35 duel as a privilege until the fifteenth century.The central authority had to strive to keep both the seigniorial courts and the local authorities of the crown on a leash." In the consolidation and spreading of Roman-canon procedure, the central appellate court of France, the Parlement de Paris, played an important role. Owing to its strong authority, and through jurists from other parts of the country who argued their cases before the court, the doctrines followed by the Parlement de Paris and its practices were disseminated effectively throughout the country.'- Offering more satisfying solutions to the needs of the centralizing royal power, the learned ius commune pushed the old and inefficient customary law out of its way. Obviously, the legal theory of proof seemed to serve well the interest of the centralizing royal power aiming at an efficient, predictable legal system. The French criminal systemshowed signs of a professional attitude and efficiency at a very early stage. J. H. Shennan describes the proceedings in the Parleynent de Pans in the 1200s as follows. After having appeared in court after the summons, the accused was interrogated by the judge. The proceedings were secret, and the accused was allowed no defending counsel. He was not informed of the charges that he faced, nor of the evidence collected against him in the preliminary investigation. The proceedings were written: all the questions and answers were protocolled. If the accused admitted to the charges, a transcript containing his confession was sent to the Procureur-Général. Unless the offense carried a capital or corporal punishment, all that was left for the accused to do was to present extenuating circumstances; this could be done in writing as well. After this, the Tournelle or Grand’ Chambre passed the judgement. If the crime was a serious one and the accused denied his or her guilt, the Procureur-Général normally demanded an “extraordinary” procedure. Towards the end of the fourteenth century, the distinction between “ordinary” and “extraordinary” modes of procedure was clearly developed. In this, the proceedings were secret, the accused had no right to counsel, and, most importantly, torture was permitted, although not frequent in practice.The “ordinary” procedure was the complete opposite of the “extraordinary” one: it was conducted in public; there was a right to a legal defense counsel; and there was no torture.Inthe “extraordinary” procedure, the witnesses heard in the preliminarv hearing were nowheard again and confronted with the accused who 13 Esmein 1882 pp. 85-89; Dawson 1960 p. 69; Carbassc 1990 pp. 137-138. " Dawson 1960 p. 55. Dawson 1968 pp. 277-278. ” Shennan 1968 pp. 67—68. I'* Tardit 1885 p. 150; Langlois - Lanhers 1971 p. 15. Shennan 1968 p. 68.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=