System approach in criminal law: achievements and prospects of application

Croatia is relatively small country with population of approx. 4 million inhabitants. It is a European country, and is part of the Central and Eastern Europe. The area of the state is 56, 594 km2 by land, and 31,479 km2 by sea (interior waters and territorial sea), in total 88,073 km2 which makes Croatia one of the medium-sized European countries. It was a part of Yugoslavia till 1991. After its inde- pendence, Croatia shifted from socialist regime to democracy, and the law reform followed. Croatia has enacted new Constitution in compliance with all international standards, abolishing the death penalty. In the beginning of its independence, it has taken existing legislature of Yugoslavia, but later it has been working on its own legislature and reform of the judiciary and (criminal) law system. So, in past few decades it has gone through a significant law reform, among other law areas criminal law was also significantly affected and influenced by the state law reform. Many new laws were enacted regulating area of criminal law, as well as the laws regulating some issues relevant for criminal law (both substantive or procedural, and penitentiary as well). The main laws in field of criminal law (in broader sense) are Penal code (subsequently: PC) for Substantive criminal law, Criminal Procedure Act (subsequently: CPA) for Criminal procedural law and Penitentiary Act (subsequently: PA) for Penitentiary law. In this paper (report) will be presented some key information about Croatia, Croatia’s judiciary system and criminal law system and reform.

The paper discusses a general description of the language of criminal law and basic methodological approaches to the development of a theoretical model of a linguistic form of a new Criminal Code. Based on a natural-language approach, the author highlights that the language of criminal law is a system of lexical and grammatical means of expressing the content of normative and legal regulations of criminal law (criminal law prescriptions). An ontological status of the criminal law language of criminal law is determined by the fact that it belongs to a natural (for the Criminal Code of the RF it is the Russian language) language and a genre that is adapted to the sphere of criminal law regulation. It is proved that two main characteristics, namely accuracy and clarity, are inherent in the language of criminal law. Accuracy is defined as a maximum compliance between a legislative thought (legislative will) and an expression of that thought (will) in the wording of a law; clarity means certainty, distinctness of an expression of a legislative thought (legislative will) in the wording of a law. It is argued that the language of criminal law is a specialized language designed primarily for professionals and lawyers, and for citizens, to whom criminal law prescriptions are addressed, it is enough to have a general idea that they are prohibited to commit acts defined in the Special Part of the RF Criminal Code as crimes under threat of penalty. However, this statement should not be considered as absolute, because a number of permissive rules are included into the system of domestic criminal law that give a person the right to cause harm while respecting established criminal law requirements; these conditions shall be prescribed in a natural plain language that is understood by its main recipients -"ordinary people" - without any unknown, little-known, highly specialized criminal law terms. The author offers using main methodological approaches to develop a theoretical model of a linguistic form of a new Criminal Code of Russia that are based on both per se juristic methods (comparative-legal and historical-legal) and methods inherent in linguistics (linguistic descriptions, contextual analysis, an interpretive method).

International criminal law is not part of criminal law, but in fact international criminal law is one source of the development of criminal law. As a form of international criminal law, international agreements generally affect legal values, legal principles, and national criminal law norms. This study tries to explain the position of international criminal law in domestic criminal law and to determine the influence of international criminal law on domestic criminal law. The research methodology used in this study is a prescriptive legal research methodology. These results indicate that the relationship between international criminal law and domestic law is complementary.

