Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона. Сборник материалов Четвертой Всероссийской научно-практической конференции
.pdf
Ильда Кристина Феррейра
nomic and free trade policies; ii) safeguard the free movement of capital,
goods, intangible assets, and convertible currency within its territory; iii)
formulate its own monetary and financial policies; iv) issue and manage
its own currency; v) have a separate customs territory and a free port;
vi) determine its own taxation policy and use exclusively revenues derived therefrom; vii) issue travel documents; viii) set out border and
immigration controls, including with Mainland China, ix) establish
official or semi-official economic and trade missions in foreign countries.
The principle of continuity, also recognised in the BL, ensures that
the modus vivendi and operandi of the Macao SAR shall remain unchanged for a period of 50 years
1
, including in the legal field2. This constitutional principle guarantees the maintenance of the pre-exiting
system and the unity and integrity of the current one3. Accordingly,
in the legal sphere, Macao remains part of the Romano-Germanic
family of Law (civil law family) and maintains the core characteristics
of the civil law tradition4. Hence, written law is the primary source
of Law, being constitutional law on the top of the hierarchy of the sources
of Law, followed by conventional international law and then by ordinary legislation. Custom and case law are not primary sources of Law.
Moreover, international and domestic law are part of the same legal
order and in the event of a conflict, conventional international law prevails over domestic ordinary law (monist system)5. Regardless of its
source, written law can only be applicable and enforced in the Macao
SAR after being published in the Macao SAR Official Gazette. Once
published, conventional international law becomes immediately and
automatically part of the Macao SAR legal system6. Principles as
1
Articles 5, 11 (1) and 19 (2) of the BL.
2
Article 8 of the BL establishes the principle of continuity of the Macao’s legal
system. See P. Cardinal «The Judicial Guaranteed of Fundamental Rights in the
Macau Legal System — a Parcours Under the Focus of Continuity and of Autonomy». p. 221–258, in One Country, Two Systems, Three Legal Orders — Perspectives of Evolution, Essays on Macau’s Autonomy after Resumption of Sovereignty
by China, J. C. Oliveira and P. Cardinal Ed., Springer, 2009.
3
I. C. Ferreira «The Macau SAR legal system, Is the EU law a source of inspiration for Macau Lawmakers?», in J. Godinho Ed., «Studies on Macau civil,
commercial, constitutional and criminal law, LexisNexis, Hong Kong, 2010, P. 39 ss.
4
China Core Document, op. cit. note 9. P. 181–182.
5
Article 1 (3) of the Civil Code.
6
Article 1 (3) and 4 of the Civil Code and Article 3 and 5 of Law 3/1999.
301
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
the rule of law, legal certainty, equality, non-discrimination and publicity as well as the protection of fundamental rights
1
are cornerstone
principles of the Macao SAR legal system.
3. The legal framework for the surrender of fugitive offenders (SFO)
Features, principles and conditions
Notwithstanding its limited external powers, the Macao SAR may,
in certain areas on its own2 or with the authorization of the CPG3,
celebrate bilateral and multilateral agreements (ius tractum) under
the name «Macao, China», including on the SFO. As regards legal cooperation, Article 94 of the BL states that:
With the assistance or authorization of the Central People’s Government, the Macao Special Administrative Region may make appropriate
arrangements with foreign states for reciprocal judicial assistance.
The possibility to cooperate on its own with the authorization of
the CPG in the criminal field with foreign jurisdictions is quite consistent with the high degree of autonomy — legal (autonomous legal system) and judicial (autonomous judiciary system) that was conferred
to the Macao SAR.
In this sense, the tools to pursue and enforce criminal justice as well
as to ensure the enforcement of obligations under international law
in relation to international or transnational crimes, wherein universal
jurisdiction4 and the principle aut dedere aut judicare play a key role5,
were granted to the Macao SAR, by the CPG, while maintaining its
supervision and (last) decision power6.
