is used with the addition of a letter; for instance, Section 275 (original), Section 275 a (additional).

Question 3. The Bulgarian Criminal Procedure Code of February 5, 1952, states that the accused is innocent until the contrary is proved (Sec. 3, par. 1). The Criminal Code of 1968 defines a crime as a socially dangerous act, committed guiltily and punishable by law (Sec. 9, par. 1.). Thus, under Bulgarian substantive criminal law, one of the basic elements of a crime is guilt (vina) in its two forms: intent (umisul) and negligence (nepredpazlivost). The intent could be dolus directus or dolus eventualis. The Code itself does not provide definitions of these terms. In analyzing the various elements of crimes Professor Ivan Nenov describes guilt as "a concrete mental relationship between the perpetrator and the socially dangerous act condemned by the socialist law and its socially dangerous results [consequences].' Otherwise expressed, according to Nenov, the guilt is the capacity of the perpetrator to understand the nature and importance of his act and to direct his conduct accordingly.* The relevant provisions of the Code regarding guilt read as follows:

3

Sec. 9. (1) Crime is that socially dangerous act (commission or omission) which is committed guiltily and is declared punishable by law.

(2) [irrelevant]

Sec. 11. (1) A socially dangerous act is committed guiltily when it is [committed] intentionally or negligently.

(2) The act is [committed] intentionally when the perpetrator is aware of its socially dangerous nature, foresaw its socially dangerous results [consequences] and wanted or allowed the occurrence of these results.

(3) The act is [committed] negligently when the perpetrator did not foresee the occurrence of the socially dangerous results, but thought that they could be averted.

(4) Negligent acts shall be punished only in the cases provided by law. (5) [irrelevant]

Question 4. The Bulgarian Criminal Code does not contain any specific provisions which define the causation requirement or casual connection to be proved between the defendant's conduct and the criminal result. However, this ie expressed in the description or set of facts of each individual crime. For instance, Section 115 of the Code states that "whoever guiltily kills another [human being] shall be punished for murder," e.g.. the defendant's conduct resulted in the death of another person. Professor Ivan Nenov emphasizes the point that "the casual connection between the act and the criminal result is a necessary objective element of the crime." Thus, the Bulgarian criminal law doctrine in this field does not consider the problem of the casual connection between the act and the criminal result to be a juridical but a factual one. According to this doctrine the act, as an objective fact, is of interest to the law inasmuch as it leads to certain objective changes in reality, negatively affecting social relations."

Question 5. In Chapter Three of the General Part of the Code entitled "Criminally Responsible Persons," Section 33 states in its first paragraph that "a person is not criminally responsible if he acts in a condition if irresponsibility (nevmeniaemost) [e.g.], when he, because of being mentally ill or permanently or temporarily mentally disturbed, is unable to comprehend the meaning and importance of the accomplished [act] or to conduct his actions." Professor Ivan Nenov summarizes the legal provisions under which guilt may be excluded in the following three situations, namely, when there is (a) a mental retardation; (b) permanent mental disturbance; and (c) temporary mental disturbance and as a result thereof, the perpetrator was in such a mental [psychic] condition that he could not comprehend the criminality of his conduct himself in conformity with the requirements of the law. The second paragraph of Section 33 provides that "no penalty shall be imposed on a person who committed a crime if prior to the pronouncement of the sentence, he falls into [a state of] mental disturbance, as a result of which he cannot understand the meaning and importance of his actions or control them. Such a person shall serve [his sentence] if he recovers."

Ivan Nenov, Nakazatelno pravo na Narodna Republika Bulgariia. Obshta Chast (Criminal Law of the People's Republic of Bulgaria. General Part). Sofia, 1963. p. 313. Id., p. 161.

