

.. 2542 . 148
6.2.3
.. 2526 . 150
6.2.4

.. 2551 . 150
6.3 ... 151
..... 153
...
.
......
...
...

157
158
159
162
163

.. 2003
1

The Independent Corrupt Practices and
Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC)

2

1.1

3
4
5

6

1

11 (1) .. 2003

http://www.tribune.com.ng/index.php/news/23482-icpc-advocates-special-courts-for-

corruption-charges
3
4
5
6

. /
. /
. /
. /

court of the first
instance
(higher tribunal) judicial review
14 (5)

2550 278 3





judicial review
motions to reopening reconsider
(new fact) (fresh evidence)

.. 2526
.. 2526

1.2
2550

(..)

(...)

(impeachment)

(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: ICCPR)
14 (5)

(...)




...

(merits)

1.3
(documentary research)
(international
7
instruments)
14 (5)

8

2540 2550

1.4
1.
(The International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: ICCPR)

,
(The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: ICCPR)
8
2550
.. 2542

.. 2543

2.

3.

1.5

(high ranking official)

(impeachment)

2.1
2.1.1

(abuse of public power for private benefit)1
(Transparency International)
(the abuse of
entrusted power for private gain)

(political corruption) (bureaucratic corruption)

The World Bank, Helping Countries Combat Corruption: The Role of the World Bank,

Poverty Reduction and Economic Management Network, September 1997, pp. 19-20

extraction embezzlement
kleptocracy

(patronage politic)
nepotism

1)

the South African arms deal scam Jacom Zuma

Alcatel
Alcatel

Rodriguez 2.4
60 Rodriguez
Figueres 9 Alcatel
Abel Pacheco
1 Alcatel

Tri-Star Company
Museveni
Zimwe Construction Co.Ltd

Zimwe Construction Co.Ltd

10

2) (power preservation)

(political loyalty)
.. 2005

12,500

(electoral commission) (ombudsman)


(political consideration)



Nicaraguan pact

Dashain allowance .. 2005
(the Royal Commission for Corruption Control) 6
57,000

.. 2005 Omri Sharon Arial Sharon

Omri Sharon
Likud .. 1999 .. 2001

1)

2)




3)

2.1.2
Head of Government
Mohamed Suharto

(President of Indonesia, 1967-98)

Ferdinand Marcos

(President of Philippines, 1972-86)

Mobutu Sese Seko

(President of Zaire, 1965-97)

Sani Abacha

(President of Nigeria, 1993-98)

Slobodan Milosevic

(President of Serbia/Yugoslavia, 1989-2000)

Joseph Estrada

(President of Philippines,1998-2001)

Estimates of Funds
Allegedly Embezzled
US $ 15 to 35 billion
US $ 5 to 10 billion
US $ 5 billion
US $ 2 to 5 billion
US $ 1 billion
US $ 78 to 80 million

11

Head of Government

12

Jean-Claude Duvalier

(President of Haiti, 1971-86)

Alberto Fujimori

(President of Peru, 1990-2000)

Estimates of Funds
Allegedly Embezzled
US $ 300 to 800 million
US $ 600 million

Anti-Corruption Resource Centre2

Sani Abacha

5

(impeachment)3
7
600



(immunity)

(illicit enrichment)
(abuse of power)
2.1.1

Anti-Corruption Resource Centre

http://www.u4.no/themes/political-corruption/introduction.cfm

Blitz, Amy, The contested state: American foreign policy and regime change in the

Philippines. (Rowman & Littlefield), (2000), pp. 167168.

2.2 (impeachment)

2.2.1 4
1)

(Commoners)
(Minister)
(House of Commons)

2)

the Article of Impeachment
manager
5

(the Lord Chancellor)
Lord High Steward

guilty, upon my honour "not guilty,
4

Riddell, William Renwick, Impeachment in England and English Colonies, New York

University Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 7, Issue 3 (March 1930), pp. 702-708
5

, (Impeachment),
, 17 3 2540, 107

13


:
upon my honour

(reprieve)

14

2.2.2 6

7
1)




(the committee on the judiciary)


the Articles of Impeachment

8

2)

(treason) (bribery) (other high crimes)
6

Weeden, L. Darnell, Clinton Impeachment Indicated a Presidential Impeachable Offense

Is Only Limited by Constitutional Process and Congress' Political Compass Directive, William Mitchell
Law Review, Vol. 27, Issue 4 (2001), pp. 2499-2526; McWhinney, Edward, Congress and the
Presidency and the Impeachment Power, Indiana Law Review, Vol. 7, Issue 5 (1974), pp. 833-851
7

:
An Analysis of the Law, History, and Practice of Late Impeachment, Texas Review of Law & Politics,
Vol. 6, Issue 1, p. 22
8
, 110-111
Kalt, Brian C. Constitutional Case for the Impeachability of Former Federal Officials

(misdemeanors)9

(quasi-judicial)
10

(removal from the office)11


(due process of law)


due process of law
12

.. 1797
16 2

William Blount Tennessee
Louisiana and Florida .. 1797
William Blount
John Pickering New Hampshire


9

2 4 (disqualification)
, , 111
11
1 3
12
, ,
, 2544, 54
10

15

2.2.3

16

(high treason) (attempts to
13
overthrow the constitution)

2.3
2.3.1
1)

.. 1948

134
15
5 5
5 15
6
21 6
14
13

90
Giorgio Napolitano 90

14
Luigi Moccia, The Italian Legal System in the Comparative Law Perspective : An
Overview, 27 International Law Journal Legal Information, 1999, p.237

(preliminary investigation)



(simple majority vote)15

(no longer
in office)

16
2.3.2
1)
.. 181417
.. 181518 the 1827 Act on Judicial
19
Organization 76(1)
Hoge Raad
(court of the first and final instance)
.. 1983 119

20
15

Samuel Alito, An Introduction to the Italian Constitution

(1972), pp. 23-24 available at http://www.princeton.edu/~mudd/news/Alito_thesis.pdf
16
86
17
18

Court,

Article 104 of the 1814 Constitution

Article 177 of the 1815 Constitution

19

p.103 available at http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/jur/2008/t.p.marguery/04_c4.pdf

20

119 Present

and former members of the Parliament, Ministers, and

State Secretaries shall be tried by the Supreme Court for offenses committed while in office. Proceedings
shall be instituted by Royal Decree or by a resolution of the Second Chamber.

