Courts
What does a supreme court actually do — and does the name mean the same thing everywhere?
It does not. “Supreme court” covers a final appellate court, a constitutional court, both at once, and one apex among several. Some apex courts review whether the law was correctly applied rather than deciding the case again.
In short
A supreme court is the court from which there is no further appeal within a system. That is almost the only thing the term reliably means, because what such a court is for differs from system to system — and in several systems there is more than one of them.
Why it exists
Every system needs somewhere for questions to stop. Two distinct needs drive that: proceedings have to end, and a provision has to mean the same thing in every court that applies it. The first argues for finality, the second for a court that decides comparatively few cases and decides them for everyone.
AnalysisThat second purpose explains a feature of apex courts that surprises readers: many of them are not primarily interested in the individual case in front of them. They are interested in the question it raises.
How it works
The most consequential distinction is between apex courts that re-decide cases and apex courts that review whether the law was correctly applied. The Cour de cassation is the highest court of the French judicial order, and describing it as "the French supreme court" invites a false equivalence with courts that re-decide cases: cassation review is directed at whether the law was correctly applied. Any one-to-one mapping onto another country’s apex court should be treated with caution.
- Brazil — apex and constitutional court together
- The Supremo Tribunal Federal’s primary role is "a guarda da Constituição" under Article 102. Brazil has no separate constitutional court: the STF is both the highest court and the constitutional court, exercising review in the abstract and in concrete cases. Below it, the Superior Tribunal de Justiça is the highest court for non-constitutional federal law and stands above both the federal and the state courts on questions of federal statutory law — two apex courts, with different subject matter.
- Japan — apex with concrete constitutional review
- The Supreme Court is the highest court and the court of final appeal, and holds the power of constitutional review — but exercises it only when deciding an actual case before it, not by ruling on a law in the abstract. There is no separate constitutional court.
- Germany — five, plus one that is not among them
- Article 95(1) names five federal supreme courts, each heading a branch: the Federal Court of Justice, the Federal Administrative Court, the Federal Labour Court, the Federal Social Court and the Federal Finance Court. The Federal Constitutional Court is named separately in Article 92 and is not among them. Calling any single one of these "the German supreme court" misdescribes the system.
- Switzerland — an apex over other people’s courts
- Article 188 of the Constitution makes the Federal Supreme Court "the supreme judicial authority of the Confederation". Below it the courts are the cantons’, which organise and run their own trial and appeal courts. The Federal Supreme Court ensures the uniform application of federal law across cantonal institutions.
- Canada — composition written into statute
- Under the Supreme Court Act the Court "shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada, and eight puisne judges" — nine judges — and at least three of them must be appointed from Quebec, reflecting Quebec’s distinct civil-law tradition.
- Ireland — final appeal, with a narrow direct route
- The Supreme Court is the court of final appeal, hearing appeals from the Court of Appeal and, in limited constitutionally defined circumstances, directly from the High Court.
Spain shows the same distinction from the other direction. Article 123 makes the Tribunal Supremo the highest judicial organ in all orders — except in matters of constitutional guarantees, which belong to the Constitutional Court. The apex of the ordinary judiciary and the supreme interpreter of the constitution are two different courts, and the exception is written into the article that establishes the first.
Common misconceptions
Widely held beliefs that do not match how the system actually operates.
Common belief: Every country has one supreme court.
In practice: Germany has five federal supreme courts under Article 95(1), plus a Federal Constitutional Court named separately. Brazil has an apex constitutional court and a separate highest court for federal statutory law.
Common belief: The supreme court is the constitutional court.
In practice: In Germany, Spain and Belgium they are separate bodies. In Brazil and Japan they are the same court. In the Netherlands no court may review Acts of Parliament at all.
Common belief: An apex court re-decides the case.
In practice: Cassation review is directed at whether the law was correctly applied rather than at re-deciding the dispute. A court can be final without being a court that hears the case again.
Common belief: Translating a country’s highest court as “court of cassation” is safe if the system is civil-law.
In practice: Cassation names a mode of review, not a rank. Not every civil-law apex court works that way, and calling one a court of cassation asserts something specific about what it does.
How this varies between jurisdictions
A required section on every guide. Arrangements differ between countries, and we say how.
Four questions identify what an apex court actually is, and the name answers none of them.
- Is it final for all law, or for one branch of it?
- Does it re-decide the case, or review whether the law was correctly applied?
- Does it hold constitutional jurisdiction, and if so in the abstract or only in a live case?
- Is there another court at the same height with different subject matter?
AnalysisFor France the answers are: one branch, review of legal correctness, no, and yes — the administrative order has its own apex. For Brazil: constitutional matters, both modes, yes in both modes, and yes — the STJ. Two systems, and no shared answer among the four.
Rights and accountability
AnalysisFinality is a safeguard and a cost at the same time. It protects people from indefinite litigation and from having a settled question reopened by whoever has the resources to keep asking. It also means the last court to decide is not itself subject to appeal, which is why the composition, appointment and reasoning of apex courts attract the scrutiny they do.
What we could not establish
- The detailed jurisdiction and appeal routes of several apex courts here are recorded in this corpus as unresearched, including Canada’s and Switzerland’s. Their composition and constitutional position are described; their case-selection rules are not.
- No apex court on this page is described as stronger, more independent or more effective than another. The page is about what the label covers, not about how well any court works.
Where to go next
Related: court hierarchy, constitutional courts, and trial and appellate courts.
Related topics
- How are court systems structured — and is every system one pyramid?
Most descriptions show a single pyramid rising to one supreme court. Six of the twelve systems examined here have more than one hierarchy, and what usually decides the route is the nature of the dispute rather than its seriousness.
- What is the difference between a trial court and an appellate court, and how far does an appeal actually go?
Trial courts generally establish facts; appellate courts generally review decisions. Both halves need qualifying: appeal is neither a fresh trial nor a review of law alone as a universal rule, and how far it goes is set by each system.
- What arrangements make a judiciary independent, and does having them mean it is?
Independence is built from appointment, tenure, pay, administration and the separation of governing bodies from adjudicating ones. Every one of those is a formal guarantee, and a formal guarantee is not the same as a working one.
Where this connects
Institutions: Constitutional court.
Sources
L'organisation des cours et tribunaux
Ministère de la justice (France) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-24
The Ministry of Justice's own account of court organisation. Supports: the division into ordre judiciaire and ordre administratif; the naming of the tribunal judiciaire, tribunal de proximité, conseil de prud'hommes, tribunal de commerce, tribunal paritaire des baux ruraux, tribunal de police, tribunal correctionnel, cour criminelle départementale, cour d'assises, cour d'appel and Cour de cassation; the three administrative levels (tribunal administratif, cour administrative d'appel, Conseil d'État); and the role of the Tribunal des conflits. A structural self-description: it does not support claims about caseload, effectiveness, or the competence thresholds allocating cases between courts. Undated on the page, so it supports current structure as at the verification date only.