1
Human Rights are protected under constitutional, criminal and civil law. P. Cardinal
«Constitutional Layer of Protection of Fundamental Rights in the Macau Special
Administrative Region», paper delivered at LAWASIA, Hong Kong, 2007, p. 6ss.
or J. B. Gouveia «The Fundamental Rights in Macau», P. 695–714, ob.cit.note 14.
2
Articles 13 (3) and 136 of the BL.
3
Articles 94 and 140 of the BL.
4
Art. 5 (1) of the Macao Criminal Code recognizes establishes the principle
of extra-territoriality (Law to Counter Terrorism (Law 3/2006) and Law to Counter
Human Trafficking (Law 6/2008)) or universal jurisdiction for certain crimes
(eg. genocide or war crimes) criminal code — transnational and international crimes
5
Art. 5 (2) of the Macao Criminal Code establishes the principle of aut dedere
aut judicare wherein there is an obligation to prosecute under an applicable international convention or an MLA.
6
See part four of this paper.
302
Ильда Кристина Феррейра
In addition, the absence of a bilateral agreement does not preclude the
possibility of legal cooperation, including the surrender of a fugitive offender. Law 6/2006 on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters establishes the principles and rules that govern any surrender request on
a case-by-case basis. Law 6/2006 is also applicable to a surrender request
to enforce any extradition provisions (by analogy) under an applicable
international convention in the Macao SAR, such as the UN Convention
against Transnational Organised Crime (Palermo Convention)
1
or the
UN Convention against Corruption (Merida Convention)2, or to fill up
any insufficiency or legal gap of a bilateral agreement on the SFO.
Within this context, it is important to note that Law 6/2006 is in
line with the general principles of international criminal law and international standards that oversee legal cooperation in criminal matters
(MLA). Indeed, it follows closely the MLA principles and norms enshrined in the majority of bilateral treaties, or of the Council of Europe,
or of the UN Model Laws, as well as of key international criminal conventions on this subject-matter3. The paradigm of modern criminal law
policy in order to prevent, suppress and punish crime to ensure criminal
justice (to ensure the effective application of the criminal law) while
guaranteeing the criminal procedural rights of the accused and facilitating
the accused social rehabilitation4 is patently embodied in Law 6/2006.
Law 6/2006 is divided in seven parts: Part I — General Provisions,
Part II — Surrender of Fugitive Offenders, Part III — Transfer of criminal proceedings, Part IV — Enforcement of criminal sentences5,
Part V — Surveillance of sentenced persons or persons under parole,
Part VI — Other forms of legal assistance in criminal matters, Part VII —
Final and transitory provisions.
The Macao SAR’s legal framework for the SFO is a comprehensive
and integrated one, comprising provisions of the BL, provisions of applicable conventional international law, Law 6/2006, provisions of the
1
Article 18.
2
Article 44.
3
Kimberly Prost, op. cit. note 2., P. 202–211 or COLLEEN ENACHE-BROWN
and ARI FRIED, «Universal Crime, Jurisdiction and Duty: the Obligation of Aut
dedere» Aut Judicare in International Law, McGill Law Journal, Vol. 43, 1998.
P. 313–633.
4
Cherif Bassiouni, op.cit.note 1. P. 13
5
Transfer of sentenced persons — Chapter IV of Part IV.
303
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
Criminal Procedure Code1 and Law 3/2002 on the Notification Procedure Mechanism. Since, until now the Macao SAR has not celebrated
any bilateral agreement on the SFO
2
, this paper will focus on Law
6/2006, in particular its principles and norms that (will) guide any surrender request on a case-by-case basis or request founded on an applicable international law instruments, as well the drafting of any bilateral agreement on the SFO, thus assuring the required coherence and
consistency with the Macao SAR legal status and legal framework.
In this Law, a number of general principles and norms are applicable
to all forms of cooperation, including SFO, others are specifically addressed to surrender. Of the former, some are the result of the Macao
SAR’s political status, such as the principle of unity or national sovereignty3 and the principle of «One Country, Two Systems»4, both
limiting the scope of application of a surrender request on a case-by-case
basis or request from a bilateral or multilateral agreement, since any
surrender request has to be scrutinize as regards the protection of sovereignty, security and ordre public of the PRC and the protection of
interests of security, ordre public and other interests of the Macao SAR.
