International and regional documents for the protection of human rights do not explicitly prescribe the duty to investigate human rights violations, this positive obligation is derived from accepted obligations. However, the investigation must satisfy certain general criteria. International and regional human rights practice reveals numerous terms used to describe the necessary qualities of investigation. The European Court of Human Rights' practice introduced the concept of "effective investigation" , which underscored the necessity of conducting investigations of a particular quality. The concept is primarily associated with criminal investigation. The European Court of Human Rights' practice illustrates the most advanced and gradual evolution of the concept's scope. Initially, obligation was associated with the investigation of the actions of state actors and the right to life. The obligation to effectively investigate is currently linked to a variety of human rights, private actor actions, the investigation of non-violent acts of limited gravity, and discriminatory motives. The European Court of Human Rights established broad and interrelated criteria for the evaluation of the effectiveness of investigations. The precise interpretation of this obligation is contingent upon the specific circumstances, the alleged perpetrators, the offense, and the human rights at issue.

The global shift away from the death penalty has elevated lifelong imprisonment as a primary alternative, prompting a critical examination of its conceptual, legal, and human rights dimensions. This exploration navigates through diverse legal definitions and cultural interpretations, emphasizing the increasing adoption of lifelong imprisonment following the decline of the death penalty. In that regard, the dichotomy between penal populism and evidence-based crime policy adds a critical perspective on the influence of public sentiment on criminal justice discourse. While penal populism often prioritizes public opinion over empirical evidence, an evidence-based approach underscores the importance of careful consideration, analysis, and reliance on scientific research in shaping legal policies. Finally, the nuanced approach to lifelong imprisonment recognizes its potential for rehabilitation and reintegration, balancing ethical considerations, evolving trends, and the imperative to protect human rights. This article emphasizes the multidimensional nature of lifelong imprisonment, encompassing ethical dilemmas, evolving paradigms, and the imperative to navigate these complexities with a commitment to justice and human rights.

Juvenile crime is a topic that often occupies the public's attention. Although the dominant public image of juvenile crime implies a narrative of a steady rise in juvenile crime rates, increasingly violent crimes, and increasingly brutal younger generations, the question arises as to whether this is really so. In order to consider the validity of such a position from a phenomenological point of view, the author analyzes available statistical data on various aspects of juvenile crime from judicial records in the eighteen-year period, from 2006 to 2023. Although the focus of the paper is on the problem of violent crime with special reference to serious murders, the starting point in dealing with this issue is the analysis of the phenomenology of overall juvenile crime and primarily the determination of legality in its manifestation. The results of the analysis of the frequency of total juvenile crime represent the basis for a more detailed analysis of the state and dynamics of one form of violent juvenile crime: crimes against life and body. The author considers both the absolute indicators related to the mentioned criminal acts and the relative figures, i.e. the share of those acts in the overall structure of juvenile crime. Serious murder, as one of the crimes from the group of crimes against life and body, is separately and in detail processed in view of the stimulated public debate regarding the way of treating minor perpetrators of such crimes, but also in the context of the Ribnikar case, which once again actualized the issue of lowering the age limit of criminal responsibility. This is one of the most difficult forms of criminal manifestation, so, among other things, longitudinal monitoring and determination of its statics and dynamics in the case of minors is important for the continuation of the debate on the future directions of the development of juvenile criminal law.

The article explains the main characteristics of penal populism as one very interesting criminological phenomenon and the basic manifestations of penal populism in some amendments and provisions of the Criminal Code of Serbia. This is especially reflected in some areas of criminal-justice legislation: 1) Introducing the prohibition of mitigating the penalty for certain types of criminal offences; 2) Introducing the institute of multiple recidivism; 3) Significant limitation on possibilities of suspended sentencing; 4) Prescribing a lifetime imprisonment, in combination with introducing a legal prohibition on release on parole for certain categories of offenders sentenced to this penalty. The paper also explains that the current Criminal Code of Serbia has been frequently amended and supplemented by numerous amendments. Some of these amendments of the Criminal Code of Serbia, culminating in the amendments from 2019, also contain elements of penal populism. The authors present an argumentative critique of the superfluous elements of penal populism within the Serbian Criminal Code, which are also evident in some of the proposed amendments. That tendency is also not in accordance with the prevailing understandings of modern criminal law, criminology, penology, or criminalistic doctrine, nor, more importantly, is such an approach of the legislator in line with the current state of crime rates and the need to respond to it in an adequate manner. The article explains that populist penal provisions prescribed in the Serbian Criminal Code, as well as in the proposed amendments to the country's criminal legislation, directly contradicts Serbia's official efforts to strengthen the system of alternative criminal sanctions aimed at reducing prison overcrowding. Moreover, in certain respects, it conflicts with the restorative justice framework that Serbia has adopted. These contradictions provide a compelling reason to reconsider several provisions of the Criminal Code. Authors especially conclude that a judge in a country characterized by the rule of law must still have the strength to resist such "public expectations" and to make his decision in accordance with the law and according to his free conviction and of course, the judge must also resist the influence of criminal populism promoted in the media or by some politicians, even other public figures/persons, etc., but a special problem arises when elements of criminal populism penetrate in the criminal legislation.

The paper analyzes the crime of aggression through the development of the international community up to the present time and current issues related to aggression. It points out the specifics of this crime that do not exist in relation to other international crimes. Aggression as a crime against peace developed gradually in international law, but it gained its personalization through international criminal law. The author analyzes the good and bad sides that exist in terms of the definition itself, but also its application in practice. Precisely because of its dual nature, the realization of individual criminal responsibility is difficult. In addition, the author points out the problem of an insufficient number of ratifications of the amendment itself regarding the crime of aggression. The author devoted particular attention to new forms of aggression, primarily attacks on cyberspace, and pointed out the dangers that lie behind such attacks. The activity of the United Nations and the Security Council in this direction is particularly emphasized. This gives this work the necessary relevance, and introduces the necessary changes to the concept of aggression under international law.

