The European Union’s Approach towards Child Victim Testimonies in Criminal Proceedings Compared to the Right to Fair Trial: summum ius, summa injuria?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of a European Union as a common ‘area of freedom, security and justice’ has offered a fundamental legitimate basis for the ‘Europeanisation’ of domestic criminal procedures since its anchoring in the Treaty of Amsterdam. Based on this concept, the European legislator is increasingly using different legal instruments to harmonise the law on certain areas in its Member States. As such, the recently adopted Directive provides minimum standards on the rights, support and protection of victims of crime in the European Union. The call for harmonisation as such does not have to be perceived as problematic. This notion is particularly true when harmonising means that victims of crimes can invoke rights to which they are entitled. However, apart from the criticism of Eurosceptics, the ‘Europeanisation’ of the law is found problematic if it conflicts with the most fundamental principles of European law. In this light, it is very doubtful whether the way in which the Directive provides protection to child victims participating in criminal proceedings is compatible with the right of the accused to a fair trial, which the international community has adopted as a fundamental human right.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".