One of the emerging paradigms in contemporary criminal justice is victim-centered justice, which emphasizes the recognition, protection, and active participation of victims throughout legal proceedings.This paper analyzes legal, institutional and socio-cultural aspects of victim based justice in Pakistan wherein the criminal justice system has been offender-based. In spite of the constitutional guarantees of dignity, equality of law and access to justice, and the pledges of the international human rights frameworks, the victims are not central in practice in Pakistan. Through a qualitative research design, the study evaluates the provisions of the constitution, statutory laws, judicial practices, and policy frameworks that involve the protection of the victim. The important legal means such as the Pakistan Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, and legislation specific to the victim are assessed based on how effective they are in protecting the rights of the victims. The courts and case law, United Nations findings, and academic sources mention the systemic lack of legislation, institutional infirmities and socio- cultural obstacles that hinder access to justice. The results show that the legal framework in Pakistan does not have a full-fledged codification of the rights of the victims and therefore the protection is fragmented and not well implemented. There are institutional issues like substandard training, bureaucratic delays, insufficient victim support, and poor coordination which also contribute to the poor delivery of justice. It has been found that the patriarchal norms, stigma, and power imbalances hinder victim participation; therefore comprehensive reforms, codification of victim rights, institutional strengthening, and restorative justice are essential.

Indonesian criminal procedure law normatively guarantees human rights protection through the principle of due process of law. However, in practice, investigations frequently prioritize formal legality over substantive justice, rely heavily on investigators’ verbalization, and apply excessive pre-trial detention. This tendency is illustrated in Supreme Court Decision Number 1584 K/Pid/2015, where evidentiary construction was primarily based on testimonium de auditu—statements derived from investigators—rather than direct empirical evidence. This study aims to: (1) analyze the legal construction of criminal investigations from a due process perspective; (2) evaluate the relationship between investigator authority, discretion, and professional ethics in shaping evidence; and (3) formulate recommendations for institutional reform grounded in human rights protection. The research employs a qualitative normative-empirical approach through document analysis, examining statutory regulations, particularly the Criminal Code and human rights instruments, relevant jurisprudence, and legal scholarship on due process, discretion, and police ethics. The findings indicate that although investigations may formally comply with statutory provisions, substantively they deviate from due process principles. Evidence formation often depends on investigator narratives and post-incident testimony while neglecting objective proof, undermining material justice. Broad discretionary powers, weak internal oversight, and inconsistent professional ethics contribute to a gap between normative expectations (das sollen) and empirical reality (das sein). Consequently, structural reforms are required to strengthen evidentiary oversight, restrict pre-trial detention practices, and enforce stricter ethical standards to ensure fair investigations and safeguard suspects’ rights.

This article examines how pre-trial detention, judicial delay and the limited use of non-custodial measures contribute to structural prison overcrowding in Madagascar and Indonesia. It asks three questions: (1) What do recent prison statistics show about the scale and main drivers of overcrowding in both countries? (2) How do their constitutional and legislative frameworks regulate pre-trial detention, “reasonable time” of trial and alternatives to custody? and (3) To what extent does the combined reading of law and data comply with constitutional and international standards on liberty and humane treatment? Methodologically, the study adopts a normative–juridical and comparative design, combining doctrinal analysis of constitutions, codes of criminal procedure, prison and juvenile justice laws with secondary quantitative data from the World Prison Brief on prison population, occupancy and pre-trial detention from the early 2000s to 2025. The findings show that Madagascar’s system operates at almost three times its official capacity, with pre-trial detainees representing around half of all prisoners, while Indonesia, although less overcrowded in relative terms, still functions at nearly double capacity and holds a substantial remand population. In both jurisdictions, legal frameworks formally present pre-trial detention as exceptional and recognise a wide catalogue of non-custodial measures, yet these safeguards are only partially effective in practice, especially for women and children. The article concludes that the central problem is the gap between law “on the books” and law “in action” and argues for targeted reforms to reduce unnecessary remand, strengthen judicial oversight and mainstream non-custodial sanctions in line with ICCPR standards and Sustainable Development Goal 16. Keywords: pre-trial detention, prison overcrowding, Madagascar, Indonesia, comparative study