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (Grundgesetz), English translation
Bundesministerium der Justiz / Bundesamt für Justiz (Gesetze im Internet) · Legislation · 1949-05-23 · link verified 2026-07-24
Translation by Professors Christian Tomuschat, David P. Currie, Donald P. Kommers and Raymond Kerr in cooperation with the Language Service of the German Bundestag; offered subject to stated conditions of use. The page states the text reflects amendments up to 22 March 2025. THE GERMAN TEXT IS AUTHORITATIVE and the translation may lag later amendments. Supports: Art. 20(1) federal state; Art. 30 (exercise of state powers is a matter for the Länder except as otherwise provided); Art. 70 (Länder legislate unless the Basic Law confers power on the Federation; exclusive vs concurrent); Art. 73(1) no. 10 (cooperation in criminal police matters; establishment of a Federal Criminal Police Office); Art. 74(1) no. 1 (concurrent legislation over criminal law and court organisation and procedure, EXCEPT the law on pre-trial detention); Art. 83 (Länder execute federal laws in their own right); Art. 87(1) (federal law may establish Federal Border Police authorities and central police offices); Art. 92 (judicial power vested in the Federal Constitutional Court, federal courts and the courts of the Länder); Art. 95(1) (the five federal supreme courts); Art. 96 (further federal courts); Art. 97 (judicial independence); Art. 35 (mutual legal and administrative assistance). Does NOT support any claim about how a particular Land organises its institutions. WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same official English translation page. NOTE ON NUMBERING, verified rather than assumed: in the current text the COMPOSITION of the Federal Constitutional Court is Article 93 and its JURISDICTION is Article 94 — the reverse of the allocation these two articles carried historically and of the numbering most secondary sources still cite. Supports Art. 93(5): a federal law regulates the organisation and procedure of the Court, and "the law may require that all other legal remedies be exhausted before a constitutional complaint may be filed and may provide for a separate proceeding to determine whether the complaint will be accepted for decision". Supports Art. 94(1) no. 2, ABSTRACT review: the Court rules "in the event of disagreements or doubts concerning the formal or substantive compatibility of federal law or Land law with this Basic Law or the compatibility of Land law with other federal law on application of the Federal Government, of a Land government or of one fourth of the Members of the Bundestag". Supports Art. 94(1) no. 4a, the INDIVIDUAL constitutional complaint: the Court rules "on constitutional complaints, which may be filed by any person alleging that one of his basic rights or one of his rights under paragraph (4) of Article 20 or under Article 33, 38, 101, 103 or 104 has been infringed by public authority". Supports Art. 94(1) no. 4b and 4c (municipal complaints and complaints by associations about non-recognition as political parties), and Art. 94(4), that decisions of the Court bind the constitutional organs. Supports Art. 100(1), CONCRETE review: "If a court concludes that a law on whose validity its decision depends is unconstitutional, the proceedings shall be stayed, and a decision shall be obtained from the Land court with jurisdiction over constitutional disputes where the constitution of a Land is held to be violated or from the Federal Constitutional Court where this Basic Law is held to be violated" — that is, the ordinary court must refer and may not itself disapply the statute. Supports Art. 100(3), that a Land constitutional court proposing to derogate from a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court must obtain a decision from it. The German text remains authoritative and the translation may lag later amendments. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same official English translation page and cross-checked against the German original at gesetze-im-internet.de, article by article. The Grundgesetz carries THREE distinct emergency regimes, and conflating them is the commonest error about it. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 35(1), (2) sentence 2: “(1) Alle Behörden des Bundes und der Länder leisten sich gegenseitig Rechts- und Amtshilfe. (2) [...] Zur Hilfe bei einer Naturkatastrophe oder bei einem besonders schweren Unglücksfall kann ein Land Polizeikräfte anderer Länder, Kräfte und Einrichtungen anderer Verwaltungen sowie des Bundesgrenzschutzes und der Streitkräfte anfordern.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 35(3): “(3) Gefährdet die Naturkatastrophe oder der Unglücksfall das Gebiet mehr als eines Landes, so kann die Bundesregierung, soweit es zur wirksamen Bekämpfung erforderlich ist, den Landesregierungen die Weisung erteilen, Polizeikräfte anderen Ländern zur Verfügung zu stellen, sowie Einheiten des Bundesgrenzschutzes und der Streitkräfte zur Unterstützung der Polizeikräfte einsetzen. Maßnahmen der Bundesregierung nach Satz 1 sind jederzeit auf Verlangen des Bundesrates, im übrigen unverzüglich nach Beseitigung der Gefahr aufzuheben.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 91(2): “(2) Ist das Land, in dem die Gefahr droht, nicht selbst zur Bekämpfung der Gefahr bereit oder in der Lage, so kann die Bundesregierung die Polizei in diesem Lande und die Polizeikräfte anderer Länder ihren Weisungen unterstellen sowie Einheiten des Bundesgrenzschutzes einsetzen. Die Anordnung ist nach Beseitigung der Gefahr, im übrigen jederzeit auf Verlangen des Bundesrates aufzuheben.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 87a(2), (4): “(2) Außer zur Verteidigung dürfen die Streitkräfte nur eingesetzt werden, soweit dieses Grundgesetz es ausdrücklich zuläßt. [...] (4) Zur Abwehr einer drohenden Gefahr für den Bestand oder die freiheitliche demokratische Grundordnung des Bundes oder eines Landes kann die Bundesregierung, wenn die Voraussetzungen des Artikels 91 Abs. 2 vorliegen und die Polizeikräfte sowie der Bundesgrenzschutz nicht ausreichen, Streitkräfte zur Unterstützung der Polizei und des Bundesgrenzschutzes beim Schutze von zivilen Objekten und bei der Bekämpfung organisierter und militärisch bewaffneter Aufständischer einsetzen. Der Einsatz von Streitkräften ist einzustellen, wenn der Bundestag oder der Bundesrat es verlangen.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115a(1): “(1) Die Feststellung, daß das Bundesgebiet mit Waffengewalt angegriffen wird oder ein solcher Angriff unmittelbar droht (Verteidigungsfall), trifft der Bundestag mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates. Die Feststellung erfolgt auf Antrag der Bundesregierung und bedarf einer Mehrheit von zwei Dritteln der abgegebenen Stimmen, mindestens der Mehrheit der Mitglieder des Bundestages.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115a(2), (3), (4): “(2) Erfordert die Lage unabweisbar ein sofortiges Handeln und stehen einem rechtzeitigen Zusammentritt des Bundestages unüberwindliche Hindernisse entgegen oder ist er nicht beschlußfähig, so trifft der Gemeinsame Ausschuß diese Feststellung mit einer Mehrheit von zwei Dritteln der abgegebenen Stimmen, mindestens der Mehrheit seiner Mitglieder. [...] (4) Wird das Bundesgebiet mit Waffengewalt angegriffen und sind die zuständigen Bundesorgane außerstande, sofort die Feststellung nach Absatz 1 Satz 1 zu treffen, so gilt diese Feststellung als getroffen und als zu dem Zeitpunkt verkündet, in dem der Angriff begonnen hat.