107TH
INTERNATIONAL
TRAINING
COURSEVISITING
EXPERTS’
PAPERSVISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS

SOME ASPECTS OF THE FRENCH PENAL PROCEDURE
Henri de Larosiére de Champfeu*
To explain the French procedure, which
is very different from the Anglo-Saxon
model in force in Great Britain, the UnitedStates, and the largest part of the Asiaticworld, it is necessary to present some of
the rules that govern the judiciary
personnel and the organization of thecriminal jurisdiction.
I. FRANCE: THE COUNTRY OF
WRITTEN LAW
French law is a mixture of Frank andGermanic customs with regulations comingfrom Roman law, which has profoundly
influenced the formation of legal concepts
still in force in the continental system.
Contrary to the common law countries, theFrench system has the law as its principal
legal source, and jurisprudence has only avery marginal creative role in the law. In
France, the principal rules have been
codified by the legislature. In criminal
matters, the Penal Code, promulgated by
Napoleon at the beginning of the XIX
century, has been replaced by a new penal
code in 1994. The Code of Penal Procedure,
which dates from 1959, was modified inprofoundly 1993.
International treaties and agreements
duly ratified have, in France, a superiorauthority to that of domestic law, and are
immediately applicable. France has, thus
ratified, the European Convention of
Human Rights in 1974, and has acceptedin 1981, the right of individual appeal by
any person before the European Court of
Human Rights in Strasbourg. Thus,
France has not only signed these* Referendary Judge of Appeal, Cour de Cassation(Criminal Chamber), France.

international commitments protecting
human rights, but has also accepted thatan international jurisdiction safeguards
their effective respect. Moreover, thedomestic courts have the right to put aside
the application of the national law if it does
not recognize one of the rights protectedby the European Convention of Human
Rights, or any other international provisionof the same rank.
II. UNITY OF THE FRENCHJUDICIARY BODY
In France, there are two different legal
systems, which for historical reasons dateback to the French Revolution. On the one
hand, actions at law against governmental
and administrative authorities are judged
by special courts called Administrative
Courts. They are organized in a hierarchyheaded by the Supreme Court of the
Administrative Body, the Conseil d’Etat(highest administrative court and advisory
body to the government in matters oflegislation).
Members of the
Administrative Court are recruited in thesame manner as high-ranking civil
servants.
On the other hand, all civil and criminalcases are judged by jurisdictions called the
judiciary, headed by a different Supreme
Court called the Cour de Cassation.
Members of this judicial court, the judges
as well as the public prosecutors, belong to
the same body in France, the Magistrature.
This term in France has a very different
meaning than the one in English, where
the word “magistrate” designates nonprofessional judges in charge of ruling incases of minor importance, whether civil
or criminal.

59

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
III. THE SAME RECRUITMENT,IDENTICAL EDUCATION FORJUDGES AND PUBLICPROSECUTORS
French magistrates, judges and publicprosecutors, are recruited in the samemanner, i.e., by competitive entrance
examinations, and their education is
identical. Contrary to the Anglo-Saxon
system, judges in France are recruited fromamong students and not from experienced
jurists.
A very selective competitive exam isorganized each year for students receiving
a diploma after finishing at least four yearsof university studies in law. The candidates
admitted join the Ecole Nationale de laMagistrature (National School ofMagistrature) (whose main headquarters
are in Bordeaux, and was established in
1958 by General de Gaulle) where theyreceive training for two and a half years.
The number of places offered at the
beginning of each competitive exam
depends on the number of places vacated
due to retirement in the magistrature. On
average each year, 150 students areadmitted to the school, from more than
3,000 candidates. It should be pointed outthat the majority of candidates admitted
are women. The French magistrature ispresently in the majority female. Two othercompetitive examinations to enter theEcole Nationale de la Magistrature areorganized: one for civil servants having acertain seniority, and the other for persons
having held certain publicly electedfunctions, or other activities which
particularly qualify them for the exerciseof judiciary functions.
During their training at the Ecole de laMagistrature, the students are
remunerated. Their education consists oflearning the procedure and professional
techniques, as well as a training period of
one year at a court of justice. However,
the education has a probationary character60

