This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the impact of constitutional review on the formation and development of the normative and institutional structure of criminal procedure law. The primary aim of the study is to substantiate the role of recognizing constitutional court decisions as sources of law in strengthening the rule of law, ensuring the supremacy of law, and safeguarding fundamental human rights. The scholarly novelty of the research lies in conceptualizing constitutional review not merely as a formal mechanism for assessing the constitutionality of legal norms, but as a functional institution that actively influences the transformation of legal methodology and judicial practice. The study employs comparative legal analysis, normative-doctrinal methods, and the examination of constitutional court precedents. From a practical perspective, the research focuses on aligning procedural safeguards within criminal proceedings - such as detention, search, the right to defense, and the presumption of innocence - with constitutional principles. The findings demonstrate that constitutional review serves not only as a guarantor of legal stability but also as a dynamic instrument for methodological renewal and institutional legitimacy within the criminal justice system.

The article is devoted to a comparative analysis of appellate mechanisms in ad hoc tribunals (the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda) and the International Criminal Court. It examines the evolution of appellate proceedings, grounds for appeal, scope of review (de novo in ad hoc tribunals versus limited review of errors in the ICC), procedural features, and their impact on the effectiveness of international criminal justice. Particular attention is paid to the role of appeal in ensuring fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and complementarity. The relevance of the topic is emphasised in the context of contemporary conflicts, particularly the ICC investigations into crimes associated with the aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine. The practice of key cases (Tadić, Akayesu, Lubanga, Bemba, Al-Senussi, Katanga, Ngudjolo Chui) is analysed, illustrating common features (independence of chambers, right to appeal) and differences in mechanisms. The experience of ad hoc tribunals significantly influenced the formation of the Rome Statute norms, contributing to the unification of jurisprudence and overcoming impunity. The comparative analysis indicates the evolutionary development of appellate proceedings: from reactive and broad mechanisms of temporary tribunals focused on specific conflicts to limited but more effective and universal procedures of a permanent court. The experience of ad hoc tribunals substantially shaped the Rome Statute norms, particularly regarding standards of fair trial, protection of the rights of the accused and victims, and unification of jurisprudence. For Ukraine, integration of ICC appellate principles into national legislation is recommended to ensure effective investigation of international crimes.

P-SILI (patient self-inflicted lung injury) is a radically new idea based on the claim that patients taking larger tidal volumes (in response to respiratory stimuli) can cause alveolar injury. This review lays bare the lack of robust experimental data to establish the actual existence of P-SILI. At the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, world-renowned investigators argued that P-SILI was responsible for much of the lung injury in COVID-19 and recommended radical alterations in ventilator management: avoidance of noninvasive ventilation, preemptive intubation, widespread use of neuromuscular blockers to decrease patient-generated tidal volume, and postponement of ventilator weaning. When debated to provide proof for the existence of P-SILI, proponents imparted sparse unconvincing rejoinders. In a scientific debate, the party making a new claim carries the burden of proof, not the side defending the preexisting state of knowledge (analogous to a defendant's presumption of innocence until evidence is produced to the contrary). Claims for the existence of P-SILI are based on the shakiest of circumstantial evidence. Six decades of research on how to prudently select settings and remove/wean the ventilator at the earliest time were abrogated during a pandemic on the warrant of an unproven hypothetical entity.

The article examines the right to a fair trial as a fundamental guarantee of human rights protection, which, in turn, is an essential condition for the rule of law in the state. It describes the historical prerequisites for the development of the right to a fair trial as part of both domestic and international legal discourse, from the emergence of the term “fair trial” in seventeenth-century legal language to its modern normative consolidation, primarily in the field of international human rights law. The content of the right to a fair trial is specified in Ukrainian national law and in international law, particularly in the context of the provisions of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The main components of the right to a fair trial are revealed, including the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, the publicity of proceedings, and the presumption of innocence. Special attention is paid to the analysis of the impact of extreme conditions–such as war, states of emergency, or martial law–on the exercise of the right to a fair trial. The article addresses the permissibility of restricting or derogating from states’ obligations in ensuring the right to a fair trial in accordance with Ukrainian national legislation and international human rights treaties. Based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, particularly in Golder v. the United Kingdom, Aksoy v. Turkey, and Ireland v. the United Kingdom, it is argued that even in situations of derogation, the state is obliged to guarantee a minimum standard of justice, which includes access to a court, the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, and, accordingly, the effective protection of individual rights. The article concludes by emphasizing the differences in the legal regulation of the right to a fair trial under Ukrainian legislation (in particular, the Constitution) and international legal instruments (including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates the interconnection between the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective remedy.