Others are derived from the Macao SAR’s legal characteristics, such as
the principle of primacy of conventional international law5 and the principle of prohibition of death penalty6; others are internationally recognized
as general criminal law principles, such as: reciprocity7, minor offences
or minimum intervention8, rule of speciality9 and non bis in idem10, due process of law11, humanitarian (health or age of the surrendered person)12.
1
The Criminal Procedure Code is also subsidiarly applicable in case of lacunae
(Article 4 (2) of Law 6/2006). See Arts. 213–217 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
2
Macao SAR 2016 Policy Address mentions the negotiation of an SFO
Agreement with South Korea.
3
Article 1 (1), 2 (1) and (2) of Law 6/2006 read together with Article 1 and 12
of the BL.
4
Article 1 and 12 of the BL.
5
Articles 4, 7 (1), 8 (2) of Law 6/2006.
6
Article 7 (7) of Law 6/2006 or Article 39 (1) of the Macao Criminal Code.
7
Articles 1 (2) and 5 of Law 6/2006 and Article 94 of the BL.
8
Article 11 of Law 6/2006.
9
Articles 17 and 18 of Law 6/2006.
10
Article 20 of Law 6/2006.
11
Article 7 (4) of Law 6/2006.
12
Article 19 (2)) of Law 6/2006 — optional ground for refusal.
304
Ильда Кристина Феррейра
Within the general mandatory grounds for refusal established in Article 7 of Law 6/2006, one can highlight the following: i) when there
are well-founded reasons to believe that cooperation is sought for the
purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person by virtue of that person’s
nationality, origin, race, sex, language, religion, political or ideological
beliefs, educational level, economic status, social condition or belonging to a given social group, or ii) a trial or sentence ruled by a court
of exceptional jurisdiction, or iii) a penalty that may cause irreversible
injury to the person’s integrity, or iv) penalty or security measure
involving lifelong or indefinite deprivation of liberty, or v) death penalty sentence
1
.
Article 8 of Law 6/2006 establishes the grounds for refusal based on
the nature of the offences, if they are political or connected with a political offence (with the exception of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and serious offences under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman
or Degrading Treatment or Punishment or when they ought not to be
regarded as of a political nature under the terms of any international
convention applicable to the Macao SAR), or military. Pursuant to Article 33 (1) of Law 6/2006, all these principles and respective conditions are respectively considered in a surrender request and most certainly will be present in a SFO bilateral agreement.
The specific singularities of the regime of the SFO are established
in Articles 32 to 67 of Law 6/2006. Article 32 states as follows:
Article 32 Purpose of and grounds for the surrender of fugitive
offender
1. Surrender of fugitives may only take place for the purpose of criminal
proceedings or imposing a penalty or security measure involving deprivation of liberty for a crime where the courts of the requesting party have
jurisdiction.
2. For any of the purposes mentioned in the preceding paragraph,
surrender of the person sought shall only be possible in respect of crimes,
including attempted crimes that are punishable under both the MSAR
law and the law of the requesting party by a penalty or security
1
All grounds for refusal that are also substantiated in the core international
Human Rights instruments applicable to the Macao SAR, namely the CERD, CAT,
ICCPR.
305
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
measure involving deprivation of liberty for a maximum period of at least
one year.
3. If the surrender of a fugitive offender is based on several separate facts, each of which is punishable under the MSAR law and the law
of the requesting party by a penalty or security measure involving
deprivation of liberty, and, however, one or some of which do not fulfil
the requirement mentioned in the preceding paragraph, surrender of fugitive
offender shall be possible.
4. Request of a surrender of fugitive offender for the purpose of executing a penalty or security measure involving deprivation of liberty may
only be granted if the duration of the sentence that remains to be served
is not less than 6 months.
