The right of an accused person to be promptly, clearly and fully informed of the accusation against them is a fundamental aspect of the right to a fair trial, as set out in major international human rights instruments. Yet, many civil law systems recognise the authority of courts to amend the legal characterisation of the facts, thereby allowing them to depart from the prosecution’s assessment of the applicable legal provisions. This article examines the tension between these two aspects of criminal adjudication: the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, and the judicial power of reclassification. Through a comparative analysis of the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the article identifies similarities and differences in their approaches to balancing flexibility in adjudication with procedural fairness. It concludes by advancing an interpretative framework that reconciles judicial discretion with fair-trial guarantees and provides practical guidance for domestic courts confronted with reclassification scenarios.
Javier Escobar Veas (Mon,) studied this question.