In response to the various questions, except where obviously inapplicable, please gather the text, in English translation, of (a) relevant Code sections or portions of sections; (b) relevant chapters, pages or sentences in Code Commentaries; (c) additional bibliography or citations. We are searching for ideas and possibilities for the Federal Criminal Code, rather than for a comprehensive survey of the criminal law of other areas of the world.

Since the Federal government never had a penal code, only an aggregation of loosely joined statutes supplemented by court decisions and common-law doctrines, the proposed codification and revision would represent an enormous development in American criminal jurisprudence. Your assistance in this development is appreciated.

Sincerely,

The old penal code of Argentina, enacted pursuant to the provisions of Law 1920 of November 7, 1886. in force as of March 1, 1887, was repealed by the new code enacted by Law 11179 of 1921, in force as of April 29, 1922.

Almost after the enactment of the Code of 1886, a movement to amend it began. A new draft was prepared in 1891 which included a definition of all the violations of the law, regardless of the court which should try the case, making it, therefore, common to all the Republic. This reform was not adopted. A new draft was prepared in 1916 and eventually was approved in 1921, becoming Law 11179.

The Code of 1921 was soon the object of severe criticism, mainly because in that year, there appeared the draft prepared by the famous Italian penalist Enrico Ferri and soon afterwards, between the years 1923 and 1925, the ideas of the brilliant Spanish penalist Luis Jiménez de Asúa were published. These prompted the Argentinians to prepare new drafts revising their code.

After the preparation of several drafts and amendments to the Code, Law 17567 of 1968 was finally enacted (Boletín Oficial, January 12, 1968) and enforced as of April 1, 1968. It contains substantial amendments to the penal code.

JURISDICTION OF THE PENAL CODE

In the study of Argentine criminal law, it should be taken into consideration that the country is politically organized under a federal system. The basic codes, such as the civil, commercial, criminal or penal and mining codes nevertheless are enforceable throughout the nation. This does not hold true

with regard to procedural laws or codes, which, like the criminal codes, are local. With regard to substantive criminal laws, notwithstanding, certain matters, because of their subject or their jurisdiction, are subject to federal jurisdiction, as it happens when the sovereignty and security of the nation is involved or in cases where territorial waters are concerned. The provinces are empowered to create their own criminal laws in those cases where there is no conflict with federal matters.

MAIN FEATURES OF THE PENAL CODE OF 1921

The Argentine Penal Code of 1921 is divided into two parts: Book I which contains the General Part which covers the general application of criminal law, the penalties, suspended sentence, reparation of damages, criminal liability, attempt, accessoryship, recidivism, concurrence of felonies, extinction of liability and prosecution, exercise of prosecutions, functions and definitions of the terms used. Book II deals with special crimes or felonies and is divided into felonies against the person, honor, civil statutes, liberty, property, security of the nation, felonies against the government and the constitutional order, public administration and public faith.

The Code respects the legal principle, nullum crimen sine lege. It defines every offense precisely, assigns to each a corresponding sanction and seeks to grant a judge a certain margin of discretion which will permit him to apply punishments within minimum and maximum limits provided by the law. At times, it gives the judge a choice among different classes of punishments.

The punishments established by the Code are imprisonment and jailing. fine and disqualification (inhabilitación). It does not provide for capital punishment nor for forfeiture of property. Life imprisonment is a rare punishment applied in exceptional cases, such as in homicide under aggravating circumstances.

Individualization of punishment is achieved by a system of sufficiently ample minimum and maximum sentences, by parallel punishments and other dispositions, such as that of Article 41 which calls for the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances, or those of Article 26 referring to parole or similarly those of Article 13 on conditional release, which looks to the rehabilitation of the convict.

Short sentences have been largely replaced by the imposition of fines for many offenses and through the use of the suspended sentence based on the moral stature of the convict. However, there is no provision for judicial grace, nor free mitigation of punishment, although Article 44 allows the judge to exempt the perpetrator from punishment in accordance with the degree of danger if the act was incapable of being harmful.

Parole is another important measure adopted by the Code in an effort to stimulate good conduct. It is not based on the executive power; it is a judicial faculty which does not exempt from punishment as a pardon would, but it subjects the person to whom it has been granted to certain obligations and rules of conduct, which in case of noncompliance would lead to revocation of the benefits. On the local level, the governors of the provinces can grant clemency.

A suspended sentence can be given only to convicts without previous criminal records and sentenced to a maximum term of two years in jail. This limitation was adopted by the Code because, for certain persons, short terms of jailing were found to have a more harmful effect than liberty on probation, for in jail the convict is likely to acquire detrimental habits.

Another peculiar advantage of the Code is its provisions for parallel punishments, which permit the judge to choose from among several punishments the one which best fits the personality of the offender. The Code also contains both punishments and security measures. Among the latter there are sanctions ranging from imprisonment for an indefinite period in the Southern territories (Art. 52) to commitment in an insane asylum in case of insanity, and protection of minors.