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115g: “Die verfassungsmäßige Stellung und die Erfüllung der verfassungsmäßigen Aufgaben des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes und seiner Richter dürfen nicht beeinträchtigt werden. Das Gesetz über das Bundesverfassungsgericht darf durch ein Gesetz des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses nur insoweit geändert werden, als dies auch nach Auffassung des Bundesverfassungsgerichtes zur Aufrechterhaltung der Funktionsfähigkeit des Gerichtes erforderlich ist. Bis zum Erlaß eines solchen Gesetzes kann das Bundesverfassungsgericht die zur Erhaltung der Arbeitsfähigkeit des Gerichtes erforderlichen Maßnahmen treffen.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115l(1), (2): “(1) Der Bundestag kann jederzeit mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates Gesetze des Gemeinsamen Ausschusses aufheben. [...] (2) Der Bundestag kann mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates jederzeit durch einen vom Bundespräsidenten zu verkündenden Beschluß den Verteidigungsfall für beendet erklären. Der Bundesrat kann verlangen, daß der Bundestag hierüber beschließt. Der Verteidigungsfall ist unverzüglich für beendet zu erklären, wenn die Voraussetzungen für seine Feststellung nicht mehr gegeben sind.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 101: “(1) Ausnahmegerichte sind unzulässig. Niemand darf seinem gesetzlichen Richter entzogen werden. (2) Gerichte für besondere Sachgebiete können nur durch Gesetz errichtet werden.”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 19(2) and Art. 79(3): “In keinem Falle darf ein Grundrecht in seinem Wesensgehalt angetastet werden. [Art. 19(2)] — Eine Änderung dieses Grundgesetzes, durch welche die Gliederung des Bundes in Länder, die grundsätzliche Mitwirkung der Länder bei der Gesetzgebung oder die in den Artikeln 1 und 20 niedergelegten Grundsätze berührt werden, ist unzulässig. [Art. 79(3)]”. Supports Grundgesetz Art. 115c(1), (3): “(1) Der Bund hat für den Verteidigungsfall das Recht der konkurrierenden Gesetzgebung auch auf den Sachgebieten, die zur Gesetzgebungszuständigkeit der Länder gehören. Diese Gesetze bedürfen der Zustimmung des Bundesrates. [...] (3) Soweit es zur Abwehr eines gegenwärtigen oder unmittelbar drohenden Angriffs erforderlich ist, kann für den Verteidigungsfall durch Bundesgesetz mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates die Verwaltung und das Finanzwesen des Bundes und der Länder abweichend von den Abschnitten VIII, VIIIa und X geregelt werden, wobei die Lebensfähigkeit der Länder, Gemeinden und Gemeindeverbände, insbesondere auch in finanzieller Hinsicht, zu wahren ist.”. These provisions support the STRUCTURE of German emergency law and nothing about its application. They record no instance of any regime being invoked, state no measure taken under one, and support no claim about any Land's own disaster-protection law or about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read again from the same official English translation page and checked article by article against the authoritative German original at gesetze-im-internet.de/gg. Supports the LIMITATION architecture: Art. 19(1)-(2), “(1) Soweit nach diesem Grundgesetz ein Grundrecht durch Gesetz oder auf Grund eines Gesetzes eingeschränkt werden kann, muß das Gesetz allgemein und nicht nur für den Einzelfall gelten. Außerdem muß das Gesetz das Grundrecht unter Angabe des Artikels nennen. (2) In keinem Falle darf ein Grundrecht in seinem Wesensgehalt angetastet werden.”, and Art. 19(3)-(4) (basic rights apply to domestic legal persons so far as their nature permits; recourse to the courts where rights are violated by public authority, with the second sentence of Art. 10(2) expressly unaffected). Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER finding, verified in the German text rather than the translation because the finding is about a word: Art. 8(1) “Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, sich ohne Anmeldung oder Erlaubnis friedlich und ohne Waffen zu versammeln”; Art. 9(1) “Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, Vereine und Gesellschaften zu bilden”; Art. 11(1) “Alle Deutschen genießen Freizügigkeit im ganzen Bundesgebiet”; Art. 12(1) “Alle Deutschen haben das Recht, Beruf, Arbeitsplatz und Ausbildungsstätte frei zu wählen” — against Art. 2(1) “Jeder hat das Recht auf die freie Entfaltung seiner Persönlichkeit”, Art. 3(1) “Alle Menschen sind vor dem Gesetz gleich”, and the two provisions that name no holder at all: Art. 10(1) “Das Briefgeheimnis sowie das Post- und Fernmeldegeheimnis sind unverletzlich” and Art. 13(1) “Die Wohnung ist unverletzlich”. Supports Art. 1(3), that the basic rights bind the legislature, the executive and the judiciary as directly applicable law. Supports Art. 2(2), that everyone has the right to life and physical integrity, that freedom of the person is inviolable, and that these rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law. Supports the HOME provision in full: Art. 13(2) “Durchsuchungen dürfen nur durch den Richter, bei Gefahr im Verzuge auch durch die in den Gesetzen vorgesehenen anderen Organe angeordnet und nur in der dort vorgeschriebenen Form durchgeführt werden”; Art. 13(3), acoustic surveillance of a home on judicial order where particular facts justify suspicion of an especially serious crime specifically defined by law and alternative methods would be disproportionately difficult or unproductive, for a limited time, ordered by a panel of three judges (a single judge where time is of the essence); Art. 13(4), technical surveillance to avert acute dangers only on judicial order, with a subsequent judicial decision without delay where time was of the essence; Art. 13(5); Art. 13(6), annual reporting to the Bundestag and parliamentary oversight by an elected panel, with comparable oversight in the Länder; and Art. 13(7). Supports the COMMUNICATIONS provision: Art. 10(2), that restrictions may be ordered only pursuant to a law and that where the restriction serves to protect the free democratic basic order or the existence or security of the Federation or of a Land, the law may provide that the person affected shall not be informed and that recourse to the courts shall be replaced by review by agencies and auxiliary agencies appointed by the legislature. Supports Art. 103(1) (“Vor Gericht hat jedermann Anspruch auf rechtliches Gehör”) and Art. 104(1)-(4), including Art. 104(2) “Die Polizei darf aus eigener Machtvollkommenheit niemanden länger als bis zum Ende des Tages nach dem Ergreifen in eigenem Gewahrsam halten” and Art. 104(3), that a person provisionally detained on suspicion of an offence is brought before a judge no later than the day following arrest, who informs, examines, and either issues a written reasoned arrest warrant or orders release. VERIFIED NEGATIVE, and it is stated as a fact about the text and not about German law: the Grundgesetz contains no privilege against self-incrimination and no right to silence. An exhaustive search of the authoritative German text for “Selbstbelastung”, “schweigen”, “Aussage zu verweigern” and “Geständnis” returns zero occurrences, as does a search of the English translation for “incriminat”, “silent”, “silence”, “confession” and “witness against”. This record therefore does NOT support any claim that the principle is absent from German law — it supports only that it is absent from this constitutional text. The German text remains authoritative and the translation may lag later amendments.
