that joint proceedings shall be carried out with respect to all the crimes committed by an accused person and with respect to all others whose crimes are related. A similar provision applies to the investigation: if it is necessary to initiate an investigation of at least one criminal act, the investigation shall be made of all the criminal acts of the same accused and against all the accused whose crimes are related (Sec. 161, Subsec. 3). EGYPT The history of modern Egypt starts with the accession of Mohammad Aly. Very little appears to be known as to the methods of administration of criminal justice under this monarch. The occupation of Egypt by Napoleon is considered as the first in a series of events which gradually brought it into closer contact with Europe, and especially with France. French influence began to be apparent in substantive and adjective criminal law. The dominance of French culture in Egypt had led to the introduction of French law as the basis of the Mixed Codes-Civil, Commercial and Criminal. Turkey had also borrowed largely from French sources in her Penal Code, issued in 1858. There were, therefore, adequate precedents for recourse to the French Codes when the time arrived for the compilation of a Native Penal Code.1 The Egyptian Penal Code, promulgated on November 13, 1883, was consequently little more than an abbreviated reproduction of the French Code of 1810. There is sufficient similarity between the principles of criminal law in all countries to make such wholesale importation less objectionable than it might be thought. Time and experience would bring with them adaptation and improvement. A penal code is never an exhaustive statement of the penal law. It professes to do little more than provide for the punishment of the graver offenses. To obtain a complete acquaintance with the penal law it would be necessary to study a number of supplementary laws and decrees making punishable various acts of an anti-social character, generally, though not always, less serious than those mentioned in the code. Such supplementary laws sometimes profess to be additions to or alterations of the code, but more frequently they are only supplementary thereto. Between 1883 and 1904 a large number of laws and decrees of this kind were promulgated in Egypt. Many of these were superseded either by later laws or by the revised Code of 1904. The revised Penal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure were promulgated February 14, 1904, and came into force April 15, 1904. The revision was by no means complete. The General Part (Articles 169) of the Penal Code was rewritten and important alterations made in other respects. Continental codes were drawn upon, in particular the Italian Penal Code of 1889, and certain articles from the Indian Penal Code were also introduced. In 1937 the Egyptian legislature promulgated a new penal code as Law No. 58 of 1937. This code was applied by the Native and the Mixed Courts until the latter were abolished and their jurisdiction transferred to the Native Courts. The Penal Code of 1937 is still in force today, but it has gone through numerous amendments and many supplementary laws have been added to it. Egypt, through its Court of Cassation, has developed its own jurisdiction concerning many criminal law principles. This mass of jurisprudence is strictly based on the needs of the Egyptian society. Although certain articles of the Egyptian Code may resemble those of the French, Italian or Indian, their interpretation and implementation is strictly Egyptian. Question 1. Structure: The Egyptian Penal Code is divided into four books, each book is divided into chapters and sections, and each section contains the pertinent articles, as follows. 1 The extraterritoriality in Egypt created a dual system of law and administration of justice one the Mixed Courts which applied Mixed Codes on foreigners and Egyptians, and the other a Native Courts system which applied Native Codes promulgated for the purpose of applying such codes on Egyptian nationals only. BOOK I. PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS Chapter 1. General Principles. Articles 1-8 are concerned with the application of criminal law. Chapter 2. Classification of offenses. Articles 9-12 classify offenses into three kinds: crimes, misdemeanors and contraventions. Chapter 3. Punishment. Articles 13-38 classify punishment into criminal, correctional and contraventional, as well as substantive and subsidiary punishments. The substantive penalties are mentioned in Articles 13-23. The subsidiary penalties are enumerated in Articles 24-31. They are subsidiary because they cannot be imposed