Abstract
In this chapter, it is striking that precisely now, one of the starting points of Criminal Procedure 2001 is that more should be left to the initiative of the parties to the trial. What the author should like to undertake here is to give an impetus to the evaluation of the merits of the Dutch trial as evaluated by the Criminal Procedure 2001 research project and the results of this project itself in relation to this important part of the trial, mirrored by the jury trial including other models in which lay participation plays a part. According to Criminal Procedure 2001, an active, non-passive judge is a guarantee that the establishment of the facts (establishment of the 'substantive truth') is correct. The chapter indicates why a careful substantiation practice can contribute towards reliable establishment of the truth by the criminal court. Keywords:Criminal Procedure 2001; jury system; lay participation; Strafvordering 2001; substantiation
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
