English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In America the problem of interrogation as an aid to law enforcement has been the continuing focus of intense interest and debate.l Recently, the same problem was discussed in Yugoslavia in connection with the 1967 amendments to that nation's Code of Criminal Procedure. While these amendments were not limited either to the problem of interrogation of suspects and defendants, or to pre-trial procedure, some of the most important changes concerned the techniques and circumstances surrounding interrogations. Certain of these amendments provide the possibility of a substantial lessening of the extensive reliance on interrogations of defendants and suspects which has been a traditional means of discovery in nonadversary systems.2 These legislative innovations, if extended to the limits of their potential, could render the traditional a@(aire d deux of custodial interrogation practically impossible and could lead to answers about the necessity of interrogation as a tool of law enforcement.3 A rare opportunity thus has arisen for the comparatist in America to observe how essentially identical issues are approached in the divergent

Comparative Reflections on Reading the Amended Yugoslav Code: Interrogation of Defendants in Yugoslav Criminal Procedure