George Fletcher preeminent contemporary criminal theorist. His work has had a major impact on all of us who pursue this field. (1) appearance of first volume of a projected three-volume work--a work whose declared aim is to elucidate deep structure, both syntax and semantics, of defining and punishing crime--is a major event in criminal theory world. (2) This book, most comprehensive and ambitious Fletcher has written since his hugely influential Rethinking Criminal Law, spurred, he tells us, by the need of a new species of literature will focus primarily on theoretical aspects of war against terrorism and international criminal law [vii]. staggering mass terrorism of September 11, 2001 and launch in following year of International Criminal Court constitute background against which Fletcher has undertaken this enormous project--to elaborate general principles of criminal should be recognized not only in International Criminal Court, but in all civilized nations [20]. Fletcher's unusual combination of a solid grounding in twentieth-century analytic philosophy with a spectacular fluency in intricacies of comparative criminal make him uniquely suited to carry through mammoth project he has launched in this first volume of Grammar of Criminal Law. Yet there are a dismaying number of difficulties in some of concepts Fletcher deploys and some of positions he takes. I am painfully aware root of these problems more likely my own lack of comprehension rather than any defects in Fletcher's conceptual apparatus. Accordingly, I have written this essay in hope of provoking a response will put an end to my interpretive problems. I Foundational Concepts Fletcher launches his work by identifying three ideas that lie, with an appropriate sense of abstraction, at basis of all systems of criminal law: aggression, consent, and self-defense. These three concepts provide a matrix for understanding entire criminal law [21]. They generate a legal order and are the basic ideas for constructing a national system of criminal law as well as constitut[ing] foundations of international criminal law [24]. Yet they present difficult problems of definition and understanding. Indeed, Fletcher tells us [p]robing foundations of these contested concepts primary reason for theoretical work in criminal law [24]. To control and prevent aggression--the violation of an individual's boundaries, including his person, his living space, and his property [22]--is task lies at very heart of criminal law. Consent, however, converts what would otherwise be aggression into legitimate and non-violative behavior. It functions as a denial of an element of an alleged offense. Self-defense, on other hand, concedes aggression and asserts it right to resist with counterforce, thereby functioning as a plea in confession and avoidance [25]. Official grows out of practices of self-help and self-defense. This development, says Fletcher, a process sufficiently complex and complicated to justify regarding by state as a fourth basic idea of criminal law. The contours of any system of criminal are defined, therefore, by ideas of aggression, consent, self-defense, and punishment [26]. (3) Why it precisely these concepts form basis for any system of criminal law? Are there other concepts ought to be added to these four? Is there, perhaps, an alternative set of concepts could equally well be taken as foundation for a criminal system? Consider, for example, concept of human action. Fletcher devotes a chapter to this concept, which he observes plays a role in virtually all systems of criminal law [267] and the first requirement of criminal liability [271]. …

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.

Relevance. An analysis of the legal literature shows that when defining an error in criminal law, lawyers use different conceptual categories, which confuses the understanding and qualification of a legal or factual error. In this connection, the article considers the genesis of the institution of error in the criminal law of Russia, in particular, the classical approach to understanding, defining and systematizing errors, fixing the position that the only basis for criminal liability is the commission of an act that contains signs of all elements of a crime. In the article, the problem of an error in the current criminal law of the Russian Federation is revealed from the standpoint of the need to establish the internal attitude of the subject both to actions (inaction) and to the consequences in real life, to each legally significant objective sign of a particular act.The purpose of the study is to analyze the improvement of the institution of error in the criminal law of the Russian Federation.Objectives: to analyze the special historical and modern literature on the genesis of errors in domestic criminal law and, based on the current law, the achievements of the domestic science of criminal law, to summarize the experience of defining and logic-linguistic concepts of criminal law error.Methodology. The research was based on the application of philosophical methods for studying the categories that make up the concept of a criminal law error, as well as on general scientific methods: system-structural, analysis and synthesis; specific legal, comparative legal analysis of documents, content analysis of texts, etc.The results of the study are distinguished by the theoretical and applied orientation of the genesis of the institution of error in domestic criminal law and the identification of the most complete characteristics of the concept of criminal law error. Conclusion. Based on the results of the study, it is stated that the modern understanding of the institution of error takes into account historical approaches to the considered phenomenon in Russian criminal law, is based on them and corresponds to the criminal policy of the Russian Federation.

