Principles of Law in Ybymarã
— Hypothetical Essays on the Ybymarian Judiciary —
1. Initial concept
To promote speed in trials and the application of legal standards, Ybymarã law is guided by seven principles that are considered primordial, and any other must be compatible with these seven. In case of doubt, one should turn to the first principles to help resolve it.
The primordial principles are as follows:
1.1. Principle of presumption of innocence
Ei incumbit probatio, qui dicit, non qui negat
The proof is in those who say it, not in those who deny it
Better known as ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ It prescribes that no one can be convicted without concrete and well-founded evidence. Therefore, if there is any doubt about this, the accused must be considered innocent.
1.2. Principle of subjectivity of details
Singula sunt sicut singula, non sunt integra
Details are just details; they are not the whole
Principles of Law do not constitute exact sciences, such as mathematics or physics, but rather have a direct relationship with human beings. Therefore, its analysis should be subjective, not objective. In this line of reasoning, a detail can either have great relevance or none for the effective analysis of the issue. The Second Principle postulates that the general context has much greater weight than the details involved and that all details must be analyzed within the general context. Thus, a simple drop of blood can be essential and change the course of history, but a simple spelling error in a report should be disregarded in context.
1.3. Principle of responsibility of the act
Non reddere pro errore aliorum, etiam concessa
You will not pay for someone else’s mistake, even if it is granted
If a person is authorized to do something lawful but makes mistakes or commits crimes, the person who authorized it should not be punished. Thus, if the grantee commits any crime to prove the condition required by the granter, the grantee cannot be held responsible for the grantee’s crime. Likewise, if the grantee makes administrative mistakes or errors of any kind, the granter should not be penalized for this.
1.4. Principle of impartiality of law
Beneficium juris nemini est denegandi
No one should be denied the benefit of the right
Anyone can invoke a fair and impartial trial for themselves. Even if someone has committed crimes and misdemeanors known to everyone, and this is an undeniable fact, they cannot be sentenced to anything without a trial in which all their acts and respective mitigating factors are taken into consideration.
1.5. Principle of presumption of knowledge of the law
Ignorantia legis non excusat
Ignorance of the law is not excuse
No one can claim ignorance of the law to break it. This principle presupposes knowledge of the law by both the defendant and the plaintiff, and any claim to the contrary will not be considered.
1.6. Principle of similarity of cause and effect
Similes actus, similes condiciones, similes consequentia
Similar acts, similar conditions, similar consequences
In trials of similar situations, the legal position must be similar to preserve the justice of the decision. Similar acts under similar conditions should not lead to different consequences, regardless of the arguments of the defense or prosecution, as well as any other factor.
1.7. Principle of extension and limitation of the right
Alicuius ius finem quo ius aliorum incipit
One’s right ends where the right of others begins
No one can claim a right to something if the assumption is harmful to someone else’s right. Likewise, no one can have their rights harmed by the acts or allegations of others, whatever they may be.
2. Preventive Judiciary
The Ybymarã’s judiciary does not only act after the execution of crimes or misdemeanors. It also acts preventively, analyzing situations that favor the execution of such acts and taking appropriate measures to mitigate them.
3. Encouragement of conciseness
The primordial legal principles must be applied to avoid excessive arguments in legal sentences, which lead to them being too long. The longer they are, the more likely they are to make mistakes and disregard relevant details.
It must be considered that it is notorious the judiciary prolixity, far surpassing any pleonasms or gerundisms, a fact that also harms the speed of decisions. Therefore, greater conciseness in sentences will be beneficial in every way and for everyone involved.