This provision sets forth the general principles and features of
the extradition mechanism common to many jurisdictions: i) Surrender is only possible for the purpose of criminal proceedings or to enforce
a penalty or security measure involving deprivation of liberty for a crime
where the Requesting party has jurisdiction; ii) dual-criminality principle; iii) Minimum penalty requirement and minimum to be served
1
.
Article 33 prescribes the specific grounds for refusal: i) territoriality
principle, whereby surrender shall be refused if the crime was committed in Macao and the ii) nationality principle wherein surrender shall
be refused if the person requested is a Chinese national2. Another specific ground for refusal is added which is the residency principle. According to this principle, surrender shall be refused if the person request-
ed is a Macao SAR resident, unless if the request is formulated by the
State of the person’s nationality or whenever the obligation to surrender
a fugitive offender derives from a self-executing norm from an international convention applicable to the Macao SAR.
This ground for refusal is a feature and consequence of the unique
political and legal context of Macao. Apart from the nationality criteria, the residency criteria has also to be measured. «Macao residents»
includes permanent residents and non-permanent residents3, however,
only permanent residents enjoy special protection in an analogous
1
A penalty or security measure involving deprivation of liberty for period of
at least one year and a duration of the sentence of at least of 6 months to be served.
2
Chinese Law on nationality is one of the national laws applicable to Macao SAR.
3
Article 24 of the BL and Law 8/1999.
306
Ильда Кристина Феррейра
manner as nationals. Permanent residents are entitled to civil and political rights and to the right of abode, reason why the Macao SAR authorities will examine the resident status and the nationality of the
person requested at the time of assessing a request for the SFO.
An administrative and a judicial procedure
The SFO comprehends two procedural stages. The administrative
stage is of the competence of the Chief Executive (CE) and aims
to assess the admissibility or non-admissibility of a SFO request where
political reasons or discretionary grounds for refusal or the need to
provide undertakings will be considered.
The judicial stage rests under the competence of the Court of Second Instance (CSI) which, after a hearing with the person concerned,
shall undertake a legal assessment of the form and substance of the facts
in relation to the legal requirements, for the purpose of deciding whether
the surrender shall be granted or not. No evidentiary material on the
alleged conduct of the person sought will be taken into consideration
1
The key actor in the administrative stage is the Procuratorate that
will issue an opinion within a maximum period of 20 days and assess the
formal aspects of the request. The opinion will be submitted to the CE
for decision on the admissibility of the request. In the meantime, the
Procuratorate may take all the necessary measures in order to ensure
the surveillance of the person sought. If the request is declared inadmissible the procedure will be filed.
In the judicial procedure the key actor is the CSI. The request declared admissible will be forwarded by the Procuratorate in 48 hours
to the CSI along with any documents available to carry out the request
(Article 51 et seq).
The Macao SAR central authorities to receive request may be the
Secretary for Administration and Justice2 or the Procuratorate3.
The procedure for the SFO with urgent nature will run even during
the periods of judicial recess4.
Additionally, at the request of the Requesting party, property seized
at the moment of the detention or subsequently may be handed over
.
1
Articles 46 et seq.
2
See Notification to the Palermo and Merida Conventions.
3
Law 6/2006.
4
Article 74 of Law 6/2006.
307
Актуальные проблемы теории и практики применения уголовного закона
together with the person sought, if such property is deemed to be essential to the gathering of evidence related to the commission of an offence.
And even in the event of the impossibility of carrying out the surrender, inter alia, by virtue of his/her escape or death, property may be
handed over
1
.
A system within a system
As mentioned, the Macao SAR’s system of the SFO as to follow some
procedures being a system within another system with two-levels of decision-making and procedures due to its legal status.
The intervention of the CPG can be witnessed at several stages:
i) at the negotiation level with the authorization process (Article 94
of the BL), ii) at the surrender request where the protection of the vital interests of the PRC and the Macao SAR have to be assessed and
iii) at the level of the execution of the request with the mandatory
notification mechanism.