as well. At the outcome of the final exam,certain students could be obliged to redo apart of their schooling, or be declaredunsuited for judiciary functions. Thosestudents declared qualified may choose topractice, according to their rank ofclassification at the end of the exam, as
judges or public prosecutors. They are thengiven supplementary training in the area
to which they will be nominated.
Approximately four-fifths of the 4,800
French judges and 1,800 public prosecutors
are trained at the Ecole Nationale de laMagistrature. However, it is possible tobecome a magistrate without passing thecompetitive entrance exam, or graduatingfrom the Ecole de la Magistrature.
Professional jurists and attorneys at law
for the most part, having practiced at least
eight years, could be nominated as a judge
or public prosecutor, after a few months ina training program, in order to verify theiraptitudes. Nonetheless, this type ofrecruitment is in the minority.
All magistrates are obliged, during their
entire career, to attend a one-weekcontinuous training program every year.
IV. DISTINCT STATUTORY RULESFOR JUDGES AND PUBLICPROSECUTORSDuring his career, a magistrate may
occupy successively the functions of judge
and public prosecutor. This is a directconsequence of the unity of the judiciarybody. However, the specificity of thefunctions of judge and public prosecutor isexpressed by district rules. Judges areirremovable ispo jure, they cannot be given
another assignment, nor have theirjurisdiction changed, even by promotion,
without their agreement. Judges are
independent and in the exercise of theirfunctions cannot be given orders from any
source. The disciplinary power over judges
belongs to the Superior Advisory Board of
the Magistrature, an organ composed in its

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
majority by magistrates elected by the
judiciary body. Public prosecutors could betransferred in the interest of thedepartment and receive a new appointment
without their consent, even though, inpractice, this is very rare. The disciplinary
power over public prosecutors belongs to
the Minister of Justice. The Superior
Advisory Board does not decide thesanction to be applied; rather, it may only
propose a sanction.
The promotions of judges and publicprosecutors follow rules in part distinct. All
magistrates are formally nominated by the
President of the Republic, but according todifferent procedure terms as that for judges
and public prosecutors. The heads of theprosecution departments at Courts ofAppeal are chosen by the Cabinet of thegovernment. Other public prosecutors arenominated on the advice of the Advisory
Board of the Magistrature. However, thisis only a simple advice which thegovernment need not take into account.
Judges are nominated in accordance withthe advice of the Superior Advisory Boardof the Magistrature. Thus, the government
cannot go against the advice of the Superior
Advisory Board in naming a judge, but it
could in the naming of a public prosecutor.
Moreover, the government takes no part inthe choice of certain judges, such as
members of the Cour de Cassation, or thosepresiding judges at misdemeanor andappeal courts. It is up to the Superior
Advisory Board to select the holders ofthese functions.
V. THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR: A
HIERARCHICAL INSTITUTION
Public prosecutors have as their task to
defend the interests of society before thesecourts. They must initiate legal
proceedings of criminal infractions before
the appropriate court, and demand thejudges to punish the authors. Beyond thistask, they intervene before civil courts incases where law and order is implicated.
Public prosecutors are in a hierarchy.
Collectively they form an institution, theDepartment of the Public Prosecutor, still
called “the parquet” (the prosecution
department).
At each of the 171 courts of higher
instance and the courts which judge all civil
and criminal cases at the first instance,
there is a department of the Public
Prosecutor composed of several publicprosecutors. The public prosecutors at the
court are placed under the authority of thehead of the Prosecution Department at the
Court of Appeals. There are 33 heads ofProsecution Departments at the Courts ofAppeal in France, and one Director of
Public Prosecution in each Court of Appeal.
The heads of the Prosecution Departments
at the Courts of Appeal are under theauthority of the Minister of Justice.
The Minister could give instructions ofa general nature to the heads of theprosecution departments and to the publicprosecutors, and ask them to initiate legal
proceedings in a particular manner for acertain category of infractions. The
Minister could also order the head of theProsecution Department at the court offirst instance to initiate legal proceedings
in a particular case, or to adopt a
determined attitude in an individual case.
In this event, the head of the prosecution
department must follow the instructions
given him, and initiate legal proceedingsin the direction desired by his hierarchy.
However, at the open hearing before ajurisdiction, the public prosecutor isentirely free to express his convictions
orally, and if he considers it useful, tocriticize the instructions given him, or thelegal proceedings he initiated. The
principle of the freedom of expression at
the hearing—very specific to thecontinental system—marks the adherenceof the members of the Department of the
Public Prosecutor to the judiciary. Under