17

18

State Secretaries
official crimes (ambtsmisdrijven)
Hoge Raad
forum privilegiatum
21
(court of the first and final instance)22

.. 1855 (Act on Ministerial Responsibility 1855)
the Crown the Second Chamber
(the Procureur-Generaal at the Hoge Raad)
the Procureur-Generaal

10 23
Hoge Raad 24
2)

the Supreme Tribunal of Justice

(impeachment)
the Supreme Tribunal of Justice


25

21

Roel de Lange, Political and Criminal Responsibility, http://www.ejcl.org/64/art64-

18.html#_ftn40
22

Chorus, Gerver & Hondus (ed.), Introduction to Dutch Law, The Netherlands: Kluwer

Law International, 2006, p. 57

23
24

article 103 of the Act on the Organization of the Judiciary

Van Koppen, Peter J., Dutch Supreme Court and Parliament: Political Decision making

versus Nonpolitical Appointments, Law & Society Review, Vol. 24, Issue 3 (1990), p. 755
25

266 (2) (3)

the Supreme Tribunal of Justice

12
15
15 15
26


(the Constitutional Division)
(the Political/Administrative Division) (Electoral)
(Civil Appeal) (Criminal Appeal)
(Social Appeal) the Supreme
27
Tribunal of Justice

the Supreme Tribunal of Justice
(in plenary session)28
The Supreme Tribunal of Justice

the Supreme Tribunal of Justice

The Court for Verification of Proceedings
(pre-trial
of merit) The Court for Verification of Proceedings
Henrique Capriles Radonski
(Governor)
Carlos Gimenez

26
27
28

263
262
266

19

2.3.3

20

(special court)

(Bihar)

1)
)
.. 1789

(La Haute Cour de Justice) 29

30

John Bell
..1814 (the Restoration of Bourbons 1814)

(Vichy)
Bonnard
31

18
.. 1944
(high treason)
108 32
29

, (Impeachment),
, 17 3, 2540, 113
30
John Bell, Criminal Liability of Politicians in France, Cambridge Yearbook of European
Legal Studies, Vol. 3, 2001, p. 65
31
John Bell, p. 66
32
The Face of Dishonor, Time magazine. 26 March 1945

(senator)
..1945
(President of the Court of Cassation)
(President of the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Cassation)
(President of the Appeal Court of Paris)
24 2 12
27 .. 1945
3 24 27
( 21 .. 1945)
33
.. 1958
67 68
(crimes) (delicts)34


Christians Nucci
the Minister of Overseas Development .. 1986 Christians Nucci

Christians Nucci Christians Nucci
.. 198935

(gross negligence)

HIV


33
34
35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89puration_l%C3%A9gale
, , 114
John Bell, p. 71

21

22

(peers) Vedel

(presumption of innocent) .. 1993

(la Haute Cour de Justice)
(la Cour justice de la Republique)
36
) (Composition)
(la Haute Cour de Justice)
.. 1958
24 12 1
2
12 6
12
37

38
John Bell
39

(high treason)40
36

Ibid.;

,
, 84 .. , 117
37
, , 115
38
67
39
John Bell, p. 66
40
68

68

Georges Vedel

(crimes) (delicts)41
(La Cour de Justice de la Republique)
(La Cour de Justice de la Republique,
42
The Court of Justice of the Republic) (special court)
(serious crimes)
(other major offences)

43
Laurent Fabius Edmond Herve

(blood transfusion)
HIV

1 .. 1985
HIV

41

John Bell, p. 68

42

John Bell, p. 74

43

68-1
Claude Gueant
http://economicsnewspaper.com/policy/french/controversialremarks-about-islam-gueant-immune-from-prosecution-32569.html Christine Lagarde
(obstruction the law)
Bernard Tapie
Christine Lagarde
Bernard Tapie

23

Laurent Fabius
44

24

Edmond Herve

15 12 6
6 3 (the Court of Cassation)
45


46
Troper

John Bell
47
) :
(la Haute Cour de Justice)

(high treason)
68 .. 1946 32
the foundation of loi .. 1875
(high treason)
Charles X
Esmine Vedel

44
45

John Bell, pp. 72-73

68-2 ; Core document forming part of the reports of states

parties: France. 07/10/1996. United Nation, 1996 HRI/CORE/1/Add.17/Rev.1 (Core Document), para. 39, 40
46
, , 125-126
47
John Bell, p.75

(criminal offence)
(la Haute Cour de Justice)
48


(la commission d instruction)
(Cour de Cassation) 5


49
(La Cour de Justice de la Republique)


(any person)50

(Commission des requetes) 51
Cour de Cassation Conseil d Etat the Cour des Comptes52

53

(procureur general
pres de la Cour de Cassation)
54
48

John Bell, p.67

49

, , 116-117
John Bell, p.74
68-2
John Bell, p.74
68-2
, , 128

50
51
52
53
54

25

26

(ex officio)

55 (the Parquet)

68 68-1 56

(Commission des requetes)
57
)
(la Haute Cour de Justice)



5

58
(La Cour de Justice de la Republique)

3

55

68-2
http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/FILES/faculties/jur/2008/t.p.marguery/03_c3.pdf 68
57
Christine Lagarde
Jean-Louis Nadal (Commission des requetes)

58
, , 116
56

20
59
60


24 12
15 3 61





62
)
(la Haute Cour de Justice)

63
(La Cour de Justice de la Republique)


3 64
59
60
61
62

,
, 119
, 117
3 .. 1993 , ,

129
63

Raymond Youngs, English, French & German Comparative Law, (London: Routledge-

Cavendish, 2007, p.47

64

33 .. 1993 ,
, 130; , , 119

27

65
2)

28

(ad hoc tribunal)

86
(the president of the
court of appeal) 12

66
3)

8
.. 1927

Public commissions

Odelsting (General Chamber)
Lagting (Permanent Chamber)

.. 2007 Odelsting
Lagting The Court of Impeachment

86
The Court of Impeachment67
65

34 .. 1993 , ,

130
66

,
, , 2546, 104
67
The Court of Impeachment the Constitutional Court of the Realm (Riksrett)

(members of the council of State) (the Supreme Court)
(the Storting)
The Court of Impeachment
(The Court of Impeachment pronounces judgment in the first and last instance)
The Court of Impeachment
11 6 5

The Court of Impeachment
The Court of Impeachment

The Court of Impeachment
The Court of Impeachment
86

The Court of Impeachment

68
Stortingets ansvarskommisjon
The Court of Impeachment
4)
the Bihar
Special Courts Bill 2009 the Special Court Bill 2009
1
6
69
68

(unicameral system)
69
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/six-special-courts-to-try-corruptioncases-in-bihar_100333186.html

29

5)

30

Sandiganbayan
pillar of the nation
XIII .. 197370
1606 Sandiganbayan

Sandiganbayan 15 Sandiganbayan
Sandiganbayan

Sandiganbayan
the courts of first instance
)
Sandiganbayan 3
Sandiganbayan
Associate Justice of the Court
Sandiganbayan

(unanimous vote) Sandiganbayan


70

8 The National Assembly shall create a special court,

to be known as Sandiganbayan, which shall have jurisdiction over criminal and civil cases involving
graft and corrupt practices and such other offenses committed by public officers and employees,
including those in government-owned or controlled corporations, in relation to their office as may be
determined by law.

