The need for clarity on whether 'suspects' may rely on section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 : a comparative law analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines whether the police have a constitutional duty to inform 'suspects' about their fundamental rights, despite the fact that section 35 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, is silent on this issue. The decisions of the different divisions of the South African High Court diverge on this question, and the Constitutional Court has not yet had the opportunity to settle it. In an attempt to resolve this question, this article considers the underlying principles of binding and non-binding international law standards, as well as how this is approached in the Canadian and United States' jurisdictions. This analysis reveals that an emerging consensus of opinion is developing which suggests that the informational duties should arise from the moment the police embark on an adversarial relationship with suspects, by approaching them to establish or disprove the existence of evidence linking them to a crime. The author concludes that such an approach accords with a contextual and purposive interpretation, and should be embraced.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".