REMOTE CONDUCT OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS BY MEANS OF AUDIO-VISUAL COMMUNICATION AND THE GUARANTEES OF FAIR TRIAL
Main Article Content
Abstract
This Article addresses an issue related to criminal procedures conducted by video-conferencethis is a clear development over the traditional confrontational criminal procedures. This latter means the effective presence of the suspect at the stage of inquiry, as well as at the stage of criminal investigation, especially during the trial stage. In this way, this form of non-adversarial criminal procedures raises an issue with regard to the guarantees of fair trial such as the right to defense and the right to confrontation, and even before the court where the personal presence of the accused, especially in criminal matters is necessary. This article is a comparative one where the Emirati Law is compared to other laws especially the American Law and the French Law.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
A- Books and Articles;
-Ayodele Akenroye, Centre for Criminology and Socio-legal Studies (UofT)Videoconferencing Technologies and How It Challenges the Fundamental Tenets of Our Criminal Justice System in Canada: http://www.slaw.ca/2021/01/27/videoconferencing-technologies-and-how-it-challenges-the-fundamental-tenets-of-our-criminal-justice-system-in-canada/
-Laurent Desessard,Témoin : matière pénale– Répertoire de droit international, janv. 2007
-Pascal Dourneau-Josette ,Convention européenne des droits de l'homme : jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme en matière pénale –– juin 2013 (actualisation : mai 2018) Répertoire de droit pénal et de procédure pénale.
-Dr.. Eman bint Muhammad bin Abdullah Al-Qathami, Remote Litigation, An Applied Jurisprudence Study on the Saudi System, Journal of Sharia Sciences and Islamic Studies, Issue (84) Rajab 1332 AH, March 2021, p. 964
-Dr.. Ghannam Mohamed Ghannam, Explanation of the Egyptian Criminal Procedure Law, Mansoura University, 2013, p. 406.
-Matthew J. Tokson, Virtual Confrontation: Is Videoconference Testimony by an Unavailable Witness Constitutional, 74 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1581 (2007).
-Dr.. Tamer Muhammad Muhammad Salih, Remote Presence in the Criminal Case, Dar Al-Fikr and Al-Qanoon, Mansoura, 2021, p. 70
-Francis A. Weber, complying with the Confrontation Clause in the Twenty-First Century: Guidance for Courts and Legislatures Considering Videoconference-Testimony Provisions, 86 Temp. L. Rev. 149 (2013).
B- Judicial Decisions;
-Court of Egyptian Cassation, March 16, 1949, Group of Legal Rules, C. 7, No. 889, p. 858; -Cassation of June 14, 1951, a set of rulings of the Court of Cassation, S. 2, No. 444, p. 1216.
-Pointer v. Tex., 380 U.S. 400, 403 (1965).
-Douglas v. Alabama: 380 US 415 (1965); Maryland v Craig, 497 US 836 (1990).
-391 U.S. 123, 126 (1968).
--487 U.S. 1012 (1988).
-Coy v Iowa, 487 US 1012, 1016 (1988).
-Maryland v Craig 497 US 836 (1990).
-Appeal No. 554 of 60 BC, session 2/5/1991
-Lala c. Pays-Bas, arrêt du 22 septembre 1994, série A no 297-A, p. 13, § 33, Poitrimol c. France, arrêt du 23 novembre 1993, série A no 277-A, p. 15, § 35, et De Lorenzo c. Italie (déc.), no 69264/01, 12 février 2004
-U.S. v. Houlihan, 92 F.3d 1271, 1296 (1st Cir. 1996).
-Doorson c. Pays-Bas, arrêt du 26 mars 1996, Recueil des arrêts et décisions 1996-II, p. 470, § 70, et Van Mechelen et autres c. Pays-Bas, arrêt du 23 avril 1997, Recueil 1997-III, p. 711, § 53
-Harrell v State, 709 S2d 1364, 1368-69 (Fla 1998).
-Harrell v State, 709 S2d 1364, 1368-69 (Fla 1998).
-166 F3d 75 (2d Cir 1999).
-arrêt no 342 du 22 juillet 1999
-16 oct. 2001, Brennan c/ Royaume-Uni, req. no 39846/98, § 38-40, CEDH 2001-X.
-Dondarini c. Saint-Marin, no 50545/99, § 27, 6 juillet 2004.
-Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36,42-43 (2004).
-19 mai 2005, Vigroux c/ France, req. no 62034/00, § 28-30.
-438 F3d 1307 (llth Cir 2006) (en banc).
673, 679 (1986); U.S. v. Byrne, 435 F.3d 16, 21-22 (1st Cir. 2006).
-13 mars 2007, Castravet c/ Moldova, req. no 23393/05, § 49
-U.S. v. Martinez-Vives, 475 F.3d 48, 53-54 (1st Cir. 2007)
-554 U.S 353, 360 (2008).
-l’arrêt Lawyer Partner (CEDH, 16/06/2009, n°54252/07, Lawyer Partner SA c/ Slovaquie ; Procédures, 2009, comm.358 N. Fricero
-557 U.S. 305 (2009).
-Qatar Court of Cassation, Criminal Articles 6/20/2011, No. 116/2011; And in Egyptian law:
-Decision No 76 2018: https://www.const-court.be/public/f/2018/2018-076f.pdf
-Décision n° 2020-872 QPC du 15 janvier 2021.