5 Id., p. 258. Id., p. 261. Id., p. 163.

Thus, if the defendant is found insane, he is criminally irresponsible; if he is found guilty but prior to the pronouncement of the sentence becomes insane, no penalty is imposed. The trial court, as explained in a decision of the Supreme Court, is under the duty to examine the mental condition of the defendant by appointing an expertise of medical doctor-psychiatrists. As a rule, the appointment of experts may be made upon the request of the interested parties in the trial or upon the initiative of the organs of the preliminary proceedings and the court. However, it is within the authority of the court and the organs of the preliminary proceedings to evaluate the need of an expert in the specific case.10 A rejection of such a request must be justified by the respective organ."

In the above-described cases the Code prescribes the application of appropriate compulsory medical measures (Sec. 34), discussed in a special Chapter 14 of the General Part of the Code (Secs. 89-92). Thus, in regard to a person who has committed a socially dangerous act in a condition of irresponsibility or who fell into such a condition prior to the pronouncement of the sentence or during the time of serving the penalty, the court may (a) surrender him to his relatives if they will assume the obligation for his cure under the care of a psycho-neurologist despensary; (b) order compulsory treatment in a regular psycho-neurological institution; or (c) decree compulsory treatment in a special mental institution or in a special department of a regular mental neurological institution.

According to Section 90, the court decides what type of treatment is necessary in each individual case. Also, the court must decide after a period of six months whether the compulsory medical measures should be discontinued or changed.

In instances of compulsory medical treatment this Code does not expressly specify whether the judge should select the psychiatrist who is to examine the defendant. The Code of Criminal Procedure, however, provides that a defense counsel be appointed ex officio if the defendant himself cannot realize his rights of defense because of physical or mental deficiencies (Sec. 175, par. 2). Furthermore, the Code states that upon the recommendation of the district government attorney and on the basis of investigation and expertise the district court may, in a public hearing, order that the accused be sent to a medical institution for compulsory treatment (Sec. 124, par. 2). Another provision in Section 128 provides for the possibility that the trial be stopped if the accused, after the commission of the criminal act, falls into a disturbed state of mind, which excludes his guilt. After his recovery the trial is to be reopened; if the defendant is incurably ill, the preceedings are to be closed by the government attorney.

Question 6. As explained elsewhere [Answer to Question No. 5], under the provisions of the Bulgarian Criminal Code guilt may be excluded in the following three situations: namely, when there is (a) mental retardation; (b) permanent mental disturbance; and (c) temporary mental disturbance, and as a result thereof, the perpetrator was in such a mental condition that he could not comprehend the criminality of his conduct or conduct himself in conformity with the requirements of law. The last category of temporary mental disturbance may be the result also of alcoholic or other drug intoxication, i.e., a case of a pathological alcoholic intoxication. However, the doctrine excludes "normal drinking (getting drunk) of alcohol" as a defense.13 Thus, the Code accepts the principle that voluntary intoxication does not in itself relieve the perpetrator of criminal responsibility.

12

The 1968 Code contains a special provision in Section 92 which deals exclusively with the compulsory medical measures applicable to criminals suffering from alcoholism or drug intoxication." According to this provision, if the crime was

8 Decision No. 824 of 1963, II crim. div of the Supreme Court, as cited by Pavlov, op. cit., infra note 9.

Stefan Pavlov, Nakazatelen protses na Narodna Republika Búlgariia (Criminal Procedure of the People's Republic of Bulgaria). Sofia, 1971. p. 423. 10 Decision No. 822 of 1953, II crim. div. of the Supreme Court, as cited by Pavlov, op. cit., p. 423.

11 Pavlov, op cit., p. 423.

12 Nenov, op. cit., p. 163.

13 Id., p. 167.

14 Sudebna Praktika na Vurkhovniio Sud na NR Bulgariia. Nakazatelna Kolegiia (Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the PR of Bulgaria. Criminal Division). Sofia, 1970. p. 41: Court decision No. 133 of March 7, 1969. I crim. div.

committed by such a person, the court may order, in addition to the penalty, also compulsory medical measures. If the imposed penalty is not a deprivation of liberty (imprisonment), the compulsory medical treatment is given in a medical institution under a special cure and labor regime. The compulsory cure of a criminal condemned to imprisonment is carried out during the serving of the penalty; but the term of compulsory cure is deducted from the term of deprivation of liberty. The court may order the continuation of this treatment even. after the release of the criminal and only the court may interrupt this measure. No provision is contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding the problem of defense of an alcoholic defendant; nor are there any discussions in legal writings.

