Presentation of the accused in the light of the nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur rule - legal and forensic aspects

: 271-277
Lviv Polytechnic National University, Institute of Jurisprudence and Psychology
College of Occupational Safety Management in Katowice (Poland)

The article concerns the problem of convicting the accused in order to identify the accused (suspect) in criminal proceedings under Polish procedural criminal law in the context of the nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur rule (no one is guilty of the accused). In particular, the procedural and criminal aspects of the accused’s conviction and the means of obtaining evidence in criminal proceedings are thoroughly examined.

1. The Act of 06.06.1997 - Code of Criminal Procedure (i.e. Journal of Laws of 2020, item 30) 2. The Ordinance of the Minister of Justice of June 2, 2003 regarding the technical conditions of conducting the presentation (Journal of Laws of 2003, No. 104 item 981). Bibliography. 3. Ciarka M., Problems of voting, European Law in practice 2009, No. 2 4. Cielecki W., Grochowski T., Presentation as a procedural act, Ed. CSP in Legionowo, Legionowo 2003 5. Czeczot Z., Forensic issues of personal means of evidence, ed. UW, Warsaw 1976 6. Gruza E., Showing. Forensic issues, ed. Comer, Toruń 1995 7. Jerzyński Cz., Forensic issues of presentation, Police 2011, No. 3 8. Juszka K., The Principle of Material Truth and Suggestion in Presentation, Police Review 2009, No. 1 9. Juszka K., Procedural and criminal principles and the repetition of practical demonstrations, Problems of forensics 2009, no. 269 10. Karlik P., Opportunity - unsolved problems, Problems of modern forensics 2010, vol. 14 11. Kornak M., Some remarks regarding the presentation of persons and things. Criminal and procedural issues [in:] L. Bogunia (ed.), New Codification of Criminal Law, vol. 19, ed. UWr, Wrocław 2006 12. Kmiecik R., Rekognicja and confrontation in the light of the assumptions of strict proof, Nowe Prawa 1981, no. 5 13. Kulicki M., Forensics, part I, ed. UMK, Toruń 1972 14. Kwieciński J., Rekognicja - presentation for recognition, WPP 1998, No. 1-2 15. Lach A., Limits of examining the accused for evidence. A study in the light of the nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur rule and the right to privacy, ed. TNOIK Dom Organizer, Toruń 2011 16. Lisiecki M., Direct and indirect presentation of persons in criminal proceedings, Prok. and Pr. 1997, No. 3 17. Lisiecki M., Terms and conditions of the technical presentation, Prok. and Pr. 1999, No. 4, p. 109. 18. Lisiecki M., Presentation in the new Code of Criminal Procedure, Prok. and Pr. 1998, no. 3 19. O.E. de Briton Alvarenga, Identification of the human voice, Problems of Forensics, no. 1 20. Sikora A., Accused with an object of presentation. Comments on the obligation of the accused to submit to the examination purposes, Internet Legal Review TBSP UJ 2017/7 21. Szczepaniec M., Admission to vote, Zeszyty Prawnicze UKSW 2011, No. 11.2 22. Wójcikiewicz J., Okazanie. Comparative study on the borderline of forensics and criminal trial, Scientific Notebooks of the Jagiellonian University - Legal Studies 1985, No. 117. Jurisprudence. 23. Judgment of the Supreme Court of 18.07.2013, reference number act: III KK 92/13, OSNKW 2013/11/98 24. Wyrok SA in Lublin of 05.07.2017, reference number act: II AKa 116/17, LEX No. 2355880 25. Judgment in Wrocław of 08.11.2017, reference number act: II AKa 300/17, LEX No. 2412864 26. Judgment in Katowice of 17.06.2016, reference number act: II AKa 149/16, LEX No. 2087866 27. Judgment in Bialystok of February 17, 2015. ref. act: II AKa 9/15, LEX No. 1659036 28. Judgment in Bialystok of 17/09/2015, reference number act: II AKa 147/15, LEX No. 1934430 29. Judgment in Lublin of October 21, 2015, reference number act: II AKa 229/15, LEX No. 1957350 30. Judgment in Cracow of February 13, 2014, reference number act: II AKa 280/13, LEX No. 1540480 31. Judgment of SA in Krakow of 28.11.2013, reference number act: II AKa 235/13, LEX No. 1466265 32. Judgment in Cracow of July 31, 2013, reference number act: II AKa 130/13, LEX No. 1362720 33. Wyrok SA in Poznań of 11.09.2012, reference number act: III K 147/11, LEX No. 1237532 34. Judgment in Katowice of November 30, 2012, reference number act: II AKa 459/12, LEX No. 1236456 35. Judgment of SA in Krakow of 07.12.2011, reference number act: II AKa 225/11, LEX No. 1147598 36. Judgment in Lublin of February 4, 2010, reference number act: II AKa 234/09, LEX No. 583681 37. Judgment in Wrocław of 08.09.2010, reference number act: II AKa 103/10, OSAW 2011/2/218 38. Judgment of the SR in Świdnica of 31.05.2013, reference number act: II K 719/11, LEX No. 1953927

Szajna А., Huzela М. "Presentation of the accused in the light of the nemo se ipsum accusare tenetur rule - legal and forensic aspects"