except together with a substantive punishment. Articles 32-38 discuss co-existent penalties or cumulative penalties. Section 1. Under substantive penalties the following are listed: death, penal servitude (either for life or for a specific term), imprisonment, detention, fine, committal to a reformatory school, and surrender of the juvenile to his guardian. Section 2. Under subsidiary penalties the following are listed: deprivation of rights and privileges, dismissal from public office, police supervision, and confiscation. Section 3. This section discusses co-existent penalties under Articles 32-38. Chapter 4. Principals and accessories; Articles 39-44. Chapter 5. Attempt; Articles 45-47. Chapter 6. Criminal conspiracy; Article 48. Chapter 7. Recidivism; Articles 49-54. Chapter 8. Conditional sentences; Articles 55-59. Chapter 9. Acts done in exercise of a general right; Articles 60-63. Chapter 10. Juvenile offenders; Articles 64-73. Chapter 11. Pardon and amnesty; Articles 74–76. BOOK II. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAINST THE PUBLIC INTEREST Chapter 1. Crimes committed against the external safety of the State; Articles 77-85. Chapter 2. Crimes and misdemeanors committed against the internal safety of the State; Articles 86-102. Chapter 2 bis. Explosives; Articles 102A-102F (this whole section was added by Law No. 50 of 1949). Chapter 3. Bribery and corruption; Articles 103-111. Chapter 4. Malversation of public funds; Articles 112–119 bis. Chapter 5. Misuse of official position; Articles 120-125. Chapter 6. Employment of violence, etc., by public servants; Articles 126– 132. Chapter 7. Resistance and disobedience towards public authorities; Articles 133-137 bis A. Chapter 8. Escape from custody and harboring fugitives; Articles 138-146. Chapter 9. Breaking of seals and abstraction of papers from official custody; Articles 147-154. Chapter 10. Unlawful assumption of titles, ranks, or office; Articles 155-159. Chapter 11. Offenses relating to creeds; Articles 160–161. Chapter 12. Damage to buildings, monuments, and other public things; Article 162. Chapter 13. Offenses relating to means of communication; Articles 163-170. Chapter 14. Offenses by means of the press; Articles 171-201 bis. Chapter 15. Coinage and counterfeiting offenses; Articles 202–205. Chapter 16. Forgery; Articles 206-227. Chapter 17. Trade in contraband and forgery of postal and telegraph insignia; Articles 228-229. BOOK III. CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS AGAINST INDIVIDUALS Chapter 1. Homicide, wounds and blows: Articles 230-251 bis. Chapter 2. Willful arson; Articles 252-259. Chapter 3. Abortion. and the manufacturing, selling, and adulteration of drugs; Articles 260-266. Chapter 4. Offenses against decency and morality (rape and indecent acts); Articles 267–279. Chapter 5. Unlawful arrest, kidnapping, abduction, and abandonment of family; Articles 280-293. Chapter 6. False evidence; Articles 294–301. Chapter 7. Defamation, insults, and disclosure of secrets; Articles 302-310. Chapter 8. Theft and extortion; Articles 311-327. Chapter 9. Criminal bankruptcy; Articles 328-335. Chapter 10. False pretense and abuse of confidence in respect to property entrusted; Articles 336-343. Chapter 11. Interference with freedom of auctions and deception in trade; Articles 344-351. Chapter 12. Games of chance and lotteries; Articles 352-353. Chapter 13. Willful damage; Articles 354–368. Chapter 14. Criminal trespass; Articles 369-373. Chapter 15. Abstention from work in public utilities and interference with freedom of labor; Articles 374-375. BOOK IV. CONTRAVENTIONS Contraventions concerning: Public safety; Articles 377-380 Public morals; Article 385 Public authorities; Article 386 Property; Articles 387-389 Weights and measures; Article 390 Persons; Articles 391-394 All contraventions listed in local and municipal decrees; Article 395. Question 2. The numbering system: The numbering is complete, no space is left blank, and additions are made by means of having the numbers of the provisions added to them as "bis" or "bis A" as it is shown in this Code. Question 3. Mental elements: The Egyptian Penal Code, like most European codes, depends on the jurisprudence and the decisions of higher courts on the question of the mental attitude of the offender towards the acts constituting the offense. However, the mental attitude is usually specified in the article which covers the offense. There are cerain general exceptions to criminal responsibility on grounds of justifiable actions, such as self defense; mental conditions, such as insanity and influence of drugs; and the acts of public officials