Timeline

Magna Carta, 1215 and beyond

The National Archives (United Kingdom) · Archive · link verified 2026-07-23

Archival educational resource supporting the historical context of the 1215 charter and its later reissues. Supports historical narrative about the document; does not support claims about its legal effect today.

Magna Carta: Muse and Mentor

Library of Congress (United States) · Archive · link verified 2026-07-23

Library of Congress exhibition supporting the later influence and reinterpretation of Magna Carta, particularly its reception outside England. Useful precisely because it documents reinterpretation rather than continuity.

Magna Carta (1297)

The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk) · Legislation · 1297 · link verified 2026-07-23

Supports the fact that clauses of Magna Carta, in the 1297 confirmation, remain on the statute book of England and Wales. Note that this is the 1297 text, not the 1215 text; the two differ, and conflating them is a common error.

Habeas Corpus Act 1679 (31 Cha 2 c. 2) — An Act for the better secureing the Liberty of the Subject and for Prevention of Imprisonments beyond the Seas

The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk) · Legislation · 1679 · link verified 2026-08-26

The digitised text on the statute book, read directly. Supports the long title as given above. Supports the recital, which is the load-bearing part for this platform: "WHEREAS great Delayes have beene used by Sheriffes Goalers and other Officers to whose Custody any of the Kings Subjects have beene committed for criminall or supposed criminall Matters in makeing Returnes of Writts of Habeas Corpus to them directed by standing out an Alias and Pluries Habeas Corpus and sometimes more and by other shifts to avoid their yeilding Obedience to such Writts contrary to their Duty and the knowne Lawes of the Land whereby many of the Kings Subjects have beene and hereafter may be long detained in Prison in such Cases where by Law they are baylable to their great charge and vexation." Supports section I: that on service of a writ the officer or their under-officers shall within THREE DAYS bring up the body before the court to which the writ is returnable and certify the true causes of the imprisonment, subject to stated exceptions for commitment for treason or felony plainly and specially expressed in the warrant, to provisions about distance, and to payment or tender of the charges of bringing the prisoner, not exceeding twelvepence per mile, and security by bond. Supports the editorial note recorded on the page that abbreviations or contractions in the original form of the Act have been expanded into modern lettering in the text set out there, and that the short title was given by the Short Titles Act 1896. The Act recites that the writ ALREADY EXISTED and was being evaded; it is cited on this platform for that fact and NOT for any claim that it created habeas corpus. England and Wales; nothing about any other jurisdiction.

The Bill of Rights (Amendments I–X to the Constitution of the United States) — transcript

National Archives and Records Administration (archives.gov) · Legislation · 1791-12-15 · link verified 2026-09-05

LATER ADDITION. The corpus previously held only `us-const-amend-10` and `us-constitution-suspension-clause`; neither carries the criminal-procedure amendments. Read from the National Archives transcript. Supports Amendment IV verbatim: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Supports Amendment V, and in particular the clause "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law". Supports Amendment VI: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed [...] and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that Amendment IV is worded for "the people" while Amendment V is worded for "No person". LIMITATIONS, and they are the important part of this record: the text supports what the Constitution SAYS. It establishes nothing about United States constitutional doctrine — no tier of scrutiny, no exclusionary rule, no warning requirement on custodial interrogation, and no exception to the warrant requirement, all of which are judicial constructions that were NOT researched here. The verified NEGATIVE this record supports is textual only: the Bill of Rights contains no notification duty and no general limitation clause. It supports no claim about any other country.

Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School (reproducing the enacted constitutional text) · Legislation · 1791-12-15 · link verified 2026-07-24

Verbatim text: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' Supports the reserved-powers structure of US federalism — that the states, not the federal government, hold residual authority. Cornell LII reproduces the enacted text; the constitutional text itself is authoritative. Does NOT support any claim about how a particular power is allocated in practice.

The Constitution of the Kingdom of Norway (Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov), 1814 — Chapters D and E

Lovdata (official legal database of Norway) · Legislation · 1814 · link verified 2026-07-26

The 1814 Constitution's official English translation on Lovdata, read (and independently re-confirmed in the verification pass). Supports Art. 87 ("The ordinary courts of justice are the Supreme Court, the courts of appeal and the district courts"), Art. 88 ("The Supreme Court pronounces judgment in the final instance … may in no case be appealed"), Art. 89 (the courts "have the power and the duty to review whether applying a statutory provision is contrary to the Constitution" — constitutional review by the ordinary courts, so there is no separate constitutional court), Art. 90 (judges appointed by the King on the recommendation of an independent council; security of tenure), Art. 91 ("The authorities of the State shall ensure the independent administration of the courts"), and Art. 95 (the independence and impartiality of the courts). Lovdata publishes the English translation officially; the authoritative text is Norwegian. LATER ADDITION. Read from the same Lovdata text of the Grunnlov. Supports Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov § 25 tredje ledd: “Regjeringen har ikke rett til å bruke militær makt mot innbyggerne uten etter lov, med mindre en forsamling forstyrrer den offentlige ro og ikke øyeblikkelig oppløses etter at de lovbestemmelser som angår opprør, tre ganger høyt og tydelig er opplest for forsamlingen av den sivile øvrighet.”. Supports Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov § 26: “Kongen har rett til å innkalle tropper, begynne krig til forsvar av landet og slutte fred, inngå og oppheve forbund, sende og motta sendemenn. Traktater om saker som er av særlig stor viktighet, og i alle tilfeller traktater hvis iverksettelse etter Grunnloven nødvendiggjør en ny lov eller stortingsbeslutning, blir først bindende når Stortinget har gitt sitt samtykke dertil.”. Supports Kongeriket Norges Grunnlov § 17: “Kongen kan gi og oppheve anordninger som angår handel, toll, næringsveier og offentlig regulering; dog må de ikke stride mot konstitusjonen og de lover som Stortinget har gitt i samsvar med de etterfølgende §§ 76, 77, 78 og 79. De gjelder provisorisk til neste Storting.”. Cited for the constitutional bar on using military force against the inhabitants except pursuant to statute. NEGATIVE FINDING, recorded because it is load-bearing: the Grunnlov contains NO written derogation clause for human rights in an emergency, and two separate constitutional-amendment proposals before the Storting say so in terms. This record supports no claim about unwritten doctrine, and no claim about any other country.

Metropolitan Police Act 1829 (1829 c. 44, 10 Geo. 4)

The National Archives (legislation.gov.uk) · Legislation · 1829 · link verified 2026-07-23

Supports the statutory creation of a full-time, centrally organised police force for the Metropolitan area of London in 1829. Supports nothing about policing outside that area, nothing about the model being adopted elsewhere, and nothing about earlier or parallel arrangements. The full text is available on the cited page only as a scanned PDF.

Constitution Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Victoria, c. 3 (UK))

Government of Canada — Justice Laws Website (laws-lois.justice.gc.ca) · Legislation · 1867-07-01 · link verified 2026-07-26

The authoritative consolidated text (English; the French 'Loi constitutionnelle de 1867' is equally authoritative), read in full. THE backbone of the division of powers. Supports: s.91(27) FEDERAL exclusive authority over 'The Criminal Law, except the Constitution of Courts of Criminal Jurisdiction, but including the Procedure in Criminal Matters'; s.91(28) federal 'Penitentiaries'; the s.91 opening 'exclusive Legislative Authority' plus the residual 'Peace, Order, and good Government' power (POGG is FEDERAL — the inverse of the United States); s.92(14) PROVINCIAL exclusive authority over 'The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction'; s.92(6) provincial 'Public and Reformatory Prisons'; s.96 'The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province'; s.100 (Parliament fixes and pays superior-court judges' salaries); s.101 (Parliament may establish a general court of appeal and additional federal courts). Establishes the characteristic Canadian arrangement: one federal criminal law, provincially administered. Both language versions have legal effect.

Ley de Enjuiciamiento Criminal, arts. 588 bis a, 588 bis b y 588 bis e — disposiciones comunes a las medidas de investigación tecnológica

Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE) · Legislation · 1882-09-14 · link verified 2026-09-05

LATER ADDITION. The consolidated Spanish text of the Criminal Procedure Act, read directly from the BOE. The articles cited were INSERTED by article único.13 of Ley Orgánica 13/2015 of 5 October (BOE-A-2015-10725), published 06/10/2015 and IN FORCE FROM 06/12/2015 — the BOE records that provenance against each article and it is reproduced here because the chapter postdates the rest of the Act by 133 years. Supports art. 588 bis a (Principios rectores) in full: measures in the chapter may be ordered during the instruction of proceedings only with judicial authorisation “dictada con plena sujeción a los principios de especialidad, idoneidad, excepcionalidad, necesidad y proporcionalidad de la medida”; that especialidad requires the measure to relate to the investigation of a specific offence and that “No podrán autorizarse medidas de investigación tecnológica que tengan por objeto prevenir o descubrir delitos o despejar sospechas sin base objetiva”; that idoneidad defines the objective and subjective scope and the duration of the measure by reference to its usefulness; that under excepcionalidad and necesidad the measure may be ordered only where no other less burdensome and equally useful measures are available, or where the investigation would otherwise be gravely hindered; and that a measure is proportionate only where, taking all the circumstances into account, the sacrifice of the rights and interests affected is not greater than the benefit to the public interest and to third parties, the public interest being weighed by the gravity of the act, its social significance or the technological sphere in which it was produced, the strength of the existing indicia and the relevance of the result pursued. Supports art. 588 bis b: the judge may order the measures of his own motion or at the instance of the Ministerio Fiscal or the Policía Judicial, and where the Fiscal or the Policía Judicial applies, the petition must contain eight enumerated items including the identity of the person investigated “o de cualquier otro afectado por la medida”, the reasons justifying necessity under the guiding principles, the extension of the measure with specification of its content, the investigating unit that will carry it out, the form of execution, the duration sought and the obliged subject. Supports art. 588 bis e: the measures have the duration specified for each and may not exceed the time indispensable for clarifying the facts; extension is by auto motivado of the competent judge; and once the period expires without extension the measure “cesará a todos los efectos”. LIMITATIONS: only these three articles of the chapter were read. Articles 588 ter to 588 octies, which contain the individual measures, were NOT read, and no claim about any specific Spanish measure rests on this record. It describes no technique. STATUS: current consolidated text at the verification date.

Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (the Australian Constitution)

Parliament of Australia (aph.gov.au) / Federal Register of Legislation · Legislation · 1901-01-01 · link verified 2026-07-26

The founding instrument, read verbatim from the official Parliament of Australia consolidated PDF. Supports: s.51, the ENUMERATED legislative powers of the Commonwealth ('The Parliament shall ... have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to' 39 heads) — there is NO general criminal-law head; s.107 (Saving of Power of State Parliaments): 'Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the Parliament of the State, continue' — so residual power is RESERVED to the States (the US model, the inverse of Canada); s.71 (the judicial power of the Commonwealth vested in the High Court of Australia and other courts); s.77(iii) (the Commonwealth may invest a State court with federal jurisdiction); and s.122 (the territories power). Establishes that criminal law is largely a State/Territory matter with no national code. LATER ADDITION. Read from the same Federal Register of Legislation text. Supports Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s. 51(vi): “(vi.) The naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several States, and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth:”. Supports Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s. 61: “The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exerciseable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.”. Supports Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, s. 119: “The Commonwealth shall protect every State against invasion and, on the application of the Executive Government of the State, against domestic violence.”. Cited for the constitutional footing of Commonwealth defence and protective power and for the State-application condition in s. 119. It supports no claim about State or Territory emergency law, none of which was read, and no claim about any other country.

Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (1917, current text)

Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación / official constitutional text · Legislation · 1917-02-05 · link verified 2026-07-27

The Political Constitution of the United Mexican States (1917), confirmed against the Supreme Court's per-article texts and a current-text mirror in two independent passes (the consolidated official PDF at diputados.gob.mx was unreachable). Supports Art. 17 (federal and local laws shall guarantee the independence of the courts); Art. 40 (a representative, democratic, secular and federal Republic of free and sovereign States and Mexico City); Art. 124 (residual powers reserved to the States or Mexico City); Art. 73-XXI (Congress legislates federal crimes and organized crime, and enacts a single national code of criminal procedure, sentence execution and juvenile justice governing both the federal and the common order); Art. 94 (the Supreme Court of nine Ministers, plus a judicial-administration body and a Judicial Discipline Tribunal); Art. 102-A (the Public Prosecution of the Federation is organised as an autonomous public body, the Fiscalía General de la República); Art. 21 (public security is a shared function of the Federation, the states and the municipalities; the investigation of crimes corresponds to the Public Prosecutor with the police under its conduct and command); Art. 18 (the penitentiary system, organised for social reinsertion); Art. 96 and Art. 116-III (judges elected by direct citizen vote — see the 2024 reform); and Art. 102-B (the human-rights commissions and their non-binding recommendations).

Código de Processo Penal — Decreto-Lei nº 3.689, de 3 de outubro de 1941

Presidência da República — Casa Civil (Planalto) · Legislation · 1941-10-03 · link verified 2026-07-25

The authoritative Portuguese text, read in full. Supports the structure of criminal investigation: the polícia judiciária 'será exercida pelas autoridades policiais' and has the purpose of 'a apuração das infrações penais e da sua autoria' (Art. 4), and the inquérito policial 'acompanhará a denúncia ou queixa, sempre que servir de base a uma ou outra' (Art. 12) — the police investigation feeds, but is distinct from, the charging instrument. Does not itself establish the constitutional police/MP structure (Art. 144 / 129). Portuguese authoritative.

The Constitution of Japan (日本国憲法), English translation

Ministry of Justice (Japanese Law Translation database) · Legislation · 1946-11-03 · link verified 2026-07-25

Cited from the official Japanese Law Translation database, whose stated policy is that translations are reference materials only and that the original Japanese text has sole legal effect. Supports: Article 41 ('The Diet shall be the highest organ of state power, and shall be the sole law-making organ of the State'); Article 76 (the whole judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and in inferior courts established by law; no extraordinary tribunal; all judges independent in the exercise of their conscience and bound by the Constitution and the laws); Article 92 (local self-government — the organisation and operations of local public entities fixed by law in accordance with the principle of local autonomy). Supports the unitary constitutional framework with national law-making and local self-government. The English is not authoritative; any precise legal point rests on the Japanese text. LATER ADDITION. Read from the same House of Representatives English text. The most important thing about it for this subject is what it does not contain. Supports Constitution of Japan (1946), Art. 54 — and the absence of any emergency chapter: “Article 54. When the House of Representatives is dissolved, there must be a general election of members of the House of Representatives within forty (40) days from the date of dissolution, and the Diet must be convoked within thirty (30) days from the date of the election. When the House of Representatives is dissolved, the House of Councillors is closed at the same time. However, the Cabinet may in time of national emergency convoke the House of Councillors in emergency session. Measures taken at such session as mentioned in the proviso of the preceding paragraph shall be provisional and shall become null and void unless agreed to by the House of Representatives within a period of ten (10) days after the opening of the next session of the Diet.”. Supports Constitution of Japan, Arts. 12 and 13 (cf. Arts. 22, 29 using the same formula): “Article 12. The freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare. Article 13. All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs.”. Supports Constitution of Japan, Art. 76: “Article 76. The whole judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as are established by law. No extraordinary tribunal shall be established, nor shall any organ or agency of the Executive be given final judicial power. All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their conscience and shall be bound only by this Constitution and the laws.”. Supports Constitution of Japan, Arts. 81 and 98: “Article 81. The Supreme Court is the court of last resort with power to determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation or official act. […] Article 98. This Constitution shall be the supreme law of the nation and no law, ordinance, imperial rescript or other act of government, or part thereof, contrary to the provisions hereof, shall have legal force or validity.”. NEGATIVE FINDING, and the one this record exists to carry: the Constitution of Japan contains no emergency chapter and no derogation or suspension clause, so limitation of Chapter III rights runs through the “public welfare” qualifier written into individual articles. It categorically prohibits extraordinary tribunals and carves out no emergency exception to constitutional review. This record supports no claim about proposals to amend the Constitution, and no claim about any other country.LATER ADDITION. Read from the Japanese Law Translation database's own XML export of the Constitution (s21Ak000010101en3.0.xml), fetched with the law page as referrer, article by article. English is a reference translation only; the Japanese text has legal effect. Supports Art. 12 (“The freedoms and rights guaranteed to the people by this Constitution shall be maintained by the constant endeavor of the people, who shall refrain from any abuse of these freedoms and rights and shall always be responsible for utilizing them for the public welfare”) and Art. 13 (“All of the people shall be respected as individuals. Their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness shall, to the extent that it does not interfere with the public welfare, be the supreme consideration in legislation and in other governmental affairs”) — the public-welfare formula that does the work a limitation clause does elsewhere. Supports Art. 31, 32 and 33 (“No person shall be apprehended except upon warrant issued by a competent judicial officer which specifies the offense with which the person is charged, unless he is apprehended, the offense being committed”). Supports Art. 34 (no arrest or detention without being at once informed of the charges or without the immediate privilege of counsel; no detention without adequate cause, which upon demand of any person must be immediately shown in open court in the person's presence and that of counsel). Supports Art. 35 verbatim: “The right of all persons to be secure in their homes, papers and effects against entries, searches and seizures shall not be impaired except upon warrant issued for adequate cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and things to be seized, or except as provided by Article 33. Each search or seizure shall be made upon separate warrant issued by a competent judicial officer.” Note two textual differences from the United States Fourth Amendment that the pages relying on this record state: Art. 35 does not include “persons” among what is protected, and it adds a separate-warrant requirement that has no American counterpart. Supports Art. 37 (speedy and public trial by an impartial tribunal; full opportunity to examine all witnesses and compulsory process at public expense; competent counsel assigned by the State where the accused cannot secure it). Supports Art. 38 in full: “No person shall be compelled to testify against himself. Confession made under compulsion, torture or threat, or after prolonged arrest or detention shall not be admitted in evidence. No person shall be convicted or punished in cases where the only proof against him is his own confession.” Supports Art. 82: “Trials shall be conducted and judgment declared publicly. Where a court unanimously determines publicity to be dangerous to public order or morals, a trial may be conducted privately, but trials of political offenses, offenses involving the press or cases wherein the rights of people as guaranteed in Chapter III of this Constitution are in question shall always be conducted publicly.” Supports Art. 98(2), that treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that Chapter III opens for “the people” (Arts. 11-14) while Arts. 31-40 switch to “No person” and “all persons”. VERIFIED NEGATIVE: Art. 38 imposes no duty to inform anyone of the privilege. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Supreme Court of Japan, no provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure, nothing about any other country.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

United Nations · International organisation · 1948-12-10 · link verified 2026-07-23

Supports the existence and wording of the declared principles of equality before the law (Art. 7), the right to an effective remedy (Art. 8), the right to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal (Art. 10), and the presumption of innocence (Art. 11). A declaration, not a treaty: it does not establish binding obligations, and it does not support any claim about how a particular state implements these principles.

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. LATER 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. LATER 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.LATER 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.

Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Artikel 17 (Petitionsrecht)

Bundesministerium der Justiz — Gesetze im Internet · Legislation · link verified 2026-09-18

SCOPE: the constitutional right of petition, and nothing about who acts on a petition. The official consolidated German text, read directly. Supports Art. 17 in full: “Jedermann hat das Recht, sich einzeln oder in Gemeinschaft mit anderen schriftlich mit Bitten oder Beschwerden an die zuständigen Stellen und an die Volksvertretung zu wenden.” Two features are worth holding separately from anything else on the German page. The right is held by “Jedermann” — every person, not every citizen. And it runs both to the competent authorities and to the representative assembly, which is why parliamentary petition is a route against an administration rather than merely a political gesture. This record establishes a right. It establishes no body, no power of investigation, and nothing about any Land.

Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland, Artikel 45c (Petitionsausschuss)

Bundesministerium der Justiz — Gesetze im Internet · Legislation · link verified 2026-09-18

SCOPE: the Bundestag committee that handles Article 17 petitions. The official consolidated German text, read directly. Supports Art. 45c in full: “(1) Der Bundestag bestellt einen Petitionsausschuß, dem die Behandlung der nach Artikel 17 an den Bundestag gerichteten Bitten und Beschwerden obliegt. (2) Die Befugnisse des Ausschusses zur Überprüfung von Beschwerden regelt ein Bundesgesetz.” The second sentence is the one that matters and the one an oversight page is tempted to skip: the Basic Law creates the committee but leaves its investigative POWERS to ordinary federal legislation, which this record does not contain. So this record supports that the committee exists and must handle what Article 17 sends it. It does not support any statement about what the committee may compel, and no such statement is made from it.

The Constitution of India (as on 1 May 2024)

Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice (Legislative Department) · Legislation · 1950-01-26 · link verified 2026-07-27

The official text of the Constitution of India published by the Ministry of Law and Justice, "As on 1st May, 2024". Supports the federal division of legislative power under the Seventh Schedule (Article 246): List II (State List) Entry 1 "Public order", Entry 2 "Police (including railway and village police)", Entry 4 "Prisons, reformatories, Borstal institutions… and persons detained therein" — so police, public order and prisons are exclusive STATE subjects; List III (Concurrent List) Entry 1 "Criminal law…", Entry 2 "Criminal procedure…", Entry 11A "Administration of Justice; constitution and organisation of all courts, except the Supreme Court and the High Courts" — so the criminal codes and subordinate-court organisation are concurrent (national); and List I (Union List) Entry 8 "Central Bureau of Intelligence and Investigation". Also supports Article 50 (separation of the judiciary from the executive), Article 124 (the Supreme Court of India), Article 141 (Supreme Court law binding on all courts), Article 214 ("There shall be a High Court for each State"), and Article 235 (High Court control over district and subordinate courts).

Constitution du 4 octobre 1958 (texte intégral en vigueur)

Conseil constitutionnel · Legislation · 1958-10-04 · link verified 2026-08-10

Authentic consolidated text published by the Conseil constitutionnel. Supports: Article 1 (indivisible Republic; decentralised organisation); Article 64 (President as guarantor of the independence of the judicial authority, assisted by the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature); Article 66 (judicial authority as guardian of individual liberty); Article 72 (categories of territorial collectivity); Article 72-3 (the ten named overseas territories); Articles 73 and 74 (the two overseas regimes); the title of Title VIII ('De l'autorité judiciaire') and of Title XIII (transitional provisions on New Caledonia). Re-verified on 10 August 2026, and that reading additionally establishes from the same text: Article 65, that the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature comprises a formation for magistrats du siège and one for magistrats du parquet, that the siège formation 'statue comme conseil de discipline des magistrats du siège' and that the parquet formation 'donne son avis sur les sanctions disciplinaires qui les concernent'; and Article 71-1, that 'Le Défenseur des droits veille au respect des droits et libertés par les administrations de l'Etat, les collectivités territoriales, les établissements publics, ainsi que par tout organisme investi d'une mission de service public', that he may be seized by any person believing themselves harmed and may act d'office, that he is appointed by the President of the Republic for a non-renewable mandate of six years incompatible with membership of the Government or Parliament, and that he reports on his activity to the President of the Republic and to Parliament. Does NOT support any claim about how these provisions are applied in practice, nor about the internal organisation of any institution. LATER ADDITION, read from the same authentic consolidated text (version to the constitutional revision of 8 March 2024). Supports Article 61, review BEFORE promulgation: organic laws before promulgation, the propositions de loi mentioned in Article 11 before being submitted to referendum, and the rules of the parliamentary assemblies before their entry into application "doivent être soumis au Conseil constitutionnel qui se prononce sur leur conformité à la Constitution"; that for the same purposes ordinary laws "peuvent être déférées au Conseil constitutionnel, avant leur promulgation" by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the President of the National Assembly, the President of the Senate, or sixty deputies or sixty senators; that the Council must rule within one month, reduced to eight days at the Government's request in urgency; and that referral suspends the time limit for promulgation. Supports Article 61-1, review AFTER promulgation on referral: "Lorsque, à l'occasion d'une instance en cours devant une juridiction, il est soutenu qu'une disposition législative porte atteinte aux droits et libertés que la Constitution garantit, le Conseil constitutionnel peut être saisi de cette question sur renvoi du Conseil d'État ou de la Cour de cassation qui se prononce dans un délai déterminé" — the question reaches the Council only through one of the two apex courts, which acts as a filter. Supports Article 62, the differing EFFECTS: a provision declared unconstitutional on the basis of Article 61 "ne peut être promulguée ni mise en application"; a provision declared unconstitutional on the basis of Article 61-1 "est abrogée à compter de la publication de la décision du Conseil constitutionnel ou d'une date ultérieure fixée par cette décision", with the Council determining the conditions and limits within which effects the provision has already produced may be called into question; and that the decisions of the Conseil constitutionnel "ne sont susceptibles d'aucun recours" and bind the public powers and all administrative and judicial authorities. Supports no claim about how often either route is used or about outcomes. LATER ADDITION. Read from the same authentic consolidated text on the Conseil constitutionnel's site. Supports Constitution du 4 octobre 1958, Article 36: “ARTICLE 36. L'état de siège est décrété en Conseil des ministres. Sa prorogation au-delà de douze jours ne peut être autorisée que par le Parlement.”. Supports Constitution du 4 octobre 1958, Article 16, first two paragraphs: “Lorsque les institutions de la République, l'indépendance de la nation, l'intégrité de son territoire ou l'exécution de ses engagements internationaux sont menacées d'une manière grave et immédiate et que le fonctionnement régulier des pouvoirs publics constitutionnels est interrompu, le Président de la République prend les mesures exigées par ces circonstances, après consultation officielle du Premier ministre, des présidents des assemblées ainsi que du Conseil constitutionnel. Il en informe la nation par un message.”. Supports Constitution du 4 octobre 1958, Article 16, final paragraph: “Après trente jours d'exercice des pouvoirs exceptionnels, le Conseil constitutionnel peut être saisi par le Président de l'Assemblée nationale, le Président du Sénat, soixante députés ou soixante sénateurs, aux fins d'examiner si les conditions énoncées au premier alinéa demeurent réunies. Il se prononce dans les délais les plus brefs par un avis public. Il procède de plein droit à cet examen et se prononce dans les mêmes conditions au terme de soixante jours d'exercice des pouvoirs exceptionnels et à tout moment au-delà de cette durée.”. Supports Constitution du 4 octobre 1958, Article 66: “ARTICLE 66. Nul ne peut être arbitrairement détenu. L'autorité judiciaire, gardienne de la liberté individuelle, assure le respect de ce principe dans les conditions prévues par la loi.”. Cited for the constitutional architecture of French exceptional powers and for the thirty-day review clock the 2008 revision built into Article 16. It records no use of Article 16, states nothing about the état d'urgence, which is statutory and cited separately, and supports no claim about any other country.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 999, No. I-14668)

United Nations · International organisation · 1966 · link verified 2026-07-23

Authentic treaty text as registered in the UN Treaty Series; registered ex officio 23 March 1976. Supports the fair-trial guarantees of Article 14, including the right to a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, and the presumption of innocence (Art. 14(2)). Binding only on states party to it; does not support claims about states that have not ratified, nor about how any individual state applies it. LATER ADDITION, read from the same authentic treaty text in the UN Treaty Series. Supports Article 14(5) in full: "Everyone convicted of a crime shall have the right to his conviction and sentence being reviewed by a higher tribunal according to law." The qualifier "according to law" is part of the provision and is load-bearing: the right is to review as the law of the state provides, not to appeal without limit or by any chosen route. Supports Article 14(6): where a person has by a FINAL decision been convicted of a criminal offence and the conviction has subsequently been reversed or the person pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered fact shows conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to that person. Supports Article 14(3)(g), that no one shall be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt, and Article 14(4), that the procedure for juvenile persons shall take account of their age and the desirability of promoting their rehabilitation. LATER ADDITION. PROVENANCE, stated because this record's link is a different copy: the Article 4 material below was read on 2026-08-26 from the OHCHR's official text of the Covenant at https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/ccpr.pdf, not from the United Nations Treaty Series copy at this record's link, and nothing in this addition rests on that copy. Article 4 is the derogation clause, and its four cumulative conditions are the point. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(1): “1. In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.”. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(2), read with Arts. 6, 7, 8, 11, 15, 16 and 18 as printed in the same document: “2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.”. Supports ICCPR Art. 4(3): “3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.”. The Covenant binds States Parties to it. It is NOT evidence of any particular state's domestic law, and no country claim on this platform rests on it. It designates no organ to proclaim an emergency, assigns no role to any national legislature, and creates no civil-protection institution. The Human Rights Committee's interpretation of this article is cited separately and attributed to the Committee.LATER ADDITION. Read from the same United Nations Treaty Series text. Supports Art. 9(1)-(4), and specifically that the Covenant polices ARBITRARINESS rather than closing a list of grounds: “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law”; with 9(2) (informed at the time of arrest of the reasons and promptly of any charges), 9(3) (brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power; it shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody) and 9(4) (entitlement to take proceedings before a court which decides without delay on the lawfulness of the detention). Supports Art. 14(1): “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals”, with the right to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law, the closed grounds on which press and public may be excluded, and the rule that judgment shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children. Supports Art. 14(3)(e) (“To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him”), 14(3)(f) (free assistance of an interpreter) and 14(3)(g) (“Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt” — note that the Covenant adds the confession limb, which the European Convention text does not contain). Supports Art. 14(5). VERIFIED NEGATIVES in the Covenant text: “proportion” occurs zero times, “equality of arms” zero times, and “remain silent” zero times. This is treaty text binding states party to it; it is not evidence of any state's domestic law, and the corpus invariant forbidding a treaty from standing in for a country applies to it.

Constitución Española de 1978

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). LATER 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. LATER 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 read for this platform. 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.LATER 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.

