LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Forum Index

LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1)
...

 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL ET TRIBUNAUX MILITAIRES ET SPÉCIAUX
Goto page: <  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Forum Index -> LES CAMPS DE CONCENTRATION/CONCENTRATION CAMPS -> LA COUR PENALE INTERNATIONALE, TRIBUNAUX MILITAIRES ET TRIBUNAL DE L'INQUISITION/DOCTRINE DE LA FOI 2015 - TRIBUNAUX ANTI-TERRORISTES
Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
maria
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 32,401
Féminin

PostPosted: Tue 31 Oct - 20:07 (2017)    Post subject: ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT* / STATUT DE ROME DE LA COUR PÉNALE INTERNATIONALE Reply with quote


      

      
 
ROME STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT    
 
 
http://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm

STATUT DE ROME DE LA COUR PÉNALE INTERNATIONALE
https://childrenandarmedconflict.un.org/keydocuments/french/romestatuteofthe7.html


Back to top
Publicité






PostPosted: Tue 31 Oct - 20:07 (2017)    Post subject: Publicité

PublicitéSupprimer les publicités ?
Back to top
maria
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 32,401
Féminin

PostPosted: Wed 7 Mar - 06:12 (2018)    Post subject: 2018 AMENDMENTS TO THE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES Reply with quote

2018 AMENDMENTS TO THE MANUAL FOR COURTS-MARTIAL, UNITED STATES

Law & Justice

Issued on: March 1, 2018

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), 10 U.S.C. 801-946), and in order to prescribe amendments to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, prescribed by Executive Order 12473 of April 13, 1984, as amended, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Part II, Part III, and Part IV of the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, are amended as described in Annex 1, which is attached to and made a part of this order.

Sec. 2.  The amendments in Annex 1 shall take effect on the date of this order, subject to the following:
(a)  Nothing in Annex 1 shall be construed to make punishable any act done or omitted prior to the date of this order that was not punishable when done or omitted.
(b)  Nothing in Annex 1 shall be construed to invalidate the prosecution of any offense committed before the date of this order.  The maximum punishment for an offense committed before the date of this order shall not exceed the maximum punishment in effect at the time of the commission of such offense.
(c)  Nothing in Annex 1 shall be construed to invalidate any nonjudicial punishment proceeding, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior to the date of this order, and any such nonjudicial punishment proceeding, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action shall proceed in the same manner and with the same effect as if the amendments in Annex 1 had not been prescribed.