In <it>Defending Humanity: When Force is Justified and Why?</it> George Fletcher and Jens Ohlin introduce a thought-provoking analogy between self-defence under criminal law and under public international law. At first glance, the analogy is appealing, as it is reasonable to assume that the meaning attributed to the concept of ‘self-defence’ in domestic criminal law has shaped, at least to some extent, the way self-defence has developed in international law. Still, the article argues that context matters, and that the different institutional configuration of the national and international legal and political systems undercuts the analogy offered by Fletcher and Ohlin. <cross-ref type="sec" refid="SEC1">Section 1</cross-ref> of the article discusses Fletcher and Ohlin's <it>légitime défense</it> argument — that is, that the right to self-defence provides broad authority to use of force in order to defend a state's own interests or the interests of other states or nations from unlawful violent acts. Arguably, such an argument runs contrary to the renunciation by the UN Charter of the just war theory and is incompatible with the institutional structure that the Charter has created. <cross-ref type="sec" refid="SEC2">Section 2</cross-ref> specifically examines the possibility of invoking <it>légitime défense</it> in order to protect sub-statal ‘nations’ (in the framework of humanitarian intervention). <cross-ref type="sec" refid="SEC3">Section 3</cross-ref> concludes by offering some observations on the potential analogy between domestic and international criminal law.

From the moment of the open attack by the Russian Federation, the issues of criminal law response to encroachments on the foundations of Ukraine’s national security, which have not been resolved since the beginning of the war in 2014, have reemerged. Among the most urgent was the question of whether provisions of criminal law in force as of February 24, 2022 ensured the possibility of providing a proper assessment of the actions of persons who in various forms assist the aggressor state. The first decision made in order to solve this issue was the introduction of Article 111-1 “Collaborative activity” to the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Due to the belief of the People’s Deputies of Ukraine in the inadequacy of such a legislative step, another criminal law prohibition has appeared – Art. 111-2 “Assistance to the aggressor state”. The purpose of the research is in critical understanding of the debatable aspects of the criminal law novel about aiding the aggressor state, based on the results of which scientifically based recommendations should be developed in order to improve relevant provisions of the current criminal law and practice of its application. It has been proven that, despite the noble intentions of the parliamentarians, the inclusion of Art. 111-2 “Assistance to the aggressor state” has increased both the conflicting nature of the domestic criminal law and the legal uncertainty partially inherent in it, and also forces us to once again talk about excessive criminalization. Among the achievements of the legislative work related to the construction of the criminal law prohibition dedicated to aiding the aggressor state, one can only include the non-use in the current wording of Art. 111-2 of the Criminal Code of unjustifiably abstract phrases “other voluntary interaction with representatives of the aggressor state” and “any cooperation with representatives of the aggressor state”. Based on the example of criminal law assessment of such manifestations of assistance to the aggressor state, such as the transfer of material resources to the armed formations of the aggressor state and the implementation or support of the decisions and / or actions of the aggressor state, armed formations and / or the occupation administration of the aggressor state, the problematic nature of differing analyzed crime from collaborative activity, treason and justification, recognition as legitimate, denial of armed aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine, glorification of its participants has been demonstrated. The problem, which has risen as a result of the partially inappropriate duplication of legislative material, is proposed to be solved in one of three ways to optimize the articles of the Criminal Code on liability for treason, collaborative activity and assistance to the aggressor state.

The article covers the topic of national legislation as a source (form) of transnational criminal law. International criminal law doctrine has examined different aspects of legal sources many times, but development and establishment of transnational criminal law creates a necessity of research with a view to substantiating the concept of transnational criminal law and researching the empiric basis: international legal act and legislatures of different states. Author finds that the systems of legal sources are in a state of constant development and reassessment, which does not change the fact that domestic legislation always takes its place in such systems. The author analyzes the positions of domestic and foreign scientists on the recognition of national legislation as a source of international criminal law. The place of national legislation in the system of sources of transnational criminal law its ancillary character are determined. The author substantiates the position of recognition of national legislation as a source of transnational criminal law in view of the important conceptual feature of this sub-branch of law, which is manifested in the interaction of transnational (international) and domestic (national) criminal law. Transnational criminal law as part of international criminal law is part of the system of international law, is based on its principles and closely linked to national criminal law. The article notes that every national or international legal system contains a specific system of legal sources, determined within its demands which allows to distinguish the peculiarities of each separate system. National legislation holds a special place in any of such system of sources of international criminal law and belongs to the group of auxiliary sources. It is emphasized that national legislation does not directly regulate international relations, but does affect transnational criminal law in various ways, in particular by criminalizing transnational crimes and penalizing them; according to the rules of national law, criminal prosecution of criminals and implementation of norms in accordance with the jurisdiction defined in the national legislation, etc., takes place.