under certain circumstances. Commentators on the Egyptian Penal Code discuss, in this regard, what they call the elements which contribute towards the fixation of responsibility. They list these elements as: (1) Knowledge of law; (2) knowledge of fact, and (3) intention and wrongful intention, which is referred to as malice. The offender has foreseen the act which constitutes the offense and he directs his mind towards its realization. This state of mind is expressed in the Code by the use of words such as "willfully," "wrongfully," and "intentionally." Negligence is said to be a very vague term and consequently is difficult to define. However, the commentators use it to describe the state of mind of the man who is not aware of the possible consequences of his act, or is imprudent in determining what those consequences will be. A distinction between "willful" omissions and "negligent" omissions is usually drawn in discussing this topic. Question 4. Causal relationship: The Egyptian Penal Code does not mention the "causal relationship between conduct and result" at all. However, commentators on the Code discuss this subject and cite decisions of the Egyptian Court of Cassation. It seems that the Egyptian legislature has left it to the discretion of the courts to interpret the "causal relationship" according to the circumstances of each case individually. The trend in many new penal codes of the world is toward including the principle of “causal relationship" in the code. III. EXECUTION OF SANCTIONS 3 Matters concerning execution of sanctions are governed by a special statute known as Law on Execution of Sanctions of April 4, 1936, enforceable as of October 8, 1938, which is the same date set forth for the enforcement of the provisions of the Code of Social Defense. This law creates a technical body known as the Superior Council of Social Defense (Consejo Superior de Defensa Social), charged with the execution of sanctions and security measures involving deprivation of liberty. It exercises broad technical and administrative powers. Consequently, the classification of inmates with regard to the kind of treatment that shall be applicable to them becomes essential. This is the keystone of the Cuban penitentiary system. It is based on the premise that the Administrative Organ of a Penitentiary has the right to determine the moment the sanction of deprivation of liberty shall cease, within the limits set forth by the Court in the corresponding sentence. Therefore, the base for the individualization of the execution of the sanction is really the undeterminable sentence, which has as a corollary the conditional liberty of the inmate. Corrective treatment. The law adopts a system of correction based on compulsory studies and work. Classification of penal establishments. They are divided into two groups: Institutes of Repression and Institutes of Prevention. The former function as prisons where persons penalized to deprivation of liberty are committed; the latter are the centers where the execution of the security measures established by the Code of Social Defense are enforced. Probation officers. The law also makes provisions for probation officers, with powers and functions similar to those of Probation and Parole officers in the United States. They are civil officials subject to the administration of the penitentiary and are charged with the observation, care and supervision of those individuals placed on probation. Since the Code of Social Defense was conceived on the theory of penaltreatment, it thus follows that a penitentiary must be, in effect, a reformatory; i.e., a social institution. The culprit is considered to be arrested from society. not as a penalty, but for the purposes of his instruction, reeducation, rehabilitation, discipline and regeneration. Question 1: CZECHOSLOVAKIA The Czechoslovak Criminal Code of November 29, 1961,' as amended, has 301 sections and is divided into three parts: Part One, General Part (Secs. 1-90), Part Two, Special Part (Secs. 91-295), and Part Three, Transitional and Final Provisions (Secs. 296-301). Part One consists of the following chapters: The Purpose of the Penal Code; The Foundations of Criminal Liability; The Applicability of Penal Laws; Penalties; The Extinction of Criminal Liability and Punishment; Protective Measures; Special Provisions Concerning the Prosecution of Juveniles; and General Provisions. Part Two has the following chapters: Crimes Against the Republic; Economic Crimes; Crimes Against the Public Order; Crimes Causing Common Danger; Crimes Grossly Violating Good Civil Relations; Crimes Against the Family and Youth; Crimes Against Life and Health; Crimes Against Liberty and Human Dignity; Crimes Against Property; Crimes Against Humanity; Crimes Against Military Service; and Military Crimes. Part Three has one chapter, entitled "Transitional and Final Provisions." Question 2: The numbering of the sections of the Code is consecutive. If an amendment to the text is made, the wording of the affected section is changed and the number remains the same; if an additional section is needed, then the number of sections is extended by adding the letters a, b, c, etc., after the section where the new material most appropriately belongs. 