Law 3/2002 establishes the Notification Procedure Mechanism, stating that any surrender request after its consideration in accordance
with the Macao SAR law or any applicable bilateral agreements or international conventions must be notified to the CPG where China’s na-
tional sovereignty and interest will be pondered.
The timeframe established for the written communication to the CPG
is of 15 days2, however, the deadlines, in exceptional cases, may be duly
postponed or anticipated, by negotiation between the CE and the CPG3.
In case of no reply by the CPG, the Macao SAR competent authorities,
after being informed, by the CE may handle directly, in accordance
with local law, the request while notifying the CPG of the fact4.
Article 30 of Law 6/2006 also establishes urgent provisional measures
where in case of urgency, the Macao SAR judiciary authorities, at the request of the Requesting Party, either directly or through the INTERPOL,
may adopt a provisional measure that cannot be postponed, such as provisional arrest of the person sought, while communicating with the CPG5.
1
However the rights of bona fide third parties, legitimate owners or holders and
of the Macao SAR’s shall be safeguarded (Article 43 Law 6/2006).
2
Notice 19/2002 and 92/2011–15 days’ notice.
3
Article 5 of Law 3/2002.
4
Article 4 (3) of Law 3/2002.
5
The requests shall be transmitted by post, by electronic means, or by any other
means that allow a written record and provided that is admitted by Macao Law.
308
Ильда Кристина Феррейра
Hence, foreign jurisdictions may rely on the Macao SAR’s coercive
techniques of its autonomous domestic criminal justice process to effectively enforce a surrender request without forgetting that ultimately
an extradition screening will also be carried out by the CPG.
4. Conclusion
The high degree of autonomy enjoyed by the Macao SAR characterizes its sui generis legal nature in the international arena under the principle of “One county, two systems”. Accordingly, the Macao SAR may
offer effective enforcement cooperation mechanisms based on its domestic criminal law with the authorization of the CPG
1
. Hence, the
Macao SAR may surrender a fugitive on a case-by-case basis upon request, or following a request under an extradition provision derived
from an applicable international instrument in the Macao SAR or based
on a SFO bilateral agreement.
Indeed, the Macao SAR has in place a comprehensive legal framework and tools to request and to offer cooperation in line with international law and standards, and notwithstanding its special case of
being a system within a system it has mechanisms to tackle delays or
complex bureaucracies in order to ensure the effectiveness of cooperation in criminal matters.
1
This ratio is applicable mutatis mutandis to the Hong Kong Special Admi-
nistrative Region (Hong Kong SAR).
РАЗДЕЛ V
Работы аспирантов и соискателей
Атаев З. А.
соискатель РГУП
Субъект регистрации незаконных сделок
с недвижимостью
В науке и практике уголовного права субъектом состава преступления традиционно признается вменяемое физическое лицо,
достигшее возраста уголовной ответственности. Данные признаки
субъекта относятся ко всем без исключения составам преступления и весьма подробно изучены в теории уголовного права. В то же
время, уголовную ответственность за многие общественно опасные
деяния могут нести лица, обладающие, помимо общих, специальными признаками субъекта. К числу таковых относится и преступление в виде регистрации заведомо незаконных сделок с недвижимым имуществом (ст. 170 УК РФ).
В юридической литературе признание необходимости установления специальных признаков субъекта состава преступления применительно к указанному деянию практически не подвергается
сомнению. Так, по утверждению Н. Н. Алексеенко, «преступление,
предусмотренное ст. 170 УК РФ, является специальным случаем
должностного злоупотребления и относится к должностным преступлениям. Таким образом, субъект данного преступления — специальный»1. Подобным образом рассуждает большинство авторов.
Однако стоит отметить, что эта позиция не получила всеобщего
одобрения специалистов. Например, как пишет М. В. Феоктистов,
«субъект преступления — специальный, это сотрудник регистри-
1
Алексеенко Н. Н. Характеристика субъекта регистрации незаконных сделок
с землей // Российский следователь. 2009. №2.
310
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]