Boletín Oficial del Estado (boe.es), BOE-A-1978-31229 · Legislation · 1978-12-29 · link verified 2026-07-26
The authoritative Castilian text, read in full. Supports: art. 2 (the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation and the right to autonomy of the nationalities and regions); art. 137 (the State organised into municipalities, provinces and Autonomous Communities); art. 145.1 ('En ningún caso se admitirá la federación de Comunidades Autónomas' — federation is constitutionally forbidden, so Spain is a decentralised UNITARY state); art. 148 (competences the Communities MAY assume) and art. 149.1 (the State's EXCLUSIVE competences), including art. 149.1.6 ('Legislación mercantil, penal y penitenciaria; legislación procesal' — criminal, penitentiary and procedural LEGISLATION is exclusively the State's), art. 149.1.5 (Administration of Justice), and art. 149.1.29 (public security, 'sin perjuicio de la posibilidad de creación de policías por las Comunidades Autónomas' — the basis for autonomous police); art. 104 (security forces under the Government); art. 117.5 ('El principio de unidad jurisdiccional es la base de la organización y funcionamiento de los Tribunales' — judicial unity); art. 122 (the Consejo General del Poder Judicial as the judiciary's governing body); art. 123 (the Tribunal Supremo, 'con jurisdicción en toda España, es el órgano jurisdiccional superior en todos los órdenes'); art. 124 (the Ministerio Fiscal, national, acting under unidad de actuación y dependencia jerárquica); art. 152.1 (a Tribunal Superior de Justicia culminating the judicial organisation in each community, without prejudice to the Supreme Court); and arts. 24-25 (due-process and penal principles). WAVE 19 ADDITION, read from the same authoritative Castilian text. Supports art. 53.1, that the rights and liberties recognised in Chapter Two bind all public powers and may be regulated only by law respecting their essential content, protected in accordance with art. 161.1.a); and art. 53.2 in terms: "Cualquier ciudadano podrá recabar la tutela de las libertades y derechos reconocidos en el artículo 14 y la Sección primera del Capítulo segundo ante los Tribunales ordinarios por un procedimiento basado en los principios de preferencia y sumariedad y, en su caso, a través del recurso de amparo ante el Tribunal Constitucional" — protection is sought first before the ORDINARY courts by a preferential and summary procedure, and where appropriate thereafter by amparo before the Constitutional Court. Supports art. 54, that an organic law regulates the Defensor del Pueblo as high commissioner of the Cortes Generales for the defence of the rights in that Title, who may supervise the activity of the Administration and reports to the Cortes. Cited for the SEQUENCE — ordinary courts first, constitutional court where appropriate — and not for any claim about admissibility criteria or outcomes. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same authoritative Castilian text on the BOE. Spain writes the emergency architecture into the constitution itself in more detail than almost any system in this wave. Supports Constitución Española de 1978, Art. 116(1): “1. Una ley orgánica regulará los estados de alarma, de excepción y de sitio, y las competencias y limitaciones correspondientes.”. Supports Constitución Española de 1978, Art. 116(2), (3) and (4): “2. El estado de alarma será declarado por el Gobierno mediante decreto acordado en Consejo de Ministros por un plazo máximo de quince días, dando cuenta al Congreso de los Diputados, reunido inmediatamente al efecto y sin cuya autorización no podrá ser prorrogado dicho plazo. El decreto determinará el ámbito territorial a que se extienden los efectos de la declaración. 3. El estado de excepción será declarado por el Gobierno mediante decreto acordado en Consejo de Ministros, previa autorización del Congreso de los Diputados. La autorización y proclamación del estado de excepción deberá determinar expresamente los efectos del mismo, el ámbito territorial a que se extiende y su duración, que no podrá exceder de treinta días, prorrogables por otro plazo igual, con los mismos requisitos. 4. El estado de sitio será declarado por la mayoría absoluta del Congreso de los Diputados, a propuesta exclusiva del Gobierno. El Congreso determinará su ámbito territorial, duración y condiciones.”. Supports Constitución Española de 1978, Art. 55(1): “1. Los derechos reconocidos en los artículos 17, 18, apartados 2 y 3, artículos 19, 20, apartados 1, a) y d), y 5, artículos 21, 28, apartado 2, y artículo 37, apartado 2, podrán ser suspendidos cuando se acuerde la declaración del estado de excepción o de sitio en los términos previstos en la Constitución. Se exceptúa de lo establecido anteriormente el apartado 3 del artículo 17 para el supuesto de declaración de estado de excepción.”. Supports Constitución Española de 1978, Art. 116(5); cf. Ley Orgánica 4/1981 Art. 1.Cuatro ("La declaración de los estados de alarma, excepción y sitio no interrumpe el normal funcionamiento de los poderes constitucionales del Estado."): “5. No podrá procederse a la disolución del Congreso mientras estén declarados algunos de los estados comprendidos en el presente artículo, quedando automáticamente convocadas las Cámaras si no estuvieren en período de sesiones. Su funcionamiento, así como el de los demás poderes constitucionales del Estado, no podrán interrumpirse durante la vigencia de estos estados. Disuelto el Congreso o expirado su mandato, si se produjere alguna de las situaciones que dan lugar a cualquiera de dichos estados, las competencias del Congreso serán asumidas por su Diputación Permanente.”. Supports Constitución Española de 1978, Art. 117(5)-(6); Ley Orgánica 4/1981 Art. 35 ("En la declaración del estado de sitio el Congreso de los Diputados podrá determinar los delitos que durante su vigencia quedan sometidos a la Jurisdicción Militar."): “5. El principio de unidad jurisdiccional es la base de la organización y funcionamiento de los Tribunales. La ley regulará el ejercicio de la jurisdicción militar en el ámbito estrictamente castrense y en los supuestos de estado de sitio, de acuerdo con los principios de la Constitución. 6. Se prohíben los Tribunales de excepción.”. Cited for the three graded regimes, the closed list of suspendable rights and the express bar on suspension under the estado de alarma, the institutional-continuity guarantee, and the confinement of military jurisdiction. It records no declaration and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the same BOE consolidated text, article by article. Supports Art. 17(1)-(4): “1. Toda persona tiene derecho a la libertad y a la seguridad. Nadie puede ser privado de su libertad, sino con la observancia de lo establecido en este artículo y en los casos y en la forma previstos en la ley. 2. La detención preventiva no podrá durar más del tiempo estrictamente necesario para la realización de las averiguaciones tendentes al esclarecimiento de los hechos, y, en todo caso, en el plazo máximo de setenta y dos horas, el detenido deberá ser puesto en libertad o a disposición de la autoridad judicial. 3. Toda persona detenida debe ser informada de forma inmediata, y de modo que le sea comprensible, de sus derechos y de las razones de su detención, no pudiendo ser obligada a declarar. Se garantiza la asistencia de abogado al detenido en las diligencias policiales y judiciales, en los términos que la ley establezca. 4. La ley regulará un procedimiento de «habeas corpus» [...]” Supports Art. 18(1)-(4): “1. Se garantiza el derecho al honor, a la intimidad personal y familiar y a la propia imagen. 2. El domicilio es inviolable. Ninguna entrada o registro podrá hacerse en él sin consentimiento del titular o resolución judicial, salvo en caso de flagrante delito. 3. Se garantiza el secreto de las comunicaciones y, en especial, de las postales, telegráficas y telefónicas, salvo resolución judicial. 