Objašnjenje osnovnih karakteristika penalnog populizma - primeri u pojedinim krivičnopravnim odredbama i planiranim izmenama Krivičnog zakonika Srbije

In both normative and sociological senses criminal law includes three components — criminal legislation, judicial practice, and criminal law doctrine, and the development of this branch of law is possible only in their unity. The criminal law doctrine is to a certain extent superior to the other components of the "triad" and involves the development of the branch’s principles, goals and objectives. At the same time, the improvement of criminal law is not the only goal of the theory of criminal law. It should not be limited only to criticism of the current legislation and proposals for its improvement. However, the vast majority of modern domestic criminal law publications, such as monographs, articles in legal periodicals, dissertations, are devoted to criticism of the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Indeed, the current criminal law is not perfect, but the "imbalance" of research into the "law-making" side significantly reduces the scope of criminal law doctrine. And there will always be demand for theoretical studies on the analysis of the subject and method, system and objectives of criminal law, its sources.Debatable, for example, still is the issue of the legal nature of the decisions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and, in particular, the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court are a special kind of judicial interpretation and a fairly reliable tool for the courts to understand "the letter of the criminal law" and it’s applicability to the particular case. As for the assessment of the legal nature of the judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the criminal law doctrine often fails to notice that they touch upon the methodological problems of the theory of criminal law. In relation to a number of criminal law prohibitions, judgments of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation are a source of criminal law, along with the Criminal Code. The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation specified the most important principle of criminal law — the principle of legality and clarified the characteristics of criminality of socially dangerous acts prohibited by criminal law, which is directly related to the issue of criminal liability. In this sense, the Constitutional Court formulated a new and important addition to the content of the principle of legality — the certainty of criminal law rules, and, first of all, the criminal law prohibitions. Thus, the judicial authority overtook the criminal law doctrine in solving one of the most important issues for criminal proceedings.

The article analyses the technique of regulating war crimes in the Criminal Code of the RSFSR of 1960. The author notes the need for a retrospective analysis of the legislative technique of war crimes in order to consider this type of crime most holistically. Despite the existence of discussions in the theory of criminal law about the concept of legislative technique and the elements included in it, the author interprets legislative technique as a set of means and techniques used to give the content of legislative norms an appropriate form. This article also notes the need to distinguish the category of «war crimes» in the criminal legislation of the Russian Federation, as this term is widespread in international criminal law. The author attributes the following provisions of the Criminal Code to war crimes: Article 356 («Application of prohibited means and methods of warfare»), Article 357 («Genocide») and Article 359 («Menary»). The author conducts a comparative analysis of the legislative technique of the norms on criminal liability for war crimes of the current criminal legislation and criminal legislation of the Soviet period. From the analysis, some features of the technique of regulating war crimes of the Soviet period are revealed, namely: a) most of the elements of war crimes were designed using the casual reception of legislative equipment; b) the Soviet legislator used a direct way of presenting the norms without applying references; c) the note was used to build some formulations of war crimes, but did not This paper also examines a number of imperfections in the technique of regulating war crimes in the 1960 Criminal Code.