The subject of the presentation will be an analysis of the role of the prosecutor in Polish criminal proceedings. The prosecutor’s activity is determined by the principles governing the prosecution service, an institution that has undergone significant organizational changes in recent years and continues to evolve. The author will begin with an introduction presenting the constitutional and systemic position of the prosecutor within the framework of the bodies responsible for the protection of the rule of law and within the system of criminal procedure authorities. It will then move on to discuss the prosecutor’s role in criminal proceedings, identifying three main functions: (1) as the authority conducting preparatory proceedings, (2) as the public prosecutor, and (3) as the guardian of the public interest. Each of these roles will be discussed in greater detail. In connection with the ongoing debate on the prosecutor as the guardian of the public interest (and the rule of law), the author will also offer de lege ferenda remarks.

The role of expert witnesses is a key element in the evidentiary system of criminal cases, both in positive criminal law and in Islamic criminal law; however, comparative studies that specifically analyze their position and evidentiary weight in these two legal systems remain limited. This study aims to analyze and compare the status and evidentiary strength of expert testimony in positive law and Islamic law, and to explain the extent to which expert testimony influences judicial conviction in deciding criminal cases. This research employs library research with a normative and comparative approach through an examination of statutory regulations, the Al-Qur’an, Hadis, legal literature, and relevant scholarly journals. The findings show that in positive law, expert testimony is recognized as a valid means of proof as regulated in Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), but it is not absolutely binding because judges retain discretion to assess it based on their conviction and the adopted evidentiary system. Meanwhile, in Islamic law, expert testimony is positioned as part of qarinah or bayyinah that serves to assist judges in uncovering material truth, even though it does not stand alone as a primary means of proof. The study concludes that, despite conceptual and terminological differences, both legal systems place expert witnesses as supporting instruments of proof for realizing just decisions. The implications of this research provide theoretical and practical foundations for legal academics and practitioners in optimizing the role of expert witnesses in criminal proceedings in a more proportional and accountable manner.

The relevance of this paper is determined by the growing importance of filtering mechanisms in contemporary models of justice, which is directly linked to the reform of the judicial system of Ukraine, the transition to a model of limited cassation, and the rethinking of the functional role of higher courts. Despite the normative regulation of procedural admissibility requirements for complaints, the concept of a “filter” remains doctrinally heterogeneous and is employed across different branches of procedural law with varying substantive meanings. This situation necessitates a comprehensive scholarly analysis of modern approaches to filtration as a mechanism that is both selective and, at the same time, protective. The purpose of the paper is to systematise and synthesise contemporary scholarly approaches to the understanding of filtration in international, constitutional, civil, criminal, and other types of procedure, with a view to identifying the current state of development of the academic interpretation of this concept and revealing the dominant trends in its further conceptualisation. The methodological framework of the study is based on the doctrinal method, used to systematise scholarly positions concerning the concept of the “filter” and its functional purpose. Institutional and axiological approaches are also applied in order to assess the role of filters in balancing the effectiveness of justice, the unity of judicial practice, and the individual’s right of access to a court. As a result of the study, it is substantiated that the concept of a “filter” in contemporary doctrine appears as a multidimensional procedural-law construct, the common core of which is the selective function of access to legal adjudication. It is demonstrated that, in the European and constitutional-procedural dimensions, filtration is conceptualised primarily as an institutional mechanism for managing judicial workload, whereas in cassation proceedings it functions as an admission regime oriented towards the development of law and the maintenance of the unity of judicial practice. In criminal procedure, filters acquire a distinctly protective character, serving as safeguards against formalism and violations of the rights of participants in proceedings. Prospects for further research are associated with a deeper analysis of the relationship between filtering mechanisms and judicial discretion, as well as with the development of an inter-branch typology of filters capable of reducing legal uncertainty and enhancing the predictability of law enforcement in the context of ongoing judicial reforms.

