NationStates Jolt Archive

Good delegates,

I would like to draw your attention to the proposal to codify Habeas Corpus as a right under The World Assembly. Too long have certain nations determined to imprison citizens, foreign nationals, and foreigners captured abroad, indefinitely, without just cause, and without bringing official charges.

Your consideration of this proposal is appreciated. Please vote your approval to bring it to quorum.

Thank you.

-----

Description: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the right of individuals to be free from imprisonment without charge,

And RESPECTING the laws of sovereign nations,

ESTABLISHES the official right of Habeas Corpus.

1: Individuals who are detained or imprisoned by state governments, their agents, or proxies shall be afforded a public hearing where charges will be levied.

2: This public hearing shall take place within three months of the individual's detention or imprisonment, and the arrested party shall be present at this hearing.

3: The charges levied in this hearing shall be supported by the code of law within the sovereign nation, and of the World Assembly as it applies, as of the date of detention or imprisonment.

4: If the law under which the individual is being held is codifed in The World Assembly, the hearing shall be presided over by a tribunal of judges selected from The World Assembly member nations by lottery.

5: The right of Habeas Corpus shall also apply to house arrest.

6: The right of Habeas Corpus shall not apply to prisoners of war until cessation of military conflict.

It should further be recognized that public hearings of Habeas Corpus are not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of the arrested party, but only to publicly levy charges against the accused, and for a court to determine whether the arresting party has the authority to hold the prisoner.

Approvals: 10 (Rashuta, Glenlogan, Lord Tothe, The Artic Republics, Earth Worshippers, Dendodgia, Misplaced States, R539, Foerost, Bullardstan)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 82 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Thu Oct 9 2008

Good delegates,

I would like to draw your attention to the proposal to codify Habeas Corpus as a right under The World Assembly. Too long have certain nations determined to imprison citizens, foreign nationals, and foreigners captured abroad, indefinitely, without just cause, and without bringing official charges.

I know I'm still a new replacement for my Master, but isn't this already covered by Fair Criminal Trial? I thought it was...

Your consideration of this proposal is appreciated. Please vote your approval to bring it to quorum.

Thank you.

No problem!

-----

Description: The World Assembly,

RECOGNIZING the right of individuals to be free from imprisonment without charge,

And RESPECTING the laws of sovereign nations,

ESTABLISHES the official right of Habeas Corpus.

1: Individuals who are detained or imprisoned by state governments, their agents, or proxies shall be afforded a public hearing where charges will be levied.

What about trials involving top-secret information or people who do not wish public trials? Also, I think Fair Criminal Trial covers this...

2: This public hearing shall take place within three months of the individual's detention or imprisonment, and the arrested party shall be present at this hearing.

It sometimes takes longer than that to analyze all of the evidence, depending on the crime.

3: The charges levied in this hearing shall be supported by the code of law within the sovereign nation, and of the World Assembly as it applies, as of the date of detention or imprisonment.

4: If the law under which the individual is being held is codifed in The World Assembly, the hearing shall be presided over by a tribunal of judges selected from The World Assembly member nations by lottery.

Some of us are not a democracy and oppose the overuse of committees. Committees are part of why democracies and republics are inevitably doomed to failure.

5: The right of Habeas Corpus shall also apply to house arrest.

6: The right of Habeas Corpus shall not apply to prisoners of war until cessation of military conflict.

I think the last one is treading on Prisoners of War Accord a bit.

It should further be recognized that public hearings of Habeas Corpus are not intended to determine the guilt or innocence of the arrested party, but only to publicly levy charges against the accused, and for a court to determine whether the arresting party has the authority to hold the prisoner.

I like this section!

Still, I dunno if this is ready for the WA. Too much of it seems to have already been covered or to be amending past resolutions.

We are opposed to this.

We wish to reserve the right to arrest and punish those who are guilty of high treason without a trial. If someone were to attempt to or successfully assassinate our Emperor, that individual would not be granted a trial simply because if the government doesn't kill them, the people will. Then we'd have multiple trials instead of just one.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Forensatha:

Fair Criminal Trial, as I read it, addresses hearings which intend to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. Habeas Corpus intends to outlaw the imprisonment of persons without charge, without - as noted at the end, there - addressing their innocence or guilt.

Some of us are not a democracy and oppose the overuse of committees. Committees are part of why democracies and republics are inevitably doomed to failure.