Ley Orgánica 3/1981, de 6 de abril, del Defensor del Pueblo (texto consolidado)

Agencia Estatal Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE) · Legislation · 1981-04-06 · link verified 2026-09-18

SCOPE: the state-level ombudsman, its investigative reach, and the one subject it must hand on. The official consolidated Spanish text on the BOE, read directly. Supports Art. 1, that “El Defensor del Pueblo es el alto comisionado de las Cortes Generales designado por éstas para la defensa de los derechos comprendidos en el Título I de la Constitución”; Art. 9, that it “podrá iniciar y proseguir de oficio o a petición de parte, cualquier investigación conducente al esclarecimiento de los actos y resoluciones de la Administración pública”, its attributions extending to “la actividad de los ministros, autoridades administrativas, funcionarios”; and Art. 13, that where it receives complaints “referidas al funcionamiento de la Administración de Justicia”, it must direct them to the Ministerio Fiscal to investigate, or pass them to the Consejo General del Poder Judicial as the case requires. Article 13 is why this record is cited by section rather than as an Act: the ombudsman’s reach over the administration and its EXPLICIT non-reach over the administration of justice are the same institution’s two halves, and a page carrying only the first would overstate it. Nothing here establishes any autonomous-community ombudsman, each of which has its own statute.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Constitution Act, 1982, Part I)

Government of Canada — Justice Laws Website (laws-lois.justice.gc.ca) · Legislation · 1982-04-17 · link verified 2026-07-26

The authoritative text (English; French equally authoritative), read in full. Supports the 'Legal Rights' (ss.7-14): s.7 'Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice'; s.11(d) the right 'to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal'; s.12 'Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment'. Also s.18(1): the statutes of Parliament are printed in English and French 'and both language versions are equally authoritative' — the equal-authenticity rule. Both versions have legal effect. LATER ADDITION, read from the same authoritative page: s.14, marginal-noted “Interpreter”, in full — “A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.” Note that the provision covers any proceedings rather than criminal proceedings only, extends to witnesses as well as parties, and treats deafness alongside not understanding the language of the proceedings. LATER ADDITION. Read from the same Justice Laws text of the Charter. Supports Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 1 (Constitution Act, 1982, Part I): “The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”. Supports Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 33(1); s. 33(3) ("shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force"); s. 33(4)-(5) (re-enactment): “shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter”. IMPORTANT NEGATIVE FINDING, established during adversarial review: Canada has NO domestic derogation mechanism for an emergency. Limitation of Charter rights runs through the ordinary s. 1 test, and a legislature may additionally use the s. 33 declaration, which has its own five-year clock. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is unincorporated in Canadian law; the Emergencies Act preamble directs the Governor in Council to “have regard to” it, which is a direction to consider and not an incorporation. This record supports no claim about any use of s. 33 and no claim about any other country.LATER ADDITION. Read again from the same Justice Laws text, section by section. Supports s. 1, the general limitation clause, verbatim: the Charter “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” — and, as the pages relying on it state, the section enumerates NO factors, which is what distinguishes it from South Africa's s. 36 and Kenya's Art. 24. Supports s. 7 (“Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”). Supports s. 8 verbatim: “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” — a provision containing no warrant requirement, no authorising authority and no procedure. Supports s. 9 (not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned). Supports s. 10 in full: “Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.” Supports the VERIFIED NEGATIVE that s. 10 confers no right to silence and imposes no duty to inform a person of one: the section informs of reasons and of the right to counsel, and stops. Supports s. 11(a)-(i), including (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence, (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence, and (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Supports s. 13 verbatim: “A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence” — a use-immunity mechanism, not a right to refuse to testify. Supports s. 14 (interpreter). Supports s. 24(1) and s. 24(2), that evidence obtained in a manner infringing a Charter right “shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute”. Constitutional text only: no decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and in particular nothing about the Oakes framework, which was NOT researched here.

Ley Orgánica 2/1986, de 13 de marzo, de Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad

Boletín Oficial del Estado (boe.es), BOE-A-1986-6859 · Legislation · 1986-03-13 · link verified 2026-09-19

The organic law of the security forces, read in full for the relevant articles. Supports the THREE tiers of security forces: the Fuerzas y Cuerpos de Seguridad del Estado (national), the police of the Autonomous Communities, and the local police. Names the two national forces (art. 9): 'a) El Cuerpo Nacional de Policía, que es un Instituto Armado de naturaleza civil, dependiente del Ministro del Interior. b) La Guardia Civil, que es un Instituto Armado de naturaleza militar...' — so the Guardia Civil is a militarily-organised force, not merely rural police. Provides the framework within which the Autonomous Communities that so provide in their Statutes create their own police forces.

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. LATER 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. LATER 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. LATER 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.LATER 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 the constitutions read for this platform. 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.

Law of 6 April 1990 on the Police (Ustawa o Policji), consolidated

Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (ISAP / ELI legal-acts service) · Legislation · 1990-04-06 · link verified 2026-09-19

The consolidated Law on the Police (Dz.U. 1990 nr 30 poz. 179), fetched from the Sejm's official ELI service and confirmed verbatim. Supports Art. 1(1) (the Police established as a single uniformed, armed formation to protect citizens' safety and maintain public order) and Art. 5(1) (the central organ of state administration in these matters is the Chief Commissioner of Police, Komendant Główny Policji, subordinate to the Minister of Internal Affairs) — establishing a single national police force under the interior ministry, with subordinate voivodeship and county commands that are internal territorial units of the one national Police.

Constitution of the Czech Republic (Act No. 1/1993 Coll., as amended) — official English translation

Ústavní soud (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic) · Legislation · 1993-01-01 · link verified 2026-07-26

The Constitutional Court's official English translation of the Constitution (constitutional Act No. 1/1993 Coll., adopted 16 December 1992, in force 1 January 1993, as amended to Act No. 98/2013). Supports Art. 80(1) ("The State Attorney's Office shall issue and argue public indictments in criminal proceedings") and 80(2), placing the prosecution in executive power with its status set by statute; Art. 81–82 (judicial power exercised by independent courts; judges independent); Art. 83–84 (the Constitutional Court as the judicial body responsible for the protection of constitutionality, fifteen Justices for ten-year terms); Art. 87 (its jurisdiction, including annulment of statutes and constitutional complaints); Art. 90 ("Only a court may decide upon guilt and determine the punishment"); Art. 91(1) ("The court system comprises the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, superior, regional, and district courts"); and Art. 92 (the Supreme Court as the highest court save for matters of the Constitutional Court or the Supreme Administrative Court). LATER ADDITION. Read from the same official text on the Chamber of Deputies' site, together with the Listina. Supports Ustava Ceske republiky (ustavni zakon c. 1/1993 Sb., as amended), Cl. 43(1) and Cl. 39(3): “Clanek 43 (1) Parlament rozhoduje o vyhlaseni valecneho stavu, je-li Ceska republika napadena, nebo je-li treba plnit mezinarodni smluvni zavazky o spolecne obrane proti napadeni. [Clanek 39] (3) K prijeti usneseni o vyhlaseni valecneho stavu a k prijeti usneseni o souhlasu s vyslanim ozbrojenych sil Ceske republiky mimo uzemi Ceske republiky nebo s pobytem ozbrojenych sil jinych statu na uzemi Ceske republiky, jakoz i k prijeti usneseni o ucasti Ceske republiky v obrannych systemech mezinarodni organizace, jiz je Ceska republika clenem, je treba souhlasu nadpolovicni vetsiny vsech poslancu a nadpolovicni vetsiny vsech senatoru.”. Supports Ustava Ceske republiky, Cl. 87(1)(a),(b),(d): “Clanek 87 (1) Ustavni soud rozhoduje a) o zruseni zakonu nebo jejich jednotlivych ustanoveni, jsou-li v rozporu s ustavnim poradkem, b) o zruseni jinych pravnich predpisu nebo jejich jednotlivych ustanoveni, jsou-li v rozporu s ustavnim poradkem nebo zakonem, [...] d) o ustavni stiznosti proti pravomocnemu rozhodnuti a jinemu zasahu organu verejne moci do ustavne zarucenych zakladnich prav a svobod,”. Supports Listina zakladnich prav a svobod (ustavni zakon c. 2/1993 Sb., as amended by ustavni zakon c. 162/1998 Sb. and c. 295/2021 Sb.), Cl. 4: “Clanek 4 (1) Povinnosti mohou byt ukladany toliko na zaklade zakona a v jeho mezich a jen pri zachovani zakladnich prav a svobod. (2) Meze zakladnich prav a svobod mohou byt za podminek stanovenych Listinou zakladnich prav a svobod (dale jen "Listina") upraveny pouze zakonem. (3) Zakonna omezeni zakladnich prav a svobod musi platit stejne pro vsechny pripady, ktere splnuji stanovene podminky. (4) Pri pouzivani ustanoveni o mezich zakladnich prav a svobod musi byt setreno jejich podstaty a smyslu. Takova omezeni nesmeji byt zneuzivana k jinym ucelum, nez pro ktere byla stanovena.”. Cited for the constitutional allocation of the war-state decision to Parliament, for the Constitutional Court's jurisdiction, and for the finding that the Czech Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms contains NO emergency derogation clause. It supports no claim about any measure taken during any Czech emergency and no claim about any other country.

Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms (Listina základních práv a svobod, Resolution No. 2/1993 Coll.) — official English translation

Ústavní soud (Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic) · Legislation · 1993-01-01 · link verified 2026-09-05

LATER ADDITION. A SEPARATE INSTRUMENT from the Constitution already held as `cz-constitution`: the Czech constitutional order comprises the Ústava and this Listina, and citing one for the other would be wrong. In the English translation published by the Constitutional Court. The Czech text is authoritative. Supports Listina Art. 4: "(1) Duties may be imposed only on the basis, and within the bounds, of law, and only while respecting the fundamental rights and freedoms. (2) Limitations may be placed upon the fundamental rights and freedoms only by law and under the conditions prescribed in this Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. (3) Any statutory limitation upon the fundamental rights and freedoms must apply in the same way to all cases which meet the specified conditions. (4) When employing the provisions concerning limitations upon the fundamental rights and freedoms, the essence and significance of these rights and freedoms must be preserved. Such limitations shall not be misused for purposes other than those for which they were enacted." Supports Art. 7(1): "The inviolability of the person and of her privacy is guaranteed. They may be limited only in cases provided for by law." Supports Art. 8(1)-(5), including: "(2) No one may be prosecuted or deprived of her liberty except on the grounds and in the manner specified by law."; "(3) [...] A person who is detained shall be immediately informed of the grounds for the detention, questioned, and within forty-eight hours at the latest, either released or turned over to a court. A judge must question the detained person and decide, within twenty-four hours of receiving her, whether the person shall be placed in custody or released."; "(4) A person accused of a criminal act may be arrested only on the basis of a warrant issued by a judge in writing and stating the grounds for the arrest."; "(5) Nobody may be placed in custody, except on the grounds and for the period of time laid down in a law, and only on the basis of a judicial decision." Supports Art. 10(2)-(3) (protection from unauthorized intrusion into private and family life; from unauthorized gathering, public revelation or other misuse of personal data). Supports Art. 12: "(1) A person’s dwelling is inviolable. It may not be entered without the permission of the person living there. (2) A dwelling may be searched only for the purposes of a criminal proceeding on the basis of a search warrant issued by a judge in writing and giving the reasons therefore. The manner in which a dwelling may be searched shall be specified by law. (3) Other encroachments upon the inviolability of a dwelling may be permitted by law only if such is necessary in a democratic society for the protection of the life or health of individuals, for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, or in order to avert a serious threat to public security and order." Supports Art. 13: "No one may violate the confidentiality of letters or the confidentiality of other papers or records, whether privately kept or sent by post or by some other means, except in the cases and in the manner designated by law. The confidentiality of communications sent by telephone, telegraph, or by other similar devices is guaranteed in the same way." Supports Art. 37(1)-(4): "(1) Everyone has the right to refuse to give testimony if she would thereby incriminate herself or a person close to her. (2) In proceedings before courts, other State bodies, or public administrative authorities, everyone shall have the right to legal assistance from the very beginning of such proceedings. (3) All parties to such proceedings are equal. (4) Anyone who declares that she does not speak the language in which a proceeding is being conducted has the right to the services of an interpreter." Supports Art. 38(1)-(2): "(1) No one may be removed from the jurisdiction of her lawful judge. [...] (2) Everyone has the right to have her case considered in public, without unnecessary delay, and in her presence, as well as to express her opinion on all of the admitted evidence. The public may be excluded only in cases specified by law." Supports Art. 40(2)-(4), including "(4) The accused has the right to refuse to give testimony; she may not be deprived of this right in any manner whatsoever." LIMITATIONS: this is constitutional text only. It records no decision of the Ústavní soud, no provision of the trestní řád, and nothing about how any provision is applied. It supports no claim about any other country.

Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

Government of South Africa (gov.za) · Legislation · 1996 · link verified 2026-07-27

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (in force 4 February 1997), fetched from the official gov.za chapters and schedules and confirmed verbatim in two independent passes. Supports s 1(c) and s 2 (constitutional supremacy — "This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic; law or conduct inconsistent with it is invalid"); s 165 (judicial authority vested in independent courts); s 166 (the courts: the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court of Appeal, the High Court and the Magistrates' Courts); s 167(3) (the Constitutional Court is "the highest court of the Republic", the apex for all matters since the Seventeenth Amendment); s 178 (the Judicial Service Commission); s 179 (a "single national prosecuting authority", headed by the National Director appointed by the President, exercising its functions without fear, favour or prejudice, with the Justice Minister exercising "final responsibility"); s 181 (the Chapter 9 institutions — the Public Protector, the Human Rights Commission and others); s 205–207 (a single national police service, the Minister determining national policing policy, the National Commissioner controlling the service, provinces limited to oversight); and Schedules 4 and 5 (which contain no provincial competence over courts, prosecution, prisons or criminal law, only police "to the extent that Chapter 11 confers"). Establishes constitutional supremacy and that all four justice functions are national. LATER ADDITION, read from the clean digital text published by the Department of Justice at justice.gov.za and corroborated against the gov.za chapter pages: s 9(1) Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law; s 33(1) Everyone has the right to administrative action that is lawful, reasonable and procedurally fair, s 33(2) written reasons where rights have been adversely affected, s 33(3) national legislation providing for review by a court or independent and impartial tribunal; s 34 Everyone has the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair public hearing before a court or, where appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or forum; s 35(2)(b) the right of a detained person to choose and consult a legal practitioner, s 35(2)(c) the right to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, s 35(2)(d) to challenge the lawfulness of the detention before a court, and s 35(2)(e) to conditions of detention consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment. ACCESS NOTE: the scanned gazette PDF at gov.za/sites/default/files/images/a108-96.pdf is an OCR with visible corruption and was rejected as a source; nothing is quoted from it. LATER ADDITION, read from the same Department of Justice chapter text: s 35(3)(f) the right of every accused person to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly; s 35(3)(g) to have a legal practitioner assigned by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly; s 35(3)(k) “to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language”; and s 35(4) that whenever the section requires information to be given to a person, that information must be given in a language that the person understands. LATER ADDITION, read from the same Department of Justice chapter text: s 35(5) in full — "Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice." As with the Kenyan provision, exclusion is conditional on the effect of admission rather than automatic on the violation. Also read directly from the same chapter text, the whole of s 35(2)(d) and its chapeau: "Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right u2014 u2026 (d) to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released". Three features of that provision are cited on this platform and each is in the text itself: that the right extends to sentenced prisoners, that the challenge is made in person before a court, and that release is the stated remedy. The provision states no procedure for bringing such a challenge and no time limit, and this record supports no claim about either. LATER ADDITION. Read from the same Department of Justice chapter text. Section 37 is the most fully specified emergency clause read for this platform, and its detail is the finding. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(1): “37. (1) A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament, and only when— (a) the life of the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and (b) the declaration is necessary to restore peace and order.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(2)(b): “The Assembly may extend a declaration of a state of emergency for no more than three months at a time. The first extension of the state of emergency must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of a majority of the members of the Assembly. Any subsequent extension must be by a resolution adopted with a supporting vote of at least 60 per cent of the members of the Assembly. A resolution in terms of this paragraph may be adopted only following a public debate in the Assembly.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(3): “(3) Any competent court may decide on the validity of— (a) a declaration of a state of emergency; (b) any extension of a declaration of a state of emergency; or (c) any legislation enacted, or other action taken, in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(4): “(4) Any legislation enacted in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency may derogate from the Bill of Rights only to the extent that— (a) the derogation is strictly required by the emergency; and (b) the legislation— (i) is consistent with the Republic’s obligations under international law applicable to states of emergency; (ii) conforms to subsection (5); and (iii) is published in the national Government Gazette as soon as reasonably possible after being enacted.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(5) and the Table of Non-Derogable Rights: “(5) No Act of Parliament that authorises a declaration of a state of emergency, and no legislation enacted or other action taken in consequence of a declaration, may permit or authorise— (a) indemnifying the state, or any person, in respect of any unlawful act; (b) any derogation from this section; or (c) any derogation from a section mentioned in column 1 of the Table of Non-Derogable Rights, to the extent indicated opposite that section in column 3 of the Table. Table of Non-Derogable Rights [1 Section number | 2 Section title | 3 Extent to which the right is protected] 9 | Equality | With respect to unfair discrimination solely on the grounds of race, colour, ethnic or social origin, sex, religion or language. 10 | Human Dignity | Entirely 11 | Life | Entirely 12 | Freedom and Security of the person | With respect to subsections (1)(d) and (e) and (2)(c). 13 | Slavery, servitude and forced labour | With respect to slavery and servitude 28 | Children | With respect to: – subsection (1)(d) and (e); – the rights in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (1)(g); and – subsection 1(i) in respect of children of 15 years and younger. 35 | Arrested, detained and accused persons | With respect to: – subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c) and (2)(d); – the rights in paragraphs (a) to (o) of subsection (3), excluding paragraph (d) – subsection (4); and – subsection (5) with respect to the exclusion of evidence if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.37(6)-(8): “(6) Whenever anyone is detained without trial in consequence of a derogation of rights resulting from a declaration of a state of emergency, the following conditions must be observed: (a) An adult family member or friend of the detainee must be contacted as soon as reasonably possible, and informed that the person has been detained. (b) A notice must be published in the national Government Gazette within five days of the person being detained, stating the detainee’s name and place of detention and referring to the emergency measure in terms of which that person has been detained. (c) The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a medical practitioner. (d) The detainee must be allowed to choose, and be visited at any reasonable time by, a legal representative. (e) A court must review the detention as soon as reasonably possible, but no later than 10 days after the date the person was detained, and the court must release the detainee unless it is necessary to continue the detention to restore peace and order. ... (7) If a court releases a detainee, that person may not be detained again on the same grounds unless the state first shows a court good cause for re-detaining that person. (8) Subsections (6) and (7) do not apply to persons who are not South African citizens and who are detained in consequence of an international armed conflict. Instead, the state must comply with the standards binding on the Republic under international humanitarian law in respect of the detention of such persons.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.36: “36. (1) The rights in the Bill of Rights may be limited only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including— (a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose. (2) Except as provided in subsection (1) or in any other provision of the Constitution, no law may limit any right entrenched in the Bill of Rights.”. Supports Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s.201; cf. ss.198(d), 199(6): “201. (1) A member of the Cabinet must be responsible for defence. (2) Only the President, as head of the national executive, may authorise the employment of the defence force— (a) in co-operation with the police service; (b) in defence of the Republic; or (c) in fulfilment of an international obligation. (3) When the defence force is employed for any purpose mentioned in subsection (2), the President must inform Parliament, promptly and in appropriate detail, of— (a) the reasons for the employment of the defence force; (b) any place where the force is being employed; (c) the number of people involved; and (d) the period for which the force is expected to be employed. (4) If Parliament does not sit during the first seven days after the defence force is employed as envisaged in subsection (2), the President must provide the information required in subsection (3) to the appropriate oversight committee.”. Cited for prospective-only effect, the twenty-one-day limit and the escalating extension majorities, validity review by any competent court, the strictly-required test, the Table of Non-Derogable Rights, the absolute bar on indemnifying unlawful acts, and the conditions on detention without trial. It records no state of emergency ever declared under this Constitution and supports no claim about any other country.LATER ADDITION. Chapter 2 (Bill of Rights) read from the South African Government's own published text at gov.za. Supports s. 12(1)-(2) (freedom and security of the person, including not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause, not to be detained without trial, freedom from all forms of violence from either public or private sources, and not to be tortured or treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way; and bodily and psychological integrity, including security in and control over one's body and freedom from medical or scientific experiments without informed consent). Supports s. 14 verbatim: “Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have — (a) their person or home searched; (b) their property searched; (c) their possessions seized; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed.” Note what this provision does NOT contain, which the page relying on it states: no warrant requirement and no authorisation rule of any kind. Supports s. 35(1) (rights of arrested persons, including (a) to remain silent; (b) to be informed promptly of the right to remain silent AND of the consequences of not remaining silent; (c) not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence; (d) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible but not later than 48 hours after arrest, or the end of the first court day after the 48 hours expire outside ordinary court hours or on a non-court day; (e) and (f)). Supports s. 35(2) (rights of detained persons, including prompt information of the reason, choice of and consultation with a legal practitioner and prompt information of that right, state-assigned counsel where substantial injustice would otherwise result, and the right to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and be released if it is unlawful). Supports s. 35(3) (fair-trial rights, including (a) to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it; (b) adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence; (c) a public trial before an ordinary court; (h) to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings; (i) to adduce and challenge evidence; (j) not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence; (k) to be tried in a language the accused understands or to have the proceedings interpreted). Supports s. 36(1)-(2), the general limitation clause: rights may be limited “only in terms of law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including — (a) the nature of the right; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the relation between the limitation and its purpose; and (e) less restrictive means to achieve the purpose”, and that except as provided in s. 36(1) or elsewhere in the Constitution, no law may limit any entrenched right. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that ss. 12, 14 and 35 are worded “Everyone” while political rights under s. 19 are for “every citizen”. Constitutional text only: no Constitutional Court decision, no statute, and nothing about any other country.

Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998

United Nations (Office of Legal Affairs) · International organisation · 1998 · link verified 2026-07-23

Supports the existence, constitution, and jurisdictional limits of the International Criminal Court, including its complementarity to national jurisdictions. Does not support claims about the Court's effectiveness or about states that are not party to it.

Law of 7 December 1998 organising an integrated police service, structured on two levels (consolidated, Justel)

Belgium — Federal Public Service Justice (ejustice.just.fgov.be / Moniteur belge) · Legislation · 1998-12-07 · link verified 2026-09-19

The official consolidated French text on the Justel database. Verbatim: the title "Loi organisant un service de police intégré, structuré à deux niveaux" (Law organising an integrated police service, structured on two levels), and the operative wording that the police are "structurés à deux niveaux : le niveau fédéral et le niveau local, lesquels assurent ensemble la fonction de police intégrée" (structured on two levels — the federal level and the local level — which together provide the integrated police function). The law also modifies the earlier law on the gendarmerie, confirming that this reform merged the former forces into the integrated service. Establishes the two-level (federal + local) integrated-police structure and its statutory basis; the internal directorates of the Federal Police were NOT verified (its own website was unreachable). LATER ADDITION, read on 2026-10-10: art. 102 gives the federal judicial police "la police technique et scientifique, sans préjudice des attributions de l'Institut National de Criminalistique et de Criminologie" — the forensic police function, without prejudice to the attributions of the national forensic institute. LATER ADDITION, read on 2026-10-10 for the border module: art. 3, "Les services de police sont organisés et structurés à deux niveaux : le niveau fédéral et le niveau local, lesquels assurent ensemble la fonction de police intégrée."; and art. 97, that "Pour l'accomplissement de ses missions de police administrative, la police fédérale est placée sous l'autorité du ministre de l'Intérieur", and that for its administrative-police missions "dans la mer territoriale belge, la zone économique exclusive et sur le plateau continental, sous l'autorité du gouverneur de la province de Flandre occidentale".

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). LATER 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.LATER 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.

Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (text predating the Third Alteration Act 2010)

National Human Rights Commission of Nigeria (official text host) · Legislation · 1999 · link verified 2026-10-10

The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as published by the National Human Rights Commission. This copy predates the Third Alteration Act 2010: its section 6(5) does not list the National Industrial Court, which that Act added, and its Second Schedule still lists "Prisons" as Exclusive List item 48, which the Fifth Alteration (No. 15) Act 2023 deleted. It is cited for the provisions it states, not as the current text, and no consolidated official text was found. Supports: s 4 and the Second Schedule (the division of legislative power — the Exclusive Legislative List for the Federation, the Concurrent List for both, and residual matters for the States under s 4(7)); Exclusive List item 45 and s 214(1) ("There shall be a police force for Nigeria, which shall be known as the Nigeria Police Force, and subject to the provisions of this section no other police force shall be established for the Federation or any part thereof" — a single national police); s 6(5) as enacted (the superior courts of record — the federal Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, Federal High Court and FCT High Court, and the State High Courts, Sharia Courts of Appeal and Customary Courts of Appeal; the National Industrial Court was added in 2010); s 230/233/235 (the Supreme Court as apex, its decisions final); s 237 (the Court of Appeal); s 275/280 (State Sharia and Customary Courts of Appeal, headed by a Grand Kadi); s 150/174 (the Attorney-General of the Federation, a Minister and Chief Law Officer, with power to institute, take over or discontinue federal prosecutions) and s 195/211 (each State Attorney-General with the mirror power for state offences); s 215 (the Inspector-General commanding the Nigeria Police Force, with the President's lawful-directions power); s 153 and the Third Schedule (the National Judicial Council, the Police Service Commission and the Nigeria Police Council); and s 81(3)/292 (judicial funding through the NJC and security of tenure). Exclusive List item 48 ("Prisons") is cited only as the position before 3 March 2023. Each provision cited here was re-read in this copy on 10 October 2026 and checked against every alteration Act found: the First, Second and Third Alteration Acts 2010, read; the five Fourth Alteration Acts of 2017–2018, by their titles only (state legislative and judicial finance, political parties and elections, re-election after completing a term, pre-election matters, and minimum ages); and the seventeen Fifth Alteration Acts of 2023, by their titles, with Nos. 6, 9, 12, 15 and 23 read. Two cited provisions changed, as stated above: s 6(5), to which the Third Alteration added the National Industrial Court, and Exclusive List item 48, which the Fifth Alteration (No. 15) deleted. Four were reworded, and what is cited from them still holds: s 81(3), which the First Alteration substituted to add the electoral commission and the National Assembly while still paying the judiciary’s share to the National Judicial Council for disbursement; s 233, which the Second Alteration substituted while keeping the Supreme Court’s exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Court of Appeal; and s 292 and the National Judicial Council’s paragraphs of the Third Schedule, to which the Third Alteration added the National Industrial Court. No other provision cited here was altered by any of those Acts. A Constitution (Sixth Alteration) Bill 2026, which would provide for state police, had been sent to the State Houses of Assembly and was not law when checked. Establishes that Nigeria is a federation in which the police are federal, while courts, prosecution and (residually) criminal law operate at both the federal and state levels.

Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police (UU 2/2002), Pasal 8

Pemerintah Republik Indonesia (via the official legal-database hosts) · Legislation · 2002 · link verified 2026-07-27

Law No. 2 of 2002 on the Indonesian National Police, Pasal 8, confirmed verbatim in two independent passes. Supports Pasal 8(1) — "Kepolisian Negara Republik Indonesia berada di bawah Presiden" (the Indonesian National Police is under the President) — and Pasal 8(2) (the Chief of Police, Kapolri, is responsible to the President). Establishes that POLRI is a single national force reporting directly to the President rather than to a ministry.

Garda Síochána Act 2005

Houses of the Oireachtas (Irish Statute Book) · Legislation · 2005 · link verified 2026-09-19

THIS RECORD WAS RE-READ AND RE-ADDRESSED. It previously cited the enacted-text address and described the content as read through a web search service’s copy of the page. That address now serves, but what it serves is the Act's landing page, and none of the propositions below was readable there. The Statute Book's own onward link goes to the Law Reform Commission's REVISED (consolidated) text, which is the address now cited and which carries them. THE ORIGIN FACTS ARE NOT IN THE ACT: that the Civic Guard was formed in 1922 and renamed in 1923 comes from An Garda Síochána's own history page and is attributed there, not here. Supports: that An Garda Síochána is the national police service governed by the Garda Síochána Act 2005; that its statutory function is to provide policing and security services to the State;. Supports the unitary national character of the force; it does not support any operational detail. Stated as sourced facts.

Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (StPO / CPP / CPP) of 5 October 2007 (SR 312.0)

Swiss Confederation — Fedlex (fedlex.admin.ch) · Legislation · 2007-10-05 · link verified 2026-07-26

The unified federal Criminal Procedure Code (equally authentic in German, French and Italian; English is a reference translation). In force since 1 January 2011, it replaced the former 26 separate cantonal codes of criminal procedure. Supports art. 1 (it governs prosecution and adjudication by the federal AND cantonal criminal-justice authorities of offences under federal law) and art. 22 (the cantonal criminal authorities prosecute and judge federal criminal offences, subject to the legal exceptions) — the basis for prosecution being cantonal by default. Its enactment on the basis of Constitution art. 123 para 1 illustrates federal law, cantonal administration.

LOI n° 2007-1545 du 30 octobre 2007 instituant un Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté

République française (Légifrance) · Legislation · 2007-10-30 · link verified 2026-08-10

Supports that the Contrôleur général des lieux de privation de liberté is an 'autorité indépendante' charged, without prejudice to the powers of the judicial authorities, with verifying the conditions in which persons deprived of liberty are held and transferred and ensuring respect for their fundamental rights; that he may visit 'à tout moment' any place where persons are deprived of their liberty by decision of a public authority, the statute using that general formula rather than an enumerated list, and that authorities may oppose a visit only for grave reasons which they must justify while proposing a postponement; that any natural person may bring facts to his attention, alongside the Prime Minister, members of the government, parliamentarians and other named authorities, and that he may act on his own initiative; and that he issues avis and recommendations, may propose changes to legislation and regulation, and publishes an annual activity report. The text confers NO power to impose a sanction.

