The right to a fair trial is made-up of many (sub) rights and one of these is the right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal. According to the Human Rights Committee, this is an absolute right. This right is protected in international and regional human rights instruments. It is also provided for in the constitutions and/or pieces of legislation of most countries whether or not they have ratified, acceded to or signed the ICCPR. In this paper, the author studied the constitutions of over 190 countries to demonstrate how they have dealt with this right. These countries include those that have ratified the ICCPR (the majority), signed but not yet acceded to the ICCPR and those that have not yet signed the ICCPR. The study shows that in countries which have ratified/acceded to the ICCPR, six different approaches have been taken to give effect to this right. These approaches range from countries where the constitutions provide for this right in full (mentioning the three elements) to those where this right is not mentioned at all. It is argued that irrespective of which of the six approaches is followed, states which have ratified the ICCPR have an obligation to give effect to this right in full.  Relying on the criteria set by the International Law Commission, the author argues that the right to be tried by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal/court has attained the status of jus cogens (peremptory norm) in international law. The author also briefly illustrates how the issue of judicial independence is dealt with in the constitutions of different countries.

In recent years, there has been a noticeable abuse by prosecution bodies of the institution of suspension of proceedings during the pre-trial proceedings. While it is possible on the basis of article 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the prerequisites indicated in this provision are not enumerated and the catalog of prerequisites is open. It can lead to opportunism going too far as a basis for suspension of the proceedings
due to the lack of statutory limits within which proceedings can be suspended. At the same time, it is considered that article 22 of the Code of Criminal Procedure applies not only to court proceeding already pending, but also to pre-trial proceedings. As a result, law prosecution bodies are even entitled to arbitrarily using the institution of suspension of proceedings, thereby leading not only to the possibility of losing evidence or distorting it, but also causing a restriction of the victims’ right to justice. The aim of the presented article is to show that the current form of the institution of suspension does not fully realize the requirements in accordance with the principles of criminal procedure, so the de lege ferenda postulate is a more detailed regulation of the issues relating to the actions that can be taken by law prosecution bodies, as well as those relating to securing of evidence.

In the paper, the author focuses on discussing the issue of the right to a competent court within the meaning of the article 45 of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland, as well as the substantive jurisdiction of the district court in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The author brings closer to the concept of the right to a fair trial on the basis of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland (article 45) according to which „Everyone shall have the right to a fair and public hearing of his case, without undue delay, before a competent, impartial and independent court”. The author also refers to the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Tribunal.

Many research are devoted to the goals of punishment’s issue. Some authors are in favor for the aggravation of a penalty, while others are in favor for the penalties of a more lenient type that are aimed at rehabilitating the offender and enabling him to return to society. Still, the superiority of punitive or liberal criminal policies has not been scientifically proven. In economic analysis of law the concept of the optimal level of crime becomes more popular nowadays. This concept depreciates the perception of the objectives of criminal law, which are combating and preventing crime. The aim of the article is to demonstrate that a given concept is based on the incoherent assumptions vitiating aims of criminal law and policy, thus cannot be implemented.

Over recent years, recidivism risk assessment tools have evolved and have been modified by using artificial intelligence technologies. With the aim of speeding up proceedings and introducing neutral mechanisms to guarantee equal treatment, these instruments are increasingly being implemented in criminal justice systems. They have a large number of both supporters and opponents. One of the best-known tools of this kind is COMPAS, which is used extensively in the United States of America for more than two decades. During this time, many scientific studies have been produced on it, but also a number of judgements have been issued that allow a reliable and objective assessment of the usefulness of algorithms of this kind and the identification of problems that may arise from their applying.

The article is a report from the course of the National Scientific Conference “Pharmaceuticals – sports – crime” that took place at the Faculty of Law and Administration in Toruń on the 13th–14th of April 2023. The subject of the meeting was the issue of the broadly understood pharmaceutical crime and the abuse of substances that are not allowed in contemporary sports. The report characterizes the proceedings of
the conference, including the presentations of speakers on the various aspects of it, such as: “Pharmaceuticals and sport – the voice of practitioners”, “Pharmaceuticals and sport – the problems of criminal law and criminology”, “Pharmaceuticals and sport – foreign experience”, “Doping in sport and standards of its combating”, “Doping in sport – practical aspects”.