In order to obtain the best possible individualization of punishment, the judge, prior to sentencing, must try to obtain a conception of the perpetrator's personality, with the assistance or advice of experts, and especially by direct examination of the convict. The individualization and graduation of punishment is made obligatory by Article 41 of the Code.

AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE ADOPTED IN 1968

The amendments adopted in 1968 to Book I of the Code are the following: (1) Under the old provision, in certain instances a conviction entailed absolute disqualification (inhabilitación absoluta). It included, among others, the loss of pension or retirement benefits. The 1968 amendment provides that the convict's relatives shall receive said pension or retirement. It also empowers the courts to assign to the victims of the criminal act and to those persons dependent upon him up to one half the amount of said retirement or pension, or in case the convict has no dependent, they may receive said amount in full, until the amount set as civil indemnity by the court is paid in full.

(2) Courts are empowered to impose limited disqualifications which entail the loss of the position, office or profession for a period of time of no less than six months nor more than ten years in the following cases:

(a) In the case of conviction for incompetence or abuse in the performance of a public office;

(b) In the case of abuse in the exercise of parental authority, adoption, guardianship or curatorship rights, and

(c) In the case of abuse or incompetence in the practice of a profession or activity for which licensing is required.

(3) Restoration of qualifications to convicts punished with the penalty of disqualification in these cases where they have properly behaved during half of the time of the service of sanction or for ten years in case of life imprisonment when the convict has made restitution as far as it was possible for him to do.

In these cases where the penalty also included disqualification to hold public office, restoration of qualifications does not entail reappointment of the convict to said office.

(4) In these cases where a crime was committed for profit, the court may add a fine to the penalty of deprivation of liberty, even though it is not provided in the Code or only provided in alternate form. In case a fine is not provided for by the Code, said fine cannot exceed the amount of 50,000 pesos.

(5) Conviction of crime entails the furfeiture of the instruments with which it was committed and the objects which the crime produced, all of which shall be sized. They shall be destroyed, except in cases where they may be used by the governments of the nation or the provinces.

(6) In the case of a first conviction where the penalty of jailing for a term not exceeding two years is applicable, the courts are empowered to suspend the sentence. This decision shall be based on the moral qualifications of the convict, the nature of the crime he committed and the circumstances surrounding the case.

In the cases of concurrence of crimes, a suspended sentence shall be applied if the penalty does not exceed the term of two years of imprisonment. Suspended sentence shall not be applicable for the penalties of fine or dis qualification.

(7) It shall be considered that a suspended sentence was not pronounced upon a culprit in a case where he did not commit another crime within the term of four years.

Should he commit another crime, then he shall serve the punishment imposed in the first sentence in addition to the punishment for his second conviction.

A suspended sentence may be granted for a second time in a case where a new crime was committed eight years from the date of the first conviction.

(8) With regard to reincidence or recidivism, the 1968 amendments provide that a previous conviction shall not be taken into account to consider the convict a second offender in the cases that another term equal to the one of the served sentence has elapsed. Said term shall never exceed ten years nor be less than five yars.

(9) Reincidence or recidivism causes an increase in the penalty to onethird of its minimum or maximum periods. After the third reincidence, the minimum penalty shall be doubled but not less than one year or more than one half the term set for the maximum penalty.

In case the penalty for deprivation of liberty was served prior to th convict's reaching twenty-one years of age, his term cannot be computed, order to calculate the term in case of aggravation of his penalty.

(10) In case several crimes punishable with divisible penalties of impris onment or jailing concur, the highest penalty shall be applied, also taking into consideration the crimes punished with minor penalties.

In cases where some penalties are indivisible they alone shall be applied, except in the cases where life imprisonment and imprisonment for a certain term concur, in which case life imprisonment shall be applied. Disqualification to exercise certain rights and fines shall always be applied regardless of the provisions of the first paragraph.

(11) With regard to the barring of prosecution by application of the statute of limitation, the following amendments were also adopted in 1968:

(a) Crimes punishable by fine, regardless of the amount involved, were included in one provision and assigned the same prescriptive term.

(b) Said term was raised to three years.

(12) Prior to the 1968 amendment, in cases where a crime was punishable by a fine, the offense was barred from prosecution if the fine established by the Code was voluntarily paid by the offender. Due to abuses by those persons who had sufficient means, this privilege was repealed.

(13) The term for the statute of limitation to operate with regard to payment of fines was raised to three years.

(14) The application of the provisions of the statute of limitation, with regard to crimes committed by public officials while in office, is suspended for as long as said officials remain in office.

(15) The 1968 amendment authorizes private prosecution of certain crimes solely on the complaint of the victim himself; (a) Such crimes are rape, seduction, abduction and indecent assault, provided that death of the victim does not occur or that the latter did not suffer any of the injuries described by Article 91 of the Code; (b) threats; (c) minor injuries; (d) trespassing; and (e) criminal bankruptcy. Excepted, however, are those cases where public interest is involved. Or, where the victim is a minor or incapacitated without legal representation, or that he is an abandoned child. In these instances, they shall be publicly prosecuted. The same holds true in those cases where there is a conflict of interest between a minor and his legal representative.