Constitution of Kenya, 2010

National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law), for the Republic of Kenya · Legislation · 2010 · link verified 2026-07-27

The Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (in force 27 August 2010), retrieved as the full official Kenya Law (National Council for Law Reporting) text and confirmed verbatim in two independent passes, including a direct read of the Fourth Schedule. Supports: Art. 1–2 (sovereignty of the people; the Constitution is supreme and any inconsistent law void); Art. 59 (the Kenya National Human Rights and Equality Commission, and 59(4) allowing legislation to restructure it into separate commissions — the hook for the KNCHR/NGEC/CAJ split, and 59(2)(h) the ombudsman-type function); Art. 156 (the Attorney-General as principal legal adviser, who does not conduct criminal prosecutions); Art. 157 (the Director of Public Prosecutions — 157(4) power to direct the Inspector-General to investigate; 157(5) a single non-renewable eight-year term; 157(10) not requiring any person's consent and not under the direction or control of any person or authority); Art. 160 (judicial independence — courts subject only to the Constitution and the law); Art. 162–163 (the superior courts and the Supreme Court as apex, bound-by rule 163(7)); Art. 165 (the High Court — 165(3)(a) unlimited original jurisdiction, 165(3)(d) jurisdiction to determine whether any law is inconsistent with the Constitution — diffuse constitutional review); Art. 170 (the Kadhis' courts, limited to Muslim personal-status matters where all parties profess Islam); Art. 171–172 (the Judicial Service Commission); Art. 243–246 (the National Police Service as one national service throughout Kenya, the two services, the Inspector-General's independent command under 245(2)(b), the direction firewall under 245(4), and the National Police Service Commission); and the Fourth Schedule Part 1 items 7 (police services, criminal law and correctional services) and 8 (courts), which place all four justice functions in the national government. Establishes constitutional supremacy and that, despite devolution to 47 counties, courts, prosecution, police and prisons are all national functions. LATER ADDITION, read from the same official Kenya Law text: Art. 50(4) in full — "Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights shall be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair, or would otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice." Note the conditional structure: exclusion follows from a judgment about the effect of admitting the evidence, not automatically from the fact of the violation. LATER ADDITION. Read from the same official Kenya Law text. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(1): “58. State of emergency (1) A state of emergency may be declared only under Article 132 (4) (d) and only when— (a) the State is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and (b) the declaration is necessary to meet the circumstances for which the emergency is declared.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 132(4)(d)-(e): “132. Functions of the President ... (4) The President may— (a) perform any other executive function provided for in this Constitution or in national legislation ...; (b) receive foreign diplomatic and consular representatives; (c) confer honours in the name of the people and the Republic; (d) subject to Article 58, declare a state of emergency; and (e) with the approval of Parliament, declare war.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(2)-(3): “(2) A declaration of a state of emergency, and any legislation enacted or other action taken in consequence of the declaration, shall be effective only— (a) prospectively; and (b) for not longer than fourteen days from the date of the declaration, unless the National Assembly resolves to extend the declaration. (3) The National Assembly may extend a declaration of a state of emergency— ... (b) for not longer than two months at a time.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(3)-(4): “(3) The National Assembly may extend a declaration of a state of emergency— (a) by resolution adopted— (i) following a public debate in the National Assembly; and (ii) by the majorities specified in clause (4); and (b) for not longer than two months at a time. (4) The first extension of the declaration of a state of emergency requires a supporting vote of at least two-thirds of all the members of the National Assembly, and any subsequent extension requires a supporting vote of at least three-quarters of all the members of the National Assembly.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(5): “(5) The Supreme Court may decide on the validity of— (a) a declaration of a state of emergency; (b) any extension of a declaration of a state of emergency; and (c) any legislation enacted, or other action taken, in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency.”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 58(6): “(6) Any legislation enacted in consequence of a declaration of a state of emergency— (a) may limit a right or fundamental freedom in the Bill of Rights only to the extent that— (i) the limitation is strictly required by the emergency; and (ii) the legislation is consistent with the Republic’s obligations under international law applicable to a state of emergency; and (b) shall not take effect until it is published in the Gazette .”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 25: “25. Fundamental Rights and freedoms that may not be limited Despite any other provision in this Constitution, the following rights and fundamental freedoms shall not be limited— (a) freedom from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; (b) freedom from slavery or servitude; (c) the right to a fair trial; and (d) the right to an order of habeas corpus .”. Supports Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Article 241(3); cf. Article 240(8): “(3) The Kenya Defence Forces— (a) are responsible for the defence and protection of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic; (b) shall assist and cooperate with other authorities in situations of emergency or disaster, and report to the National Assembly whenever deployed in such circumstances; and (c) may be deployed to restore peace in any part of Kenya affected by unrest or instability only with the approval of the National Assembly.”. CORRECTION TO A COMMON MISSTATEMENT, verified against the text: the escalating extension thresholds in Article 58(3) are TWO-THIRDS and then THREE-QUARTERS of all the members of the National Assembly, not two-thirds and then sixty-five per cent. Note also that Article 58(6) speaks of LIMITING a right rather than derogating from one, and that Article 25 lists rights that “shall not be limited” at all. This record supports the declaration, extension, review and limitation architecture; it records no state of emergency and supports no claim about any other country.LATER ADDITION. Read from the same Kenya Law text, Chapter Four article by article. Supports Art. 24(1), the limitation clause: a right shall not be limited “except by law, and then only to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity, equality and freedom, taking into account all relevant factors, including — (a) the nature of the right or fundamental freedom; (b) the importance of the purpose of the limitation; (c) the nature and extent of the limitation; (d) the need to ensure that the enjoyment of rights and fundamental freedoms by any individual does not prejudice the rights and fundamental freedoms of others; and (e) the relation between the limitation and its purpose and whether there are less restrictive means to achieve the purpose.” Supports Art. 24(2), which is the provision that distinguishes Kenya's clause from South Africa's: a limiting provision enacted or amended on or after the effective date “is not valid unless the legislation specifically expresses the intention to limit that right or fundamental freedom, and the nature and extent of the limitation” (24(2)(a)); shall not be construed as limiting unless clear and specific (24(2)(b)); and “shall not limit the right or fundamental freedom so far as to derogate from its core or essential content” (24(2)(c)). Supports Art. 24(3): “The State or a person seeking to justify a particular limitation shall demonstrate to the court, tribunal or other authority that the requirements of this Article have been satisfied.” Supports Art. 24(5), that legislation may limit the application of Arts. 31, 36, 37, 41, 43 and 49 to persons serving in the Kenya Defence Forces or the National Police Service. Supports Art. 27(1): “Every person is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit of the law.” Supports Art. 31 verbatim: “Every person has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have — (a) their person, home or property searched; (b) their possessions seized; (c) information relating to their family or private affairs unnecessarily required or revealed; or (d) the privacy of their communications infringed.” Supports Art. 49(1), rights of arrested persons, including (a) to be informed promptly, in a language the person understands, of the reason for the arrest, the right to remain silent, and the consequences of not remaining silent; (b) to remain silent; (c) to communicate with an advocate and other persons whose assistance is necessary; (d) not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence; (f) to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible but not later than 24 hours after being arrested, or the end of the next court day where the 24 hours end outside ordinary court hours; and (h) to be released on bond or bail on reasonable conditions unless there are compelling reasons not to be. Supports Art. 50(1), the right of every person to have a dispute resolvable by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or, if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body. Supports the RIGHTS-HOLDER observation that these provisions are worded “Every person” and “An arrested person”. Constitutional text only — no decision of the Kenyan courts, no statute, nothing about any other country.

Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act 1 of 2011 (South Africa)

Government of South Africa (gov.za) · Legislation · 2011 · link verified 2026-07-27

The Independent Police Investigative Directorate Act 1 of 2011 (commenced 1 April 2012), from gov.za. Supports the establishment of the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (IPID) as the independent body that investigates certain serious matters involving the police — deaths in custody or as a result of police action, the discharge of official firearms, and allegations of torture, assault or corruption by police officers. Establishes the external police-complaints/investigation body.

Independent Policing Oversight Authority Act (Cap. 86), Laws of Kenya

National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law) · Legislation · 2011-12-09 · link verified 2026-08-25

The consolidated Act as revised by the 24th Annual Supplement (Legal Notice 221 of 2023) as at 31 December 2022, read in full. Now cited as Cap. 86; originally Act No. 35 of 2011, assented 11 November 2011, commenced 18 November 2011. Supports: that the long title provides for "civilian oversight of the work of the Police"; the objectives in § 5; that the Authority investigates complaints of disciplinary or criminal offences by any member of the Service on its own motion or on complaint and makes recommendations including for prosecution, compensation and internal disciplinary action, and must make public the response received (§ 6(a)); that it receives complaints BY members of the Service (§ 6(b)); that it monitors, reviews and audits investigations by the Internal Affairs Unit of the Service (§ 6(d)); that it conducts inspections of police premises including detention facilities (§ 6(e)); that it reviews patterns of misconduct and the functioning of the internal disciplinary process (§ 6(g)); that it publishes findings (§ 6(j)); the investigative powers including requisition, entry, seizure, statements under oath and compelling attendance of serving or retired officers (§ 7(1)(a)); that it RECOMMENDS prosecution to the Director of Public Prosecutions (§ 7(1)(a)(ix)); that it may take over inordinately delayed or manifestly unreasonable internal investigations (§ 7(1)(b)); that it may require the DPP and the Service to respond to recommendations (§ 7(1)(d)-(e)); that it must investigate deaths and serious injuries resulting from police action (§ 25); that it may NOT investigate a matter before a court or judicial tribunal (§ 26); and that after investigation it recommends prosecution, disciplinary action or procedural improvement (§ 29). It establishes that the Authority neither prosecutes nor disciplines.