71

4572
certiorari
(life imprisonment) 30 reclusion perpetua

73
)
Sandiganbayan

Sandiganbayan

(1) (Anti-graft and
Corrupt Practices Law)
(2) (Forfeiture of
Illegally Acquired Wealth)
(3) The Revised Penal Code of the Philippines (RPC)74
71

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1606 December 10, 1978 RULE XIII REVIEW
OF JUDGMENTS AND FINAL ORDERS Section 1.
72
RULE 45 Section 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. A party desiring to appeal by
certiorari from a judgment, final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the
Court of Tax Appeals, the Regional Trial Court or other courts, whenever authorized by law, may file
with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition may include an
application for a writ of preliminary injunction or other provisional remedies and shall raise only
questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The petitioner may seek the same provisional
remedies by verified motion filed in the same action or proceeding at any time during its pendency.
73

Section 3 of the Act To Strengthen The Functional And Structural Organization of The

Sandiganbayan, Amending For That Purpose Presidential Decree No. 1606

74

(direct bribery) 210 (indirect bribery) 211
qualified bribery 211 212 (corruption of public officials)

31

(4) (The Plunder Law)

(5) The Heinous Crime Law
(6) (The
Laundering Law)

32

Anti-Money

212
(corruption of public officials)

(provincial governors) (city mayors)

75
6)
.. 2004
the Corrupt Crimes Court (CCC)
76

the Corrupt Crimes Court

5
the Corrupt Crimes Court Slamet Hidayat
(embezzlement)
9
7)
Special Court Act 200277

75

http://sb.judiciary.gov.ph/about.html

76

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/JI23Ae01.html

77

Dr. Dilli Raj Khanal, Dr. Pushpa Raj Rajkarnikar, Prof. Dr. Bharat Bahadur Karki, Final

Report Institution Building for Controlling Corruption: A Case Study on the Effectiveness of
Commission for the Investigation of Abuse of Authority (CIAA) and National Vigilance Center (NVC)
in Nepal Submitted to South Asia Network of Economic Research Institutes (SANEI) Submitted by

85 (2)
78

(the Commission for Investigation of Abuse of Authority : CIAA)

79

6
3 80
.. 2004 Chiranjibi Wagle

Chiranjibi Wagle
30 27.3
Chiranjibi Wagle
18 20.3 81 Chakra Bandhu Aryal

the Corruption Control Act82

Chakra Bandhu Aryal
(the Commission for
Investigation of Abuse of Authority : CIAA)

Institute for Policy Research and Development (IPRAD) 2007, p.17, This document is available at
http://www.saneinetwork.net/research/mir/1.pdf
78

85
Dr. Dilli Raj Khanal, Dr. Pushpa Raj Rajkarnikar, Prof. Dr. Bharat Bahadur Karki, p.31
80
Ibid., p.20
81
http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2011/03/17/former-minister-convicted-corruptioncharge-slapped-18-month-jail-and-rs-203-million
82
http://www.mastinepal.com/thread15594.html
79

33

2.4 :

34

(Grundgesetz, Basic Law) the Bundestag
the Bundesrat
(other federal law)


83

84 (The National Assembly)
(Constitutional Court)85
(removal from public office) 86

2 3

180
6

83
84
85
86

61
65
111 (2)
65 (4)

9 60
87

9 3 3
3
6

Roh Moo-hyun
.. 2002
3
(disturbance of the rule of law)
(corruption and abuse of power)
(maladministration)
Roh Moo-hyun

(the principle of
proportionality)


(thwarting the will of the people)

88
Roh Moo-hyun

87

Jonghyun Park, The Judicialization of Politics in Korea, Asian Pacific Law & Policy

Journal [Vol. 10: 1], 2008, p. 70

88

Youngjae

Lee, Law, Politics, and Impeachment: The

Impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun from a Comparative Constitutional Perspective, The American

Journal of Comparative Law, [Vol. 53], 2005, pp.403-432

35

2.5

36

1389
.. 2542

9


13

(composition)





90

89

4 . .
.. 2542 .. 2550
90
, , 2, 2551, 181

91

92 1/2543

(United Nations Development Program : UNDP)

93


(bodies) (persons)
91

Supakit Yampracha Proposal to Thailands Policy-Makers: Toward More Effective Corruption
Control, Resource Material Series, p. 183 available at http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/
no76/21_p180-191.pdf
92
Supakit Yampracha, p. 183
93
Institutional arrangements to combat corruption - A comparative Study, United Nations
Development Program, 2005, p. 15

37

94 (persons)

38

.. 2540

2550






2540 (
) 2540

94

36

2.5.1
2540

147-166





984/251095

149

...
...
...
...
96
2 2

...
...
2530-2539 2,146
9-11 43 ...
95

96
, (Impeachment),
17 3 .. 2540, 95

39

40.5
59.597
...

40

...

Impeachment

98 2534
2534


99

97

, ... ,
, 9
98
21 (5) 2475
99
92 2534

2.5.2
2540




...


100

(Haute Cour de Justice)
101
10
5
102
2540

(...)
..
...


103

100

, , 26-27
, , ,
23 2536
102
, , 126
103
2540 311

101

41

42

2550
2540
...

2550
2540
2550 278 3

(impeachment)

2540 2550



(...)

1
2

...
...

3.1
3.1.1
2540

(...)


...
1

3
( )


2

43

44

2550 250 (2) ...

...
... 3
... 1
... ...

... 4
...

... 5
...

1)

.. 2547


6
2)

.. 2547
7
3

45

.. 2542
4

45 /1
5
.. 2542
6
20
7
21
5

... ...

10
...
...
11 ...
...
12

3.1.2

.. 2542 23 ...

8

22
24
10
51

.. 2542
11
53
.. 2542
12
58
.. 2542
9

45

...

...
...
13
... Korean Independent Commission
14
Against Corruption (KICAC)

46

.. 2553
21

.. 255415 ...

...
...

13

11
...

... 7
...

...
14
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN019163.pdf
15

...
3.1.3

16
(Independent Commission or Agency)

5 17
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

(investigation)
16

Institutional Arranges to Combat Corruption: A Comparative Study, Thailand: Keen

Publishing Co.,Ltd., 2005, p. 9

17

Ibid., p. 6

47

the Korean Independent Commission

Against Corruption Against (KICAC)



the Independent Commission Against Corruption
(ICAC) 18

48

(prosecution)

the Independent
Commission Against Corruption
Secretary for Justice

Directorate for Economic Crime and Corruption (DCEC)


Prevention of Corruption Bureau (PCA)
Director of Public Prosecution
... ...

...

18

Ibid.

3.2
2550

3.2.1

10
..2542
...
...
...

...
19

...
20
3.2.2

21
19

, , (:
, 2547) 47
20
,
, , , 2550, 178
21
276 2550 10
..
2542

49

2 (4)
22

50

23

24
..2542
.. 2542
1.

25
2.


3.


4.


22

, , 50
, , 57
24
92/2543
25


, , 51
23

5.

26
1.