Question 7. The Bulgarian Criminal Code and doctrine distinguish two general standards or situations in which an act is considered "not socially dangerous," and consequently not punishable, namely, in the case of "self-defense" (Sec. 12) and in the case of "state of distress" (Sec. 13).

In the first instance, a person is acting in self-defense when he is trying "to protect state or public interest from an immediate illegal attack [as well as], the person or rights of the one who is defending himself or another [person]." This is excusable, however, up to certain "limits." Any act which is in excess of the use of self-defense is punishable. Again, the law excuses and does not punish any excess of self-defense if the latter was a result of "fright" or "confusion".

In interpreting Section 12 of the Code, the Supreme Court defines "fright" or "confusion" as "that mental condition of the perpetrator in which his mental disturbance is so strong that it restricted to a considerable degree his capacity to control his actions and to motivate his conduct within the limits of selfdefense". 15

The second possibility of an excusable act is when a person is acting in a state of distress, e.g., "in order to save state or public interests as well as his own or somebody else's personal or property rights from an immediate danger, which the perpetrator could not avoid in any other manner, [and] if the damage caused by the act is less significant than that of the averted [damage]". However, the law excludes the existence of a state of distress "if the avoidance itself of the danger constitutes a crime".

Question 8. The Bulgarian Criminal Code does not classify criminal acts; the only term known and used is prestuplenie (crime, offense). Professor Ivan Nenov states that the basic "twofold or threefold division of criminal acts as practiced in bourgeois legislations has no essential importance in the Bulgarian legal system." 16

Depending on the seriousness of the crime, however, the penalty may range from public reprimand to death. There are eleven different types of penalties, which may be imposed in combination (Sec. 37, par. 1). For the most serious crimes "which jeopardize the foundations of the People's Republic" the Code provides the death penalty executed by a firing squad “as a temporary and an exceptional measure" (Sec. 37, par. 2).

Question 9. Sentencing. In accordance with the Criminal Code provisions the trial court determines the penalty within the limits prescribed by law for the committed crime after taking into consideration the provisions of the General Part of the Code as well as (a) the degree of social danger of the act and its perpetrator; (b) the motives for the commission of the crime; and (c) all other circumstances aggravating or mitigating the guilt (Sec. 54). If the mitigating circumstances are so exclusive and numerous, and if the penalty provided by law appears to be still too harsh, the court may change the type of penalty accordingly (Sec. 55).

If the Code prescribes the choice of one or two types of penalties the court may select the most appropriate in kind and term; if the law provides the imposition of two or more penalties the court may determine the term of each penalty so that they may in their combined form fit the purposes of the penalty (Sec. 57).

Special rules are applicable in regard to the determination of the penalty for juvenile delinquents (Secs. 60-65).

Reasons in Writing Sentences. Each sentence must contain, in addition to several other items of information, as listed in the Code of Criminal Procedure,

15 Id., decision No 236 of 1969. I crim. div.

18 Nenov, op cit., p. 369.

57-868-72-pt. 3-C- -26

written information on the reasons for the sentences imposed, as well as on the kind of appeal allowed, before which court, and within what period of time (Sec. 213).

Appeal. Sentences of the people's court as a first instance are appealed to the district court and sentences of the district courts are reviewed by the Supreme Court (Sec. 220, Crim. Proc.); both sides in the trial, defendant and the government, may appeal (Sec. 221, Crim. Proc.).

Suspension. Under the present Criminal Code probation is a form of suspension of sentence which may be realized in one of the following manners: (a) full suspension of the execution of a sentence; (b) partial suspension of the execution of the sentence; (c) conditional suspension of the imposition of the sentence; and (d) suspension of criminal responsibility by imposition of nonpenal measures.

(a) When the court imposes the penalty of deprivation of liberty of up to 3 years, it may suspend its execution for 2 to 5 years, if the defendant has never been deprived of his liberty for a crime of a generally dangerous nature and the court is inclined to believe that this would be in the interest of the case (Sec. 66).