A traditional criminal code performs several functions. It announces the law's commands to those whose conduct it seeks to influence. It also defines the rules to be used in deciding whether a breach of the law's commands will result in criminal liability and, if so, the grade or degree of liability. In serving the first function, the code addresses all members of the public. In performing the second function, it addresses lawyers, judges, jurors, and others who play a role in the adjudication process. In part because of these different audiences, the two functions call for different kinds of documents. To effectively communicate to the public, the code must be easy to read and understand. It must give a clear statement, in objective terms if possible, of the conduct that the law prohibits and under what conditions it is prohibited. Readability, accessibility, simplicity, and clarity characterize a code that most effectively articulates and announces the criminal law's rules of conduct. The adjudicators, on the other hand, can tolerate greater complexity. Clarity and simplicity are always a virtue, but the judgments required of adjudicators necessarily limit how simple the adjudication rules can be. While the public can be told rather easily and clearly that "you may not cause bodily injury or death to another person," when a prohibited injury or death does occur, the adjudicators need rules to determine whether the injurer ought to escape liability because he or she had no culpability, was insane, believed mistakenly but reasonably that the force used was necessary for self-defense, or for any number of other reasons. If liability is appropriate, the adjudication rules must determine the appropriate degree of liability, taking account of the actor's level of culpability, the extent of the injury, and a variety of other mitigating and aggravating circumstances. Many, if not most, of these liability and grading factors require complex and sometimes subjective criteria. The current practice of using a single code to perform both functions means that neither function is performed as well as it could be. Is it possible to draft two codes - a code to articulate the rules of conduct, written for lay persons, and a code to govern the adjudication process, written for criminal justice professionals? If one were to pull out of a current criminal code only those provisions that a lay person must know in order to remain law-abiding, what would such a document contain and what would it look like? If one were to organize a code to capture the decisional process for criminal adjudication, what would such a document contain and what would it look like? This Article attempts to answer these questions. We tentatively conclude that distinct codes of conduct and of adjudication can be drafted and can allow the criminal law to perform both functions more efficiently and successfully. The possibility of creating separate codes for separate functions is made feasible in part because each doctrine of criminal law typically serves one or the other function. For example, to communicate effectively to the members of the public the rules needed to conform their conduct to the requirements of law, a code need not clearly communicate the subtleties of the insanity defense, the detailed definitions of culpable states of mind, or the operation of the entrapment doctrine. That is, a code of conduct and a code of adjudication can be created by segregating the doctrines of criminal law into one or the other code according to the function that each doctrine performs. This Article outlines how a code of conduct and a code of adjudication can be drafted, and how taken together the two codes can better perform each of the two functions of present criminal codes. Part II discusses strategies for drafting an effective code of conduct, Part III for drafting a code of adjudication. Both discussions use examples from the complete models for a draft code of conduct in Appendix A and a draft code of adjudication in Appendix B. We do not offer these codes as refined, ready-to-enact models, but rather as illustrations of the drafting principles that we develop.

The article widely uses logical, inductive, deductive, systematic, logical-legal, comparative-legal research methods. In particular, among the signs of the objective side of the crime, the method of committing the crime has its own importance, and any crime is committed in a certain way. The method of committing a crime is a form of external expression of a socially dangerous act, and in most cases, the legislator considers the method as a necessary or aggravating sign of the crime in the criminal legislation. The analysis of the articles of the Special part Criminal Code shows that the method of committing a crime is expressed by the legislator in two forms in the criminal law. The first is as a form of a socially dangerous act, while the second is considered independently. As an example of the first, articles 110, 118, 119, 164 of the Criminal Code can be given. In the disposition of these articles, words such as "torture", "killing or threatening with the use of force", "use of force", "intimidation with the use of force" represent the method of committing the crime. As an example of the latter, articles 166, 168 and 169 can be cited. At the same time, the doctrine of criminal law and existing scientific research were analyzed, and reasonable theoretical recommendations were developed in this regard. At the same time, the theoretical and practical problems related to the method of committing crime and its types were highlighted, and the results of the survey on the introduction of the norm related to the structure of the crime into the criminal legislation were reflected, and in this regard, specific proposals and recommendations were developed for improving the criminal legislation of the Republic of Uzbekistan.

The relevance of the chosen topic is due to the fundamental importance of the institute of evidence in criminal proceedings. In every criminal proceeding, evidence is the basis on which the factual circumstances of the case are established, the guilt or innocence of a person is determined, and a reasonable, lawful and fair court decision is made. Among the numerous aspects of evidence law, the concept of a proper procedural source as one of the fundamental criteria for the admissibility of evidence deserves special attention. Given the trends in law enforcement, it is relevant to both theorize this criterion and study its implementation in the practice of pre-trial investigation and court proceedings. The purpose of the article is to provide a thorough analysis of the institute of a proper procedural source of evidence in the context of the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, and to reveal its essence. Particular attention is paid to the statutory definition of procedural sources in accordance with the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, as well as to the scientific approach to understanding this category. The author analyzes certain problematic aspects of law enforcement practice related to determining the admissibility of testimony, material evidence, documents and expert opinions. Based on the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and law enforcement practice, the author examines the peculiarities of each of the procedural sources provided for by law: testimony, material evidence, documents and expert opinions. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the legal nature of hearsay evidence, the justification of its admissibility, and the case law confirming the need for a thorough assessment of each piece of evidence. The theoretical generalization and practical comprehension presented in this article allow us to conclude that the criterion of due process of law is a systemic guarantee of the reliability of evidence. Its observance ensures not only the legitimacy of the evidence obtained, but also maintains the balance between the State’s right to prosecute criminals and the individual’s right to a fair trial. The purpose of the article is to make a comprehensive analysis of the institution of a proper procedural source of evidence in the context of the current criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, and to reveal its essence. Particular attention is paid to the statutory definition of procedural sources in accordance with the provisions of the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, and also to the scientific approach to understanding this category. The author analyzes certain problematic aspects of law enforcement practice related to determining the admissibility of testimony, material evidence, documents and expert opinions.