61

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
t h e h i e r a r c h i c a l a u t h o r i t y, p u b l i c
prosecutors must initiate legal proceedingsin accordance with the instructions given
to them. The judiciary body can express
itself freely before the judges. This rule isgiven in the saying, “the pen is slave, but
speech is free”. In practice, it is very rarethat public prosecutors receive orders inparticular cases. Their daily latitude ofmanoeuvre is important, and only cases
having a strong incidence on law and order,or having a political character give rise to
instructions from heads of prosecution
departments at the Courts of Appeal or the
Minister.
The institution of the Department of the
Public Prosecutor in France does not havean equivalent in the Anglo-Saxon system,with the exception of the “fiscal procurator”
in Scotland. French public prosecutors
have appreciably more extensive
responsibilities than those of members of
the Crown Prosecution Service in England.
VI. TOWARDS A RAPPROCHEMENT
OF THE STATUTORY RULES
BETWEEN JUDGES AND PUBLICPROSECUTORS?
The successive governments in France
between 1990 and 1997 tried to divert thehierarchical power of the Minister overpublic prosecutors in order to curb thecriminal proceedings against politiciansbelonging to the party in power, who wereaccused of illicit financing of politicalparties. This interference of the politicalpower in the normal functioning of judicial
institutions led to a very net rejection in
the public opinion. The electoral bodyseverely penalized, in 1993, 1995 and 1997,
the majority governments or thepresidential candidates who wanted to takeadvantage of their functions in order tohinder the course of justice.
Aware of these deviations, the Presidentof the Republic, in January 1997, entrusted
an independent commission, chaired by the62

Senior Presiding Judge of the Cour deCassation, to draw up proposals rendering
public prosecutors more independent fromthe executive power. The alignment of thedisciplinary system of the members of the
Department of the Public Prosecutor withthe one for judges, and the reinforcementof the intervention by the Superior
Advisory Board of the Magistrature in thenomination of public prosecutors is being
considered. Breaking with the custom of
his predecessors, the new Minister ofJustice, since June 1997, abstains fromgiving instructions to public prosecutors inparticular cases.
VII. THE ORGANIZATION OF
CRIMINAL TRIAL COURTS IN
FRANCE
Criminal courts in France consist of
judicial inquiry courts and trial courts. The
trial courts are to declare guilty or innocent
the defendants brought before them, andto apply the penalties provided for by law.
There are three categories of trial courts.
The Penal Code, in fact, classifies
infractions into three categories according
to their gravity. Each category of
infractions corresponds to a different trial
court.
The Police Courts, 454 in France, judge
the breach of police regulations, that is tosay, the least serious offences, liable, at the
maximum, to a fine of 20,000 francs, andfor which a prison term cannot be
pronounced. A single judge rules in thesecourts. Only the more serious petty
offences are prosecuted by the head of theProsecution Department at the courts offirst instance. For the minor offences, thelegal proceedings are done by the police.
In many cases for infractions of the Road
Regulations, the police do not bring theaffair before the court if the author of theinfraction accepts to pay a fine immediately
to avoid prosecution.

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Infractions of a more serious nature,
called misdemeanors, are brought to trial
before the Tribunal Correctionnel (Court
sitting in criminal matters for
misdemeanors) (hereinafter referred to as
the Petty Sessions Court). This court isbenched by one or three judges, dependingon the gravity of the infractions. The legal
proceedings before the Petty Sessions
Court are engaged by the head of theProsecution Department at the court offirst instance. In France, there are 171
Petty Sessions Courts which judge eachyear around 400,000 cases. The Petty
Sessions Court can impose a prison termof up to ten years.
The most serious infractions, called
felonies, are brought to trial before theAssize Courts, numbered 95 in France.
These courts are composed of threeprofessional judges, as well as nine jurors
randomly picked from electoral lists. The
particularity of the French system resides
in the fact that the professional judges andthe jurors deliberate together, and conferin common as to the verdict and the penalty
to be imposed. The Assize Courts, since
the abolition of the death penalty in France
in 1981, could pronounce a punishment of
up to life imprisonment. They judge
approximately 2,500 cases per year.
The decisions of the Police Courts andthe Petty Sessions Courts could be theobject of an action before the Court ofAppeal, contrary to the decisions of the
Assize Court. There are 33 Courts ofAppeal in France. The judgment
pronounced by the court of first instancecould be the subject of appeal by the
defendant, the public prosecutor, and incertain cases, the victim. The Court ofAppeal again judges the case in its entirety,
from the point of view of the verdict andthe punishment, as well as of the facts andthe law.
The decisions of the Courts of Appeal andthe Assize Courts could be the subject ofan extraordinary action taken before the