The development of information technology has brought significant changes to modern crime patterns, which are increasingly committed through electronic media and leave digital traces. This situation demands adjustments to the criminal evidence system, particularly regarding electronic evidence. The Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), as the main criminal procedure law in Indonesia, does not specifically regulate the existence of electronic evidence, thus creating a normative vacuum in investigative practice. However, Law Number 1 of 2024 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions (UU ITE) is present as a lex specialis regulation that fully legitimizes electronic information and/or electronic documents as valid legal evidence and has the same evidentiary force as written evidence. This article aims to analyze the position of electronic evidence in the police investigation process through a normative juridical approach by examining the Criminal Procedure Code, the UU ITE, and law enforcement practices in the field. The results of the study indicate that electronic evidence plays a strategic role in uncovering crimes, especially digital-based crimes. However, its implementation still faces technical obstacles, data validity, limited human resources, and differences in interpretation among law enforcement agencies. Therefore, it is necessary to harmonize regulations, increase the capacity of investigators, and strengthen digital forensic infrastructure so that the use of electronic evidence can be more effective and accountable in the criminal evidence process.

The Investigation Termination Order (SP3) is an important instrument in the Indonesian criminal justice system, granted to investigators to terminate an investigation due to insufficient evidence, non-criminal events, or termination by law as stipulated in Article 109 paragraph (2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This authority is directly related to the principle of legal certainty, which demands clarity, order, and protection for every individual facing the legal process. In practice, the SP3 serves to provide certainty of legal status for suspects to avoid criminalization or protracted investigations without adequate basis. However, the implementation of the SP3 often raises problems, especially when it is deemed non-transparent or has the potential for abuse by law enforcement officers. This can affect public trust in the Police institution and create uncertainty for victims or reporters. This research uses a normative juridical approach by examining laws and regulations, legal doctrine, and court decisions related to pretrial as an instrument of judicial control over the validity or invalidity of the issuance of the SP3. The analysis shows that although SP3 is a legal and necessary mechanism to maintain the effectiveness and accountability of investigations, its implementation still faces various challenges, such as inconsistent standards of evidence, minimal internal oversight, and limited public access to pretrial mechanisms. Therefore, strengthening measures are needed through increased transparency, standardization of investigation termination procedures, and optimization of the oversight function to ensure that the issuance of SP3 truly reflects the principle of legal certainty and does not conflict with the principle of human rights protection.

This study is motivated by the phenomenon of increasing acquittal verdicts, which has triggered public skepticism regarding the effectiveness of law enforcement and legal certainty for state finances. This research aims to analyze two primary issues: 1) What is the efficacy and contribution of police investigators in conducting the series of investigation processes for corruption crimes? 2) What is the regulatory construction regarding acquittal verdicts and its juridical implications for the limits of the prosecutor's authority when viewed from the perspective of criminal procedural law applicable in Indonesia? The research method applied relies on a normative legal approach. The study was conducted through an in-depth review of library materials, including statutory regulations, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and various academic literatures relevant to the issues under investigation. This approach relies on library research. The results indicate that the success of law enforcement depends heavily on the quality of material evidence at the investigation stage and the prosecutor's ability to challenge the rigidity of Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP) through jurisprudence. The consistency of judicial considerations and the integrity of law enforcement officials are crucial instruments for minimizing the loopholes of acquittal verdicts to protect fiscal interests and the nation's legal dignity.

The development of information technology has introduced a new form of evidence in criminal proceedings, namely electronic accounts that serve as instruments, means, or proceeds of crime. However, Indonesia’s criminal justice system still lacks clear and comprehensive legal provisions regarding the destruction of electronic accounts as digital evidence. Existing regulations in the Criminal Procedure Code (KUHAP), the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law), Government Regulation No. 71 of 2019, and other technical provisions have not explicitly defined the concept, authority, or procedure for such destruction. This regulatory gap creates legal uncertainty, inconsistent practices among law enforcement agencies, and potential violations of privacy rights. This study employs a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and case approaches to analyze the adequacy and coherence of current regulations. The findings highlight the need for a reformulation of criminal law policy to establish a prudent, procedurally just, and forensically accountable mechanism for destroying electronic accounts while ensuring data protection and safeguarding citizens’ privacy rights in the digital era.