The institution of complicity in crime as a whole is one of the most problematic areas for criminal law doctrine and law enforcement practice. The problem of complicity in crime, which acts as one of the fundamental institutions of criminal law in different countries, is given increased attention in the legal science of China and Russia, which is primarily due to the importance of this institution.In the Chinese criminal law, only five articles of the General part (articles 25-29 of the criminal code of the People’s Republic of China) are devoted to complicity in a crime. In addition, in many articles of the special part of the criminal code of the People’s Republic of China, incitement, aiding and abetting, as well as preparing, creating, directing, or participating in a criminal group, constitute a complete crime. These are such elements of a crime as: incitement to split the state (part 2 of article 103), incitement to overthrow the state power (part 2 of article 105), incitement to carry out terrorist activities (article 120), financial assistance to terrorist activities (article 120.1), assistance to information network criminal activities (article 287.2), preparatory actions for terrorist activities (article 120.2), organization, leadership, participation in a terrorist organization (article 120), organization, leadership and active participation in organizations of a mafia nature (article 294) , etc. In the current Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, seven articles of the General part (articles 32-36, articles 63, 67 of the Criminal Code) are devoted to the institution of complicity. In addition, the group committing a crime is as qualified or very qualified type of specific crimes (for example, article 105, 117, 158, 164 of the Criminal Code), or forms a constitutive characteristic of certain types of crime (for example, article 208, 209, 210 of the Criminal Code, which criminalize the creation of formations, gangs or communities or participate in them).The paper deals with Chinese and Russian criminal law in part of the normative regulation of the Institute of complicity in a crime, considerable attention is given to the analysis of criminal legislation of China and Russia in the sphere of legal regulation of concepts, forms of participation, types of participation and the principles of bringing them to criminal liability. In the course of the study, the author also attempts to analyze some controversial issues related to the institution of complicity in crime, such as complicity in careless crime, indirect execution, and the legal nature of complicity in crime.

Objective. The aim of the study is to analyze the state of implementation of the Council of Europe Convention on Offences relating to Cultural Property in national criminal legislation. Methodology. The methodology includes the analysis of individual scientific works, provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the draft law and the Nicosia Convention, synthesis of scientific knowledge and drawing of reasonable conclusions on the subject of the study. The following methods of scientific cognition were used in the study: analysis, synthesis, formal and dogmatic, comparative legal, systemic, logical and semantic, and systemic and structural. Results. In the course of the study, it was recognized that the improvement of legislation on the protection of cultural property should be guided by the provisions of the Nicosia Convention. The analysis of the draft law «On Amendments to the Code of Ukraine on Administrative Offenses and the Criminal Code of Ukraine in connection with the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on Offenses relating to Cultural Property» of December 12, 2024, No. 12310, allowed to establish its constructive and terminological flaws and inconsistency with the provisions of the Nicosia Convention. It is proposed to use the universal term «cultural property» in the process of improving Ukrainian criminal legislation. The author substantiates the need to harmonise the content of the term ‘cultural property’ with the Nicosia Convention and suggests that the term «cultural heritage object» should be clarified in the Law of Ukraine «On Protection of Cultural Heritage» of 8 June 2000. Originality. The study established that when updating criminal legislation on the protection of cultural property, one should be guided not only by the provisions of the Nicosia Convention, but also by the ongoing developments in the doctrine of criminal law. It is established that the draft law № 12310 and the Nicosia Convention do not take into account the current Russian aggression against Ukraine. Practical significance. The results of the study can be used in law-making activities in the course of improving national legislation in the field of protection of cultural property.