Cour de Cassation (supreme court)
competent over the entire national
territory. The Cour de Cassation does notjudge the cases on its grounds. It assuresthat the decisions were rendered with fullrespect of the law. If it deems that an
unlawful decision was taken, it does notjudge the case but nullifies the judgment
and refers the case to another court to be
rejudged.
Finally, there exists specialized courts
judging infractions committed by persons
under the age of 18 years. These courts,
which are not open to the public, arecompelled to impose, when possible,
educative rather than punitive measures.
VIII. JUDICIAL INQUIRY COURTS
Since the beginning of the XIX century,
judges have participated considerably in
the investigation of criminal cases. Thus,in each of the 171 courts in the country,
there exists one or more Examining
Magistrates, numbering around 570, overthe entire territory. The Examining
Magistrate is a judge of the court, he isindependent and may not receive orders
from the executive power, the head of theProsecution Department at the court offirst instance, or another judge. He canplace a suspect in preventive custody before
trial. It is also possible for him to sit injudgment in a case that he has notinvestigated.
The decisions of the Examining
Magistrates are subject to appeal before theChambre d’Accusation, a specializedchamber of the Court of Appeal.
IV. LEGAL PROCESS OF CRIMINALPROCEEDINGS IN FRANCE: A
PROCEDURE IN THREE STAGES
After the presentation of the principal
aspects of the French legal and judicial
systems, the legal process of the criminal
procedure in France should be examined.
It consists of three stages: the63

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
investigations made by the police of the
Criminal Investigation Department(C.I.D.), the judicial inquiry by the
Examining Magistrate, and the trial.
A. The First Stage of the Criminal
Proceedings: The Inquiry Madeby the Criminal Investigation
Department
When a crime is committed, it is up to
the police officers of the C.I.D. to record it,
search for the perpetrators, identify andarrest them, and inform the judicial
authority.
The police officers of the C.I.D., in urbanzones, are part of the national police andunder the authority of the Minister of theInterior. In rural zones they are part of
the national gendarmerie having a militarytraining and under the authority of Defence
Minister. Certain specialized services, inthe fight against organized or economic
crimes come under the Ministry of theInterior, and their jurisdiction covers bothurban and rural zones. The officers of the
C.I.D. under the Ministry of the Interioror Defence, are placed under the authorityof the Head of the Prosecution Department
at the court of first instance when
conducting their criminal investigations.
When an infraction is committed, theofficer of the C.I.D. must inform the Headof the Prosecution Department, who
generally asks the police officer to continue
the inquiry, but he could also remove thecase from him and give it to a police officer
belonging to another police service or to thegendarmerie. The public prosecutor could
give directives to the police officer in chargeof the inquiry, ask him to orient his
investigation in a given direction, or tocarry out certain acts of inquiry.
In France, the police have certain powers
if they act quickly when an infraction iscommitted. Specifically they can start an
inquiry immediately when a person iscaught red handed. In this case, it is64

possible for them to proceed to search the
domicile of the suspects without theirconsent, to seize objects useful in the
manifestation of the truth, arrest thesuspects and take them to the police
station. If the police react in a space oftime further removed from the commissionof the act, they must proceed to apreliminary investigation and do not havethe power of restraint, i.e., they cannotarrest a suspect, nor enter his home
without his authorization. In all cases,
officers of the C.I.D. can prescribe technicalor medical examinations, and transmit the
samples to a laboratory.
When a person has been arrested by thepolice, he can be detained at the police
station for a duration of 24 hours. This iscalled police custody. The person placed inpolice custody has several guaranties: hemay benefit from a medical examination
and request that a member of his family
be notified. However, the latter could be
refused if it interferes with the progress of
the investigation. The person placed inpolice custody can also consult with alawyer for 30 minutes. During police
custody, the person could be interrogatedand does not have the right to be assisted
by a lawyer during these hearings at thepolice station. The lawyer who conversedwith the person in police custody does nothave access to the procedure file drawn up
by the police and may not assist in theinterrogations. According to a movementof opinion that is presently developing inFrance, persons restrained by the police
should have the right to be assisted by alawyer during their interrogations from thevery start of their police custody.
The 24-hour detention period underpolice custody could be extended for a new
period of 24 hours by the head of theProsecution Department at the court offirst instance. Police custody could be
extended up to 4 days in drug or terrorist
cases. In the investigations concerning

