Introduction
Every human being has a right to representation in the face of law. This might be through an appointed body or by self. It is for this reason that human rights activists and other such like bodies put much effort to enlighten and ensure that this case is observed at all costs (MCBride, 2006). In a case of crime, the law purports that the guilty party must be proved beyond doubt that they actually did act in manner that will beyond reasonable doubts attribute them to the crime. Among the factors considered in this regard is the case of self-incrimination.
This includes where an individual presents oneself as the main culprit in a crime and more to this adduces information that could be used as evidence to support such crimes. …show more content…
Among the most common is the excessive time that the court takes to determine a specified case (Mole 2006). More to this the article is inapplicable in military courts where the court martials are not bound and fail to recognize the article and apply the law as it applies within the specified military body.
While article six allows for cross-examination of witnesses, the clause also varies when it comes to the issue of testimony provided by an absent party (Leorard, 1986). This may be due to among other factors protection of the witness and natural aspects like death and disability that may not allow the witness to appear in court. In such circumstances, the jury is under the obligation to consider whether such evidence is applicable in course of the …show more content…
Whereas the law is applicable in most of the states there are instances whose jurisdiction varies and are not party to this ratification (MCBride, 2006). In other instances, individual jurisdictions make amendments to ensure that the article conforms to the laws of the land (N. Mole 2006). It is in such regard that Turkish state security courts are incompatible with the article and as such is never applied in any of their proceedings.
Court settlements and judgments
Depending on the gravity of the case in question, the judgments vary widely. However, the court must in accordance with the stipulated laws ensure that a fair conclusion of the case is attained (Leorard, 1986). In this regard, the court may undertake a number of options that include acquittal of the case. In such an instance the evidence provided before the court fails to warrant any form of punishment or it is too little that the time and inconveniences caused to the accused are considered to be enough punishment. In other instances the court may award punishment that may range from a fine, imprisonment or
Every human being has a right to representation in the face of law. This might be through an appointed body or by self. It is for this reason that human rights activists and other such like bodies put much effort to enlighten and ensure that this case is observed at all costs (MCBride, 2006). In a case of crime, the law purports that the guilty party must be proved beyond doubt that they actually did act in manner that will beyond reasonable doubts attribute them to the crime. Among the factors considered in this regard is the case of self-incrimination.
This includes where an individual presents oneself as the main culprit in a crime and more to this adduces information that could be used as evidence to support such crimes. …show more content…
Among the most common is the excessive time that the court takes to determine a specified case (Mole 2006). More to this the article is inapplicable in military courts where the court martials are not bound and fail to recognize the article and apply the law as it applies within the specified military body.
While article six allows for cross-examination of witnesses, the clause also varies when it comes to the issue of testimony provided by an absent party (Leorard, 1986). This may be due to among other factors protection of the witness and natural aspects like death and disability that may not allow the witness to appear in court. In such circumstances, the jury is under the obligation to consider whether such evidence is applicable in course of the …show more content…
Whereas the law is applicable in most of the states there are instances whose jurisdiction varies and are not party to this ratification (MCBride, 2006). In other instances, individual jurisdictions make amendments to ensure that the article conforms to the laws of the land (N. Mole 2006). It is in such regard that Turkish state security courts are incompatible with the article and as such is never applied in any of their proceedings.
Court settlements and judgments
Depending on the gravity of the case in question, the judgments vary widely. However, the court must in accordance with the stipulated laws ensure that a fair conclusion of the case is attained (Leorard, 1986). In this regard, the court may undertake a number of options that include acquittal of the case. In such an instance the evidence provided before the court fails to warrant any form of punishment or it is too little that the time and inconveniences caused to the accused are considered to be enough punishment. In other instances the court may award punishment that may range from a fine, imprisonment or