This article discusses the juridical construction and implications of applying reverse burden of proof in corruption cases in Indonesia, with emphasis on its relation to the principle of legality and the presumption of innocence as fundamental principles in criminal law. The application of reverse burden of proof as regulated in Law Number 31 of 1999 in conjunction with Law Number 20 of 2001 has sparked juridical debate regarding the extent to which this mechanism can be accepted within the framework of a rule-of-law state that upholds the principles of a fair trial and the protection of citizens' constitutional rights. Through a normative juridical research method, this article examines the normative tensions that arise when reverse burden of proof is confronted with the principle of non-self-incrimination and the concept of unlawful acts as essential elements in corruption crimes. The analysis results indicate that reverse burden of proof has a legitimate basis as an effort to combat corruption, which is considered an extraordinary crime, but its use must be positioned as a right, not an obligation of the defendant. Furthermore, its application cannot replace the state's duty to legally prove the elements of a criminal act, particularly the element of unlawfulness. Thus, the reverse burden of proof mechanism must be understood as a limited and balanced evidentiary strategy, to ensure that the judicial process remains within constitutional boundaries.

The increasing incidence of mob lynching and collective violence in India reflects a disturbing erosion of faith in the rule of law and the institutions responsible for administering justice. The phenomenon, often described as “mobocracy,” signifies a situation where groups of individuals assume the role of law enforcers, bypassing established legal procedures and constitutional safeguards. This research paper critically examines the failure of due process and its contribution to the rise of mob-driven justice in India. It analyses how delays in judicial proceedings, ineffective policing, lack of prompt accountability, and socio-political manipulation have collectively weakened public confidence in formal legal mechanisms. The study further explores the constitutional implications of mobocracy, particularly in relation to the right to life, presumption of innocence, and equality before law. By examining judicial responses, including landmark Supreme Court interventions, and assessing existing criminal laws, the paper highlights significant gaps in both prevention and enforcement. The research also considers the role of misinformation, identity-based hatred, and political narratives in mobilizing mobs and normalizing extra-legal punishment. Through doctrinal and analytical methods, this paper argues that mobocracy is not merely a law-and-order issue but a systemic failure of governance and constitutional morality. The study concludes by emphasizing the urgent need for comprehensive legal reforms, effective implementation of judicial guidelines, and restoration of public trust in due process to counter the growing culture of vigilantism and uphold democratic values.

Abstract Pre-trial detention occupies a contested position between safeguarding criminal procedure and protecting individual liberty. In Vietnam, the 2015 Criminal Procedure Code (the 2015 CPC) provides detailed provisions governing detention; however, questions persist regarding their consistency with international human rights standards. This study undertakes a comparative legal analysis to evaluate the conformity of Vietnamese law with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966) and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, 1950). Employing a qualitative structural comparative approach informed by Anckar’s (2020) most-similar and most-different systems design, the research focuses on four dimensions: statutory grounds for detention, procedural safeguards and judicial oversight, permissible duration and proportionality, and the availability of alternatives. The findings indicate that although the 2015 CPC incorporates protective principles, such as the presumption of innocence and recognition of non-custodial measures (Articles 121–126), it diverges from international standards by allowing detention based on offense seriousness (Article 119), authorizing extended custodial periods up to twenty months (Article 173), and granting significant authority to prosecutorial bodies. These provisions conflict with ICCPR Article 9 and ECHR Article 5, which emphasize individualized justification, prompt judicial review, and proportionality. The study concludes that meaningful reform of Vietnam’s pre-trial detention regime requires narrowing statutory grounds, reducing permissible durations, strengthening judicial independence, and institutionalizing alternatives, thereby ensuring compliance with international obligations.

Bail occupies a critical position within criminal adjudication as a mechanism that mediates between the presumption of innocence and the interests of effective law enforcement. It denotes the conditional release of an accused from custody, subject to judicially imposed obligations designed to secure appearance during trial. While the right to bail in bailable offences flows directly from statutory mandate however I serious offences it remains contingent upon the careful exercise of judicial discretion. Contemporary criminal procedure recognises multiple modalities of bail—regular, interim, and anticipatory—each serving as a safeguard against arbitrary deprivation of liberty while preserving the integrity of the criminal process.This paper undertakes a doctrinal and comparative examination of the concept of bail, tracing its evolution across English, American, and Indian legal systems. It analyses the classification of bail across different categories of offences and critically evaluates patterns of abuse that undermine the administration of criminal justice. Judicial responses to such misuse are examined through leading precedents. The paper further engages with Law Commission recommendations on bail reform and assesses the contours of judicial discretion in light of procedural changes introduced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). It argues that while bail continues to remain a cornerstone of procedural liberty under the BNSS, its application—particularly in non-bailable and special offences—demands a principled and restrained judicial approach.