When the state says that it is imprisoning someone on the basis of WA law, the WA is already being invoked as an overseer. In this case, the WA would oversee the hearing. If the state does not want the WA to oversee the hearing, they would need to invoke one of their sovereign laws to hold the person under, and hold the hearing as a state matter.

Rutianas:

As I read it, states do not currently have the right to arrest and punish individuals without trial for any reason. I see no exclusions for "high treason" in the Fair Criminal Trial resolution. If you want to reserve that right, Habeas Corpus does not impinge on it; Fair Criminal Trial does.

If Fair Criminal Trial did not exist, and Habeas Corpus did, you would simply need to hold a hearing where the accused was charged - and it sounds as though you would be amenable to doing that.

Habeas Corpus only prevents states from imprisoning people without charge. Nothing more, nothing less.

Now, to address an issue where someone was calling 'game mechanics' on the WA tribunal by lottery --

I had no intention to metagame there. The tribunal would consist, more specifically, of "citizens" of WA states, not of their leaders. I didn't make it any more specific, because the intention was that the tribunal would not be a permanent one, but an ad-hoc tribunal, assembled as the need arises.

Thank you again for your attention.

Forensatha:

Fair Criminal Trial, as I read it, addresses hearings which intend to determine the innocence or guilt of the accused. Habeas Corpus intends to outlaw the imprisonment of persons without charge, without - as noted at the end, there - addressing their innocence or guilt.

Hold on... I know I have a copy of it here somewhere...

*ruffles through papers, searches through folders, and even rifles through a coiple of drawers*

Ah! Here it is!

*opens a notebook*

WORLD ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION #13

Fair Criminal Trial
A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: The Narnian Council

Description: ACKNOWLEDGING that justice, free of corruption and prejudice, is a crucial factor in the wellbeing of society,

CONVINCED that an agreement upon basic legal rights will furthermore enhance synchronization in international trade, business and tourism,

ENACTS clear-cut legal standards of fairness and impartiality of trial.

PRE-TRIAL RIGHTS
1. The arrested shall have the right to be visited by and to correspond with persons of their choice, if that person in question consents, and shall be given adequate opportunity to communicate with the outside world - subject to reasonable conditions and restrictions as specified by law or lawful regulations.
2. In the knowledge of the importance of impartiality in Pre-Trial procedures, those responsible for the detainment of the arrested must provide sanitary conditions and basic living needs for the arrested.
i) ‘Basic living needs’ includes, but is not limited to, access to toilets/showers, and enough food, water, shelter and rest to keep the arrested in their normal healthy state.
3. The arrested has the right to know the reason of the arrest, with or without charges, within twenty-four hours of being arrested.
4. All persons are entitled to call upon the assistance of a lawyer, not already involved in the current trial proceedings, of their choice to protect and establish their rights and to defend them in all stages of criminal proceedings.
i) If the arrested lacks readily available finances/assets to afford legal assistance, it becomes the government’s liability to ensure that the arrested acquires a reasonably adequate defense counsel, before the trial commences - as provided by, but not limited to, government funding or a charitable organization.

THE HEARING
1. The accused must be granted, without discrimination, the right of equal access to a court.
2. The accused has the right to a trial without undue delay.
i) ‘Undue delay’ may occur between the time the accused is arrested, and the time when the judgment is passed – and may be caused by any negligence on the part of the prosecutor(s)/defendant(s) in the gathering of evidence, on the part of the government and/or on the part of the court in administering the case. The assessment of which will depend upon the circumstances of the case, which includes, but is not limited to, the case’s complexity, and the conduct of the accused and/or the authorities.
3. The accused has the right to a fair and impartial hearing.
4. The accused has the right to a public hearing.
5. The accused has the right to a competent and impartial tribunal that exercises both procedural and adjudicatorial fairness.
6. The accused has the right to adequate time, that is, enough time to have access to evidence according to the complexity of the case, and adequate facilities, that is, the accused and defense counsel must be granted appropriate information, files and documents necessary for the preparation of a defense and that the defendant must be provided with facilities enabling communication, in confidentiality, with the defense counsel.
7. The accused has the right to defend oneself in person or through legal counsel.
8. The accused has the right to have a witness examined by legal counsel on their behalf, if the witness consents.
9. The accused has the right to understand the proceedings and to be understood through means of an interpreter translating in their native form of communication.
10. The accused may waive any of the above rights.