2. ...
...


...








...

27
26

,
, (),
10 http://www.oja.go.th/doc/Lists/doc1/Attachments/182/sym3_10_2548.pdf
27
, , 67

51

3. ...

52

-

...

...




157



157
...



...
28
...

...
...

.. 2542 11
29
28
29

, 69-70
, 71

-
...
...
161
161
264 265 268

... 30
3.2.3

31
Indonesia's Corruption
Eradication Commission (ICEC)
32

(
)33 34 35 36
The Corruption Prevention and Investigation
Bureau (CPIB)

30

. 0004/424
11 2545
31
Institutional Arranges to Combat Corruption: A Comparative Study, p. 12
32
Ibid., p. 32
33
Ibid., p. 32
34
Ibid., p. 65
35
Ibid., p. 75
36
Ibid., p. 80

53

54

The Directorate on Corruption and Economic Crime
(DCEC) DCEC
DCEC
Prosecution Branch of the DCEC DCEC
37
the Public
Prosecutors Office (PPO) PPO

38

...





Special Investigation Unit Investigations
and Advice Unit Central Anti-Corruption Unit


Law on Fighting Corruption

39

2540 2550

37

Ibid., p. 37

38

Ibid., p. 56

39

Institutional Arrangements to Combat Corruption: A Comparative Study, Keen Publishing

(Thailand) Co., Ltd. Keen Publishing (Thailand) Co., Ltd., (2005), p.12

...

...

1. ...

... 40

...
...
. 1/254541
...

...


...
...

...
42
40

,
, (...) 11
.. 2551, 97-98
41
. 1/2545
42

,
: ,
(...) 8
.. 2548, 35, 44, 48, 64-65

55

56

...
...
43

...

.. 2547
44

45 ...

...

... ...

...



...
..




43

,
.
(...) 6 .. 2546, 6
44
17 2
.. 2547
45
22
.. 2547

...
...

46


...

...
...

...


...
... 47



...

46

50 (4)
.. 2542
47
,
.
(...) 6 .. 2546 , 3

57

2.

58

...
...

...


48
...

...

.. 2542 47

53
...
...

...
...

158
.. 2543 8
158
48

, , :
, 2547, 77

49



50
158
.. 2543 8

49

,
.
(...) 6 .. 2546 4
50
, , :
, 2547, 51

59

3.3

60

51
2540

2540

3.3.1

.. 2535

2540

(la Haute Cour de Justice)
(la Cour justice de la Republique)
51

52

53

2540

52

.. 1 111-114
53
3
24 2540 ( 25-27) 25 2540

61

1.

(la Haute Cour de Justice)

62

2.

2550
2540
2540
2550

2550
2540

2550

5
9 54



54

, , 7

55


.. 2543 1

3.3.2
1)

(1) 56


(2)
57

.. 2542 13
.

58 2540

55

15
.. 2542
56
219 4
57
219 4
58
,
,
, 2549, 117

63

59
2550
219 4

64

60

87
61


(Chamber)

59

( 8),
25-27, 25 2540, 4/2
60
/
61
,
.
(...) 6 .. 2546, 4 50

62

2550

9 63

(3) 9
3 9

(4)
2550
.. 2542

64

62

, 7/4
64
2550 277
.. 2542 5 25 2
63

65

65
(5) (the court of the first
and sole instance)

66

66
2)

67
(secret ballot)
9 68
65

,
,
(...) 6 ..
2546, 3
66
( 8),
25-27, 25 2540, 4/2
23, 21 , 2540, 105/1
67

(.)
..
68
13
.. 2542

(Chamber) Rules of Court 17

3.3.3
1)

69

2540

70

(...)

5
69
.. 2550 277 ;
.. 2542 5
.. 2543 8
70
, , 95-103

67

...
...

... 71

68

72

25
.. 2542 162 (2)
25

73

74



71

11
.. 2542
72
25
.. 2542
73
, , 91
74
29
.. 2542

75

.. 254276
.. 254277


78
2)


79 186

21
.. 2542

75

, , 2552,

98
76

31
18
78
, , 98
79
21
.. 2542
77

69

3.3.4
278

70

(the court of first and only instance)


(final and conclusive)

(res judicata)

1.
2.

...

3.

80

4.
..
81
5.

83
5
82

6.

85

84

80

4 2544 ,
,
(...) 6
.. 2546, 53
81
25
.. 2542
82
176
83
9
.. 2543 4
2544 176
, , 52
84
166

71

7.

72

174

174 86

2540

2540


85

2-4 2544
166
86

2-4 2544 , , 50

2550

2540

73

(inquisitorial system)
(accusatorial system)

75

4.1
4.1.1

76

(...) 1

2
...


...




...
... (quasi-judicial organ)

... 3

...
1

277 2550 5
.. 2542
2
...
3
, "" , ,
10-12, 16
...
,
.
(...) 6 .. 2546 3

4

...

...
...

... ...
5
...
..

...

...
...
...


4

, 17
,
, (...) 11
.. 2551, 95, 98

... , , 97
5

77

...
...

...

78

. 1 / 2545
...
..
...
...

...

( ) ...
...


... ..
. 2 / 2546 ..

...

...
(),
...
...
..6 ..

6

. 2 / 2546 15

...
... .7
4.1.2

.. 2542


5 2

..
..

, 17

..
8

79

80

12 .. 2553
15.30 .
14
30 9

(audi alterram partem)
(le principe de la contradiction)
10



14

..

9
13 2553
10
, :
,, 21-22

11

1
12

...
...
...
...

...
...


...

...
...

...
11

,
, (...) 11
.. 2551
12

81

(pre trial discovery)

..

13

82

...

13

, 87-88

14

4.1.3
25
.. 2542
...
...

15


162 (2)

14
15

, , 105-106
, , 162

83

4.1.4
2550
.. 2542
.. 2543
1


5

84

.. 2542 15


15
14 14






14
15
15


1
4.1.5

./
16

17

37

16

,
,
(...) 6 .. 2546, 52
17
5 2
.. 2542

85

18
a fortiori ()

4.2

86

4.2.1

.. 2542 20

19

a per curiam decision20

18

, , 2, 2551, 139
Chorus, Gerver & Hondus (ed.), Introduction to Dutch Law, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Law International, 2006, p. 58
20
a per curiam decision Ioannis
Papadopoulos, Introduction to Comparative Law and the Common Law on Evidence and Judgment, p.3
19

(collectively)
(anonymously)

(in the name of Court)
a seriatim opinion
Lord Manfield
a seriatim opinion

Marshall
a seriatim opinion 21 a seriatim opinion

(dissenting opinion)

22

available at http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=clsops_papers&
sei-redir=1#search =% 22french%20style%20judgment%20civil%20law%22
21

M. Todd Henderson, From Seriatimto Consensus and Back Again: A Theory of Dissent,

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/363.pdf, p. 23; Joshua Austin, The of Citation and Seriatim

Opinions: Were the Ancient Roman and the Early Supreme Court on the Right Tract, Northern Illinois
University Law Review, Vol. 31, 2010, p. 28
22

149

, , 2552,

87

4.2.2

88

(fair trial)
23

ICTY 14 (2) (3) Rule of Procedure and Evidence 15 ( )

ICTY
Trial Chamber Appeal Chamber




24

..