GENDER BIAS AMONG MEN IN THE INDIAN LEGAL SYSTEM: A STUDY OF UNEQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW

In contemporary media-driven societies, the reporting of sexual offence cases has increasingly shifted from factual narration to narrative construction, often portraying the accused as presumptively guilty even before the commencement of trial. Prime-time television debates, digital news platforms, and social media trials frequently engage in sensationalism that undermines the foundational principles of criminal justice, particularly the presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial. This research paper critically examines the phenomenon of media-constructed criminality in sexual offence reporting through the lens of due process jurisprudence. It analyses how media narratives influence public perception, judicial neutrality, and procedural fairness, thereby transforming the accused into a symbolic offender in the court of public opinion. The paper evaluates constitutional guarantees, criminal procedure safeguards, and judicial responses to trial by media, with special reference to sexual offence cases where emotions, morality, and public outrage dominate discourse. It argues that while media plays a vital role in exposing crime and empowering victims, unregulated and prejudicial reporting risks violating due process and compromising justice itself. The study concludes by proposing regulatory, judicial, and ethical reforms to balance freedom of expression with the imperatives of fair trial and dignity of all stakeholders.

"Corporate Criminal Liability in Honduras: Scope and Implementation Challenges under the New Criminal Code"  <div> <br> </div> <div> "La Responsabilidad Penal de las Personas Jurídicas en el Nuevo Código Penal Hondureño: Alcance y Desafíos de Implementación" </div>

The article discusses the scope of protection of the image of participants in criminal proceedings from a constitutional perspective. The author points out the different understandings of the concept of image in legal writing and judicial decisions and notes the significant difference in the intensity of image protection between a suspect and a witness. The article discusses the conflict between two rights: the right to privacy and the right to information. It highlights that prioritizing personal rights, including the right to image, limits the flow of information. It is noted that a prosecutor’s or court’s decision to disclose a suspect’s image represents a resolution of the conflict between individual and societal interests. The publication analyzes the Press Law provisions limiting press freedom with regard to disclosing the image of a suspect. It underlines that publishing in the press any data enabling identification of a person against whom preparatory proceedings are pending directly interferes with their private life, often also family life, and may violate their honor and reputation. The article identifies conditions under which a suspect’s image may be disclosed, such as the need to prevent further criminal activity, help law enforcement establish new facts and evidence, fulfill the educational function of criminal proceedings, and warn and reassure the public. It also indicates that persons widely known to the public enjoy weaker legal protection of their image under Article 14(6) of the Press Law, when the image is related to the performance of public functions. The journalist’s right to report irregularities committed by public or local government officials is emphasized. The author advocates maintaining the current restrictions on the right to information provided in Article 13(2) and (3) of the Press Law, stressing the need to respect the right to privacy. The article presents the view that without these limitations, the fundamental principle of criminal proceedings—the presumption of innocence—would be illusory. The author emphasizes that every person accused of committing a crime has the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty in a public trial with all necessary guarantees for their defense.

Background: The rapid development of Artificial Intelligence has profoundly transformed various aspects of social life, including the criminal justice system. In criminal proceedings, the collection and processing of biometric, behavioral, and emotional data may threaten the right to privacy, the presumption of innocence, and the right to a fair trial. This study examines the intersection between technological innovation and personal data protection in criminal justice through a comparative legal analysis of the European Union and Vietnam. By analyzing the EU’s GDPR, Law Enforcement Directive, and AI Act 2024 alongside Vietnam’s legal framework, the paper identifies key areas of convergence, divergence, and regulatory gaps. Methods: The study employs comparative legal analysis, combined with a human rights–based approach, to clarify the relationship between technological innovation and the right to personal data protection in criminal justice. The sources of reference include the legal frameworks of the European Union and Vietnam, case law and reports from bodies of EU and United Nations. Results and Conclusions: The study aims to establish fundamental legal principles that balance technological innovation with the protection of the right to personal data in criminal justice—an approach that has received limited attention in Vietnam. Based on this foundation, it proposes legal reforms toward a framework of “human rights–oriented digital justice”, ensuring that the digitalization and application of AI in the justice system not only enhance operational efficiency but also strengthen the rule of law and protect people.