4. La ley limitará el uso de la informática para garantizar el honor y la intimidad personal y familiar de los ciudadanos y el pleno ejercicio de sus derechos.” Supports Art. 19, and specifically its rights-holder wording: “Los españoles tienen derecho a elegir libremente su residencia y a circular por el territorio nacional” — against Art. 17(1)'s “Toda persona”. Supports Art. 24(1)-(2), including the right to effective judicial protection without indefensión, and the rights “al Juez ordinario predeterminado por la ley, a la defensa y a la asistencia de letrado, a ser informados de la acusación formulada contra ellos, a un proceso público sin dilaciones indebidas y con todas las garantías, a utilizar los medios de prueba pertinentes para su defensa, a no declarar contra sí mismos, a no confesarse culpables y a la presunción de inocencia”. Supports Art. 24(1) verbatim, including the phrase quoted on the equality-of-arms page: “1. Todas las personas tienen derecho a obtener la tutela efectiva de los jueces y tribunales en el ejercicio de sus derechos e intereses legítimos, sin que, en ningún caso, pueda producirse indefensión.” Supports Art. 53(1) AND 53(2): “1. Los derechos y libertades reconocidos en el Capítulo segundo del presente Título vinculan a todos los poderes públicos. Sólo por ley, que en todo caso deberá respetar su contenido esencial, podrá regularse el ejercicio de tales derechos y libertades, que se tutelarán de acuerdo con lo previsto en el artículo 161, 1, a). 2. Cualquier ciudadano podrá recabar la tutela de las libertades y derechos reconocidos en el artículo 14 y la Sección primera del Capítulo segundo ante los Tribunales ordinarios por un procedimiento basado en los principios de preferencia y sumariedad y, en su caso, a través del recurso de amparo ante el Tribunal Constitucional.” Constitutional text only — no decision of the Tribunal Constitucional, no provision of the Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, nothing about any other country.
Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988
Presidência da República — Casa Civil (Planalto) · Legislation · 1988-10-05 · link verified 2026-07-25
The authoritative Portuguese text, read in full. THE backbone of the Brazil pages. Supports: the federation of the Union, the States, the Federal District and the Municipalities, 'todos autônomos' (Art. 18; Art. 1); separation of powers (Art. 2); the criminal-justice guarantees of Art. 5 — devido processo legal (LIV), contraditório e ampla defesa (LV), presumption of innocence 'ninguém será considerado culpado até o trânsito em julgado de sentença penal condenatória' (LVII), and habeas corpus (LXVIII); that penal and procedural law are the EXCLUSIVE (privativa) competence of the Union (Art. 22, I) while direito penitenciário is CONCURRENT (Art. 24, I) and the States hold the reserved/residual competences (Art. 25 §1); public security through the six órgãos of Art. 144 (I polícia federal; II rodoviária federal; III ferroviária federal; IV polícias civis; V polícias militares e corpos de bombeiros militares; VI polícias penais, added by EC 104/2019), with the polícias civis 'dirigidas por delegados de polícia de carreira' exercising 'as funções de polícia judiciária e a apuração de infrações penais, exceto as militares' (§4), the polícias militares holding 'a polícia ostensiva e a preservação da ordem pública' (§5), and both subordinate to the Governors (§6); the Judiciary organs of Art. 92 (STF, CNJ, STJ, TST, TRFs/Juízes Federais, and the labour, electoral, military and state courts), the STF as guardian of the Constitution (Art. 102), the CNJ (Art. 103-B) and state justice (Art. 125); the Ministério Público as 'instituição permanente, essencial à função jurisdicional do Estado' defending 'a ordem jurídica, o regime democrático e os interesses sociais e individuais indisponíveis', with autonomy and the principles of unidade, indivisibilidade e independência funcional (Art. 127), its structure MPU (MPF/MPT/MPM/MPDFT) + MPE (Art. 128), its functions including promoting 'privativamente, a ação penal pública' (Art. 129 I) and the inquérito civil / ação civil pública for interesses difusos e coletivos (Art. 129 III), and the CNMP (Art. 130-A); and that the Union organizes and maintains the Judiciary, Ministério Público and police of the Federal District (Art. 21, XIII–XIV). The Portuguese text alone has legal effect. WAVE 12 ADDITION, further clauses of Art. 5 read directly from the same Planalto text: XXXV a lei não excluirá da apreciação do Poder Judiciário lesão ou ameaça a direito; XXXVI the law shall not impair a vested right, a perfect juridical act or res judicata; XXXVII não haverá juízo ou tribunal de exceção; XXXIX não há crime sem lei anterior que o defina, nem pena sem prévia cominação legal; XL a lei penal não retroagirá, salvo para beneficiar o réu; LVI evidence obtained by unlawful means is inadmissible in the process; LXXV the State shall indemnify a person convicted by judicial error and one held beyond the term fixed in the sentence; LXXVIII reasonable duration of proceedings and the means guaranteeing the speed of their handling, in the judicial and administrative spheres. WAVE 14 ADDITION, further provisions read directly from the same Planalto text: Art. 5º LXXIV “o Estado prestará assistência jurídica integral e gratuita aos que comprovarem insuficiência de recursos”; Art. 5º LXXVI that civil birth registration and the death certificate are free, in the form of the law, for the recognisedly poor; Art. 5º LXXVII that actions of habeas corpus and habeas data are free, as are, in the form of the law, the acts necessary to the exercise of citizenship; Art. 103-B § 4º that the Conselho Nacional de Justiça has competence for “o controle da atuação administrativa e financeira do Poder Judiciário e do cumprimento dos deveres funcionais dos juízes”, including safeguarding the autonomy of the Judiciary and issuing regulatory acts (I), reviewing the legality of administrative acts of members or organs of the Judiciary and annulling, revising or setting a period for compliance (II), and receiving complaints against members or organs of the Judiciary including its auxiliary services and delegated notarial and registry services, taking over disciplinary proceedings in course and ordering removal, availability or retirement and applying other administrative sanctions (III); Art. 133 “O advogado é indispensável à administração da justiça, sendo inviolável por seus atos e manifestações no exercício da profissão, nos limites da lei”; and Art. 134 in its current wording, that the Defensoria Pública is a permanent institution essential to the jurisdictional function of the State, incumbent on it, as an expression and instrument of the democratic regime, fundamentally to provide legal guidance, the promotion of human rights and the defence, in all degrees, judicial and extrajudicial, of the individual and collective rights of the needy. WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same Planalto text. Brazil states its emergency architecture as a closed system: two regimes, an exhaustive list of measures for each, and an express preservation of liability afterwards. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136, caput: “Art. 136. O Presidente da República pode, ouvidos o Conselho da República e o Conselho de Defesa Nacional, decretar estado de defesa para preservar ou prontamente restabelecer, em locais restritos e determinados, a ordem pública ou a paz social ameaçadas por grave e iminente instabilidade institucional ou atingidas por calamidades de grandes proporções na natureza.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 § 2º, added after adversarial review found this platform quoting it from a record that did not carry it, and re-verified against the Planalto text: “§ 2º O tempo de duração do estado de defesa não será superior a trinta dias, podendo ser prorrogado uma vez, por igual período, se persistirem as razões que justificaram a sua decretação.” Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §1º, I–II: “I - restrições aos direitos de: a) reunião, ainda que exercida no seio das associações; b) sigilo de correspondência; c) sigilo de comunicação telegráfica e telefônica; II - ocupação e uso temporário de bens e serviços públicos, na hipótese de calamidade pública, respondendo a União pelos danos e custos decorrentes.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §3º, I–IV: “§ 3º Na vigência do estado de defesa: I - a prisão por crime contra o Estado, determinada pelo executor da medida, será por este comunicada imediatamente ao juiz competente, que a relaxará, se não for legal, facultado ao preso requerer exame de corpo de delito à autoridade policial; II - a comunicação será acompanhada de declaração, pela autoridade, do estado físico e mental do detido no momento de sua autuação; III - a prisão ou detenção de qualquer pessoa não poderá ser superior a dez dias, salvo quando autorizada pelo Poder Judiciário; IV - é vedada a incomunicabilidade do preso.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 136 §§4º–7º: “§ 4º Decretado o estado de defesa ou sua prorrogação, o Presidente da República, dentro de vinte e quatro horas, submeterá o ato com a respectiva justificação ao Congresso Nacional, que decidirá por maioria absoluta. § 5º Se o Congresso Nacional estiver em recesso, será convocado, extraordinariamente, no prazo de cinco dias. § 6º O Congresso Nacional apreciará o decreto dentro de dez dias contados de seu recebimento, devendo continuar funcionando enquanto vigorar o estado de defesa. § 7º Rejeitado o decreto, cessa imediatamente o estado de defesa.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 138, caput: “Art. 138. O decreto do estado de sítio indicará sua duração, as normas necessárias a sua execução e as garantias constitucionais que ficarão suspensas, e, depois de publicado, o Presidente da República designará o executor das medidas específicas e as áreas abrangidas.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 139: “Art. 139. Na vigência do estado de sítio decretado com fundamento no art. 137, I, só poderão ser tomadas contra as pessoas as seguintes medidas: I - obrigação de permanência em localidade determinada; II - detenção em edifício não destinado a acusados ou condenados por crimes comuns; III - restrições relativas à inviolabilidade da correspondência, ao sigilo das comunicações, à prestação de informações e à liberdade de imprensa, radiodifusão e televisão, na forma da lei; IV - suspensão da liberdade de reunião; V - busca e apreensão em domicílio; VI - intervenção nas empresas de serviços públicos; VII - requisição de bens. Parágrafo único. Não se inclui nas restrições do inciso III a difusão de pronunciamentos de parlamentares efetuados em suas Casas Legislativas, desde que liberada pela respectiva Mesa.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 141 and parágrafo único: “Art. 141. Cessado o estado de defesa ou o estado de sítio, cessarão também seus efeitos, sem prejuízo da responsabilidade pelos ilícitos cometidos por seus executores ou agentes. Parágrafo único. Logo que cesse o estado de defesa ou o estado de sítio, as medidas aplicadas em sua vigência serão relatadas pelo Presidente da República, em mensagem ao Congresso Nacional, com especificação e justificação das providências adotadas, com relação nominal dos atingidos e indicação das restrições aplicadas.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 60 §§1º and 4º: “§ 1º A Constituição não poderá ser emendada na vigência de intervenção federal, de estado de defesa ou de estado de sítio. […] § 4º Não será objeto de deliberação a proposta de emenda tendente a abolir: I - a forma federativa de Estado; II - o voto direto, secreto, universal e periódico; III - a separação dos Poderes; IV - os direitos e garantias individuais.”. Supports Constituição de 1988, Art. 142, caput and §1º: “Art. 142. As Forças Armadas, constituídas pela Marinha, pelo Exército e pela Aeronáutica, são instituições nacionais permanentes e regulares, organizadas com base na hierarquia e na disciplina, sob a autoridade suprema do Presidente da República, e destinam-se à defesa da Pátria, à garantia dos poderes constitucionais e, por iniciativa de qualquer destes, da lei e da ordem. § 1º Lei complementar estabelecerá as normas gerais a serem adotadas na organização, no preparo e no emprego das Forças Armadas.”. Cited for the closed lists of permitted measures, the immediate judicial communication of an arrest, the congressional role, the express preservation of liability for unlawful acts after the regime ends, and the bar on amending the Constitution while one is in force. It records no declaration of either regime and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Article 5 read incisum by incisum from the same Planalto consolidated text. Supports the caput, and specifically its rights-holder scope: “Todos são iguais perante a lei, sem distinção de qualquer natureza, garantindo-se aos brasileiros e aos estrangeiros residentes no País a inviolabilidade do direito à vida, à liberdade, à igualdade, à segurança e à propriedade, nos termos seguintes”. Supports Art. 5º X: “são invioláveis a intimidade, a vida privada, a honra e a imagem das pessoas, assegurado o direito a indenização pelo dano material ou moral decorrente de sua violação”. Supports Art. 5º XI: “a casa é asilo inviolável do indivíduo, ninguém nela podendo penetrar sem consentimento do morador, salvo em caso de flagrante delito ou desastre, ou para prestar socorro, ou, durante o dia, por determinação judicial” — note that judicial authorisation is textually confined to daytime, which is the narrowest such qualifier found in this wave. Supports Art. 5º XII: “é inviolável o sigilo da correspondência e das comunicações telegráficas, de dados e das comunicações telefônicas, salvo, no último caso, por ordem judicial, nas hipóteses e na forma que a lei estabelecer para fins de investigação criminal ou instrução processual penal” — the exception reaches the LAST-NAMED category only, requires a judicial order, and is confined to criminal investigation or criminal procedural instruction. Supports Art. 5º LIV (“ninguém será privado da liberdade ou de seus bens sem o devido processo legal”), LV (contraditório and ampla defesa in judicial and administrative proceedings), LVI (“são inadmissíveis, no processo, as provas obtidas por meios ilícitos”) and LVII. Supports Art. 5º LXI: “ninguém será preso senão em flagrante delito ou por ordem escrita e fundamentada de autoridade judiciária competente, salvo nos casos de transgressão militar ou crime propriamente militar, definidos em lei”. Supports LXII (arrest and place of custody communicated immediately to the competent judge and to the family or a person indicated). Supports LXIII: “o preso será informado de seus direitos, entre os quais o de permanecer calado, sendo-lhe assegurada a assistência da família e de advogado” — a constitutional notification duty coupled with a silence right, and worded for “o preso”. Supports LXIV, LXV (“a prisão ilegal será imediatamente relaxada pela autoridade judiciária”) and LXVI. Supports § 1º (“As normas definidoras dos direitos e garantias fundamentais têm aplicação imediata”), § 2º (rights expressed in the Constitution do not exclude others deriving from the regime and principles it adopts, or from international treaties to which Brazil is party) and § 3º (“Os tratados e convenções internacionais sobre direitos humanos que forem aprovados, em cada Casa do Congresso Nacional, em dois turnos, por três quintos dos votos dos respectivos membros, serão equivalentes às emendas constitucionais”, added by Emenda Constitucional nº 45 de 2004). VERIFIED NEGATIVE: Article 5 contains no general limitation clause of the Canadian, South African, Kenyan or Swiss kind; limits appear inside individual incisos. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Supremo Tribunal Federal, no statute, nothing about any other country.