23

Gabrielle Kirk McDonald,Olivia Swaak-Goldman, Substantive and Procedural Aspects of

International Criminal Law: The Experience of International and National Courts, Commentary,

(The Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2000), p. 633

24
/ ,
, , - 2528, 15

25
12

11

(1) .
(5)

4.3
4.3.1
1)

court of the first
and sole instance
25

9

..

89

90

2540

26


1

27
28
2
29

7 30


31

14 (5)


26

, 8,
25-27, 25 , 2540, 4/1
27
, 4/4
28
, 4/5
29
, 7/2
30
23, 21 , 2540,
, 102/1
31
, 5/4

(effective)

32
Ratiani v. Georgia

14 (5) ICCPR

Domukovsky v. Georgia

14 (5)
(a full evaluation of evidence)33

2550
82


.. 1969 27

32

33

UN HRC Communication Nos 623627/1995 Domukovsky v. Georgia [6 April 1998]

para. 18.11

(African
Commission on Human and People's Rights) Malawi African
Association and Others v Mauritania para. 94; JC Abella [Argentina] Case 11.137 IA Comm HR
Report No 55/97 [18 November 1997] para. 261).

91

278

516
10
6

34

92

30
278 3
35
2)

36

15 37


34

, /
, -, 2 45, 2551,
154-156, 159-160,
35
, , 45
36
10
37
13

Aboushanif v. Norway






Ruth Wedgwood Aboushanif v. Norway
Ruth Wedgwood
(caseloads)
15

3)


...
38

39



38

2550 277 5
.. 2542
39
5
.. 2542

93

94

28

.. 2542
40
278
2550

.. 2551 3






41
4)
14 (5)
(higher tribunal) 278 3


14 (5)


42
40

28
.. 2542
41
,
,
(...) , .. 2552, 35
42
,
, 1 55 - 2551, 178

Shahabuddeen43

44 Shahabuddeen

9


4.3.2
.. 2526





.. 2526



45

.. 252646

147
43

ICTR
Shahabuddeen Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Case No.
ICTR-96-3-A, Appeals Judgment (May 26, 2003), para. 30
45
, , 48
46
5 (3) .. 2526
44

95

47

96

5 (3) .. 2526


48

...

... (...)
.. 2542 100

...
...
..2542 100 (1)

47

, 1, ( 3, 2530), 319-320


, , (...: ,
2551), 20
48

49

2550

(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights :
ICCPR) 4

49

1

...
...

...
.. 2542 100 (1)
4
150

97

98

right of appeal
reopening

(miscarriage of justice)

5.1
5.1.1
1) (appellate review)

1

(res judicata) (legal stability)

Dando
()
(in abstacto) (in concreto)
(particular case)2
1

Shigemitsu Dando, Japanese Law of Criminal Procedure, p. 409

Ibid.

direct collateral
2)

)

(correcting error)
(application) (interpretation)

(erroneous determination of fact) (mistaken
3
application of law)

(discovery of substantive truth)4 Shigemitsu Dando

(Prinzip der materiellen Wahrheit) Dando





5
(admissibility)
3

Shigemitsu Dando, Japanese Law of Criminal Procedure, pp.230, 408; Peter D. Marshall,

A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Appeal, available at: http://works.bepress.com/peter_marshall/1

4

,
, , 2527, 31
5
Shigemitsu Dando, pp.174-175

99

(examination) (evaluation)

100

miscarriage of justice
)

6
7

, , 35-36
Ibid.

3)

14 (5)
(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights :
ICCPR)

)

(application)
(interpretation)
Cour de Cassation Court of Casstion

5.1.2

1)

(international instruments)

101

14 5

102

(Universal Declaration of
Human Rights) .. 1948

(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights :

ICCPR)


8

(right of appeal)
9
(a fair and public hearing by an independent
10
and impartial tribunal)
(court of
the first instance)
)

(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights : ICCPR)
8

Hannum, Hurst, Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and

International Law, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 25, Issues 1

(1995/1996), pp. 290-291, 323-324

9
7
10
10

&

11 14 5

(procedural rights)



judicial review by a higher tribunal
()


( )

14 (5) 12

14 (5)

14 5
(reservation)

(higher tribunal)

29
.. 2539 (interpretative declaration) 4
11

Article 14, paragraph 5 of the ICCPR stipulates that Anyone convicted of a crime shall

have the right to have their conviction and sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law.
12

General Comment No. 32, United Nations CCPR/C/GC/32, 23 August 2007, p.14

103

(self-determination)
(capital punishment)

(Human
Right Committee)

14 5

104

(judicial review)

(right of appeal)

(new evidence)
(miscarriage of justice)

2550 278



14 5

(according to law) 14 5
ICCPR

(The Human Rights Committee)

(1) Fanali v. Italy
Duilio Fanali

1 9 Duilio Fanali

14 (5)

105

14 (5)
Article 14, paragraph 5, shall be without prejudice to the application
of existing Italian provisions which, in accordance with the
Constitution of the Italian Republic, govern the conduct, at one level
only, of proceedings instituted before the Constitutional Court in
respect of charges brought against the President of the Republic and
its Ministers.

106

49
20 25 .. 1962
49
20 25
.. 1962


Duilio Fanali

Duilio Fanali
14 (5)
.. 2005
(2) Gelazauskas v. Lithuania13
13
14 (5)

(the court of the first instance)

(discretion)
13

ICCPR, C/77/D/836/1998, para.2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.37.2, 8

(The Prosecutor-General)

supervisory protest

supervisory protest
14 (5)

(the verdict
is final and could not be protested or cassation appealed) supervisory
protest
14 (5)


14 (5)

(3) Saidov v.Tajkistan14

(the Military Chamber of the
Supreme Court)

14 (5)

(sufficiency of the evidence)
(conviction) (sentence)

14 (5)

14

(964/2001), ICCPR, A/59/40 vol. II (8 July 2004), para.6.5

107

(4) Alba Cabriada v. Spain15

Cadiz Provincial Court
10 120
Cadiz Provincial Court
(the presume innocent)
(error in the appraisal of evidence)
Cadiz Provincial Court

108

(the court of
the first instance)


(limited scope of review)
(arbitrariness) (denial of justice)

14 (5)

(5) Terron v. Spain16

14 (5)

Jesus Terron
the Regional Assembly (Cortes) of Castilla La Mancha Jesus Terron
2 Jesus Terron


15
16

(1101/2002), ICCPR, A6040 vol. II (1 November 2004), para.2.1-2.3, 7.2, 7.3, 8

(1073/2002), ICCPR, A/60/40 vol.II (5 November 2004), para. 2.1, 7.1-7.4, 8

14 (5)

