The arrest procedure in accordance with the demands of the convention

• Author: George Octavian Nicolae
• Position: PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, 'Nicolae Titulescu' University of Bucharest (e-mail: nicolae.georgeoctavian@yahoo.com).
• Pages: 159-165

LESIJ NO. XXIII, VOL. 1/2016

THE ARREST PROCEDURE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE

DEMANDS OF THE CONVENTION

George Octavian NICOLAE

Abstract

In order to ar rest an individual certain criminal procedur al formal and basic conditions must be

met. However, due to our country's ra tification of the Europea n Convention on Human Rights, besides

this criteria , it is also necessary that our domestic law be in accorda nce with the demands of article 5,

para graph 1, point "c" of "The Convention" and the jurisprudence regar ding it. The focus of this project

is on the analysis of the indissoluble link between our national criminal la w regulations regar ding the

arr est procedure and the demands of the European Convention for human r ights.

Keywords: the arr est procedure, European Convention on Human Rights, criminal law,

reasona ble suspicion, evidence.

1. Introduction

Pre trial detention constitutes the most

intrusive preventive measure in the

Romanian penal procedure.

For this reason, the Criminal

Procedure Code clearly states the conditions

which have to be met and when the

authorities can choose it.

In order to conduct a proper analysis of

this institution, certain notions have to

defined and grasped such as the standard of

proof, reasonable suspicion and the threat to

the public.

Also, the judge who is asked to grant

an arrest warrant, must account for article 5

of the E uropean Co nvention For Human

Rights (ECHR), provisions which offer

certain procedural and mandatory guaranties

for the accused.

 PhD Candidate, Faculty of Law, “Nicolae Titu lescu” University of Bucharest (e-mail:

nicolae.georgeoctavian@yahoo.com).

2. Content

According to art. 202 Criminal

Procedure Code (C.p.p.), pr eventive

measures, which i nclude the arrest

procedure, may be adopted if there is

evidence or indications which point to the

reasonable suspicion that a person has

committed a crime and are necessary to

ensure nor mal criminal proceedings,

preventing the accused to skip trial or to

prevent new crimes.

In order to arrest an individual during

criminal prosecution, reasonable suspicion

should emerge from the evidence that the

defendant perpetrated an offence and the

conditions art. 223 letter. (a), (b), (c) or (d),

Criminal Procedure Code, should be met.

However, in order for pre-trial

detention, only a reasonable suspicion that

the accused person has comitted an offence

from the list mentioned in art. 223 paragraph

(2) of C.p.p. is necessary, or that an offence