107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
these infractions, the consultation with alawyer takes place only 72 hours after thecommencement of custody.
In France, approximately 500,000
persons are placed in police custody eachyear, of which 100,000 for a duration of
more than 20 hours.
Decision to Institute Proceedings
When the police have finished theirinquiry, they communicate the results tothe head of the Prosecution Department at
the court of first instance, who may ask thepolice to make additional investigations.
The public prosecutor could, given theinquiry, classify the case, and not institutecriminal proceedings, even if it isestablished that an infraction wascommitted and the author identified. In
certain countries, such as Germany, thepublic prosecutor must initiate proceedings
for infractions that are exposed to him.
Thus, by virtue of the principle of thelegality of the proceedings, all infractions
must be prosecuted if the author is
identified. However, in France, the headof the Prosecution Department at the courtof first instance, could decide not toinstitute proceedings for an infraction
when the author is known because he is incommand of the timeliness of theproceedings.
However, the public prosecutor does nothave a monopoly on the institution ofproceedings. In France, the victim of an
infraction could also institute criminal
proceedings. The trial judge not only
decides as to the guilt of the defendant andthe penalty to be imposed, but also theamount of damages to be allocated to thevictim. Thus the proceedings instituted by
the victim before a criminal court will lead,
not only, to the attribution of damages tohis benefit, but also the pronouncement ofa penalty against the author of theinfraction.
If the public prosecutor takes thedecision to institute proceedings, he could

bring the case directly before the trial court,
when the inquiry made by the police iscompleted. This happens in approximately
90 percent of the cases where amisdemeanor has been committed.
However if the infraction committed is afelony, or if the misdemeanor in questionis particularly serious and complicated, thehead of the Prosecution Department could
refer the matter to an Examining
Magistrate.
B. Inquiry by the Examining
Magistrate
At the outcome of the police inquiry, themore serious and complicated cases aretransmitted by the public prosecutor to an
Examining Magistrate. The affair could
also be brought before the Examining
Magistrate by the victim, in the event thevictim decides to file a lawsuit. The
Examining Magistrate has at the sametime powers of investigation and action,and jurisdictional powers.
The Examining Magistrate must initiate
all investigative acts useful in the
manifestation of the truth. He could carryout any or all of these investigative acts
personally, but he is obliged to proceed inperson to the interrogation of the suspects,
who could, if they wish, be assisted by alawyer when they are questioned by the
Examining Magistrate. The Examining
Magistrate could relegate theresponsibility of investigation to the police
or experts. In this case, the police or theexperts are under his authority. The
Examining Magistrate conducts theinvestigations in an independent manner,i.e., he is not an auxiliary of the publicprosecutor. He must investigate both onbehalf of and contrary to the interests ofthe defendant. The investigations
conducted by him should not have as theirsole objective to find evidence against thesuspect, but also to uncover the truth. The
public prosecutor, the defendant and thevictim, could demand that the Examining

65

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 53
Magistrate proceed to certain investigativeacts. The Examining Magistrate, if he does
not carry out the acts solicited, must
explain his decision by a ruling, which could
be appealed before the Chambred’Accusation. All the investigative acts are
written down in a report and placed in thefile, which is at the disposition of all parties.
The Examining Magistrate could decide totap telephone conversations.
The Examining Magistrate can indict
any person he suspects of having
participated in the acts concerning the casereferred to him. Thus, the Examining
Magistrate investigates the facts, not theindividual. He must search for the person
who committed the acts, and can indict all
those who participated.
The Examining Magistrate can also
place a suspect in preventive custody, andsend him to prison before the person
appears for trial. After a person has beendetained by the police at the station for aperiod of 48 hours—which could be
extended up to 96 hours in certain cases ofterrorism and drugs—the suspect, if he is
not judged, is freed. He could be placed indetention before judgment if the
Examining Magistrate decides upon it.
Also, the Examining Magistrate has the
choice of not placing the suspect indetention, but under judicial control, inorder to limit his movements and to keep
an eye on his activities. The decisions
rendered by the Examining Magistrateconcerning judicial control or preventive
custody could be appealed before theChambre d’Accusation.
Approximately one-third of the 50,000
persons detained in French prisons havenot been brought to trial. A public opinion
movement contests the power, often
considered excessive, granted by the law
to the Examining Magistrate to decidealone as to the detention of a suspect. The
reform projects contemplated are to remove
from the Examining Magistrate the powerof placing a suspect in preventive

