危害人类罪的证据充分性标准

Gustavo Poblete
{"title":"危害人类罪的证据充分性标准","authors":"Gustavo Poblete","doi":"10.22197/hp3yav79","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article justifies a standard of proof for crimes against humanity. In order to achieve that objective, this investigation is divided into three parts. Firstly, it reflects the absence of an exhaustive explanation that justifies the application of a standard of proof in transitional justice. Secondly, it adopts an alternative procedural model as a method to set a flexible standard of proof, different from these used in criminal trials. Thirdly, it designs the argument of procedural asymmetries to expose two central aspects: the unjustified disadvantage suffered by the victim of crimes against humanity and the limitations of the legal sanction imposed for these crimes. Lastly, the article concludes that the application of a differentiated standard of proof is only possible in exceptional cases, such as those trials associated with serious human rights violations.","PeriodicalId":41933,"journal":{"name":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"El estándar de suficiencia probatoria para crímenes de lesa humanidad\",\"authors\":\"Gustavo Poblete\",\"doi\":\"10.22197/hp3yav79\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article justifies a standard of proof for crimes against humanity. In order to achieve that objective, this investigation is divided into three parts. Firstly, it reflects the absence of an exhaustive explanation that justifies the application of a standard of proof in transitional justice. Secondly, it adopts an alternative procedural model as a method to set a flexible standard of proof, different from these used in criminal trials. Thirdly, it designs the argument of procedural asymmetries to expose two central aspects: the unjustified disadvantage suffered by the victim of crimes against humanity and the limitations of the legal sanction imposed for these crimes. Lastly, the article concludes that the application of a differentiated standard of proof is only possible in exceptional cases, such as those trials associated with serious human rights violations.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22197/hp3yav79\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22197/hp3yav79","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

该条规定了危害人类罪的证据标准。为了实现这一目标,本调查分为三个部分。首先,它反映了缺乏一个详尽的解释来证明在过渡时期司法中适用证据标准是合理的。其次,它采用了另一种程序模式,作为制定有别于刑事审判的灵活证据标准的方法。第三,文章设计了程序不对称的论点,以揭示两个核心方面:危害人类罪受害者遭受的不合理的不利处境以及对这些罪行实施的法律制裁的局限性。最后,文章得出结论,只有在特殊情况下,如与严重侵犯人权有关的审判,才有可能适用有区别的举证标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
El estándar de suficiencia probatoria para crímenes de lesa humanidad
The article justifies a standard of proof for crimes against humanity. In order to achieve that objective, this investigation is divided into three parts. Firstly, it reflects the absence of an exhaustive explanation that justifies the application of a standard of proof in transitional justice. Secondly, it adopts an alternative procedural model as a method to set a flexible standard of proof, different from these used in criminal trials. Thirdly, it designs the argument of procedural asymmetries to expose two central aspects: the unjustified disadvantage suffered by the victim of crimes against humanity and the limitations of the legal sanction imposed for these crimes. Lastly, the article concludes that the application of a differentiated standard of proof is only possible in exceptional cases, such as those trials associated with serious human rights violations.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
66.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Reflections about the preclusion of the right to prove in Brazilian criminal procedure Os vícios de motivação como causa do erro judiciário: um primeiro esboço Reparation as a condition of the non-prosecution agreement in crimes against the tax system Il giudice, le parti e la prova nel sistema di giudizio penale italiano: contributo alla riforma in Brasile Specialised justice as a path between the universal and the particular in the light of the Chilean case
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1