Judicial System in Japan / The Judicial System and Courts in Japan
Supreme Court of Japan (courts.go.jp) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-25
The Supreme Court's own English account of the court system, obtained by search retrieval of the official page (courts.go.jp truncates automated fetches). Supports: the courts established under the Court Act (1947) — Supreme Court, high courts, district courts, family courts and summary courts; that the Supreme Court is the highest court and exercises judicial review only in a concrete case, not in the abstract; that family courts also handle juvenile cases; and the Saiban-in (lay judge) system — begun 21 May 2009, in which randomly selected lay judges sit WITH professional judges in the district court for certain serious criminal cases only (offences punishable by death or life imprisonment, or intentional criminal acts causing death), described as having points in common with a jury system. Supports court structure and the lay-judge scope; not caseload figures. As the Supreme Court's own institutional description its facts are stated as such; it is not a statute.
Supreme Court Act (RSC 1985, c. S-26)
Government of Canada — Justice Laws Website (laws-lois.justice.gc.ca) · Legislation · link verified 2026-07-26
The statute constituting the Supreme Court of Canada (English; French equally authoritative), read for the relevant sections. Supports s.4(1): 'The Court shall consist of a chief justice to be called the Chief Justice of Canada, and eight puisne judges' (nine judges); and s.6, that at least three judges must be appointed from Quebec. Both versions have legal effect.
Federal Constitution of the Swiss Confederation of 18 April 1999 (SR 101)
Swiss Confederation — Fedlex (fedlex.admin.ch) · Legislation · 1999-04-18 · link verified 2026-07-26
The Federal Constitution, read in full from the official fedlex text (English is a non-authoritative translation; German, French and Italian are equally authentic). Supports: art. 1 (the Confederation of the People and the 26 Cantons); art. 3, 'The Cantons are sovereign except to the extent that their sovereignty is limited by the Federal Constitution. They exercise all rights that are not vested in the Confederation' — residual power with the CANTONS (like the United States and Australia); art. 46 (the Cantons implement federal law — executive federalism); art. 122 (the Confederation legislates civil law, but 'the Cantons are responsible for the organisation of the courts and the administration of justice in civil matters'); art. 123 ('The Confederation is responsible for legislation in the field of criminal law and the law of criminal procedure', while 'the Cantons are responsible for the organisation of the courts, the administration of justice in criminal cases as well as for the execution of penalties and measures') — so the law is federal and unified but the administration, including corrections, is cantonal; art. 188 (the Federal Supreme Court as the supreme judicial authority); art. 48 (inter-cantonal treaties, the basis for the corrections concordats); art. 70 (German, French and Italian as official languages); and the direct-democracy provisions (arts. 138-142: popular initiative, mandatory and optional referendums). WAVE 20 ADDITION. Read from the same consolidated Fedlex text in German, with the official English rendering consulted alongside. Supports Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft (SR 101), Art. 185: “Art. 185 Äussere und innere Sicherheit. 1 Der Bundesrat trifft Massnahmen zur Wahrung der äusseren Sicherheit, der Unabhängigkeit und der Neutralität der Schweiz. 2 Er trifft Massnahmen zur Wahrung der inneren Sicherheit. 3 Er kann, unmittelbar gestützt auf diesen Artikel, Verordnungen und Verfügungen erlassen, um eingetretenen oder unmittelbar drohenden schweren Störungen der öffentlichen Ordnung oder der inneren oder äusseren Sicherheit zu begegnen. Solche Verordnungen sind zu befristen. 4 In dringlichen Fällen kann er Truppen aufbieten. Bietet er mehr als 4000 Angehörige der Armee für den Aktivdienst auf oder dauert dieser Einsatz voraussichtlich länger als drei Wochen, so ist unverzüglich die Bundesversammlung einzuberufen.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Art. 173(1)(a)-(d): “Art. 173 Weitere Aufgaben und Befugnisse. 1 Die Bundesversammlung hat zudem folgende Aufgaben und Befugnisse: a. Sie trifft Massnahmen zur Wahrung der äusseren Sicherheit, der Unabhängigkeit und der Neutralität der Schweiz. b. Sie trifft Massnahmen zur Wahrung der inneren Sicherheit. c. Wenn ausserordentliche Umstände es erfordern, kann sie zur Erfüllung der Aufgaben nach den Buchstaben a und b Verordnungen oder einfache Bundesbeschlüsse erlassen. d. Sie ordnet den Aktivdienst an und bietet dafür die Armee oder Teile davon auf.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Art. 36(4): “4 Der Kerngehalt der Grundrechte ist unantastbar.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Arts. 189(4) and 190: “Art. 189 [...] 4 Akte der Bundesversammlung und des Bundesrates können beim Bundesgericht nicht angefochten werden. Ausnahmen bestimmt das Gesetz. [...] Art. 190 Massgebendes Recht. Bundesgesetze und Völkerrecht sind für das Bundesgericht und die anderen rechtsanwendenden Behörden massgebend.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Art. 58(2)-(3), read with Arts. 173(1)(d) and 185(4): “Art. 58 Armee. [...] 2 Die Armee dient der Kriegsverhinderung und trägt bei zur Erhaltung des Friedens; sie verteidigt das Land und seine Bevölkerung. Sie unterstützt die zivilen Behörden bei der Abwehr schwerwiegender Bedrohungen der inneren Sicherheit und bei der Bewältigung anderer ausserordentlicher Lagen. Das Gesetz kann weitere Aufgaben vorsehen. 3 Der Einsatz der Armee ist Sache des Bundes.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Art. 61; cf. Art. 102 (Landesversorgung: "Der Bund stellt die Versorgung des Landes mit lebenswichtigen Gütern und Dienstleistungen sicher für den Fall machtpolitischer oder kriegerischer Bedrohungen sowie in schweren Mangellagen, denen die Wirtschaft nicht selbst zu begegnen vermag."): “Art. 61 Zivilschutz. 1 Die Gesetzgebung über den zivilen Schutz von Personen und Gütern vor den Auswirkungen bewaffneter Konflikte ist Sache des Bundes. 2 Der Bund erlässt Vorschriften über den Einsatz des Zivilschutzes bei Katastrophen und in Notlagen. 3 Er kann den Schutzdienst für Männer obligatorisch erklären. Für Frauen ist dieser freiwillig.”. Supports Bundesverfassung (SR 101), Arts. 3, 5a and 57: “Art. 3 Kantone. Die Kantone sind souverän, soweit ihre Souveränität nicht durch die Bundesverfassung beschränkt ist; sie üben alle Rechte aus, die nicht dem Bund übertragen sind. [...] Art. 5a Subsidiarität. Bei der Zuweisung und Erfüllung staatlicher Aufgaben ist der Grundsatz der Subsidiarität zu beachten. [...] Art. 57 Sicherheit. 