[GA - PASSED] Omnibus Due Process Act

---

Whereas recent legal developments have led to the repeal of GA 443 “Preventing the Execution of Innocents”, and the repeal of various provisions protecting the rights of criminal defendants writ large, rather than just in terms of capital prosecutions:
And whereas the Assembly seeks to reimpose those protections to protect defendants from overzealous prosecutors seeking unfair and unjust outcomes to pad their case records or the influence of member nations seeking certain favourable outcomes by undue process of law:
And whereas three classes of protections are of utmost importance to safeguard defendants from corruption of their advocates, prevent defendants from being surprised with evidence introduced at the last minute, and safeguard persons under the custody of member nations or agents thereof from being rendered to areas where they are not protected by World Assembly legislation:
The World Assembly enacts as follows:

1. Negative inference. The invocation of any right or privilege by the defendant may not be used as evidence of wrongdoing or as the basis of a negative inference.
   
   
2. Undue influence. Member nations shall not attempt to pervert justice by unduly influencing the defendant or defence counsel. Nor shall member nations require or coerce the defendant or defence counsel to make decisions which may damage their defence or, in the case of counsel, client welfare.
   
   
3. Discovery.Prosecutors before member nation courts shall provide the defence with all evidence collected in the process of investigation. Defendants must also provide to prosecutors such evidence they also have collected.
   1. Evidence may be excluded if there is a preponderance of evidence that providing it would lead to witness tampering or intimidation, expose information vital to national security, or substantially threaten the safety of witnesses or other third parties.
      
      
   2. Counsel for the defence shall be provided sufficient time to review and examine evidence provided under the above clause. It shall be grounds for reversible error on appeal if the defence can show insufficient time was provided such that a competent advocate could not have provided effective counsel.
      
      
   3. In this section, the word “evidence” does not include strategies or other products of time spent by attorneys or advocates reviewing that case.
4. Rendition. No individual in the custody of a member nation, or any agents thereof, may be extradited, rendered, or otherwise moved to any place likely to commence, resume, or carry out judicial proceedings which would contravene World Assembly legislation against that individual.

Click to expand...

Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.

---

Voting Instructions:

• Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
• Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
• Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
• Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.

Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

---

IFV

---

Overview
This Resolution seeks to establish four fundamental protections that are to be guaranteed for those accused of criminal acts in member states. These protections bar member states from using the invocation of any right or privilege by a defendant as evidence of guilt, prohibit coercion of a defendant or their defense counsel to pervert the course of justice, require that the defendant and their counsel be provided with all evidence gathered in the course of an investigation by the prosecution subject to minimal conditions, and prohibit the transportation of an individual in the custody of any member state to any jurisdiction which may proceed with judicial sanctions against that individual that would violate World Assembly law.

Recommendation
It is rather surprising that such basic foundational protections that enshrine the legitimacy of the judicial process were not already enforced by the World Assembly. Such basic principles are what separate fair, justice-seeking judicial systems from kangaroo courts intent on finding the guilt of an accused party irrespective of the facts of the case against them. Looking beyond the fact that the four principles guaranteed by this Resolution provide legitimacy to the very institution that judicial systems represent, it is apparent that the fourth principle concerning renditions also clears up any ambiguity that may have existed in regards to the relationship between member and non-member states pertaining to judicial matters. For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote For the General Assembly Resolution at vote, "Omnibus Due Process Act".

---

Our Voting Recommendation Dispatch--Please Upvote!

For

For (Non-WA)

In a nutshell, this basically imposes a central tenet of English common law systems worldwide, even in countries with civil law traditions. Since I usually prefer English common law I would vote For.

For

simone_republic:

In a nutshell, this basically imposes a central tenet of English common law systems worldwide, even in countries with civil law traditions. Since I usually prefer English common law I would vote For.

Click to expand...

I don’t see how this imposes common law.

For.

For

For

For.

This proposal has received the requisite approvals to enter the formal queue. Barring it being withdrawn, it will proceed to a vote in 81 minutes at Minor Update.

Present

Comfed:

For

I don’t see how this imposes common law.

Click to expand...

The relationship between the prosecutor and the defendant and the assumption of whether someone is innocent or not. I am grossly oversimplifying here but you should get my gist.

simone_republic:

The relationship between the prosecutor and the defendant and the assumption of whether someone is innocent or not. I am grossly oversimplifying here but you should get my gist.

Click to expand...

Ah, I thought you were referring to the distinction between common law and civil law.

For

For

For

For