Zákon č. 341/2011 Sb., o Generální inspekci bezpečnostních sborů a o změně souvisejících zákonů (e-Sbírka, version in force from 1 January 2026)

Česká republika — Sbírka zákonů (e-Sbírka, Ministerstvo vnitra) · Legislation · 2011-11-23 · link verified 2026-10-10

SCOPE: what the inspection is, whom it investigates and what the Act lets the public do — nothing about any case. The official Collection of Laws, version in force from 1 January 2026 to 31 December 2026, read from the publisher’s own document service. This replaces an unofficial consolidation (zakonyprolidi.cz) cited earlier. Supports § 1(1), that the inspection is established as a body "která je ozbrojeným bezpečnostním sborem" — an armed security force; § 1(2), that its director is appointed and removed by the prime minister on the government’s proposal after discussion in the Chamber of Deputies’ committee for security, and is answerable to the prime minister; § 1(4), that it is an organisational unit of the state whose income and expenditure form a separate chapter of the state budget; § 2(1), that its task is to search out, detect and check facts indicating a crime by an officer of the Police of the Czech Republic, a customs officer or an officer of the Prison Service, by its own members, by state employees working in the police or in the inspection, and by state employees working in the Customs Administration or the Prison Service where the offence relates to their work; § 2(2), that it investigates crimes by those officers and employees — but not by its own members or staff; § 2(3), that it conducts reliability tests; § 2(4)-(5), that it monitors unlawful activity, proposes preventive measures and issues methodological recommendations; §§ 10-11 and 23-27, that it may restrict personal liberty, hold a person for up to 24 hours and use coercive means and weapons; and § 56, that the Act provides no complaint procedure, only an alert: anyone may alert the inspection, which "musí upozornění přijmout" and, if the person asks, tells them within 30 days what measures were taken; about officers of other forces the alert covers only conduct bearing the features of a CRIMINAL offence, while about the inspection’s own members and staff it extends to administrative and disciplinary offences; and a person affected by the inspection’s own staff may ask a superior to review how an alert was handled. Nothing in the Act gives the inspection a disciplinary power over the forces it investigates, or a power to bring a case to court. § 72, which amended the Criminal Procedure Code, made the inspection the police authority in proceedings on crimes by officers of those forces — the authority that opens their criminal prosecution, and that must deliver a copy of that resolution to the head of the officer’s force — and gave the investigation of crimes by its own members to the state prosecutor. The transitional provisions (§§ 69-71) support that the inspection took over the property, the staff — its police officers unless either side declined — and the unfinished criminal proceedings of the Inspekce Policie České republiky, which sat within the Ministry of the Interior. Every provision relied on here reads identically in the versions the same service lists as taking effect on 1 January 2027 and 1 July 2027 (compared on 2026-10-10).

The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules)

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime · International organisation · 2015 · link verified 2026-07-23

Supports the internationally agreed minimum standards for the treatment of people in detention, including the requirement of independent inspection of prisons. Standards, not a description of conditions in any particular prison system. LATER ADDITION, read from the UNODC's published text of the Rules. Supports Rule 83(1): "There shall be a twofold system for regular inspections of prisons and penal services: (a) Internal or administrative inspections conducted by the central prison administration; (b) External inspections conducted by a body independent of the prison administration, which may include competent international or regional bodies"; and Rule 83(2): that in both cases the objective is to ensure prisons are managed in accordance with existing laws, regulations, policies and procedures, with a view to bringing about the objectives of penal and corrections services, and that the rights of prisoners are protected. Supports Rule 84(1): inspectors shall have authority to access all information on the numbers of prisoners and places and locations of detention and all information relevant to the treatment of prisoners including their records and conditions of detention; "to freely choose which prisons to visit, including by making unannounced visits at their own initiative, and which prisoners to interview"; to conduct private and fully confidential interviews with prisoners and prison staff; and to make recommendations to the prison administration and other competent authorities. Supports Rule 84(2): external inspection teams shall be composed of qualified and experienced inspectors appointed by a competent authority and shall encompass health-care professionals, with due regard to balanced gender representation. Supports Rule 85(1): every inspection shall be followed by a written report to the competent authority, with due consideration given to making external inspection reports publicly available excluding personal data unless the prisoner has given explicit consent; and Rule 85(2): the administration or other competent authorities shall indicate within a reasonable time whether they will implement the recommendations. Supports Rule 54: on admission every prisoner shall be promptly provided with written information about the prison law and regulations, their rights including authorized methods of seeking information and access to legal advice and procedures for making requests or complaints, their obligations including applicable disciplinary sanctions, and all other matters necessary to adapt to prison life; and Rule 55: that this information shall be available in the most commonly used languages, with interpretation assistance where the prisoner understands none of them, conveyed orally to an illiterate prisoner, and provided appropriately to prisoners with sensory disabilities. Supports Rule 56: every prisoner shall have the opportunity each day to make requests or complaints to the prison director or an authorized staff member; that it shall be possible to make them to the inspector of prisons during inspections, with the opportunity to talk to the inspector "freely and in full confidentiality, without the director or other members of the staff being present"; that every prisoner shall be allowed to make a request or complaint regarding their treatment "without censorship as to substance" to the central prison administration and to the judicial or other competent authorities including those vested with reviewing or remedial power; and that these rights extend to the prisoner's legal adviser and, failing that, to a family member or other person with knowledge of the case. Supports Rule 57: every request or complaint shall be promptly dealt with and replied to without delay, and if rejected or unduly delayed the complainant shall be entitled to bring it before a judicial or other authority; that safeguards shall ensure requests can be made safely and confidentially where requested, and that a complainant "must not be exposed to any risk of retaliation, intimidation or other negative consequences"; and that allegations of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment shall be dealt with immediately and result in a prompt and impartial investigation by an independent national authority. Supports Rule 87: that before the completion of the sentence it is desirable that the necessary steps be taken to ensure for the prisoner a gradual return to life in society.

Law of 28 January 2016 — Law on the Prosecutor's Office (Prawo o prokuraturze), consolidated

Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (ISAP / ELI legal-acts service) · Legislation · 2016-01-28 · link verified 2026-07-26

The consolidated Law on the Prosecutor's Office (Dz.U. 2016 poz. 177), fetched from the Sejm's official ELI service and confirmed verbatim. Supports Art. 1 § 2 — "Prokurator Generalny jest naczelnym organem prokuratury. Urząd Prokuratora Generalnego sprawuje Minister Sprawiedliwości" (the Prosecutor-General is the supreme organ of the prosecution; the office of Prosecutor-General is held by the Minister of Justice) — establishing that the head of the prosecution service is, by statute, the Minister of Justice (a personal union), and that the Prosecutor-General directs the prosecution and is the superior of the prosecutors, assisted by the National Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy). The 1997 Constitution contains no dedicated provision establishing the prosecution; its basis is statutory.

Law of 8 December 2017 amending the Law on the National Council of the Judiciary, consolidated

Sejm Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej (ISAP / ELI legal-acts service) · Legislation · 2017-12-08 · link verified 2026-07-26

The amending law of 8 December 2017 (Dz.U. 2018 poz. 3), fetched from the Sejm's official ELI service (status: in force) and confirmed verbatim. Supports the new Art. 9a — "Sejm wybiera spośród sędziów Sądu Najwyższego, sądów powszechnych, sądów administracyjnych i sądów wojskowych piętnastu członków Rady na wspólną czteroletnią kadencję" (the Sejm elects fifteen members of the National Council of the Judiciary from among the judges of the Supreme Court, the common, administrative and military courts, for a joint four-year term). Cited, factually and neutrally, to record that the selection method for the fifteen judicial members of the Council was changed so that they are elected by the Sejm, whereas under the original 2011 Law on the National Council of the Judiciary (Dz.U. 2011 nr 126 poz. 714) they were elected by assemblies of judges.

Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 (No. 1 of 2024)

Office of the Attorney General (Ireland), Irish Statute Book · Legislation · 2024 · link verified 2026-08-25

The Act as enacted, read for its structure and for Parts 4 and 6. Supports: that Part 6 gives the Police Ombudsman functions on complaints by members of the public (§ 195), admissibility (§ 198-199), categories of complaint suitable for resolution by An Garda Síochána (§§ 200-202), matters concerning death or serious harm (§ 203), notification of an incident of concern (§ 204), investigation in the public interest (§ 205) and of matters relating to the Garda Commissioner (§ 207), investigations (§ 208) with powers equivalent to a member of An Garda Síochána (§ 209), search of Garda premises (§ 210), referral to the Director of Public Prosecutions (§ 214) and other referrals following investigation (§ 215); that Part 4 establishes the Authority (§§ 120-122) and gives it, in Chapter 4, inspectors of policing services and a statutory inspection function (§§ 142-151); and that the Act dissolves the Policing Authority (§ 154, Chapter 6) and the Garda Síochána Inspectorate (§ 163, Chapter 7). Establishes that the Ombudsman neither prosecutes nor disciplines, that not every admissible complaint is investigated by it, and that two predecessor oversight bodies were dissolved into the new Authority.

Minister for Justice commences the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024

Government of Ireland (gov.ie) · Government publication · 2025-04-02 · link verified 2026-07-25

Official content of gov.ie, read through a web search service’s copy of the page rather than directly, because the site refuses direct automated requests; corroborated by fiosru.ie. Supports: that the Policing, Security and Community Safety Act 2024 was commenced on 2 April 2025; that it reconstituted GSOC as Fiosrú (Office of the Police Ombudsman); and that it established the Policing and Community Safety Authority (PCSA), dissolving the Policing Authority and the Garda Síochána Inspectorate and merging their oversight and inspection functions into the PCSA. Supports the current/historical status of the oversight bodies and the transition date. Stated as sourced facts.

Decree reforming the Constitution on the Judicial Power (judicial reform), DOF 15 September 2024

Diario Oficial de la Federación (Mexico) · Legislation · 2024-09-15 · link verified 2026-07-27

The official gazette (Diario Oficial de la Federación) publication of the 2024 constitutional decree "en materia de reforma del Poder Judicial", read directly and re-confirmed. Cited, with its date, for the enacted facts of the judicial reform: judges of the Supreme Court, circuit magistrates and district judges are to be "elegidos de manera libre, directa y secreta por la ciudadanía" (Art. 96); the model is imposed on the state judiciaries, which must provide for election by direct citizen vote and create a Judicial Discipline Tribunal and a judicial-administration body (Art. 116-III); and the Supreme Court is reduced to nine Ministers with the Council of the Federal Judiciary replaced by the two new bodies (Art. 94). Recorded neutrally as enacted law with its date; assessments of the reform are attributed separately to the IACHR and the OAS observation mission.