66

detention, and to have this capacity
exercised by another judge of the court.
At the end of the inquiry, the Examining
Magistrate could estimate that there is not
sufficient evidence and renders a decisionof nonsuit. If he decides that the suspectcommitted the misdemeanor, he orders acommittal to trial before the Petty Sessions
Court. If he thinks that the suspectcommitted a felony, he transmits the caseto the Chambre d’Accusation, which could
refer the case to the Assize Court.
Therefore, the Examining Magistrate
not only conducts the inquiry, but also heappreciates the value of the evidence
gathered during the inquiry and decides
whether to continue or terminate theproceedings.
C. Pre-trial Procedure
Most of the time, it is the publicprosecutor who refers a case to the trial
court, when he estimates that the police
inquiry is finished and that there issufficient evidence to prove the existenceof a misdemeanor. This jurisdiction could
also be seized by the victim. However, inmore serious cases, the trial court is seizedby the decision of the Examining
Magistrate.
Before trial, the defendant is assisted bya lawyer, who has access to the procedure
file. The trial is public and the defendant
could, contrary to the rules in force in the
Anglo-Saxon countries, be tried in his
absence. The public prosecutor upholds theaccusation and indicates to the court which
penalties appear to be most appropriate toreprimand it.
The judge, at the trial stage of the caseand in order to decide the guilt, could take
into consideration all the elements of proof
that were presented before him. Contrary
to the system in force in common law
countries, France does not have theprinciple of the legality of proof. Thus,
testimonies, confessions before theinvestigators or the Examining Magistrate107TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS(even if they are retracted afterwards),
documents, expert opinions, technicalanalyses, and the contents of telephonetaps are susceptible to be retained by thejudge in order to assess the guilt of asuspect. A simple indirect testimony isadmissible. It is up to the judge todetermine, in each case, the probativevalue of the different elements in theprocedure. The suspect is questioned at
the hearing, but is not sworn in. He is not
obliged to tell the truth, and his lies before
the judge are not punishable. The
accusation is upheld by the publicprosecutor before the court. However hemay freely present his observations before
the court, even to maintain that theprosecution is unfounded, or that the
infraction was not constituted. The publicprosecutor asks the court to pronounce a
sentence that he believes the mostappropriate for the defendant. It is up to
the judge to decide, case by case, according
to his intimate conviction.
This system confers a much more
important role to the judge than in AngloSaxon countries. The freedom given to thejudge to appreciate the probative force ofthe evidence presented before him may bedifficult to comprehend by someone who
exercises within the common law system,
used to handling the principle of thelegality of proof. If, in this respect, theFrench system offers less guaranties thanthe Anglo-Saxon system, it is, nonetheless,much more flexible.
Especially, the principal guarantee
offered to the suspect by the French
procedure is that he cannot be condemned
without a trial, even if he does not deny
the charges against him. The meaning ofa defence by the suspect becomes
immaterial in such cases. A conviction
cannot be pronounced if all the evidence
against the suspect has not been submitted
for review by the judge. In the common
law system, it is possible for a defendant
to plead guilty and be sentenced without

trial, even though the evidence against him
would not have been sufficient to find him
guilty had he been tried.
X. CONCLUSION
A country of written law, France at the
beginning of the XIX century set up acriminal procedure which rests on two
essential organs: the head of theProsecution Department at the court offirst instance and the Examining
Magistrate. Both belong to the same
judicial body. The head of the Prosecution
Department at the court of first instance,
placed under the authority of the Justice
Minister, conducts the police inquiries
when an infraction is committed, andintervenes during the entire procedure
representing the interests of society.
The Examining Magistrates, aninstitution proper to the continental
system, are completely independent andmake inquiries in the more serious case,at the request of the public prosecutor or
the victim. Their status protects them frompolitical pressures, and thereby avoids
important prosecutions of politicians frombeing hampered. However, it is more thanlikely that in the future they will lose thepower to decide alone the placement
suspects in detention before trial. This is
the direction of advancement of French
criminal procedure, and in line with theEuropean Convention of Human Rights, in
its attempts to increase the guaranties
offered to the suspects, yet at the same time
to assure an efficient supression of criminal
offences.

67