Tokens: 32
.
Furthermore
,
the
concept
of
a
“
substantive
”
declaration
of
liability
is
based
on
an
analogy
with
a
conviction[116
]
.
To
support
this
analogy
,
the
majority
equate
the
decision
“
where
the
courts
find
that
all
the
elements
of
the
offence
of
unlawful
site
development
are
made
out
,
while
discontinuing
the
proceedings
solely
on
account
of
statutory
limitation
”
with
“
a
conviction
for
the
purposes
of
Article
7”[117
]
.
By
so
doing
they
make
it
possible
to
understand
,
from
the
reasoning
of
such
a
decision
,
that
the
elements
of
both
actus
reus
and
mens
rea
are
proven
.
This
analogy
between
reasoning
and
conviction
is
fundamentally
wrong
,
because
such
extension
of
the
concept
of
“
conviction
”
to
the
detriment
of
the
defendant
corresponds
to
an
inadmissible
analogy
in
malam
partem
.
The
legal
fiction
of
a
“
conviction
in
substance
”
contradicts
the
very
essence
of
the
prohibition
of
analogy
to
the
detriment
of
the
defendant
,
which
lies
at
the
heart
of
the
principle
of
legality
(
nulla
poena
sine
lege
certa
,
stricta
)
.
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O