A wide spread of various illegal methods of stealing cashless funds using modern information technologies makes it necessary to search for more advanced approaches to assessing such actions. Specialists examine different approaches to determining methods of theft in the information environment and analyze the opinions of scholars presented in the doctrine of criminal law, as well as legislative and court statutes adopted during the whole period that the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has been in force (from 1997 to 2020). The authors of the article pay special attention to the approaches of assessing the widespread methods of stealing cashless money in the theory, legislative sphere and practice. It is noted that current criminal legislation reflects a new approach to assessing theft in the information environment, developed on the basis of modern theory and practice. The authors point out that in modern criminal law theory there are three main trends in assessing the methods of stealing cashless money in the information environment. They are: criminalization of the new form of theft, new types of crimes in Ch. 21 or 28 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; viewing this theft as a variety of traditional forms of theft and other acquisitive crimes against property; application of the existing norms of traditional crimes in Ch. 21 and 28 of the CC of the RF. The authors also note that in the period following the adoption of criminal legislation, the illegal acquisition of cashless funds in the information environment has been assessed differently: as a type of traditional theft by deceit in the form of fraud; as separate types of fraud depending on the method; as separate types of fraud depending on the method and theft. The authors conduct a detailed analysis of the contents of new criminal law norms and the developed theoretical (court) statutes, identify their positive and negative features, and present their own understanding of the effectiveness of the new approach to assessing online theft of cashless money incorporated in current criminal legislation.

Based on the analysis of the criminal procedure legislation and generalisation of theoretical developments, the article identifies some peculiarities of legal regulation of the institute of special criminal proceedings (in absentia). The author identifies the categories of cases (types of criminal offences) and procedural grounds which are sufficient to initiate a pre-trial investigation in the form of special criminal proceedings. The need to exclude certain articles from the list of those listed in part 2 of Article 297-1 of the CPC of Ukraine in order to bring them in line with the provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine is emphasised. The peculiarities of defence counsel’s participation in special pre-trial investigation and court proceedings are analysed. It is determined that a defence counsel in such cases benefits from all the rights guaranteed to a suspect or an accused person in criminal proceedings. In view of this, and in the context of ensuring such fundamental principles of criminal proceedings as the right to defence, adversarial proceedings, observance of human rights and freedoms, access to justice, etc., the author emphasises the need to amend the current criminal procedure legislation to ensure that the defence counsel can appeal against the investigating judge's decision to conduct a special pre-trial investigation The problematic issues of defence counsel's participation are characterised, and the inadmissibility of his/her formal participation in criminal proceedings is emphasised. It is determined that the active actions to be taken by the defence counsel involved include familiarisation with the case file, choosing the defence position, participation in the trial and examination of evidence, participation in the debates, etc. The author emphasises the need for further research on the development of the practice of active participation of defence counsel in special criminal proceedings.

The article is devoted to the study of the problematic issues of defining the concept of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation stage under the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine. The purpose of the article is to analyze the doctrinal approaches to the definition of the concept of criminal procedural relations and, based on its results, to formulate the author’s own concept of criminal procedural relations at the pre-trial investigation by revealing their essential features. The article examines the genesis of criminal procedural relations in pre-trial investigation and concludes that the current state of criminal procedural relations in pre-trial investigation under the current Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine is due to the genesis of the institute of domestic pre-trial investigation which has undergone significant transformation over the centuries. Based on the results of the analysis of the concepts of criminal procedural relations available in the theory of criminal procedure, the author concludes that the doctrine of criminal procedural law lacks unity of approaches to the definition of the concept of criminal procedural legal relations, which is due to the existence of different scientific positions regarding the legal nature and essential features thereof. Highlighting the essential features of criminal procedural relations, the author formulates the author’s definition of criminal procedural relations as those regulated by the provisions of criminal procedure legislation, which arise, develop and terminate in criminal proceedings on the basis of decisions of a person who conducts criminal proceedings or has grounds to give instructions or orders for certain procedural actions in criminal proceedings, and within which the powers of the parties to criminal proceedings are exercised. The author reveals the interrelation of criminal and criminal procedural relations. The content of criminal procedural relations is defined and the essence of each of its elements is revealed. The author emphasizes that criminal procedural relations actually function in two aspects: firstly, in their system as a set of interdependent and interrelated relations; secondly, as single procedural relations which make up the system.