14 (5)


(offset)




(minor offence) 14 (5)


14 (5)
crime
un delicto une infraction

(offset)

14 (5)

14 (5)

(effective remedy)
(adequate compensation) Jesus Terron

109

(6) Khalilov v. Tajikistan17

14 (5)


(the court of
the first instance)
(cassation appeal)

14 (5)
(7) Ratiani v. Georgia18

110

Shota Ratiani
Zviad Gamsakhurdia
Shevardnadze

Ratiani 7 Ratiani
Ratiani


14 (5)






supervisory complaint
17

(973/2001), ICCPR, A6040 vol. ii (30 March 2005), para. 7.5, 7.6

18

CCPR/C/84/D/975/2001

supervisory complaint


supervisory complaint
(extraordinary remedy)



(new circumstance) 14 (5)



supervisory complaint
14 (5)
(8) Bryhn v. Norway19
Monica Bryhn
4 3
Monica Bryhn

1 6
Monica Bryhn




Monica Bryhn
14 (5)

19

Communication No. 789/1997, 29 October 1999 CCPR/C/67/D/789/1997

111

.. 1995

6 (court of
the first instance)

(procedural economy)
3
321
3
6

112

Monica Bryhn
(harshness of the sentences)

14 (5)

14 (5)

14 (5)
(9) Aboushanif v. Norway20
Abdeel Aboushanif
Sarpsborg District Court
20 the Borgarthing Court of Appeal

the Appeal Committee of the Supreme Court (Kjeremasutvalget)
20

Communication No. 1542/2007, CCPR/C/93/D/1542/2007

14 (5)

14 (5)

(substantial review
of the authors conviction and sentence)
(the lack of a duly reasoned judgment)
(in brief)
14 (5)
(10) Domukovsky et al. v. Georgia21
4 Victor P. Domukovsky
Zaza Tsiklauri Petre Gelbakhiani Irakli Dokvadze 3
Domukhovsky
(the Supreme Court of Georgia)

Shevardnadze 6 .. 1995 Domukhovsky
14 Domukhovsky

22
Tsiklauri
5
Gelbakhiani Dokvadze

21
22

Domukovsky et al. v. Georgia, Communications N 623/1995, 624/1995, 626/1995 and 627/1995

Ibid., 2.8

113

(serious criminal cases)

23

( )
(fall short) 14 (5)
(a full evaluation of the evidence)
24

114

2550 82 2

(the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil
25
and Political Rights)
23

Ibid., 10.13

24

Ibid., 18.11

25

Optional Protocol

(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: ICCPR)

(exhausted local remedies rule)

ICCPR

(fair trial)



individual complains





exhausted local remedies rule

ICCPR

115

)
(The European Convention on Human Rights)

6
(fair trial)

116

2 7
26
27 2



28
29

(the very essence of the right) 30
the very essence of the right

26

(the Council of
Europe)
27
Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11: Article 2 Right of appeal in criminal matters states that (1)
everyone convicted of a criminal offence by a tribunal shall have the right to have his conviction or
sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal. The exercise of this right, including the grounds on which it
may be exercised, shall be governed by law
28
Explanatory Report of the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 2 18
29
Explanatory Report of the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 2 17
30
Peter D. Marshall, p. 26

31

7

(minor offence)
(acquittal)

32

2 7
278

7
733
7

(regional) (universal)

31

Gurepka, 61406/00

32

Explanatory Report of the Protocol No. 7 to the Convention for the Protection of Human

2 20
Youngs, English, French &

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

33

Raymond

Cavendish, 2007, p.173

German : Comparative law, USA: Routledge

117

7


(1) 8 (2) ()
(the American Convention on Human Rights) the right to
appeal the judgment to a higher court

118

Barretto Leiva v. Venezuela34

Barretto Leiva the Director General of the Department of
Administration and Services, Ministry of the Secretary of the Presidency of the Republic
.. 1989 Carlos Perez Rodriguez
250,000,000 (Bs)



1 2 Inter-American
Commission Barretto Leiva

Inter-American Commission

the Law for Safeguard Public Assets the Superior Court for
Safeguard Public Assets (court of the first instance)
(the court of the second instance)
34

Inter-American Court of Human Rights Case of Barreto Leiva v. Venezuela, Judgment of

November 17, 2009 (Merits, Reparations and Costs)

the Superior Court for Safeguard Public Assets Inter-American

Court of Human Rights

Inter-American Court of Human Rights

35 Inter-American Court of Human Rights

Barretto Leiva
8 (2) ()
Barretto Leiva (a court of sole
instance)
(2) 25

(the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia :
ICTY)
the Trial Chamber

(miscarriage of justice) 26


(new fact)

(3) 24 25

(4) 81 ( )
(the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court)
35

90

119

(5) 14 (Article 14
of the UNTAET Regulations governing the Special Panels for East Timor)
(6) 20
(the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone)

)
(1)

120

(reservation)36

14 (5) 37 38 39 40 41
42 43
36

2 1 ()






,
, (: , 2550), 143-147
37
The Government of the Republic interprets article 14,
paragraph 5, as stating a general principle to which the law may make limited exceptions, for
example, in the case of certain offences subjct to the initial and final adjudication of a police court and
of criminal offences. However, an appeal against a final decision may be made to the Court of
Cassation which rules on the legality of the decision concerned.
38
Article 14, paragraph 5, shall be without prejudice to
the application of existing Italian provisions which, in accordance with the Constitution of the Italian
Republic, govern the conduct, at one level only, of proceedings instituted before the Constitutional
Court in respect of charges brought against the President of the Republic and its Ministers.
.. 2005

(2)

14 (5)
(interpretative declarations)
(self-determination) 1 1 ICCPR
Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (adopted)
(the World Conference on Human Rights) .. 1993
18 9 3
ICCPR
(war)

39

the reservation made by the Kingdom of Norway with

respect to article 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant shall continue to apply only in the following
exceptional circumstances: 1. Riksrett (Court of Impeachment) According to article 86 of the
Norwegian Constitution, a special court shall be convened in criminal cases against members of the
Government, the Storting (Parliament) or the Supreme Court, with no right of appeal.
40
The Kingdom of the Netherlands reserves the
statutory power of the Supreme Court of the Netherlands to have sole jurisdiction to try certain
categories of persons charged with serious offences committed in the discharge of a public office.
41
The Government of Denmark makes a reservation in
respect of Article 14, paragraphs 5 and 7, shall not be binding on Denmark. The Danish
Administration of Justice Act contains detailed provisions regulating the matters dealt with in these two
paragraphs. In some cases, Danish legislation is less restrictive than the Covenant (e.g. a verdict
returned by a jury on the question of guilt cannot be reviewed by a higher tribunal, cf. paragraph 5; in
other cases, Danish legislation is more restrictive than the Covenant (e.g. with respect to resumption
of a criminal case in which the accused party was acquitted, cf. paragraph 7).
42
.Paragraph 5 of the article shall not apply to
persons.who, under Belgian law, are brought directly before a higher tribunal such as the Court of
Cassation, the Appeals Court or the Assize Court.
43
(b) paragraph 5 is not in conflict with legal
regulations which stipulate that after an acquittal or a lighter sentence passed by a court of the first
instance, a higher tribunal may pronounce conviction or a heavier sentence for the same offence, while
they exclude the convicted person's right to have such conviction or heavier sentence reviewed by a
still higher tribunal.