The concept of a Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) has become a useful tool in international criminal law. It allows courts to hold individuals criminally liable for group activities to which they have contributed in a criminally relevant way. The concept allows for an attribution of criminal responsibility of unforeseen consequences of such group activities, and it seems to enable the prosecution and the courts to extend criminal liability to high-level perpetrators that use subordinated persons for their criminal aims. The advantages of such a tool are obvious since the crimes under international criminal law are mostly of a systematic, large-scale and collective character, while domestic criminal law mainly deals with less complex crimes that are normally committed by individuals who can easily be linked to the crime. Due to this empirical or criminological fact, it seems logical that the normal modes of liability for parties to a crime used in domestic criminal law need to be adapted, and that a rather extensive assignment of criminal liability for secondary parties is justified in international criminal law. This article seeks to question this assumption by undertaking a comparative analysis of domestic modes of liability. The author aims to show, on the one hand, to what extent the concept of JCE is in line with the general concept of parties to a crime in domestic criminal law. On the other hand, the author argues that abandoning the idea of JCE as an independent mode of liability may lead to better compliance with the principles of legality and individual criminal responsibility and thereby increase the legitimacy of international criminal law.

Introduction The assertion of criminal jurisdiction over a person is amongst the most coercive activities any society can undertake. Punishing a person involves conduct towards them which requires a deprivation of some form of their liberty or a setting-back of their property interests. Such a deprivation of liberty or property requires justification. Furthermore, criminal law is not, in itself, a good or a bad thing. It is a tool, designed to achieve certain ends. Some of those ends may be better pursued by means other than prosecutions. It has been suggested by some that the justifications for punishment may differ, or at least be differently interpreted, between international criminal law and domestic criminal law. It is true that the general situations in which international criminal law is invoked are those of mass criminality, which are not the normal case in domestic criminal law enforcement. In addition, certain additional aims for international criminal law tend to be grafted onto those which are postulated for domestic systems of criminal law. These include the telling of the history of a conflict, distinguishing individual from group responsibility, reconciling societies and capacity building in domestic judicial systems. It is also true that international society is not the same as domestic society. Nonetheless, much of the implementation of international criminal law is intended to be at the domestic level, therefore it is questionable whether the objectives of punishment ought to differ that significantly between international and municipal criminal law.