The article discusses the issue of confiscation of property in relation to criminally discovered digital assets (cryptocurrencies, tokens, NFT (Non-fungible token) and other electronic digital rights). Digital assets are a symbol of economic development, security and transparency, investment, and financial democracy. The article analyzes the role of digital assets in the legalization of proceeds from crime. The international The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) standards, of which the Republic of Kazakhstan is a member, are analyzed. One of the urgent legal problems today is the creation of a mechanism for the confiscation of digital assets. The article highlights the importance of creating this mechanism. Examples and cases from practice are analyzed, as well as samples from foreign countries, and the effectiveness of their application in the Republic of Kazakhstan is analyzed. The legal differentiation of the process of preservation and further effective use of digital assets after the mechanism of confiscation is carried out. The effectiveness and legality of storing confiscated digital assets on the Binance Kazakhstan digital asset exchange and the use of cryptocurrencies by law enforcement agencies in crypto exchanges are analyzed. The article explains the importance of secure storage of confiscated digital assets, transparency of information about stored digital assets, and the creation of mechanisms to regulate the emergence of full control over confiscated digital assets in the state. The article defines the significance for the Republic of Kazakhstan of the use of the institution of confiscation (non-conviction based confession) without a court verdict. A legal assessment is given of the conformity of the institution of confiscation of property without conviction with the presumption of innocence and inviolability of property rights.

The research object of this article is the analysis of establishing guilt in the corpus delicti provided for in Part 2 of Article 109 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and Part 2 of Article 118 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, committed by medical workers through negligence. The article attempts to examine this issue from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Using examples from judicial practice, the author raises problematic issues regarding the courts’ examination of the establishment of the perpetrator’s negligent attitude both to the socially dangerous consequences and to the cause-and-effect relationship between improper performance of professional duties and the occurrence of such consequences, established through expert examination. The paper notes a trend towards the use of the «presumption of guilt» in criminal law in judicial practice, which clearly does not correspond to the fundamental provisions on guilt as a key principle of criminal law, as well as the presumption of innocence in criminal procedural relations.

Administrative prejudice is one of the phenomena that make up the specifics of the national legal culture. Administrative prejudice refers to the procedures for establishing criminal liability for recidivism of administrative offenses. At this, neither legislators nor the academic community have agreed on a single interpretation of the essence of administrative prejudice. the validity of its introduction into the criminal law (whether the totality of administrative offenses is the basis for their qualification as elements of a complex offense), and criteria for its effectiveness. The lack of theoretical certainty of administrative prejudice phenomenon in the history of Russian jurisprudence raised issues related both to the practical implementation of the norm in question and to the scope of its compliance with the principle of social justice, a fundamental parameter of legal culture. The purpose of the study is to determine the conformity of institutions with administrative prejudice and the concept of social justice in the framework of improving the norms of legal culture. Materials and methods. The research used general scientific (analysis, deduction) and special legal methods (comparative legal analysis, method of legal interpretation). To achieve this goal, regulations, scientific publications and electronic resources of official websites of legal reference legal systems were used. Results. The issues of correlation between the concept of justice and the format of practical implementation of administrative prejudice identified the problem of compliance of the norm of transformation of administrative responsibility into criminal responsibility with the basic principles of legal culture. In particular, a set of contradictions was identified related to the problem of double punishment, a subjective interpretation of the offender's personality, ensuring the norms of legal equality, the conformity of punishment with the severity of the offense, and the presumption of innocence as inherent components of administrative prejudice. Conclusions. The Russian legal culture has developed antonymic polar approaches to the conformity of the norms of administrative prejudice and the resources of their enforcement with the principles of social justice. The concept of combining various offenses as the basis of criminal prosecution contradicts the law and the parameters of defining a crime as multiple and as a single one. The basis for characterizing an offense as a crime is an act that constitutes a significant public danger, which contradicts the composition of an administrative offense. The norms of administrative prejudice constitute an ambiguous system based on interpreting a set of repeated offenses as malicious recidivism, which obviously cannot be proven and, therefore, constitutes a violation of the basic principles of criminal law.