Sec. 3.  (a)  Pursuant to section 5542 of the Military
Justice Act of 2016 (MJA), division E of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017, Public Law 114-328, 130 Stat. 2000, 2967 (2016), except as otherwise provided by the MJA or this order, the MJA shall take effect on January 1, 2019.
(b)  Nothing in the MJA shall be construed to make punishable any act done or omitted prior to January 1, 2019, that was not punishable when done or omitted.
(c)  Nothing in title LX of the MJA shall be construed to invalidate the prosecution of any offense committed before January 1, 2019.  The maximum punishment for an offense committed before January 1, 2019, shall not exceed the maximum punishment in effect at the time of the commission of such offense.
(d)  Nothing in the MJA shall be construed to invalidate any nonjudicial punishment proceeding, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior to January 1, 2019.  Except as otherwise provided in this order, the MJA shall not apply in any case in which charges are referred to trial by court-martial before January 1, 2019.  Except as otherwise provided in this order, proceedings in any such case shall be held in the same manner and with the same effect as if the MJA had not been enacted.
Sec. 4.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, as amended by section 1 of this order, is amended as described in Annex 2, which is attached to and made a part of this order.
Sec. 5.  The amendments in Annex 2, including Appendix 12A, shall take effect on January 1, 2019, subject to the following:
(a)  Nothing in Annex 2 shall be construed to make punishable any act done or omitted prior to January 1, 2019, that was not punishable when done or omitted.
(b)  Nothing in section 4 of Annex 2 shall be construed to invalidate the prosecution of any offense committed before January 1, 2019.  The maximum punishment for an offense committed before January 1, 2019, shall not exceed the maximum punishment in effect at the time of the commission of such offense.
(c)  Nothing in Annex 2 shall be construed to invalidate any nonjudicial punishment proceeding, restraint, investigation, referral of charges, trial in which arraignment occurred, or other action begun prior to January 1, 2019.  Except as otherwise provided in this order, the amendments in Annex 2 shall not apply in any case in which charges are referred to trial by court-martial before January 1, 2019.  Except as otherwise provided in this order, proceedings in any such case shall be held in the same manner and with the same effect as if such amendments had not been prescribed.
Sec. 6.  (a)  The amendments to Articles 2, 56(d), 58a, and 63 of the UCMJ enacted by sections 5102, 5301, 5303, and 5327 of the MJA apply only to cases in which all specifications allege offenses committed on or after January 1, 2019.
(b)  If the accused is found guilty of a specification alleging the commission of one or more offenses before January 1, 2019, Article 60 of the UCMJ, as in effect on the date of the earliest offense of which the accused was found guilty, shall apply to the convening authority, in addition to the suspending authority in Article 60a(c) as enacted by the MJA, to the extent that Article 60:
(1)  requires action by the convening authority on the sentence;
(2)  permits action by the convening authority on findings;
(3)  authorizes the convening authority to modify the findings and sentence of a court-martial, dismiss any charge or specification by setting aside a finding of guilty thereto, or change a finding of guilty to a charge or specification to a finding of guilty to an offense that is a lesser included offense of the offense stated in the charge or specification;
(4)  authorizes the convening authority to order a proceeding in revision or a rehearing; or
(5)  authorizes the convening authority to approve, disapprove, commute, or suspend a sentence in whole or in part.
Sec. 7.  The amendment to Article 15 of the UCMJ enacted by section 5141 of the MJA shall apply to any nonjudicial punishment imposed on or after January 1, 2019.
Sec. 8.  The amendments to Articles 32 and 34 of the UCM enacted by sections 5203 and 5205 of the MJA apply with respect to preliminary hearings conducted and advice given on or after January 1, 2019.
Sec. 9.  The amendments to Article 79 of the UCMJ enacted by section 5402 of the MJA and the amendments to Appendix 12A to the Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, made by this order apply only to offenses committed on or after January 1, 2019.
Sec. 10.  Except as provided by Rule for Courts-Martial 902A, as promulgated by Annex 2, any change to sentencing procedures:
(a)  made by Articles 16(c)(2), 19(b), 25(d)(2) and (3), 39(a)(4), 53, 53a, or 56(c) of the UCMJ, as enacted by sections 5161, 5163, 5182, 5222, 5236, 5237, and 5301 of the MJA; or
(b)  included in Annex 2 in rules implementing those articles, applies only to cases in which all specifications allege offenses committed on or after January 1, 2019.
Sec. 11.  The amendments to Article 146 of the UCMJ enacted by section 5521 of the MJA and the new Article 146a enacted by section 5522 of the MJA shall take effect on the day after the report for fiscal year 2017 required by Article 146(c) of the UCMJ (as in effect before the MJA’s amendments) is submitted in accordance with Article 146(c)(1), but in no event later than December 1, 2018.
Sec. 12.  In accordance with Article 33 of the UCMJ, as amended by section 5204 of the MJA, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, will issue nonbinding guidance regarding factors that commanders, convening authorities, staff judge advocates, and judge advocates should take into account when exercising their duties with respect to the disposition of charges and specifications in the interest of justice and discipline under Articles 30 and 34 of the UCMJ. That guidance will take into account, with appropriate consideration of military requirements, the principles contained in official guidance of the Attorney General to attorneys for the Federal Government with respect to the disposition of Federal criminal cases in accordance with the principle of fair and evenhanded administration of Federal criminal law.

DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
March 1, 2018.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2018-amendments-manual-cour…


Back to top
maria
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 32,401
Féminin

PostPosted: Sun 25 Mar - 10:20 (2018)    Post subject: EXECUTIVE ORDER_ MILITARY TRIBUNALS FOR PEDOGATE Reply with quote

EXECUTIVE ORDER_ MILITARY TRIBUNALS FOR PEDOGATE



VIDEO : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtTRK2Ircvc


Back to top
maria
Administrateur

Offline

Joined: 18 Jun 2011
Posts: 32,401
Féminin

PostPosted: Sun 30 Sep - 03:40 (2018)    Post subject: POLISH DEMOCRACY IS UNDER SIEGE —bBY THE EUROPEAN UNION Reply with quote

POLISH DEMOCRACY IS UNDER SIEGE —BY THE EUROPEAN UNION 

EU thinks it should be up to the EU how Poland appoints judges—not even the USSR insisted on such a tight control over its satellites 

Salvatore Babones Fri, Sep 28, 2018

The European Commission, led by Luxembourg’s former Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker, is taking Poland to court in an attempt to force its government to roll back judicial changes introduced this April. Juncker and his fellow commissioners have asked the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to rule that Poland’s recent actions “risk . . . serious and irreparable damage to judicial independence in Poland.”

