Home Archive Organization Program News Contact
PDF download
Cite article
Share options
Informations, rights and permissions
Issue image
Vol 2, Issue 1, 2013
Pages: 295 - 305
None of above
See full issue

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 

Metrics and citations
Abstract views: 11
PDF Downloads: 0
Google scholar: See link
Article content
  1. Abstract
  2. Disclaimer
Received: >> Accepted: >> Published: 01.09.2013. None of above

Groundless Apprehension In The Criminal Legislation Of The Republic Of Serbia (Responsibility And Punishment)

By
Dragan Jovašević ,
Dragan Jovašević

Pravni fakultet Univerziteta u Nišu , Niš , Serbia

Ljubinko Mitrović
Ljubinko Mitrović

Fakultet pravnih nauka Panevropskog univerziteta APEIRON u Banjoj Luci , Banja Luka , Bosnia and Herzegovina

Abstract

No matter how hard the legislator tries to predict the perfect criminal proceedings, in practice, it often happens that a person is groundless (unjustly) convicted, or that in such a case there is groundless apprehension of a person. In this way, their unfounded detention certainly violates basic human rights and freedoms of the people and causes considerable damage to them. It often triggers the question: is it possible to remove this damage? However, in order to eliminate the damage (tangible and intangible) that may occur as a result of an unjust conviction or groundless deprivation of liberty of a person, the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Serbia from 2011 have determined the right to compensation. Based on the constitutional provisions, the Code of Criminal Procedure from 2011, in Part XXV (provisions of Articles 583-595), envisages a special kind of criminal procedure - the procedure for obtaining the rights of persons groundless detained or groundless convicted. In this paper, we will talk about exactly these legislative solutions.

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.