This article explores the representation of silence, pauses, and refusal to speak in procedural documents and interrogation records, in the context of their translation from Polish into Croatian. The study examines various forms of silence – from conscious refusal to answer, through deliberate omissions, to hesitation. The analysis focuses on their pragmatic functions and the challenges they pose for sworn translators. The examples are based on both authentic and simulated interrogation transcripts, as well as on criminal procedure regulations applicable in Poland and Croatia. The article demonstrates that silence – despite its apparent neutrality – may hold significant communicative and legal value.

In today's criminal procedure law investigation is a very important stage of the criminal process. Both in theory and in practice investigation is one of the main phases of the procedure beside the other, the trial or judicial phase. However in our previous legal system a different approach was typical: at the beginning of the 20th century the preliminary or preparatory nature of the investigation was emphasised, while from the 1950s the role of investigation became increasingly stronger. From this period it became clear that investigating authorities can conduct evidentiary proceedings (not merely data collection). This study attempts to follow the latter development, i.e. it traces the theoretical and legislative changes that have led to the current legal status of the investigation.

The article examines the stages of the evolution of criminal-procedural protection of human rights specifically during periods marked by the emergence of armed conflicts. The aim of the study is to identify the distinctive features of how human rights protection practices transformed from the imperial institutions of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries to the development of international humanitarian law and the investigation of international criminal offences. The conducted historical and legal analysis made it possible to reveal the processes of change within criminal procedure–from practices centred on safeguarding state security in imperial legal systems to the initial manifestations of humanization and the protection of the individual in international law. It is demonstrated that the evolution of international legal norms formed a new model in which the individual became a direct subject of international protection. This transition pushed the legal structure of the state beyond the traditional doctrine of absolute sovereignty. It is substantiated that the current architecture of international legal regulation establishes a “hard core” of non-derogable rights and detailed procedural guarantees for the accused, including the presumption of innocence and the mandatory right to defence. The scholarly contribution lies in systematizing the role of the institution of individual international criminal responsibility, which–through the principle of complementarity –encourages states to harmonize their national criminal-procedural norms. The practical value of the research is reflected in the possibility of applying its results to improve national criminal procedure during wartime and to align domestic legislation with international standards. The materials of the article may be used in the professional training of judges, prosecutors, and defence attorneys involved in the investigation and adjudication of war crimes. Future academic inquiries should focus on analysing the effectiveness of mechanisms for implementing international procedural guarantees within the legal systems of states engaged in prolonged armed conflict. This includes assessing the functional role of the principle of complementarity in national jurisdictions and its impact on strengthening the rule of law.

The article examines the problem of defining procedural rules (fair trial rules or rules) of the European Court of Human Rights, which it uses in criminal proceedings to assess the fairness and effectiveness of trials in national courts. A study of the practice of the ECHR over more than six decades has shown that the supranational court does not offer a definition of the concept of «rule». One of the difficulties in implementing the procedural rules of the ECHR, the authors established, is the lack of a definition of this concept in the practice of the supranational body. A problem arose in the study of this concept. The first step in solving the highlighted problem was to clarify the legal essence of the concept of «rule» in Ukrainian and foreign dictionaries. The need is also caused by the fact that the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine does not include the concept of «rule» in the list of basic terms, although it is found in the text of individual articles. The following approach was used in the study: the structure of the concept of «rule» in Ukrainian and foreign dictionaries was studied; this structure was used as the basis for a model of the concept of «rule» in criminal proceedings. Based on the content of the components of the concept of «rule» in criminal proceedings and their synthesis, a legal definition of this concept was established. To avoid errors in revealing the content of the proposed definitions, we relied on the general approach to defining any concept offered by the science of «Logic». In addition, the proposed definitions were checked for consistency by comparison. Finally: we managed to propose several legal definitions of the concept of «fair trial rules.» Some of them are as follows. A rule is a set of procedural actions of the court that determine the procedure for conducting a trial in criminal proceedings, aimed at maintaining its fairness based on the balance of evidence for the prosecution and defense. A rule is a set of procedural actions of the court developed by the ECHR to regulate the course of a trial in order to ensure fairness to the parties to criminal proceedings. A rule is a procedural guideline that directs a court, under specific circumstances, to conduct a fair trial in a criminal proceeding.