1 Bund und Kantone sorgen im Rahmen ihrer Zuständigkeiten für die Sicherheit des Landes und den Schutz der Bevölkerung. 2 Sie koordinieren ihre Anstrengungen im Bereich der inneren Sicherheit.”. Cited for the finding that Switzerland protects a CORE CONTENT of every fundamental right rather than listing non-derogable rights, that its civil protection is constitutionally split between armed-conflict protection and disaster deployment, and that review of federal acts is structurally constrained. It records no ordinance, states no cantonal arrangement, and supports no claim about any other country.WAVE 21 ADDITION. Read from the consolidated Fedlex text of 3 March 2024 in both the authoritative German and the official English rendering, article by article. Supports Art. 5 “Grundsätze rechtsstaatlichen Handelns”: “1 Grundlage und Schranke staatlichen Handelns ist das Recht. 2 Staatliches Handeln muss im öffentlichen Interesse liegen und verhältnismässig sein. 3 Staatliche Organe und Private handeln nach Treu und Glauben. 4 Bund und Kantone beachten das Völkerrecht.” — note that Art. 5(2) requires ALL state activity to be proportionate, which is a different provision doing a different job from Art. 36(3). Supports Art. 36 in full: “1 Einschränkungen von Grundrechten bedürfen einer gesetzlichen Grundlage. Schwerwiegende Einschränkungen müssen im Gesetz selbst vorgesehen sein. Ausgenommen sind Fälle ernster, unmittelbarer und nicht anders abwendbarer Gefahr. 2 Einschränkungen von Grundrechten müssen durch ein öffentliches Interesse oder durch den Schutz von Grundrechten Dritter gerechtfertigt sein. 3 Einschränkungen von Grundrechten müssen verhältnismässig sein. 4 Der Kerngehalt der Grundrechte ist unantastbar.” Supports Art. 13 “Schutz der Privatsphäre”: “1 Jede Person hat Anspruch auf Achtung ihres Privat- und Familienlebens, ihrer Wohnung sowie ihres Brief-, Post- und Fernmeldeverkehrs. 2 Jede Person hat Anspruch auf Schutz vor Missbrauch ihrer persönlichen Daten.” — one provision covering private and family life, the home, and mail and telecommunications together. Supports Art. 10(2), that every person has the right to personal liberty and in particular to physical and mental integrity and to freedom of movement. Supports Art. 31 “Freiheitsentzug” in full, including 31(2) (notification without delay, in a language the person understands, of the reasons and of their rights, with the opportunity to exercise them and in particular to have next-of-kin informed), 31(3) (a person in pre-trial detention has the right to be brought before a court without delay, which decides on continued detention or release, and to have their case decided within a reasonable time) and 31(4) (a person deprived of liberty by a body other than a court has the right of recourse to a court at any time, which decides as quickly as possible on the legality of the detention). Supports Art. 32(1)-(3) (presumption of innocence until a legally enforceable judgment; notification of the charge as quickly and comprehensively as possible with the opportunity to assert defence rights; review of a conviction by a higher court save where the Federal Supreme Court sits at first instance). Supports Art. 35 “Verwirklichung der Grundrechte”: fundamental rights must be upheld throughout the legal system; whoever acts on behalf of the state is bound by them and under a duty to contribute to their implementation; and the authorities shall ensure that fundamental rights, where appropriate, apply to relationships among private persons. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that the rights read here are worded “Jede Person” / “Every person” rather than for Swiss citizens. English is a non-authoritative translation; German, French and Italian are equally authentic. This record establishes constitutional TEXT only — no decision of the Bundesgericht, no cantonal arrangement, and nothing about any other country.
The Dutch judicial system and the Council for the Judiciary
De Rechtspraak / Raad voor de rechtspraak (Council for the Judiciary) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-26
The judiciary's own English portal, read as an overview. Supports that the Hoge Raad is the highest court in civil, criminal and tax matters, and that the Council for the Judiciary (Raad voor de rechtspraak) "is part of the judiciary system, but does not administer justice itself" — it supports the courts' budget and operations. Establishes the judicial-council arrangement named on the oversight page.
Citizens Information Board (Ireland), citizensinformation.ie · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-25
Official content of the statutory Citizens Information Board, obtained by search retrieval (WAF-blocked to direct fetch). Supports: that the Special Criminal Court sits with three judges and no jury; that it was set up under the Offences Against the State Act 1939; that the DPP certifies when the ordinary courts are inadequate to secure the effective administration of justice; that its constitutional basis is Article 38.3; and that it was designed for emergency situations and is the subject of independent review. Supports the SCC's structure and legal basis; it is a citizens-information summary, not the primary Act. Stated as sourced facts.
The High Court of Australia — Role of the High Court
High Court of Australia (hcourt.gov.au) · Government publication · link verified 2026-07-26
The High Court's own description of its role (official page, obtained by search retrieval of hcourt.gov.au). Supports that the High Court of Australia is established under the Constitution, interprets and applies Australian law, decides cases including constitutional-validity challenges, and hears appeals by special leave from federal, state and territory courts — the final court of appeal and final interpreter of the Constitution. Structural facts only.
About the Court — Court of Cassation of Belgium
Hof van Cassatie / Cour de cassation (Court of Cassation of Belgium) · Court record · link verified 2026-07-26
The Court of Cassation's own official site, read directly. Supports the institution's name (Hof van Cassatie / Cour de cassation), that "there is one Court of Cassation for the whole Belgian territory" (giving effect to Constitution Art. 147), that it "is not a third degree jurisdiction" and "does not judge the dispute for a third time", and that it "analyses the legality of the rulings and does not know of the facts of the case". Resolves the translation point: the official English rendering of Art. 147 says "Supreme Court", but the institution is the Court of Cassation, which reviews legality, not facts.