In this paper, the author addresses the question of the justification and validity of using the term colonial genocides, as well as the place and significance of acts of extermination committed by colonial conquerors against the Indigenous peoples of the territories they seized, and the relationship and connection between the crimes of colonizers against colonized peoples and the Nazi genocides. The paper first raises the question of whether the qualification genocide can be applied to acts committed long before the term was legally defined and criminalized. The author notes that the term is applicable in a descriptive, phenomenological sense, whereas in the legal sense the situation is much more complex. The paper also observes that, starting with the very creator of the term genocide, Raphael Lemkin, various authors use the concept to describe a broader or narrower set of events— i.e., they understand it either more extensively or more restrictively. The author concludes that some of the most heinous crimes committed by colonial conquerors against Indigenous peoples cannot be called genocide because, although a significant portion of Indigenous populations was physically destroyed, the genocidal intent is absent. The paper also outlines the structural similarities between Nazi expansionism and colonialism, as well as between Nazi genocidal policies—especially the Holocaust—and colonial genocides. It then presents an overview of the genocide committed by German colonizers against the Herero and Nama peoples, the first genocide of the 20th century, considered the first modern genocide and a kind of precursor to the Holocaust.

This paper examines the intersection of civil and criminal law institutes in the context of property claims and the confiscation of property benefits acquired through criminal offences. It compares the procedural and substantive nature of property claims - most commonly submitted within criminal proceedings through the adhesion procedure or separately via civil lawsuits - with the criminal law measure of confiscation. Special attention is given to the legal differences, purposes, and practical challenges of these two institutes. Although both aim to address the financial consequences of criminal conduct, a property claim focuses on compensating the injured party, while confiscation primarily seeks to deprive perpetrator of illicit gain. Through the analysis of Croatian legislation, court practice, and a detailed case study involving conflicting outcomes between criminal and civil proceedings, the paper reveals misinterpretations of legal principles such as ne bis in idem, res judicata, and double recovery. The analysis highlights that, following the repeal of the Act on the Procedure for the Confiscation of Property Benefits in 2017, there is currently no legal framework enabling compensation of injured parties from confiscated assets. Consequently, both the state and the injured party may seek recovery from the same asset pool, potentially leading to unjust enrichment, legal uncertainty and double recovery problem.

Denoting the negative trends within the reform of the special part of criminal law, this paper critically analyzes the following criminal offences: aggravated murder (art. 114, par. 1, it. 6, 7 and 8. CC), serious bodily harm (art. 121, par. 6. CC), obstruction of justice (art. 336b par. 2. CC), endangerment of safety (art. 138, par. 3. CC), and assault on a lawyer (art. 336v CC). Apart from introducing more severe penalties for a great number of criminal offences, the most important characteristic of the Criminal Code's special part reform is the accentuated criminalization, i.e. proscription of new criminal offences. Such tendencies of the legislator have had several negative consequences. First of all, the zone of incrimination has been widened, and special forms of existing criminal offences have been proscribed as separate incriminations. Furthermore, incriminations with undeterminable content and scope impair efficient application of law and undermine legal certainty. Finally, certain existing incriminations are not justified in the systematic context. All of the aforementioned trends have greatly endangered the principle of lex certa and are tendentiously transforming criminal law from ultima ratio, the ultimate mean of society's defence from unwanted acts and behaviours to prima ratio, which is incompatible with criminal law's nature and purpose.

In this paper author sheds a light to the right to compensation for crime victims in Serbia, analyzing it from the multiple perspective: the relevant international standards, applicable national legal framework, the current state of play in the practice of Serbian courts, the recent progress made, as well as in term of the remaining challenges. The analysis shows that even though the national legal framework on compensation for crime victims provides for the solid ground for exercising this right, the reality seems to be quite different. Discouraged by the practice of regular referral to the civil proceedings, paired with a lack of legal aid in the process of claiming compensation or even discouraged by lawyers who represent them, victims are not skilled, empowered and/or supported enough to submit a compensation claim in criminal proceeding and pass through this process saved by a various protective measures that belongs to victims in criminal proceedings and especially those that are especially vulnerable. Neither legal nor institutional set up allows for compensation from a state fund in cases when there is no possibility for a victim to be compensated from an offender from various reasons (offender unknown or died or has no resources/property).

The main goal of this paper is to research the position of nuclear weapons, i.e. their use and threat, under international criminal law. In that sense, the author, after introductory remarks on some of the most relevant technical issues regarding nuclear weapons, as well as a brief overview of the stance of international law in general towards this kind of weapons, focuses on what he calls two levels of possible reaction of international criminal law in relation to them. The first level of reaction, which could be labeled as a more general one, encompasses all the cases in which core international crimes could be committed by the means of nuclear weapons - as such, the legal status of nuclear weapons is essentially not different from the status of any other means (e.g. conventional weapons) through which these crimes could be perpetrated. On the other hand, the second level of possible reaction is the one which would deem the very use of nuclear weapons as a crime per se, regardless of the concrete effects of that use. This second level is still only in the domain of de lege ferenda. The author concludes that this is unlikely to effectively change in the near future, once again pointing out at the ultima ratio character of criminal law - it is the last resort of legal reaction to unlawful behavior and, on the other hand, when it comes to nuclear weapons, the situation is that they are still not absolutely and universally prohibited even by some other branches of law, more "lenient" branches of law, in the first place international humanitarian law.