CONCLUSION

From the above study we may conclude that the Argentine Penal Code, as amended, lies between the classical and the positive schools; therefore, we may call it an eclectic code. For some authors, like Professor Luis Jiménez de Asúa, it is placed in the neolassical school, and for others, like Juan P. Ramos, it lies within the social defense theory.

I. General Remarks

BULGARIA

The Communist Government, established in Bulgaria after September 9, 1944, introduced a new Criminal Code on February 13, 1951, drafted along the line of Soviet doctrines in this field. This Code was entirely replaced by another on April 2, 1968,' which also incorporated various criminal provisions scattered throughout a number of legislative acts, in particular, the provisions dealing with military offenses and crimes against the peace and mankind as well as provisions regarding persons who deviate from socially useful labor and conduct a parasitic life. The new Code is based on the traditional principles of criminal law science and reflects the fundamentals of the Communist teachings related to this area.

The Bulgarian Code of Criminal Procedure adopted on February 5, 1952, and amended several times, is still in force.

None of the above-cited major legislative acts have been translated into English and only a few decisions of the Supreme Court involving the new Criminal Code have been published.

The spokesman of the present regime in Bulgaria and indisputable authority in the field of criminal law is Professor Ivan Nenov, at the University of

1 Durzhaven Vestnik (Bulgarian Official Law Gazette, hereinafter abbreviated as DV), No. 26. April 2, 1968: correction: DV No. 29. April 12, 1968.

2 Izvestia no Prezidiuma na Norodnoto Subranie, No. 11, February 5, 1952.

Sofia Law School, while Professor Stefan Pavlov has a similar position and reputation in the field of criminal procedure law.

There is no commentary on the new 1968 Criminal Code; the two major codes of 1951 and 1952 have been extensively analyzed and interpreted by the ́above-mentioned legal scholars, as follows:

Ivan Neov. Nakazatelno pravo na Narodna Republika Bulgariia. Obshta Chast (Criminal Law of the People's Republic of Bulgaria. General Part). Sofia. 1963. 525 p.

Ivan Nenov. Nakazatelno pravo na Narodna Republika Búlgariia. Obsobena Chast (Criminal Law of the People's Republic of Bulgaria. Special Part). Sofia, 1956-59. 2 v.

Stefan Pavlov. Nakazatelen protses na Narodna Republika Bulgariia (Criminal Procedure of the People's Republic of Bulgaria). Sofia, 1971. 819 p.

Very few books dealing with specific topics of problems of criminal law have been written. The following are worth mention:

P. Boiadzhiev. Opredeliane na nakazanieto prí sŭvokupnost ot prestŭpleniia (Determination of the Penalty in Cases of Cumulation of Crimes). In Vuprosi na nakazatelnoto pravo (Problems of Criminal Law.) Sofia, 1962: 61-106.

Venetsi Buzov, Prochinnata vrůzka v sotsialisticheskoto provo (The Casual Connection in the Socialist Criminal), Sofia, 1964.

Venetsi Buzov. Vmeniaemost i nevmeniaemost spored sotsialisticheskoto nakazatelno pravo (Responsibility and Non-responsibility According to the Socialist Criminal Law). Sofia, 1965.

P. Gindev. Prichinnata vrůzka í vinata v nakazatelnoto pravo v svetlinata na dialekticheskiia materialism (Casual Connection and Guilt in the Criminal Law in the Light of Dialectical Materialism). Sofia, 1961.

Nikola Manchev. Prestúpleniiata protiv Narodnata Republika (Crimes against the People's Republic). Sofia, 1959.

II. Answers to the Questionaire

Question 1. The Criminal Code of the People's Republic of Bulgaria of April 2, 1968, is divided into two major parts:

General Part, consisting of 11 Chapters:

1. Scope and Limits of Application of the Criminal Code

5. Determination of the Penalty

6. Special Rules Regarding Juveniles

7. Release from Serving an Imposed Sentence

8. Release from Criminal Responsibility

9. Extinction of Criminal Prosecution and Criminal Penalty

10. Rehabilitation of Criminal Prosecution and Criminal Penalty

11. Compulsory Medical Measures

Special Part, comprising 14 Chapters:

1. Crimes against the People's Republic

2. Crimes against the Person

3. Crimes against Citizens' Rights

4. Crimes against Marriage, Family and Youth

5. Crimes against Socialist Property

6. Crimes against the Socialist Economy

7. Crimes against Personal Property

8. Crimes against the Activity of State Organs and Public Organizations

9. Crimes Involving Documents

10. Crimes against Order and Public Peace

11. Generally Dangerous Crimes

12. Crimes against the Defense of the People's Republic

13. Military Crimes

14. Crimes against Peace and Mankind

Question 2. The Code contains 424 Sections running from Section 1 through Section 424. The custom of leaving blank numbers in statutes is not known in Bulgarian legislative techniques and practice. In case a new section must be added to the statutes by an amendment the number of the preceding section