This study reveals the current issues of countering cybercrimes in Ukraine and explores the genesis of the establishment of criminal liability for these crimes in domestic legislation. At the current stage of development, cybercrime is one of the biggest global threats, both for Ukraine and for the whole world, which is why the study of criminal liability for cybercrimes in Ukraine has become so relevant and widespread. The authors of this study analyzed the regulatory framework for countering cybercrimes and the establishment of criminal liability for these crimes. In particular, the features of criminal liability for cybercrimes in the context of a full-scale invasion were considered, namely, the strengthening of measures for the information security of Ukraine. The provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine regarding the establishment of criminal liability for cybercrimes were analyzed in detail. Types of criminal offenses and corresponding types of punishments are determined, namely: fine, restriction of liberty, correctional labor, probation supervision, imprisonment, deprivation of the right to hold certain posts or engage in certain activities under the articles of the Criminal Code, taking into account aggravating circumstances. Particular attention in the work was focused on the analysis of the content of the drafts of the new Criminal Code of Ukraine, in particular, the fundamental differences from the current legislation were determined, namely the levels of punishment depending on the severity of the crime and others. Thus, this article determines the specific features of criminal liability for cybercrimes in accordance with the current Criminal Code of Ukraine (2001), analyzes the content of the draft Criminal Code of Ukraine dated 01.08.2024, developed by the Working Group on the Development of Criminal Law and compares it with the current legislation, which allows determining the features of reforming criminal legislation in the field of cybercrimes in accordance with dynamic changes in the security environment

Purpose. Critical reflection on the current practice of applying Art. 114-1 of the Criminal Code, as a result of which existing problems in the area under consideration should be identified, as well as scientifically substantiated recommendations aimed at their elimination should be developed both for improving the relevant provisions of the current Criminal Code and for implementing the latter in the practical activities of judicial and law enforcement bodies. To achieve the declared goal, an appropriate methodology was chosen, in particular, philosophical, general scientific and specific scientific methods were used. The results of writing the article proved that the main determinants of the emergence of numerous errors that accompany the modern practice of applying Art. 114-1 of the Criminal Code were, on the one hand, the use in this norm of an unjustifiably broad and unspecified concept of “obstruction”, and, on the other hand, the absence in criminal legislation of special casual norms devoted to the regulation of liability for various manifestations of obstruction of mobilization, as well as for individual encroachments on/against servicemen. The identified problem is proposed to be solved in the following way, firstly, by excluding or editing the current Art. 114-1 of the Criminal Code, which should result in its disposition, instead of the abstract concept of "obstruction", providing a specific list of actions punishable under this norm, and secondly, by simultaneously supplementing the current criminal legislation with special norms designed to guarantee proper criminal-legal protection of the lawful activities of military personnel. The scientific novelty lies in the fact that new recommendations have been developed regarding the qualification and proposals for improving individual provisions of the Criminal Code devoted to the regulation of liability for obstructing the lawful activities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Practical significance. The formulated conclusions can be used in normative, law enforcement and scientific activities.