It is indicated that secret investigative actions, by their legal nature, are a form of covert state interference in the sphere of private life and communications, that is, in those values that have a constitutional and conventional level of protection and can be limited only if there is an appropriate legal basis, in cases specified by law and in the manner prescribed by law. The article substantiates a procedural and doctrinal model for ensuring compliance with the rule of law during the initiation, authorisation, conduct, and use of the results of covert investigative (detective) actions in criminal proceedings. The starting premise is that covert investigative (detective) actions, as the most intrusive instruments of secret interference with privacy and communications, cannot be legitimised solely by the formal existence of a procedural norm or a judicial authorisation; rather, they require assessment through the criteria of the “quality of law,” legal certainty, proportionality, and effective judicial oversight as a safeguard against arbitrary discretion. A three-tier structure of rule-of-law regulation for covert investigative (detective) actions is proposed: (1) the principle of the rule of law as a basic guideline for law enforcement; (2) the general provisions on covert investigative (detective) actions as a universal procedural framework for permissible interference; and (3) special safeguards for particular types of covert actions and ex post protection mechanisms. It is argued that the compatibility of covert investigative (detective) actions with the rule of law should be verified through a three-part test of suitability, necessity, and reasonableness (proportionality), which ensures a balance between the legitimate aim of criminal prosecution and the inviolability of the private sphere. The article separately analyses the problematic issue of notifying a person of a temporary restriction of rights (Article 253 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine) as a deficit of rule-of-law safeguards, as well as the non-disclosure of materials from covert actions to the defence in the context of ECtHR standards and the need for procedural compensatory mechanisms to preserve adversarial proceedings and overall fairness. The conclusion is that the real effectiveness of the rule of law in the sphere of covert investigative (detective) actions can be ensured only by increasing the legal certainty of procedures, strengthening the notification mechanism, and balancing the secrecy regime with procedural safeguards of protection.

The article is dedicated to the engagement of a person without an attorney status as a defense counsel in a criminal procedure. The article substantiates that such a defense counsel does not necessarily need any specific legal knowledge or experience, as his involvement is aimed at exercising the right of the accused that differs from the right to obtain qualified legal assistance in the narrow sense exercised by an attorney.

Relevance. The effectiveness of the preliminary investigation is largely due to the quality management of the relevant bodies. This is guaranteed by clearly delineated criminal procedural and managerial powers of the head of the investigative body, fixed in normative legal acts. At the same time, the professional status of this subject of criminal procedural relations has been repeatedly subjected to transformations, some of which have changed it quite significantly. At first glance, all transformations have led to the formation of an independent figure among the participants of criminal proceedings, but so far the doctrine has not formulated the concept and limits of independence of the head of the investigative body. The ambiguity of approaches to the content of the term under study became the basis for the emergence of the author's research interest. The purpose of the study is to provide the content of the concept of ‘independence of the head of the investigative body’ and to determine its limits. Objectives. The research objectives include the study of the concepts of ‘autonomy’ and ‘procedural autonomy’, analysis of scientific views on the manifestations of autonomy of persons conducting preliminary investigation and the head of the investigative body, proposing the author's vision of the definition of the concept of ‘autonomy of the head of the investigative body’. Methodology. The dialectical method was taken as the methodological basis of the study, which allowed to discover the interrelationships of the term under study with related concepts of criminal procedure doctrine. The use of general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction provided an opportunity to construct the author's definition of the sought concept and determine its boundaries. Results. Independence as a property of the legal status of the head of the investigative body should not be considered as identical to the similar characteristic of the investigator. Conclusion. The autonomy of the head of the investigative body is manifested in both criminal procedure and organisational aspects. The first of them implies the right to determine at his discretion the course of investigation and to state the achievement of the limits of proof, the second is manifested through the independent decision of management issues within the subordinate body of preliminary investigation.