It is my personal cont... er... *rifles through a dictionary* contention that this resolution was intended primary to deal with pre-trial items as well. I note... *begins highlighting* that some sections of what you propose are already covered, as far as I can see. Here, take a look. *passes it over*

Go ahead and keep that copy. I've got five more back in my Master's office... my office, I mean. Still can't believe he's gone...

Anyway, I like where you're going. But, from what I can see, it contradicts current international law and deals too much with amending a passed resolution. Still, nice job!

When the state says that it is imprisoning someone on the basis of WA law, the WA is already being invoked as an overseer. In this case, the WA would oversee the hearing. If the state does not want the WA to oversee the hearing, they would need to invoke one of their sovereign laws to hold the person under, and hold the hearing as a state matter.

We do not, though. We change our national laws to match, and in some cases expand upon, WA laws. And, frankly, if we wanted democratic oversight of any trial or legal proceeding within our nation, we'd bash ourselves with rocks until we decided democracy was a good idea. Lobotomies would be faster, but you can't apply those to everyone.

In addition, no WA law requires a nation to submit to international courts. If national courts are fine so far, then why would we need an international court for anything already passed?

Rutianas:

As I read it, states do not currently have the right to arrest and punish individuals without trial for any reason. I see no exclusions for "high treason" in the Fair Criminal Trial resolution. If you want to reserve that right, Habeas Corpus does not impinge on it; Fair Criminal Trial does.


Fair Criminal Trial does allow for the accused to waive the rights given by the resolution. Trust me. Anyone arrested in Rutianas for high treason will usually waive those rights. They don't want to be torn apart by angry mobs. If they don't, we usually just show them the mob that's calling for their blood. It's almost always enough to make them change their minds. We've only once had someone who's been brave or stupid enough to demand a trial. We did end up with five separate trials.

I did not mean to give the impression that we arrest and punish people without a trial for no reason. We do abide by all the resolutions. Not just the ones that appeal to us.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Forensatha:

3. The arrested has the right to know the reason of the arrest, with or without charges, within twenty-four hours of being arrested.


Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Yes, there it is, although it does provide for individuals to be imprisoned without charges, and only calls for the person to be informed why they were arrested (presumably by a law officer or military personnel) - not what they are being charged with. Habeas Corpus explicity forbids detention without charges. I don't know how the difference between the existing law and the Habeas proposal would be addressed - whether this would be allowed as distinct from that, or whether Habeas would be pulled on that basis. I don't pretend that that's my decision to make.

And now I will let this lie.

Yes, there it is, although it does provide for individuals to be imprisoned without charges, and only calls for the person to be informed why they were arrested (presumably by a law officer or military personnel) - not what they are being charged with. Habeas Corpus explicity forbids detention without charges. I don't know how the difference between the existing law and the Habeas proposal would be addressed - whether this would be allowed as distinct from that, or whether Habeas would be pulled on that basis. I don't pretend that that's my decision to make.

And now I will let this lie.

6. The accused has the right to adequate time, that is, enough time to have access to evidence according to the complexity of the case, and adequate facilities, that is, the accused and defense counsel must be granted appropriate information, files and documents necessary for the preparation of a defense and that the defendant must be provided with facilities enabling communication, in confidentiality, with the defense counsel.

We find that knowing what you are accused of is necessary in preparing a defense.

I'm sorry, just one more comment -

If there are no charges, no accusation, only imprisonment, there is no trial and nothing to defend against.

Edit:

We find that knowing what you are accused of is necessary in preparing a defense.

Exactly.

The Vindettan delegation endorses this resolution, habbeas corpus is only denyied by tyrrants and thus we must aprove it to spread liberty and democracy.

We will not support this resolution because it is poorly written, it duplicates large parts of other resolutions,it is in contradiction to other parts of other resolutions, it creates legal situations our government is completely opposed to and because its authors have the temerity to ask this organisation's support for this tissue of incompetence after having already submitted it for approval having bypassed the drafting phase in which the experience and good judgement of this organisation might have been brought to bear on this statute and doubtless would have vastly improved it.

yours e.t.c. ,

The Vindettan delegation endorses this resolution, habbeas corpus is only denyied by tyrrants and thus we must aprove it to spread liberty and democracy.

This does neither. Besides, do you really want to spread such failed ideologies as democracy?