The article examines the historical genesis of national criminal legislation in terms of regulating liability for interference with the judiciary. The author analyzes the legal monuments of Kievan Rus, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, the Commonwealth of Poland, the Russian Empire, the Soviet era and independent Ukraine – the current Criminal Code of 2001 and its current draft created in the course of reforming criminal legislation. In the process of developing a model for periodization of criminal law protection of judicial independence and judicial activity in Ukraine, the author proposes to apply a mixed criterion based on the validity, legal force and level of codification of a legal instrument containing criminal law provisions on interference with the activities of judicial bodies, and also takes into account the historical stages of formation of Ukrainian Statehood. The author identifies the stages of development of criminal legislation in this area: Stage I (XI - XV centuries) – the origins of criminal law policy in the field of protection against interference with the activities of judicial authorities and persons entrusted with the administration of justice; Stage II (XVI - XIX centuries) – the formation of criminal law policy in the field of protection against interference with the activities of judicial authorities and persons entrusted with the administration of justice; III stage (early twentieth century - adoption of the Criminal Code of Ukraine in 2001) – fixation of the content of unlawful behavior within the criminal law policy of ensuring protection against interference with the activities of judicial authorities and persons entrusted with the administration of justice, which corresponds to the current provision of Article 376 of the Criminal Code; IV stage (late twentieth century - to the present) – further improvement of the criminal law policy in the area of ensuring protection against interference with the activities of judicial authorities and persons entrusted with the administration of justice.

The article analyzes the changes to the Criminal Code of Ukraine introduced during martial law in connection with russia’s armed aggression against Ukraine. The needs and reasons for changes to the criminal legislation, which provide for harsher punishments compared to peacetime, are substantiated: the change in the social danger of crimes, the need to strengthen prevention, and ensure justice. Proving the extreme relevance, effectiveness and significance of changes to criminal legislation under martial law: relevance (crime under martial law has its own characteristics and requires special countermeasures, changes to criminal legislation take these characteristics into account and are aimed at effectively ensuring public safety), effectiveness (research shows that harsher punishments have a deterrent effect on crime, increasing the severity of punishment for some categories of crimes under martial law has led to a decrease in the number of these crimes), significance (changes to criminal legislation are important for protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens, guaranteeing they demonstrate the state’s intolerance of crime and its determination to protect its citizens in the difficult conditions of martial law). With the introduction of martial law, criminal legislation did not respond to the new situation and was not adapted to it. The current Criminal Code did not contain responsibility for many offenses during the wartime and was unable to respond to new challenges and threats. Therefore, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, taking into account changes in social relations and the need to protect state sovereignty, territorial integrity and fundamental human rights, adopted a number of legal acts aimed at eliminating gaps in criminal law regulation. Certain provisions in the Criminal Code of Ukraine existed since its adoption, but received a new definition and application. Some necessary changes were made to the Criminal Code of Ukraine in March 2022. However, the difficult situation in Ukraine and the work of the Verkhovna Rada as a legislative body have led to difficulties, mostly of a technical nature, that complicate the application of such provisions. When using the amendments, it is important to take into account the time of their entry into force, as well as the fact that certain actions taken under martial law may appear similar to criminal offenses, but in fact are circumstances that exclude illegality (for example, extreme necessity). Individual provisions will be adjusted according to more favorable conditions. As a result of the start of a full-scale invasion of the Russian Federation on February 24, 2022, the lives of Ukrainians and Ukraine suddenly changed forever. The question arose as to what consequences this situation will have for the current Criminal Code of Ukraine, which must adapt to rapid changes and new challenges and threats. In such conditions, many social processes stopped, many accelerated, and new challenges appeared that needed to be responded to. That is why the emphasis has shifted towards the criminal law policy, which is a system-forming element of the state strategy in the field of combating crime and develops strategy and tactics for combating crime with the help of criminal law tools.

Transitional provisions in the New Criminal Code that emphasize the implementation of the New Criminal Code starting in 2026 actually raise legal problems. This problem is because there is a substance in criminal law reform whose implementation awaits the enactment of the New Criminal Code. This research with a focus on the implications of the enactment of the transitional provisions of the application of the New Criminal Code to the substance of criminal law reform before the New Criminal Code can be implemented is a normative legal research with a concept and statutory approach. The results of the study confirm that the existence of transitional provisions in the New Criminal Code on the one hand seeks to guarantee legal certainty. The transitional provisions in the New Criminal Code also pose problems because there are several substances for reforming the criminal law that cannot be implemented because they are waiting for the New Criminal Code to be declared effective and can be implemented starting in 2026. the enactment of the New Criminal Code in 2026. As a transitional solution, arrangements through a Joint Decree need to be made in addition to referring to the provisions of the lex favor reo principle as an alternative.