The European Commission is the main administrative organ of the European Union, and its President, Jean-Claude Juncker, is the de facto Prime Minister of the EU. Juncker and Poland’s Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki have been at each other’s throats over Poland’s judicial laws since the beginning of the year.



Their dispute centers on Poland’s decision to reduce the retirement age for Polish Supreme Court judges from seventy to sixty-five years old. Everyone—even Morawiecki’s Law and Justice (PiS) party—agrees that the retirement age was changed to force the retirement of older judges who were appointed under previous governments. The two questions at issue are: (A) is that legal? and (B) is that democratic?

With no sense of irony, the European Commission’s hysterical press release admonishes the ECJ to “protect the independence” of Poland by overturning the country’s own laws. Specifically, the Commission claims that:

Polish law . . . is incompatible with EU law as it undermines the principle of judicial independence, including the irremovability of judges, and thereby Poland fails to fulfil its obligations under Article 19(1) of the Treaty on European Union read in connection with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Only a Polish constitutional lawyer can properly dissect the fine legal points at stake here. But the political points seem clear enough to anyone. Article 19(1) says simply that “Member States shall provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law.” And Article 47 guarantees all EU citizens the right to a fair trial in front of “an independent and impartial tribunal.”

That’s all pretty generic. Maybe it is wrong for a government to force judges to retire. But it’s a big step from the Article 47 guarantee of an “independent” judiciary to the European Commission’s claim that “the principle of judicial independence” includes “the irremovability of judges.”

In its usual meaning, an “independent and impartial tribunal” is a court that shows no favor to either side. It would take decades of expansive jurisprudence to argue those four words really mean that a democratically elected government cannot force judges to retire early for political reasons. After all, they are appointed for political reasons, as the bitter debate over Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation shows only too well.

Confusingly, Poland’s own Constitution says that “Judges shall not be removable” but that “A statute shall establish an age limit beyond which a judge shall proceed to retirement.” That sounds like a formula for a Polish Marbury v. Madison . It doesn’t sound like a reason for a super-national organization to interfere in the politics of one of its member states.

But then, Poland has a history of getting pushed around by its larger neighbors. First it was Russia, Prussia, and Austria carving up the Polish Commonwealth in the late 1700s.

Then it was the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, when the Russians and the Germans once again divided Poland between themselves. When Poland regained its statehood in 1945, it was as an occupied client state of the Soviet Union.

Since 1989, Poland has been free to forge its own destiny. It joined NATO in 1999 and the European Union in 2004. Its NATO membership secured its borders. Its EU membership was supposed to secure its democracy.

Democracy is once again under threat in Europe today—but it’s the European Union that is threatening it. Poland only regained full independence in 1991, and its current constitution was adopted in 1997. In American Constitutional time, that would put Poland at right around 1810. Democracy is messy, and it takes time to mature.

Poland’s democracy can handle this issue on its own. It doesn’t need Big Brother to make a decision for it. There’s an election due in 2019, and if the Polish people don't like what their government has done, then the Polish people can take their vengeance. But if the Polish people approve of what’s being done in their name, then what business is it of Juncker and Co. to interfere?

Source: The National Interest

https://russia-insider.com/en/polish-democracy-under-siege-european-union/r…


Back to top
Contenu Sponsorisé






PostPosted: Today at 11:29 (2019)    Post subject: TRIBUNAL INTERNATIONAL ET TRIBUNAUX MILITAIRES ET SPÉCIAUX

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    LE VOÎLE DÉCHIRÉ (1) Forum Index -> LES CAMPS DE CONCENTRATION/CONCENTRATION CAMPS -> LA COUR PENALE INTERNATIONALE, TRIBUNAUX MILITAIRES ET TRIBUNAL DE L'INQUISITION/DOCTRINE DE LA FOI 2015 - TRIBUNAUX ANTI-TERRORISTES All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Goto page: <  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
Jump to:  

Index | Create a forum | Free support forum | Free forums directory | Report a violation | Conditions générales d'utilisation
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group