3 Gaceta Oficial, April 11, 1936, Extraordinary issue. 1 Sbírka zákonů československé socialistické republiky (hereinafter referred to as Sb., No. 140/1961. Question 3: In order to be a crime, an act must have been committed intentionally, unless the present Code expressly provides that an act committed through negligence is punishable as a crime (Sec. 3, Subsec. 3). The present Code makes use of two kinds of culpability: "intent" (Sec. 4), and "negligence" (Sec. 5). The following is the text of Sections 4 and 5 of the Code:* Sec. 4.-A crime shall be [considered to have been] committed intentionally, if the offender (a) wished to violate or endanger in a manner specified in the present Code an interest protected by the Present Code, or (b) knew that his action could cause such violation or danger and, in the event of causing it, accepted the result. Sec. 5.-A crime shall be [considered to have been] committed through negligence, if the offender (a) knew that he could, in the manner specified in the present Code, violate or endanger an interest protected by the present Code, but without adequate reasons depended on not causing such violation or danger, or (b) did not know that his action could cause such violation or danger although, considering the circumstances and his personal situation, he should have known it. The intent may be direct (knowledge is required--Sec. 4, letter (a)) or indirect (volition is required-Sec. 4, letter (b). In both forms of intent, the offender must have known that by his act he might violate or endanger an interest protected by the present Code in a manner specified in the present Code; however, in the case of direct intent, the offender directly wished to violate or endanger such an interest, whereas in the case of indirect intent; the offender did not wish to cause the violation or endangerment of such interest directly, but realized that such a violation or endangerment would take place. The intent must be established by the court on the basis of the facts and evidence.3 Section 5 recognizes two kinds of negligence, which the theory terms 'conscious' and 'unconscious' negligence.* Conscious negligence is present when the offender knew that he might violate or endanger said interest; however, he did not understand that he would cause such a violation or endangerment, but trusted without adequate reasons that his act would not cause it. There is a lack of volition in the person of the offender which makes the difference as regards indirect intent. Unconscious negligence is present when the offender did not know that his action could cause such a violation or danger. The difference between an unintentional violation or danger (i.e., not a criminal case) and unconscious negligence is that the offender should have known it considering the circumstances and his personal situation. Guilt must be established, not innocence. Section 2, Subsection 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads:" "No person prosecuted in penal proceedings shall be viewed as being guilty until his guilt has been pronounced in a judgment which has become legally valid." Question 4: The "proximate cause" between conduct and result is not expressly mentioned in the Code; however, in the chain of causation, such proximity must be established in order to find the offender guilty. The proximate cause is present if the result could not have taken place without the offender's action. If his action is one of the proximate causes of the result, then it is necessary to establish a so-called degree of causation in bringing about the result. Of course, the offender is criminally liable only if he caused the result intentionally or by negligence. 2 The text is taken from an official translation of the Union of Czechoslovak Lawyers, Bulletin of Czechoslovak Law, 1962. 3 Trestní zákon; Komentár. Praha, Orbis, 1964 (hereinafter Komentár), p. 43-47. 4 Td. at 47-49 The Czechoslovak Code of Criminal Procedure of November 29, 1961, No. 141/1961 Sb., as amended (hereinafter referred to as CCP). Komentář, supra note 3 at 31-32. |