Custody in French and Emirati Law: Procedural Rules and Fundamental Rights

Extract

[...] Even if a trend of tolerance in terms of deadlines emerges from the previous jurisprudence where the judicial police officer would have approximately one hour to inform the prosecutor4, the person in custody in French law no longer has the guarantees provided for in the CPP In the Emirates, the absence of strict deadlines also generates legal insecurity. The final and flexible assessment may open the door to arbitrariness, hence the need to enclose procedures more in a pragmatic system. [...]

[...] The respect of deadlines is an imperative, tempered by circumstances that should not, nonetheless, impact the right to defense. The Emirati system does not retain this requirement of rigor of deadlines in the procedures for custody. In fact, the police authorities have a greater latitude in the management of custody compared to an immediate judicial control. Custody under Article 48 of the Federal Law can last 48 hours before being presented to the prosecutor. So, we find a flexibility in the treatment of deadlines in the Emirati system, which constitutes an exception in French law. B. [...]

[...] However, the procedural logic is different: if the person in custody cannot prove their innocence, they must be sent to the public prosecutor within 48 hours. The public prosecutor has a 24-hour deadline to ask questions to the person in custody, and can then request that they be released or still detained (Article 48.2 LF). Thus, despite the predominant role of the judicial authority, Emirati law is not governed by procedural deadlines, the judicial police officer is not required to inform the prosecutor within the deadlines of French law. B. [...]

[...] In fact, the procedure can be declared null and void if the defect prevents the purpose of the procedure from being achieved, thus giving the judge greater flexibility than in French law. While the ruling emphasizes a rigorous consideration of procedures, Emirati law prioritizes efficiency as long as fundamental rights are not violated. Thus, the argument would probably not have been raised in the UAE, in the absence of equivalent strictness in terms of deadlines. II. Custody: between the imperative of legality and factual circumstances A. [...]

[...] It is necessary to analyze the foundations and modalities of custody in the French and Emirati systems before analyzing the evolution of the admissibility of the delay in informing the prosecutor (II). I. Custody: a coercive measure governed by different procedural rules in French and Emirati law A. The guarantee of fundamental rights by the custody procedure Custody is a deprivation of liberty measure, strictly regulated by the French Penal Procedure Code. In the judgment presented for study, the custody was notified to the prosecutor 56 minutes after the arrest of the person in custody. [...]