The increasing reliance on screenshots, chats, and voice notes in Indonesian criminal proceedings reflects a significant shift in evidentiary practices driven by digital communication technologies. However, this development has not been followed by adequate normative adaptation within criminal procedural law. Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code does not explicitly accommodate micro-digital evidence, while the Electronic Information and Transactions Law merely provides general recognition without specifying procedural standards for authentication and evidentiary weight. This condition creates normative ambiguity regarding the legal status, admissibility, and probative value of screenshots, chats, and voice notes, resulting in inconsistent judicial practices and potential violations of fair trial principles. This study employs normative legal research using statute, conceptual, and case approaches to analyze the position of micro-digital evidence in Indonesian criminal trials. The findings demonstrate that unverified digital evidence risks eroding the presumption of innocence, shifting the burden of proof to defendants, and undermining legal certainty. This article argues that criminal procedural law must be reformed to explicitly regulate the classification, authentication, and corroboration of micro-digital evidence in order to ensure technological adaptation without compromising due process of law and fair trial guarantees.

Relevance. The amendments made to the criminal and criminal procedure legislation, which establish the procedure for suspending criminal proceedings in connection with the participation of a suspect accused of a special military operation, as well as the subsequent termination of criminal prosecution, should be provided with a clear legal mechanism. For the adoption of these procedural decisions, a mandatory condition is a petition from a military unit (institution) sent to the preliminary investigation authorities. Currently, it is difficult to assess the law enforcement practice in such cases as uniform, which gives rise to legal disputes and ambiguity in the interpretation of the law.The purpose of the study is to study the procedural nature of the "petition" as the basis for suspending criminal proceedings, options for its resolution by the investigator, the inquirer, determining the legal status of the command of a military unit (institution) in connection with the decision to suspend proceedings in the case.Objective: to determine the procedural content and features of a military unit's petition as an official request for suspension of proceedings against a suspect, accused, mobilized or contracted for military service; to establish the expediency of its existence in the specified procedural form; to establish the need for legislative establishment of the duties of the command of a military unit (institution) to interact with investigative authorities in order to prevent abuse the right of the suspect, the accused.The methodology is based on general scientific methods such as analysis, synthesis, as well as formal-logical and comparative-legal methods of interpretation.Results. It is proposed to replace the procedural form of the "petition" with a "submission" to facilitate the decision of the investigator or inquirer to suspend the criminal case. The article substantiates the need for a legislative definition of the duties of a military unit (institution) to interact with the bodies of preliminary investigation, to inform about the status of a serviceman and his changes related to participation in a special military operation: death, injury, desertion, commission of a new crime, missing persons, etc.Conclusions. The existence of a military unit's initiative in the form of a submission will create a clear legal mechanism for responding to it on the part of the investigator, inquirer, eliminating discreteness in making procedural decisions. The idea was expressed to establish the duties of the command of a military unit (institution) to inform the investigative body about changes in the legal status of a serviceman participating in a special military operation.

Relevance. Given the advanced maturity of IT technologies, the development of a unified and consistent conceptual framework for criminal procedural evidence should be recognized as a cornerstone of the digital transformation of criminal proceedings. Substantiating terminology is the first step toward resolving the issue of legally regulating the requirements necessary for the effective use of electronic information in evidentiary work.The purpose of this study is to examine the content and functional role of the thesaurus approach to developing a unified terminology for criminal procedural evidence in the context of developing digital technologies.Objectives: to examine the problems caused by the terminological disunity of existing scientific concepts related to the field of “electronic” criminal procedural evidence; Defining the content, functional significance, and structure of a thesaurus of criminal procedural evidence in the digital age by identifying its main components, performing a semantic analysis of the concept of "electronic evidence," and determining the preferred vector for the development of domestic legislation in codifying key terms reflecting the transformation of the legal regime of criminal procedural evidence in the context of developing digital technologies.Methodology. The study utilized dialectical, formal-logical, legal-dogmatic, and systemic methods.The results of the study contain theoretical propositions that highlight the problems of the conceptual framework of “electronic” evidence in criminal cases. The study substantiates the methodological value of a thesaurus approach to formalizing key concepts of criminal procedural evidence in the digital age.Conclusion. The current stage of development of electronic evidence is characterized by profound terminological disunity. A thesaurus for this subject area will organize existing knowledge into hierarchical and associative relationships, standardize the terminology used, and offer legislators legal definitions of key terms. An analysis and differentiation of the terms “electronic” and “digital” evidence led to the conclusion that the term «electronic evidence» is broader and preferable for legal codification.