In the aggravated consequential offense of joint crime, the problem need to research is that more than two people jointly implement the basic crime, by one person or several people s behaviors causing heavier results, the criminal law provides the heavier penalties for the basic crime penalty, so the other co-perpetrators who do not directly cause the aggravated consequences should bear criminal responsibility for more serious results? In this regard, the prevailing view of Chinese criminal law theory is that the common principal offender of the basic crime should be responsible for the aggravated results, because the common criminals are the implementation of basic crime behavior, and the results may be equal. Besides, there is subjective negligence, so it should be responsible for the results of the increase. However, for narrowly committed accomplice, it is not directly involved in the implementation of the act of perpetrating, then whether to set up the results of aggravated accomplice, whether to bear the criminal responsibility of the results? Chinese scholars have different views. This article starts with the intentional injury case in practice, and puts forward the controversial issue. By examining the different views of scholars in Japanese criminal law theory, this paper analyzes various analyses of Chinese scholars, and puts forward their own views based on the provisions of Chinese criminal law. Article 25 of the Criminal Law of the People s Republic of China stipulates that a joint crime refers to an intentional crime committed by two or more persons jointly. A negligent crime committed by two or more persons jointly shall not be punished as a joint crime; however, those who should bear criminal responsibility shall be individually punished according to the crimes they have committed. Therefore, based on the provisions of the Criminal Law, China s common crime theory holds the idea that the establishment of a common crime must be the perpetrators in the joint implementation of a certain crime mean, mutual use, and complement each other’s behavior, so that the behavior of the perpetrators as a whole achieves crime. That is, it must be that more than two people have deliberately subjective common crime, common crime objectively. The so-called common criminal intent , refers to the common criminals through contacts, a common understanding of their criminal acts will entail harmful consequences to society. They participate in the joint crime and hope or indulge the outcome of mental attitude. Negligent crime, for the perpetrators, it is not impossible to form the meaning of contact, and can’t set up a joint crime. Therefore, from the provisions of the current criminal law in China and the traditional theory of criminal law, the joint crime that the aggravated consequential offense with the heavier result in negligence form is not established, whether it is a common prisoner, or an instigator or help offenders. On the above analysis, the establishment of the accomplice of the aggravated offense in the Chinese criminal law should be divided into the following two cases: Firstly, for the intentional aggravated consequential offense, accomplice of the basic crime can increase results to form the joint crime. However, the occurrence of the results of all the actors must have a common intention. If all or two or more part of the perpetrators deliberately cause the occurrence of heavy results, but there is no common meaning, only a single intention, the heavier result is only committed at the same time. Secondly, for the negligent aggravated consequential offense, the accomplice of the crime can’t be aggravated by the results of the establishment of aggravated consequential offense.二人以上共同实施基本的犯罪行为时, 由其中一人或数人的行为引起了较重的结果, 刑法对该较重的结果规定了比基本犯罪的刑罚更重的刑罚, 没有直接引起加重结果的其余共同犯罪人应否对该较重的结果承担刑事责任呢?对此, 中国刑法理论通行的观点认为, 基本罪的共同正犯都应该对加重结果负责。但是, 对于帮助犯、教唆犯能否成立结果加重犯的共犯, 是否对加重结果承担刑事责任, 存在不同观点。 基于刑法的规定, 中国的共同犯罪理论认为成立共同犯罪必须是两人以上主观上有共同犯罪的故意, 客观上有共同犯罪的行为。因此, 重结果为过失形态的结果加重犯的共犯是不成立的, 不论是共同正犯, 还是教唆犯或帮助犯。所以, 法中结果加重犯的共犯之成立与否, 应当分为以下两种情况：对于加重结果的罪过形式为故意的结果加重犯, 基本罪的共犯能够就加重结果成立共同犯罪；对于加重结果的罪过形式为过失的结果加重犯, 基本罪的共犯不能就加重结果成立结果加重犯的共犯。 基本罪的共犯是否应当就加重结果承担刑事责任? 对于重结果可以为故意形态的结果加重犯, 实行行为人故意导致了重结果的发生的, 共犯与之有共同故意的, 应成立结果加重犯之共犯, 就重结果共同承担刑事责任；不具有共同故意, 不能成立结果加重犯的共犯, 但共犯对于实行行为人故意所造成的加重结果应当预见并且能够预见的, 应当承担过失的责任；否则只能由重结果的引起人承担责任。对于实行行为人的行为过失导致了较重的结果时, 虽然不成立结果加重犯的共犯, 但这并不意味着可以认为基本罪的共犯一概不对该加重结果承担责任；对加重结果的发生具有过失的共犯, 应当承担其刑事责任。 结果加重犯由于基本的犯罪行为包含发生一定重结果的高度危险性, 所以共同故意实施基本犯罪的行为人, 对重结果的发生应当具有具体的预见可能性, 因而应当认为有避免重结果发生的特别注意义务。以共同犯罪的意思实施基本罪时, 各共同犯罪人相互利用、补充对方的行为, 这就使得各共犯的行为成为了一个整体。在这种情况下, 各共犯应当预见到这个行为整体有导致重结果发生的可能, 从而负有避免该行为整体造成重结果发生的特别注意义务。因此, 各共犯不仅要负有避免自己的行为发生加重结果的义务, 而且还负有避免他人的行为造成加重结果的义务。当共犯负有这种防止加重结果发生的义务, 但没有加以注意, 以致产生了加重结果时, 就存在导致加重结果发生的过失。因此, 共犯应当对自己的过失行为承担刑事责任。然而, 需要强调的是, 并不能排除在具体案件中, 共犯对加重结果并不一定都能够预见的情况, 如果一律判令其承担加重责任也是不合理的。

