Ne bis in idem

Maldives

Maldives - Constitution 2008 EN

CHAPTER II
FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS

60. Prohibition of double jeopardy

(a) If an accused is acquitted of an offence by a court, he shall not be tried again for the same or substantially the same offence. If an accused is found guilty and punished for an offence he shall not be tried or punished again for the same or substantially the same offence.

(b) The principle stated in article (a) does not apply to appeals relating to the offence.

Maldives - Penal Code 2014 EN

CHAPTER 60. NONEXCULPATORY DEFENSES
Section 64 – Former Prosecution for Same Offense as a Bar to Present

Prosecution

A prosecution under the same provision of this Code and based upon the

same facts as a former prosecution is barred if the former prosecution:

(a) resulted in an acquittal, or

(b) resulted in a conviction, or

(c) (1) was terminated by a final order or judgment for the defendant

that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated, and

(2) would have necessarily required a determination inconsistent

with a fact or a legal proposition to result in conviction; or

(d) was improperly terminated as provided in Subsection (e) of this

Section.

(e) Improper Termination. For purposes of Subsection (d) of this

Section and Section 65(d):

(1) termination is improper if it is for reasons not constituting an

acquittal and it takes place after the first witness is sworn but before

verdict;(2) termination is not improper if:

(A) the defendant consents to the termination or waives

his right to object to the termination, or

(B) the court finds that the termination is necessary

because:

(aa) it is impossible to proceed with the trial in

conformity with law, or

(bb) there is a legal defect in the proceedings that

would make any judgment entered upon a verdict

reversible as a matter of law, or

(cc) prejudicial conduct, in or outside the

courtroom, makes it impossible to proceed with the trial

without injustice to either the defendant or the

Government.

Section 65 – Former Prosecution for Different Offense as a Bar to Present

Prosecution

A prosecution under a different provision of this Code than a former

prosecution or based on different facts is barred if the former prosecution:

(a) resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction and the subsequent

prosecution is for any offense for which the defendant could have been

convicted in the first prosecution, either based on the same conduct or arising

from the same criminal episode, unless the court ordered a separate trial of the

charge of such offense, or

(b) resulted in an acquittal or in a conviction based on the same conduct,

unless:

(1) the offense for which the defendant was formerly convicted or

acquitted and the offense for which he is subsequently prosecuted each

require proof of a fact not required by the other and the statutes defining

these offenses are intended to prevent a substantially different harm or

wrong, or

(2) the second offense was not consummated when the former

trial began; or

(c) (1) was terminated by a final order or judgment for the defendant

that has not been set aside, reversed, or vacated, and

(2) would have necessarily required a determination inconsistent

with a fact or a legal proposition to result in conviction; or

(d) was improperly terminated as provided in Subsection 64(e) and the

subsequent prosecution is for an offense for which the defendant could have

been convicted had the former prosecution not been improperly terminated.

Rome Statute

Article 20 Ne bis in idem

1. Except as provided in this Statute, no person shall be tried before the Court with respect to conduct which formed the basis of crimes for which the person has been convicted or acquitted by the Court.

2. No person shall be tried by another court for a crime referred to in article 5 for which that person has already been convicted or acquitted by the Court.

3. No person who has been tried by another court for conduct also proscribed under article 6, 7, 8 or 8 bis shall be tried by the Court with respect to the same conduct unless the proceedings in the other court:

(a) Were for the purpose of shielding the person concerned from criminal responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court; or

(b) Otherwise were not conducted independently or impartially in accordance with the norms of due process recognized by international law and were conducted in a manner which, in the circumstances, was inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice.