KOMENTARI ELEKTRONIK
CODE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE FOR CHILDREN   |   37/2017

Article 60: Guarantees of the child concerning application of the diversion measure

Previous Next

1Before applying a measure of diversion from criminal prosecution, the child and child’s defence counsel and, where appropriate, legal representative, shall have the right to be provided with detailed information about the nature of diversion from criminal prosecution, its duration, conditions and manner of application as well as the consequences for failure to fulfil the measures of diversion.

2It shall be explained to the child verbally and in writing or in the proper forms of communication based on the special capacity of the child that consent to diversion is voluntary and that the child has the right to waiver at any stage.

3If the child does not have a defence counsel, the child and child’s legal representative shall be informed on the right to have a defence counsel.

4Admission of a criminal offence by a child and information collected on the child during the process of diversion may not be used in court against the child.

Table of Content

      1. The purpose of Article 60 has been clearly set out in its caption. This article aims at guaranteeing the implementation of the diversion measure by the competent body only after abiding by the specific and detailed rules which should be followed strictly during the entire process where the minor in conflict with the law is involved. Article 60 aims at guaranteeing the measure of diversion to be a consequence of a long and comprehensive process of informing the minor, his defence lawyer and, as appropriate, legal representative of the minor.

       

      1. Article 60 aims at clarifying the special rules and procedures to be followed by the competent authority with regard to informing the minor in conflict with the law regarding the process to be followed from the very beginning to the end of application of the measures of diversion from criminal prosecution. It is intended to protect the best interest of the child by way of determining rules and standards to be followed by the competent body regarding the right of the minor in conflict with the law to be informed which are in compliance with the Constitution, Convention of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) on the Rights of the Child and other international norms and standards designated to protect the child and the effective defence of the his/her best interests.[1]

       

      1. At the same time this Article aims at strengthening procedural principles and guarantees, such as the principle of free consent and voluntarism, the right to renounce diversion, that of legal defence and principle of confidentiality.

       

      [1] See Article 3, point 1, of the United Nations Convention on the right of the Child, 20 November 1989, providing for that all the decisions surrounding the child, taken by the public or private institutions of social welfare, by the courts, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interest of the child shall be considered to be prevailing. 

      1. Article 60 of CCJM, composed of four paragraphs, foresees the chronology of the guarantees which should be taken into account by the competent body referring to Article 3, paragraph 15 for applying the measure of diversion and the way of giving effect to it for the minor.

       

      1. Article 60 of CCJM has a descriptive nature. |The procedural steps to be followed, in terms of time, prior to making the decision regarding the measure of diversion to the child in conflict with the law are established. Furthermore, the type of information that should be provided to the child; the way and form of information; to whom, in addition to the child, this information should be made available. In paragraph 4 of this Article it has been stated that the information received by the child during diversion process should not be used by the court against him/her.

       

      1. Regarding the participants of this preliminary information procedure, the Article separately identifies the minors in conflict with the law and the competent/decision-making body, which, as appropriate, may be the prosecutor or court. This information is mandatory for the defence lawyer of the child and to the consent legal representative of the child.

       

      1. The Structure of Article 60 of CCJM impacts on the obligation and the relevance associating of the information on using diversion from criminal prosecution against the child in conflict with the law for the competent body, thus highlighting that the child should have the possibility to exercise his/her right and will for accepting or not the implementation of diversion. During this entire process, the competent criminal justice system bodies, according to this Code, shall take any decision mandatorily considering the best interest of the child according to CCJM, UNO Convention on the Rights of the Child’s.
      1. Regarding the meaning of the phrase ‘Prior to implementing the decision on the diversion form criminal prosecution...’, Article 60 of CCJM aims at clarifies the time when the prosecutor or the court shall inform the child in conflict with the law and his defence lawyer regarding the diversion in detail. This procedural moment is mandatory and it should be abided by. Par 1 of Article 60 of CCJM contains a list of all the issues whereon the prosecutor or the court, as well as the competent bodies, should inform, the child in conflict with the law, his defence lawyer and the concerned legal representative prior to deciding on the measure of diversion from criminal prosecution.

       

      1. Article 60, par 1, enlists all issues of which the competent body should obligatorily inform the child and his defence lawyer. Such are: the essence of the diversion its duration, conditions and way of implementation, as well as the consequences in the event of not fulfilling the diversion measure. All these issues have been regulated in separate Articles of Chapter VII, respectively Articles 55-72 of the CCJM. The information on these issues should be complete. Highlighting the details of the information, the legislature aims to order the competent body to demonstrate the appropriate diligence to providing full and comprehensive explanations, which might contain many individual aspects connected to the diversion and its effects[1].This principle is reinforced even by paragraph 2 of Article 60.

       

      1. The eventual alternative measures for the diversion from the criminal prosecution have been provided for in Article 62 of this Code and in a specific way in Articles 63 - 69 CCJM. It is decisive that the minor conflicting with the law be aware of the way of the procedure of implementing and enforcing the measure of diversion is going to be conducted, by which service and person, of the eventual consequences and the various conclusions of imposition of this measure, for instance, the success, failure or partial solution. The obligation to provide information is incumbent on the criminal justice authorities. Such an information is indispensable for the minor to have the possibility to express his will regarding the implementation of the measure of diversion from the criminal prosecution or the opposite. The criminal justice system bodies shall take any decision taking account of the highest interest of the child according to CCJM, UNO Convention on the Rights of the Child and European Convention on the Exercise of the Childrens’ Rights. Regarding the elements of the agreement and the rules for the implementation of the respective program provided for in agreements, the competent body shall refer to Article 58 of CCJM, determining, by way of referral, in paragraph 4 that it is going to be part of the order of the Minister of Justice. The human rights and general legal guarantees shall always be observed fully in this information process and during the entire period of implementation of the diversion measure.

       

      1. Article 60 highlights, in its paragraph 2, some important aspects. First, the forms of communication with the minors including the oral and written communication. Thus, any detail of the measure of diversion according to paragraph 1 of Article shall, in addition to oral explanations, be associated with an information written material. Second, implementing the principle of non-discrimination, in compliance with the ‘Convention of UNO on the rights of persons with disabilities’[2] and the law no 93/2014 “On the involvement and accessibility of persons with disabilities’[3], Article 60, in par 2, provides for the obligation to provide explanations in the appropriate forms of communication, referring to the special skills of the minor. The minor with disabilities shall be dealt with under appropriate circumstances guaranteeing his dignity, encouraging the autonomy and facilitating his active participation during the entire process, thus recognising the right of the minor with disabilities to a special care and the right to be assisted during the entire process with the help he needs and is appropriate to the situation of the child.

       

      1. As it emerges out of the contents of this Article, it is important to have a written individualised document in the event of a concrete case and minor, which is to highlight clearly the explanation made by the competent body (prosecution office or the court as appropriate) to the minor and the defence lawyer and, as appropriate, to the legal representative (who is the parent, relative or custodian of the minor, taking part in the procedure of criminal proceedings involving minors to protect the rights of the minor) that the admission of the measure of diversion from the criminal prosecution is voluntary and that the minor has the right to renounce the measure at each stage. In this aspect, the information booklets serving as a basis for information to facilitate this process shall be helpful.

       

      1. Article 60 highlights, in its paragraph 2, some important aspects. First that ‘admission of the measure of diversion from the criminal prosecution is voluntary’ and second, ‘the minor shall be entitled to renounce the measure at each stage’. Regarding the term ‘voluntary’, Article 60, paragraph 2, sets this principle out as an indisputable one, as long as the measure of diversion from criminal proceedings is not made without the written consent of the minor. The phrase ‘...is entitled to renounce the measure at any stage’ has to do with the principle that in any event in the course of process of implementing and enforcing the measure of diversion from criminal prosecution the minor conflicting with the law has his undeniable right to renounce the measure at any stage. This is also in compliance with the principles of the free consent and voluntarism as acts of will associating the entire process of the measures of diversion, including the preliminary phase, up to its approval by the minor and further on to the end of implementation. The authorities should make clear to the parties, respectively prior to and at the beginning of the proceedings. See the comments on Article 59 of CCJC.

       

      1. Legal aid may be offered by the defence lawyer who is in each instance appointed for assisting the minor, as long as he does not have one. The minor and his legal representative shall in such a case be informed regarding his right to have a defence lawyer. Referring to the spirit of the law, the defence lawyer is mandatory being chosen by the family members or the legal custodian of the minor, in whose absence, by the proceeding authority (provided for in Article 49 of the Criminal Procedure Code, amended by law no 35/2017). The Criminal Procedure Code provisions referred to above are a guarantee for implementing Article 54 of the Constitution, providing for the right of the child to a special protection by the state.[4]

       

      1. Another guarantee, under Article 60, paragraph 3, of CCJM which should be in the attention of the competent authority, prosecution office or court, as appropriate, is that the admission of a criminal offence by a child and information collected on the child during the process of diversion may not be used in court against the child. There are two main reasons rendering this principle important. On the one hand, it is a prerequisite to reach a fruitful exchange and, on the other hand, it is most important that this guarantee prevents the investigation/prosecution from misusing their power in asking first for diversion, collecting evidence and then using this evidence in indictment. It must be clear to the child and the defence lawyer that the creation of an environment must be facilitated where parties may fearlessly express much more aspects than normally expected in criminal proceedings. Such an additional information is, very often, the basis for reaching an agreement for implementing the measure of diversion. The discussions conducted during the decision-making process for the measure of diversion are a confidential information and they cannot be used, but with the consent of parties. This highlights ‘the confidential character’ of proceedings. Confidentiality is valid not only for the broad public, but also for the criminal justice system.

       

      [1] Being complete means making qualitative and quantitative information available, careful and considering the entire procedure and all aspects of diversion. This means that the measure of diversion is worth being analysed in the sense of all the eventual issues, including here also the rights, obligations and warnings being worth taking account of by the minor. This should be considered in order for everyone to understand the complete process from the outset and implementation to the end as a whole. Thorough information means accurate information, providing answers to all the questions and presumptions, elimination of complications and phraseology complications, as well as explanations of exhaustive and comprehensive level. These details should be followed in all the issues included in Article 60, par 1, of CCJM, extending the detail of information at individual level.

      [2] See Article 13 ad 7 of this Convention, Article 13, Access to justice bodies 1 States Parties shall ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others, including through the provision of procedural and age-appropriate accommodations, in order to facilitate their effective role as direct and indirect participants, including as witnesses, in all legal proceedings, including at investigative and other preliminary stages. 2. In order to help to ensure effective access to justice for persons with disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff; Article 7 Children with disabilities: 1 States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children. 2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.

      [3] According to Article 7 of this law: 1. ‘Supported decision-making’ is the exercise of the will by one person with disabilities by way of an additional specific competence, supporting his purpose and best interest, thus facilitating the carrying out of actions to obtain rights and take over obligations. 2. Any person with disabilities, being in need of assistance in decision-making, shall obtain the appropriate support from a trusted individual or group of individuals. The support may be ensured by a series of ways, including the support by way of interpretation and simple language, a well as a support in the relations of the persons with third parties, which might not understand his ways of communication. The support is provided gradually, while granting sufficient time. 

      [4] See Article 49 of the Criminal Procedure Code “mandatory defence’, amended by law no 35/2017.

      1. It is the first time in the Albanian legislation that such a regulation as that of Article 60 of CCJM is provided for, thus setting out the guarantees or the minor in implementing the measure of diversion. More specifically, the Criminal Procedure Code approved by the law no 7905, dated 21.3.1995, as amended, by law no 8460, dated 11.2.1999, by law no 8813, dated13.6.2002, by law no 9085, dated 19.6.2003, by law no 9276, dated 16.9.2004, by law no 9911, dated 5.5.2008, by Decision of the Constitutional Court no 31, dated 17.5.2012, by law no 145/2013, dated 2.5.2013, by law no 35/2017 did not have a similar provision prior to the approval of CCJM[1].

       

      1. In Chapter VII of CCJM, for the first time, there have been provided for such measures as diversion from criminal proceedings, and from punishment through alternative measures; there have been provided such rules as: meaning and purpose of alternative measures of diversion, implementing the alternative measures of diversion from criminal prosecution, competent body for implementing the measure of diversion from criminal prosecution, conditions for implementing the measure of diversion, consent for the diversion measure, guarantees of the minor for taking the measure of diversion, possibility of the prosecutor for imposing conditions on the decision, eventual alternative measures for avoiding the criminal prosecution, restorative justice programs and/or mediation, procedure of mediation, advise for the minor and the family, oral warning, written warning, mandatory measures, putting the minor under care, meeting alternative measures for diversion from criminal prosecution, failure to meet the alternative measures for diversion from criminal prosecution, procedure in the event of failure to meet the alternative measures of diversion from criminal prosecution.

       

      1. In Justice System Analysis, the Senior Level Experts Group at the Parliamentary Ad Hoc Committee for the Justice System reform has conducted a thorough analysis of the national legal framework regarding the criminal justice for children. Also, the shortcomings of the system can be found in this document. This document was used as a basis for the justice reform, including the reform on criminal justice.

       

      [1] For more on the historical context, see the comments on Article 59 of this Code.

      1. UNO Convention on the Rights of the Child (approved by the General Assembly of United Nations Organisation on 20 November 1989). Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Convention determines that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Article 12, paragraph 1 and 2, of the UNO Convention on the rights of the child provides for: 1. States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child; 2. For this purpose, the child shall in particular be provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative proceedings affecting the child, either directly, or through a representative or an appropriate body, in a manner consistent with the procedural rules of national law. Article 40 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: - The standard of the special and dignified treatment of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognized as having infringed the penal law, in order for the child's sense of dignity and worth be developed, the human rights and fundamental freedoms be respected, taking account of the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society (Article 40/1 CRC); - The procedural guarantees for children in the criminal proceedings, thus the children alleged as or accused of having infringed the criminal law according to Article 40 of CRC include the presumption of innocence (Article 30 of the Constitution of RA), right to information (Article 31 of the Constitution of RA) and immediate examination of the case.

       

      1. Recommendation no R (87) 20 on the social reactions to minors accused of having committed criminal offences encourages the conduct of the procedures of diversion and mediation. RECOMMENDATION No. R (87) 20 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES ON SOCIAL REACTIONS TO JUVENILE DELINQUENCY provides: "II. Diversion - mediation 2. to encouraging the development of diversion and mediation procedures at public prosecutor level (discontinuation of proceedings) or at police level, in countries where the police has prosecuting functions, in order to prevent minors from entering into the criminal justice system and suffering the ensuing consequences; to associating Child Protection Boards or services to the application of these procedures; 3. to taking the necessary measures to ensure that in such procedures: - the consent of the minor to the measures on which the diversion is conditional and, if necessary, the co-operation of his family are secured; - appropriate attention is paid to the rights and interests of the minor as well as to those of the victim;" Link: http://archivio.transnazionalita.isfol.it/file/CoE_Rec_R87-20%20Eng.pdf. Visited for the last time on 17.08.2017

       

      1. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for Alternative (Non-custodial) Measures: The Tokyo Rules (1990). The present Standard Minimum Rules provide a set of basic principles to promote the use of non-custodial measures, as well as to promote among offenders a sense of responsibility towards society. Member States shall endeavour to ensure a proper balance between the rights of individual offenders, the rights of victims, and the concern of society for public safety and crime prevention. Member States shall develop non-custodial measures within their legal systems. The criminal justice system should provide a wide range of non-custodial measures. The development of new non-custodial measures should be encouraged and closely monitored, and their use systematically evaluated. Consideration shall be given to dealing with offenders in the community avoiding as far as possible resort to formal proceedings or trial by a court, in accordance with legal safeguards and the rule of law. Non-custodial measures should be used in accordance with the principle of minimum intervention.

       

      1. Recommendation CM/Rec (2008)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules for juvenile offenders, subject to sanctions or measures. The imposition and implementation of sanctions or measures shall be based on the best interests of the juvenile offenders, limited by the gravity of the offences committed (principle of proportionality) and take account of their age, physical and mental well-being, development, capacities and personal circumstances (principle of individualisation) as ascertained when necessary by psychological, psychiatric or social inquiry reports. The sanctions or measures shall not humiliate or degrade the juveniles subject to them Sanctions or measures shall not be implemented in a manner that aggravates their afflictive character or poses an undue risk of physical or mental harm. Mediation or other restorative measures shall be encouraged at all stages of dealing with offending juveniles. Any justice system dealing with juveniles shall ensure their effective participation concerning the imposition as well as the implementation of sanctions or measures. Any justice system dealing with juveniles shall follow a multi-disciplinary and be integrated with wider initiatives for juveniles for the continuity of the care of such juveniles (principles of community involvement and continuous care). The juvenile’s right to privacy shall be fully respected at all stages of the proceedings.

  • Reports, opinions, recommendations and statements

    1. ‘Convention on the Rights of the Child’ being approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations Organisation on 200 November 1989, Article 3, point 1, Article 12, point 2, Article 15, point 2, Article 40, point 2 and point 4.
    2. UNO Instructions on Preventing Juvenile Delinquency (Riyadh Instructions)
    3. Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice ("The Beijing Rules") Articles 10 (2)(b), 10(3), 14(4)
    4. The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Law no 7727/30.06.1993) and the Additional Protocol to the Convention.
    5. United Nations Rules for the Protection of Juveniles Deprived of their Liberty (Havana rules 1990);
    6. United Nations Standard Minimum Rules pertaining to Non-custodial measures (Tokyo rules) (1990).
    7. Vienna Guidelines for Action on Children in the Criminal Justice System taking account of the day of discussion of the Committee 1995 on the justice administration for juveniles.
    8. Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
    9. European Union Level Instruments.
    10. EU Charter of Human Rights
    11. Lisbon Treaty 01.12.2009.

               

    Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (According to the European Court of Human Rights) 

    1. CASE OF S. AND MARPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM. Court (Grand Chamber); 04/12/2008 (Applications nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04). This case surrounds the preservation of finger prints and the DNA samples in the police record in the course of an investigation procedures of the prosecutor office regarding a robbing attempt. S was at that time 11 years old and he was acquitted. This case is a pre-trial case (police custody) and has nothing to do with diversion. ECHR found out that: “The Court found a violation of Article 8, holding, ‘124. The Court further considers that the retention of the unconvicted persons' data may be especially harmful in the case of minors such as the first applicant, given their special situation and the importance of their development and integration in society. The Court has already emphasised, drawing on the provisions of Article 40 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, the special position of minors in the criminal-justice sphere and has noted in particular the need for the protection of their privacy at criminal trials (see T. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 24724/94, §§ 75 and 85, 16 December 1999). In the same way, the Court considers that particular attention should be paid to the protection of juveniles from any detriment that may result from the retention by the authorities of their private data following acquittals of a criminal offence. The Court shares the view of the Nuffield Council as to the impact on young persons of the indefinite retention of their DNA material and notes the Council's concerns that the policies applied have led to the over-representation in the database of young persons and ethnic minorities, who have not been convicted of any crime (see paragraphs 38-40 above).” Link: http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=843941&portal hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA3 98649, visited for the last time on 21.08.2017.

     

    American Department of Justice Office for minors and crime prevention. National Justice Institute (Cases and practice) 

    1. Following the research study of cases and practices of the Justice Office for minors, there emerged that: “Program Goals: The Wayne County (Michigan) Second Chance Reentry (WC-SCR) program aims to significantly enhance reentry services for adolescents who have committed offenses. The program is consistent with the six best practices of reentry as identified by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), which includes 1) objectively assessing youths’ criminogenic needs, 2) enhancing youths’ intrinsic motivation, 3) targeting youths at high risk for offending, 4) addressing criminogenic needs of youths at high risk for offending, 5) using cognitive-behavioral interventions, and 6) determining appropriate treatment dosage and intensity of services for youths (Calleja et al. 2014). The program was designed to reduce recidivism and increase reentry services for juveniles who have committed offenses and are placed in a locked, residential treatment facility. The program was developed under the Second Chance Act (Public Law No. 110-199), which intended to address the reentry needs of incarcerated adults and juveniles. The goals of the projects funded by the Second Chance Acts were to increase reentry programming, reduce recidivism among participants, and improve integration outcomes (Calleja et al. 2014). Target Population/Eligibility: The WC-SCR program is geared toward males, ages 13 to 18, who have been placed in secure residential facilities for sexual or nonsexual offenses. Program Components/Key Personnel: The program includes a residential reentry specialist who is assigned to each youth in the program during treatment. The program is composed of monthly reentry-planning meetings with the youth, the youth’s caregivers, and a residential team (case managers). The goal is to prioritize the needs of the youth in preparation for reentry. During the treatment, the reentry specialist also administers three assessment instruments to identify the youth’s most critical needs. The three assessment instruments are 1) the Child and Adolescent Functional Assessment Scale (CAFAS), which is used to assess mental health needs; 2) the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) for adolescents, which is used to assess substance use needs; and 3) the Youth Checklist/Case Management Inventory (YCL-CMI), which is used to assess the amount of reentry services needed. The amount of reentry services generally ranges from 100 to 300 hours of post-release, case-management services for 6 months. Youths who are identified as needing mental health and/or substance use treatment are referred to a community-based treatment provider. The amount and length of time of specialized mental health or substance use treatment is determined by the treatment provider following referral from the case manager. These sessions can range from 1 to 12 sessions.
      After youths are released, they meet with their case managers weekly for the first 2 months and then biweekly for the remaining 4 months. Link:. Programs.pdfwww.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litrevieës/Diversion.visited for the last time on 21.08.2017 https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=550

     

    Decisions of Supreme Court of USA 

    1. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. U.S. Supreme Court. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Miranda v. Arizona, No. 759, Argued February 28-March 1, 1966 Decided June 13, 1966* 384 U.S. 436. Syllabus. In each of these cases, the defendant, while in police custody, was questioned by police officers, detectives, or a prosecuting attorney in a room in which he was cut off from the outside world. None of the defendants was given a full and effective warning of his rights at the outset of the interrogation process. In all four cases, the questioning elicited oral admissions, and, in three of them, signed statements as well, which were admitted at their trials. All defendants were convicted, and all convictions, except in No. 584, were affirmed on appeal. Held: 1. The prosecution may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stemming from questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way, unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination. Pp. 444-491. (a) The atmosphere and environment of incommunicado interrogation as it exists today is inherently intimidating and works to undermine the privilege against self-incrimination. Unless adequate preventive measures are taken to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice. Pp. 445-458. (b) The privilege against self-incrimination, which has had a long and expansive historical development, is the essential mainstay of our adversary system, and guarantees to the individual the "right to remain silent unless he chooses to speak in the unfettered exercise of his own will," during a period of custodial interrogation. Justia Supreme Court US https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/384/436/
    1. Analysis of Justice System in Albania, June 2015, drafted by the Senior Experts Group at the Ad Hoc Parliamentary Committee for Justice System Reform, http://www.reformanedrejtesi.al/sites/default/files/dokumenti_shqip_0.pdf, 
    1. Report dated 28.03.2017 on the draft law “Criminal Justice Code for Minors in the Republic of Albania” http://www.reformanedrejtesi.al/sites/default/files/relacioni-1.pdf , 
    1. Assembly Decision no 97/2016 package of 27 draft laws. http://www.reformanedrejtesi.al/sites/default/files/relacioni-1.pdf , 20 November 1989 
    1. Minutes dated 27-28 March of the Legal Issues Committee on the examination and approval of the draft law “Criminal Justice Code for Minors in the Republic of Albania” “http://reformanedrejtesi.al/sites/default/files/procesverbal_date_24.06.2016_0.pdf
    1. Constitution: Article 27 par 2 letter “ç”, Article 54 par 1, point 3 and point 4, Article 30, Article 31. 
    1. Criminal Code of the Republic of Albania, Article 12, Article 52, Article 46. 
    1. Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Albania, Article 49.
  • No Comment
  • No Comment

  • European Court of Human Rights 

    CASE OF S. AND MARPER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM ;

    Court (Grand Chamber); 04/12/2008 (Applications nos. 30562/04 and 30566/04)

    http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=843941&portal hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA3 98649, vizited for the last time on 21.08.2017.  

    Linku:http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#, visited for the last time on 21.08.2017 

    Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

    Link:.  Programs.pdfwww.ojjdp.gov/mpg/litreviews/Diversion 

    SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    U.S. Supreme Court

    Cace of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

    Miranda v. Arizona

    No. 759

    Argued February 28-March 1, 1966

    Decided June 13, 1966*

    384 U.S. 436

    Justia Supreme Court USA

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/543/551/

    Justice System Analysis

    “http://reformanedrejtesi.al/sites/default/files/procesverbal_date_24.06.2016_0.pdf 

    RECOMMENDATION No. R (87) 20 OF THE COMMITTEE OF MINISTERS TO MEMBER STATES ON SOCIAL REACTIONS TO JUVENILE DELINQUENCY

    http://archivio.transnazionalita.isfol.it/file/CoE_Rec_R87-20%20Eng.pdf 

    Recommendation CM/Rec(2008)11 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the European Rules for juvenile offenders

    http://archivio.transnazionalita.isfol.it/file/CoE_Rec_R2008-11%20Eng.pdf 

    TRAINING MANUAL FOR PROFESSIONALS WORKING WITH MINORS IN THE PENITENTIARY SYSTEM

    https://albania.savethechildren.net/sites/albania.savethechildren.net/Penitentiary%20System.pdf

  • No Comment
Elina Kombi
Arta Mandro, Koraljka Bumči, Renate Winter