Bøger af Alain Wilondja Katambu

In the Democratic Republic of Congo, penal servitude is the most common means used by the state to combat crime and maintain public order. In addition to the many cases where it is used alone or in conjunction with other penalties, it replaces the death penalty in cases where extenuating circumstances are admitted, and the penalty of a fine for failure to pay within the legal deadline. In the latter case, it is called subsidiary penal servitude. It also replaces the penalty of hard labor until the President of the Republic issues an order determining the modalities for the execution of this penalty.

In a well-organized society, in which anarchy has no place, the State comfortably assumes responsibility for public order and the common good according to pre-established rules of law. Indeed, when an offence is committed, it is the State which is the victim and injured in its rights and in its most legitimate interests. To this end, the State has entrusted the Public Prosecutor's Office and other bodies of the judiciary with formidable powers to decide what action to take against the presumed perpetrator of an offence so that the social equilibrium broken by the commission of the offence can be quickly re-established; at the same time, it has ensured that, in the exercise of its functions, the Public Prosecutor's Office cannot exceed its powers, or even misuse them.This is why the Constitution of February 18, 2006, as revised by law n°11/002 of January 20, 2011, which, in its article 150, guarantees the exercise of judicial power to the Courts and Tribunals and organizes in parallel and in a clear manner the pre-judicial phase.

The right to remain silent during a proceeding is today unanimously recognized by the law of democratic States as a component of the presumption of innocence. However, depending on the legal system, whether continental or common law, this recognition has been more or less long-lasting and the legal regime applied to this right remains variable, depending on the time and the State, because of the fears it inspires in relation to the establishment of the truth and the results of repression. The comparison of penal systems makes it possible to highlight the ambiguity of these systems as soon as they give pride of place to the confession. The dialectic between the search for a confession and the respect of the right to silence dominates criminal procedure today, whatever the legal family. But it is probably Romano-Germanic law that presents the greatest difficulties in this situation, since the inquisitorial procedure favours the search for a confession to the detriment of the right to silence.