121

14 (5) 7 2

(relative right)
(absolute right)
Patricia Wald44

122

14 (5)
7 2


Patricia Wald
(universal principle) Patricia Wald

14 (5)
13
45
.. 2005

44

Patricia Wald ICTY

45
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AFR5 1 / 0 1 2 / 2 0 0 3 / en/a4 7 3 ddbb-d6 7 4 -1 1 dd-ab9 5 a13b602c0642/afr510122003en.html

7 2

14 (5)
reviewed by higher tribunal

(court of the first
and sole instance)

1-2

123

124

(the unknown fact)46

2550 278
3 4

2)
)
47
(1)
30
(cours d appeal)



46

Article 14 (6) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

47

Peter D. Marshall, A Comparative Analysis of the Right to Appeal, p.23

(trial de novo)
48
the Assize Court
49

the Court of Cassation
50
(pourvoi en cassation)
51

(la Cour de Cassation)

52
(2)


(the local court)

(new evidence)

48

Raymond Youngs, English, French & German Comparative Law, (London: Routledge
Cavendish, 2007), p. 92
50
John Bell, Sophie Boyron and Simon Whittaker, Principles of French Law, Great Britain:
Oxford University Press, 2008, p.46
51
Raymond Youngs, p. 94
52
,
,, 1 51, 2547, , 60
49

Assize Court

125

53

(the district court)

54 (Oberlandesggericht,
Court of Appeal) (court of first instance)
5
55
(3)

126

(court of the first instance)

(trial de novo) (Corte de cassazione,
Court of Casssation)

.. 1998 (inquisitions)
(adversarial contests)56
)
(1)

case stated
Queens Bench Division high court of justice
53

Criminal procedure : a worldwide study (Bradley, Craig M. ed.), Carolina Academic Press,

p.269 Peter D. Marshall; Richard S. Frase and Thomas Weigend, German Criminal Justice as a
Guide to American Law Reform: Similar, Boston Collage International Comparative Law Review, vol.
18, 1995, p. 348
54
55

Richard S. Frase and Thomas Weigend, p. 348

, ,
, 2549, 32
56
Amodio, Ennio; Selvaggi, Eugenio, An Accusatorial System in a Civil Law Country:
The 1988 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, 62 Temp. L. Rev. 1211 (1989)

(wrong in law or
excess of jurisdiction)
Queens Bench Division
Queens Bench Division

(House of Lord) Queens Bench Division

57
(2)

1 (Supreme Court of
58
the United States)
writ of certiorari
(3)

(4)

59

57

,
, , 2544, 33
58
, , 32
59
The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, Section 25 (h)

127

3)




60

128

2540

61
60

, , 2, 2551,

184
61

( 7),
24 .. 2540

(1) 3
6 62
(2)
63

64
)

(1)

62

193
193
64
, 3-4 (
157-245), (2551), 606
63

129

65
(2) 2 4
66
219
218
218
219
4

67
(3) 68

130

220
220
...
( 17) .. 2532 13






69

65
66
67

218
219
, 2, (...: , 2551)

252
68
69

220
, , , 253

(4)
.. 2550

70

71


1
72

73
(5)

..

1
74

70

14 .. 2550
18 .. 2550
72
19 2 .. 2550
73
19 3 .. 2550
74
38
..
71

131

75

76

44

(6)

132

.. 255177
78

79
80


81
(7)
.. 2551 1

75

43
..
76
44
..
77

78
45 .. 2551
79
46 .. 2551
80
49 2 .. 2551
81
52 .. 2551

82


83

5. 2 :
(reopening of the proceedings)84
5.2.1






82
83
84

21 3 .. 2551
61 .. 2498
Shigemitsu Dando, pp.480-486

133

(miscarriage of justice)
(extraordinary proceeding in review)
(reopening of the proceedings)

14 (6)

(compensation)
(newly discovered fact)
(miscarriage of justice)
5.2.2

134

1.

85
2.

3.

86
85

Ibid., p.480

4
.. 2526

5
5

86
Ibid.

4.

5.2.3

1)
595
(Motion for Revision, le recourse en
87
revision)
(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

622

(perjury)

88
87

,, 62-63
http://195.83.177.9/upl/pdf/code_39.pdf
88
John Bell, Sophie Boyron and Simon Whittaker, Principles of French Law, (Great Britain:
Oxford University Press, 2008), pp.139-140

135

89
2)

136

(new or fresh evidence)

(miscarriage of
90
justice)
3) 91
485

(1)
(forged)
(2)
89

, :
, ( , 2005), 29-30
90
Ratten v The Queen [1974] HCA 35; (1974) 131 CLR 510; The Queen v Dorning (1981)
27 SASR 481; The Queen v McIntee 38 SASR 432
91
Dando, p. 481

(3) (arata ni hakken shita)

(4)


(truth) 92
4)
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 33

(newly discovered evidence)
93
(1)

(2)

(3)
(4)
(5)

5)
.. 2526 5
3
(1)

92

Foote, Daniel H., Door that Never Opens: Capital Punishment and Post-Conviction

Review of Death Sentences in the United States and Japan, Brooklyn Journal of International Law,
Vol. 19, Issue 2 (1993), p. 419
93

, , 34-35

137

(2) (1)

(3)

5 (3)

94

138

95

(improper determination of fact) 96

94

,
.. 2526, (...: , 2528), 34
95
, ,, 43
96
Dando, p.480,

, ,, 38

2550

2550
278 3

139

140

278 3
14 (5)

6.1

14 (5)

(reservation)
(interpretative declaration)

(right to self-determination)
18

141

14 (5)

1 2
3
4
278

14 (5)

consent to be bound

1

142

Article 14, paragraph 5, shall be without prejudice to

the application of existing Italian provisions which, in accordance with the Constitution of the Italian
Republic, govern the conduct, at one level only, of proceedings instituted before the Constitutional
Court in respect of charges brought against the President of the Republic and its Ministers.
14 (5)
20 .. 2005
2
Paragraph 5 of the article shall not apply to persons
who, under Belgian law, are convicted and sentenced at second instance following an appeal against
their acquittal of first instance or who, under Belgian law, are brought directly before a higher
tribunal such as the Court of Cassation, the Appeals Court or the Assize Court.
3
..the reservation made by the Kingdom of Norway with
respect to article 14, paragraph 5 of the Covenant shall continue to apply only in the following
exceptional circumstances: 1. Riksrett (Court of Impeachment) According to article 86 of the
Norwegian Constitution, a special court shall be convened in criminal cases against members of the
Government, the Storting (Parliament) or the Supreme Court, with no right of appeal.
4
P.van Dijk and G.J.H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on
Human Rights (The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998), p. 687

(late formulation of reservation)

5

14 (5)

190 (unilateral act
of State)

(reservation means
6
a unilateral statement) 190
14 (5)
190

(interpretative declaration)


14 (5)
Everyone convicted of a crime shall
have the right to his conviction and sentence. being reviewed by a higher tribunal
according to law.
everyone
(high ranking officials)

Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties 2011, Yearbook of the International

Law Commission, 2011, vol. II, Part Two. 2.3
6

Article 2 (d) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties; Guide to Practice on

Reservations to Treaties 2011, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2011, vol. II, Part Two.

