MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235332679

Quelques Considérations Sur Le Droit À Un Avocat Pour Les Indigents Accusés De Crimes Internationaux (A Few Considerations Pertaining to the Right to a Lawyer for Indigents Accused of International Crimes)

2007· article· fr· W2235332679 on OpenAlexaff
Pacifique Manirakiza

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInternational Law and Human Rights
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTribunalPolitical scienceLawHumanitiesSanctionsPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

French Abstract: Les instruments juridiques internationaux garantissent a toute personne accusee d'un crime international le droit a un avocat de son choix. Dans la pratique cependant, l'exercice de ce droit est subordonne a la situation financiere de l'accuse. Celui-ci a le droit de choisir son avocat s'il y a les moyens de le payer. S'il n'est pas nanti, il se voit commettre d'office un avocat figurant sur une liste compilee par le greffe du tribunal devant lequel il comparait sans la possibilite d'exercer veritablement un choix. Dans le but de permettre aux accuses indigents d'assurer et de controler convenablement leur defense, notre article suggere l'universalisation du droit de choisir leurs avocats independamment de leur situation financiere. Cette conclusion est fondee sur le souci d'egalite des accuses, la complexite des procedures penales internationales, la gravite des accusations ainsi que la severite des sanctions applicables. English Abstract: International legal instruments provide that all persons accused of an international crime have the right to counsel of their choice. In practice, however, the implementation of this rule is subordinated to their financial situation. The accused is entitled to choose where he or she can pay the related legal fees. In cases of indigence, a counsel is assigned to the accused from the list compiled by the registrar's office of the relevant tribunal. There is therefore no real choice for the accused. In order to ensure that financially deprived accused have a proper defense and reasonable control in the matter, this articles suggests that the right to counsel of choice, regardless of financial means, should be universalized. The grounds for this conclusion are the need to treat all accused equally, the complexity of international criminal procedures, and the severity of both the crimes and applicable penalties.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic JournalSame topicInternational Law and Human RightsFrench-language works237,207