Introduction. At the present stage of social development, criminal law is characterised by compensatory and restorative functions. The purpose of the study is to substantiate this position. The author sets the following objectives in the study: to study the main approaches to defining the concepts of “function of law” and “function of criminal law”; to explore how the science of criminal law has evolved towards recognising an increasing number of functions inherent in the relevant branch of law; to identify the reasons for the absence of a clear division between compensatory and restorative mechanisms in domestic criminal law; to consider the specifics of implementing compensatory and restorative mechanisms when bringing a person to criminal liability and, from this perspective, to assess such criminal law measures as confiscation of property and a judicial fine. Methods. General and specific methods were used in the study: historical, system-structural, formal-logical, comparative-legal. Results. At the present stage of social development, criminal law is characterised by compensatory and restorative functions. Each of them should be considered independently. The identification of these two functions in the domestic doctrine is largely associated with the history of the formation of the legal system of our country. Compensatory and restorative functions inherent in criminal law are legal. Proving the validity of their allocation, one should rely on the general provisions of the theory of law, a unified approach to understanding the functions of law and their content, developed by legal scholars. The introduction of norms into Russian criminal legislation providing for the implementation of compensatory and restorative mechanisms, and the practice of their application have shown that there is a real need for such legal institutions.

In the context of social processes globalization, the guidelines for the legal systems development, in particular, criminal law system, are transformed from the processes of unlimited differentiation and domestic "legal isolationism" to the trend of unification and universalization of law. The concept of reforming Ukraine criminal legislation should be focused on the new criminal legislation, which should be built on a single basis, using modern advances in legislation. This will make it possible to harmonize terminology. The appropriate approach determines the vector of the state criminal law policy, which is aimed at unification of criminal law, but doesn’t exclude the expediency of reasonable differentiation. The purpose of the article: to find out the meaning and impact of the law universalization and criminal law unification, to determine the processes of its implementation in criminal law, taking into account the analysis of the draft Criminal Code provisions. In article, the universalization of law is defined as a manifestation of legal globalization, which leads to recognition of basic legal values, universalization of legal language, legal norms and creation of universal legal means and instruments. In the criminal law doctrine the unification of criminal law is seen as a process that provides a single legal regulation of similar or overlapping social relations in relation to a criminal act. Unification is carried out by the legislator during the process of creating or improving criminal law and structural elements of criminal law. Unification of criminal law is a desirable process, as it is necessary to clearly define the content of criminal law prohibitions and boundaries of criminal law regulation; to exclude cases of misinterpretation of the same concept. Based on certain processes of universalization and unification, the impact of the processes on the content of criminal law is indicated. The implementation of substantive criminal law has the ultimate goal, which is lies in restoring of social justice. This is reflected in determination of proportionate punishment or other measures of criminal law regulation. In this regard, we believe that the effectiveness of criminal law regulation is achieved by providing a consistency of criminal law regulations and acts of criminal law application in unified body of law enforcement practice. Current trends of legal system in the context of public relations globalization and the need to overcome conflicts, reform of criminal law and the judiciary of Ukraine give a reason to believe that the universalization and unification of criminal law is justified priority in the lawmaking process.

Extracurricular International Criminal Law