Whenever a sentence is suspended, the court may authorize a public organization or a labor collective to exercise "educational care" during the determined period. General supervision of the educational care and conduct of the convicted on probation is placed in the hands of the people's court within that jurisdiction. There is a special regulation regarding the implementation of these provisions (Sec. 67).

(b) The court may release a convicted person on probation before the full serving of his penalty e.g. (Sec. 70–73).

(c) The Criminal Code also provides for the possibility of suspending the imposition of a sentence when, upon the recommendation of a public organization or the labor collective, the court decrees his reeducation by this organization or collective if the crime is punishable by deprivation of liberty for up to one year, there is no great social danger, the defendant admits his guilt and regrets the act and if the purpose of the penalty is better realized in this manner. (d) Suspension of criminal responsibility may be achieved by the imposition of measures involving publie influence by the comrade's court in cases of a certain type of criminal act as listed in the Criminal Code (Sec. 77). In its decision No. 37 of January 20, 1969, the Supreme Court stated that the comrade's court is an organ of society which makes use of measures of public influence not only in cases that are transferred to it by the trial court, but also in cases within its jurisdiction."

Minimum Prison Sentence. The mandatory minimum prison sentence is one month and every sentence of imprisonment is always a determinate one; furthermore, it is always a joint sentence rather than a concurrent or consecutive one (See. 57). The court determines the term of each penalty in cases of several crimes and combines them.

Fine. A fine is imposed in accordance with the financial situation as well as the income and family obligations of the convicted defendant. It may be less than 10 leva (official rate of one leva equals $1.17). The fine is collected from his property. However, properties which are not subject to confiscation, as specified and listed in a special law, may not be sold for the compulsory collection of the fine.

"Day Fine". The Code is silent on the problem of the “day fine" system. Question 19. As a rule, under Bulgarian criminal law, a generally dangerous act is punishable only if it was committed guiltily, e.g.. intentionally (dolus directus and dolus eventualis), or negligently. If the element of guilt in either of its two forms is absent the generally dangerous act does not constitute a crime (see also answers to questions Nos. 5, 6 and 7]. There are a few situations in which the Code excludes the presence of the element of guilt: in cases of a mistake as well as in cases of an "accidental act,” and in the execution of an Elegal official order.

Professor Ivan Nenov, when analyzing mistake as a circumstance which excludes guilt, emphasizes the point that a mistake of law is not known in Bulgarian criminal legislation. "If we refer to a very old division of mistakes," he states, "into a 'mistake of fact' and a 'mistake of law,' we have to stress [the

* Sidebna Praktika, op. cit., p. 40.

* See Pick's Currency Yearbook, 1971. New York, 1971. p 84.

fact] that under our legal system only the first category the factual one' is of importance." 19 However, in its decision of May 80, 1900, the Supreme Comel stated that "the mistaken notion of the perpetrator regarding the postson whom he intended to kill is irrelevant since the desired result and the one factually attained concerns one and the same object of protection and contains this element of one and the same crime." 20

The pertinent Criminal Code provisions dealing with the direumstances which exclude guilt read as follows:

Sec. 14 (1) Ignorance of the factual circumstances which belong to the elements of the crime, exclude the intent connected with this erimes

(2) This provision also refers to negligently committed webs if the ignorance of the factual circumstances is not due to negligence

Furthermore, the Code declares the act is committed without gullt in Fen other instances: (a) if the perpetrator was not under the obligation to or could not foresee the occurrence of the generally dangerous réanita. Oder Fry, of the sampled "accidental act" or (b) if he was acting in execution of wh thetal official order" (Sec. 18).

in a these instances, the lack of criminal "qulle" may be yad na ʼn delen m Guestion 11. There are no analogues to the differentiation between think ahl jansberron in the Bulgarian Criminal Code

Carenin 12. The extraterritorial appileanlity of the Wingfish Criminal Code is the subject of separate report, a copy of mich ja allatvéd