1.1

143

a higher tribunal

(court of
the first instance)



7

6.2
6.2.1 2550 278

278 (
..)
(court of the first instance)
8

144
7

Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties 2011, Yearbook of the International

Law Commission, 2011, vol. II, Part Two. 2.4.4 2.4.7
8

3 17 2546



3 17 2546
(E-Library of the Judiciary), 9

10

11
12


9

,
,
(...) , .. 2552, 56
10
.. 2543 4
11
1

..

12

.. 25

145

.. 2543

13

146

13

2550 219

278

2550

9 5

9 5

147

Chamber
(International Court of Justice)
5
15
6.2.2
.. 2542

.. 2542

148

1) a seriatim opinion a per curiam decision

20
.. 2542

a seriatim opinion
a per curiam decision

(dissenting opinion)


1-2

2)

3)

.. 2542
14 15

14

31
..
15
36 ..

149

6.2.3 .. 2526

150

.. 2526

.. 2526

6.2.4

.. 2551


.. 2551

1)

16
12

2)
4


3



1

6.3

16

9

.. 2551

151

17 18

152

17

,
: ,
... 8
.. 2548, 64-67
18
,
.
(...) 6 .. 2546, 5

, ,
, 2544
,
, , 2546
, , :
, 2547
, , : , 2550
,
, , 2527
,
, , , 2550
,
, , 1 51, 2547
, :
,
, , 2, 2551
,
, 84 ..
, (Impeachment),
, 17 3, 2540
,
: ,
(...) 8
.. 2548
,
, 1 55 - 2551

153


,
,
, 2549
, , 2552
,
.. 2526, ...: , 2528
,
,
(...) , .. 2552
,
,
(...) 11 , .. 2551
,

(...) 6
.. 2546

( 8),
25-27, 25 2540
23, 21 , 2540, 105/1

154

Dando Shigemitsu, Japanese Criminal Procedure, USA: Fred Rotham & Co., 1965
Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, Olivia Swaak-Goldman, Substantive and Procedural
Aspects of International Criminal Law: The Experience of International and
National Courts, Commentary, Netherlands: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business,
2000


John Bell, Sophie Boyron and Simon Whittaker, Principles of French Law, Great
Britain: Oxford University Press, 2008
P.van Dijk and G.J.H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on
Human Rights, Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1998
Raymond Youngs, English, French & German Comparative Law, London: RoutledgeCadendish, 2007

Amodio, Ennio; Selvaggi, Eugenio, An Accusatorial System in a Civil Law Country:

The 1988 Italian Code of Criminal Procedure, 62 Temp. L. Rev. 1211, 1989
Foote, Daniel H., Door that Never Opens: Capital Punishment and Post-Conviction
Review of Death Sentences in the United States and Japan, Brooklyn Journal
of International Law, Vol. 19, Issue 2,1993
Hannum, Hurst, Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and
International

Law, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law,

Vol. 25, Issues 1 & 1995/1996

John Bell, Criminal Liability of Politicians in France, Cambridge Yearbook of
European Legal Studies, Vol. 3, 2001
Kalt, Brian C. Constitutional Case for the Impeachability of Former Federal Officials:
An Analysis of the Law, History, and Practice of Late Impeachment, Texas
Review of Law & Politics, Vol. 6, Issue 1
McWhinney, Edward, Congress and the Presidency and the Impeachment Power,
Indiana Law Review, Vol. 7, Issue 5 (1974), pp. 833-851
Riddell, William Renwick, Impeachment in England and English Colonies, New
York University Law Quarterly Review, Vol. 7, Issue 3, March 1930
Weeden, L. Darnell, Clinton Impeachment Indicated a Presidential Impeachable
Offense Is Only Limited by Constitutional Process and Congress' Political
Compass Directive, William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 27

155


Youngjae Lee, Law, Politics, and Impeachment: The Impeachment of Roh Moo-hyun
from a Comparative Constitutional Perspective, The American Journal of
Comparative Law, Vol. 53, 2005

ICCPR, C/77/D/836/1998
(964/2001), ICCPR, A/59/40 vol. II (8 July 2004)
Communication No. 789/1997, 29 October 1999 CCPR/C/67/D/789/1997
CCPR/C/84/D/975/2001
Communication No. 1542/2007, CCPR/C/93/D/1542/2007
Communications N 623/1995, 624/1995, 626/1995 and 627/1995

156

. 222 20 .. 2555
08.30 . - 09.00 .
09.00 . - 10.30 .
10.30 . - 10.45 .
10.45 . - 12.00 .

158

1.
1.1
(impeachment)



1.2


...

...
...

...

1.3

1 2 3
1

...

...
...
2

159


1.4 278 2550

(International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights : ICCPR)
14 5

Article 14, paragraph 5 of the ICCPR stipulates that Anyone

convicted of a crime shall have the right to have their conviction and sentence
reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. 278

1.5
(1) 2550 278

(2)
.. 2542
. a seriatim opinion
a per curiam decision
(collegial responsibility)

(dissenting opinion)
.
.

160


2.
2.1
(...)
...
.. 4


...
2.2

2.3

(International Criminal Court : ICC)
2.4

161

:
. 3 2
23 2555
23 2555

162

08.30 - 09.00 .
09.00 - 09.05 . . ( ..)
09.05 - 09.30 .
:

09.30 - 09.45 .
09.45 - 12.00 .
- () ( ...)
-
(
)
-
-
-
12.00 - 13.00 .

1.
1.1


...


...
...


1.2 278
2550

(International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights : ICCPR)
14 5

Article 14, paragraph 5 of the ICCPR stipulates
that Anyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to have their conviction and
sentence reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law. 278



1.3
(1) 2550 278

163


(2)
.. 2542
. a seriatim opinion
a per curiam decision
(collegial responsibility)


(dissenting opinion)
.
.

2.


) () ( ...)

164

() ( ...)


)


..
.. 2542 .. 2550

...

165


)


...

...

3.
1.

2.

3.

166