Diplomat Asuka Felna

what if a nation has a couple of courts and therefore, trials had to be delayed for more than three months, though not because they wish to imprison the person more, simply because that's the schedule?

Ambassador Nougat, I think you have the seed of a good idea here. However it needs more definition and expansion to be truly useful legislation. Oh, and it needs Fair Criminal Trial to be repealed as well, but then so does national security :-)

Oh, and it needs Fair Criminal Trial to be repealed as well, but then so does national security :-)

That is incorrect. The letter of Fair Criminal Trial only states that the arrested must be notified of the reason for the arrest, "with or without [my emphasis] charges."

The letter of Fair Criminal Trial deals with trials which occur after charges are levied, and with the treatment of prisoners before trial, regardless of whether charges are levied or not.

Habeas Corpus requires that charges be levied in a public hearing within a certain time frame. It does not address treatment of prisoners, as Fair Criminal Trial does. It does not address guilt or innocence, as Fair Criminal Trial does.

Fair Criminal Trial doesn't require that charges ever be levied - only that when charges are levied, a criminal trial must adhere to certain characteristics.

Permanent Delegation of the People's Republic of Vindetta at the World Assembly

We support democracy, as it is the only way to achieve the social harmony and the full development of the individuals and the society itself. We belive that regimes such as your should cease to exist, in the bennefit of the world and your people.

For sure you do not like Habbeas Corpus, it would avoid you from kidnapping people that are against your regime of corporations.

Permanent Delegation of the People's Republic of Vindetta at the World Assembly

We support democracy, as it is the only way to achieve the social harmony and the full development of the individuals and the society itself. We belive that regimes such as your should cease to exist, in the bennefit of the world and your people.

For sure you do not like Habbeas Corpus, it would avoid you from kidnapping people that are against your regime of corporations.

Interestingly, we find democracy tends to have the exact opposite effect of what you intend. We find that, in trying to create a system where everyone speaks, you end up with the majority effectively shutting down the minority. Thus, you have a case where there is still tyranny, but the difference is that the tyrants are more numerous.

But, I find it interesting you accuse us of injustice, despite having no evidence. Point out anything we've done that truly lacks justice.

Diplomat Asuka Felna

The Empire of New Chalcedon, as the Regional Delegate for Pacific Defenders, will not support this resolution, for two reasons:

1. As noted by other commentators, the Resolution duplicates the purpose of "Fair Criminal Trial", for which the Empire voted.

2. Under the terms of s.3 of the Resolution, the accused must have committed a crime that is a crime at the time of arrest, not at the time of commission. Therefore, under this Resolution, it would be perfectly legal for a dictator to make wearing purple illegal, and then arrest someone for having worn purple three days ago. This is a fatal flaw in the Resolution, and the Empire simple cannot support it as presently written.

Permanent Delegation of the People's Republic of Vindetta at the World Assembly

We support democracy, as it is the only way to achieve the social harmony and the full development of the individuals and the society itself. We belive that regimes such as your should cease to exist, in the bennefit of the world and your people.

For sure you do not like Habbeas Corpus, it would avoid you from kidnapping people that are against your regime of corporations.

We tried a form of democracy once. It didn't work for us.

As for kidnapping people against a regime of corporations? Most democracies seem to wind up corrupted by corporations in our experience.

Rutianas follows a strict socialistic form of government. We do not have these large corporations. We do not kidnap people who are against our form of government. Quite the opposite actually. Yet, we have to disagree with your view of democracy and corporations. The way to achieve full development of individuals and society is not through democracy, but through socialism. Democratic socialism may work, but we have not gotten to that experiment yet.

Paula Jenner - Rutianas Ambassador

Habbeas Corpus (Produce the body) is something that sometimes needs to be suspended at times to preserve harmony.

This resolution, as currently written, does not reflect the true definition of Habbeas Corpus. Our nation, although for habbeas corpus, cannot support this resolution.

OOC: I suppose I shouldn't sigh so much over seeing all those doubled-'b's in the last few posts, seeing as how Gobbannium should only have the one b, but I can't help wincing.

OOC: Nor can I.

With all the extra "b"s being added to the words, "Habeas Corpus" am I going to have to start adding extra "b"s to both mine and my country's names?

BBobb Flibbble
WA Representative for The Rogue Nation of Flibbbleites