In the contemporary digital era, the media has emerged as an exceptionally powerful social institution whose influence extends far beyond information dissemination, particularly due to the rapid amplification of narratives through social media platforms and 24*7 digital news cycles. This paper undertakes a content analysis of media coverage surrounding the 2024 Pune Porsche hit-and-run case to examine how contemporary Indian media practices intersect with constitutional guarantees of free speech and fair trial. The paper situates a constitutional tension between Article 19(1)(a), guaranteeing freedom of speech and expression, and Article 21, which protects the right to life, personal liberty, and presumption of innocence. The paper acknowledges the media’s watchdog function in exposing alleged evidence tampering and institutional collusion, underscoring its dual role as both an accountability mechanism and a source of constitutional risk. In India, the media’s regulatory framework is fragmented, and only through advocating for regulatory harmonisation, strengthening enforcement of juvenile protection norms, and constitutional moderation can public scrutiny be ensured rather than undermined in the administration of justice through the media. Keywords:- Sensationalism, Media trial, Freedom of Speech and Expression

The article examines the use of artificial intelligence technologies in criminalistics within the framework of digital transformation of criminal proceedings and the growing role of digital evidence. The author analyzes the theoretical, legal, and practical dimensions of implementing intelligent systems in the activities of law enforcement agencies, emphasizing issues of algorithm interpretability, data reliability, and accountability for machine-generated results. Methodological distinctions between expert evaluation and algorithmic analysis are clarified, and potential risks related to fairness and the presumption of innocence are discussed. The study reviews international developments in regulating the use of artificial intelligence in criminal justice, including initiatives of the European Union, the United States, and the United Nations. Using Kazakhstan as a case study, the article highlights institutional and technological prerequisites for integrating AI into investigative practice and presents the outcomes of pilot projects by the Ministry of Internal Affairs focused on automating digital trace analysis, visual data recognition, and crime forecasting. The author concludes that transparent and verifiable standards of AI use must be legally established to ensure accountability and protection of rights. The article emphasizes the need for systematic professional training, interagency collaboration, and the creation of a unified national registry of intelligent technologies applied in investigative and forensic work.

The article provides a theoretical and legal analysis of one of the most controversial and socially significantinstitutions of the domestic criminal process: rehabilitation as a socio-legal phenomenon in Russianjurisprudence and criminal proceedings. The author emphasizes that despite the formal recognition of theconcept in Article 5, paragraph 34 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the essence ofrehabilitation as a complex socio-legal phenomenon remains unclear and generates serious contradictionsboth in scientific doctrine and in law enforcement practice. Based on the main scientific approaches to thedefinition of rehabilitation in legal literature, the author analyzes the term of rehabilitation in relation to suchconcepts as “rehabilitated”, “presumption of innocence” and “acquittal”. Based on the conducted research, itis proposed to amend the legislation by recommending a new wording for paragraph 34 of Article 5 of theCriminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, in order to provide a clearer definition of the concept.

The article presents a philosophical, legal and procedural study of the phenomenon of truth in criminal proceedings. It reveals the multidimensional nature of truth, which combines epistemological, moral, value-based and legal aspects, defining it both as a result of cognition and as a normative guideline for the functioning of judicial bodies. The main philosophical concepts of truth – correspondence, coherence, pragmatism and conventionalism – are analysed, and it is shown that none of them alone is capable of fully encompassing the complexity of legal knowledge. It is emphasised that in the legal dimension, truth is a synthesis of objective correspondence to facts and procedural requirements for its acquisition. It is noted that legal truth cannot be the result of a violation of human dignity or principles of justice, since the procedure for establishing it is inseparable from its content. The paper analyses the normative consolidation of truth in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, including the close link between the state’s duty to establish the truth, guarantees of due process and the presumption of innocence. Particular attention is paid to the standard of proof «beyond reasonable doubt», which is considered a key procedural tool for ensuring a balance between the pursuit of truth and the protection of individuals from the risk of wrongful conviction. It is emphasised that this standard does not require absolute knowledge, but rather defines a pragmatic level of persuasiveness of evidence sufficient for a fair court decision. The article also summarises judicial practice, which shows that participants in the process often appeal to the category of truth, while courts tend to avoid its direct use, focusing instead on evaluating evidence through the prism of procedural guarantees. This indicates a gradual transition to a model of procedural truth as an element of a fair trial. It is concluded that truth in criminal proceedings is the result of a lawful, adversarial and balanced procedural cognition, and will require further rethinking in light of technological changes, the development of digital evidence and the application of artificial intelligence.