1 General Part
CHAPTER II- CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY
Article 17 Irresponsibility because of the person’s mental state
A person does not bear criminal responsibility if, at the time of the commitment of the act, he suffered from psychic or neuropsychic disorders ruining his mental balance entirely and, consequently, was unable either to control his actions or omissions, or to understand the criminal act he was committing.
A person is responsible if, at the time of commitment of the criminal act, he suffered from psychic or neuropsychic disorders which lowered his mental balance [and capacity] to understand and fully control his actions or non-actions, but this circumstance will be considered by the court when deciding on the degree and the kind of punishment
CHAPTER IV THE DEFENDANT
Article 44 Suspension of proceedings due to defendant’s lack of criminal liability
1. When it is proved that the mental condition of the defendant is as such as to impede his intentional participation in the proceedings, the proceeding authority, decides the suspension of the proceedings, but always when no decision of acquittal or dismissal must be taken. The proceeding authority, in the decision of suspension, assigns to the defendant a special guardian, who is given the rights of a legal representative.
2. The suspension does not prevent the proceeding authority to acquire evidence that may lead to the acquittal of the defendant and, when delay poses danger, any other evidence required by the parties. The special guardian has the right to participate in actions that must be performed about the character of the defendant and also in those actions that the defendant is entitled to be present.
1. In addition to other grounds for excluding criminal responsibility provided for in this Statute, a person shall not be criminally responsible if, at the time of that person's conduct:
(a) The person suffers from a mental disease or defect that destroys that person's capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of law;
(b) The person is in a state of intoxication that destroys that person's capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of law, unless the person has become voluntarily intoxicated under such circumstances that the person knew, or disregarded the risk, that, as a result of the intoxication, he or she was likely to engage in conduct constituting a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(c) The person acts reasonably to defend himself or herself or another person or, in the case of war crimes, property which is essential for the survival of the person or another person or property which is essential for accomplishing a military mission, against an imminent and unlawful use of force in a manner proportionate to the degree of danger to the person or the other person or property protected. The fact that the person was involved in a defensive operation conducted by forces shall not in itself constitute a ground for excluding criminal responsibility under this subparagraph;
(d) The conduct which is alleged to constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against that person or another person, and the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat, provided that the person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided. Such a threat may either be:
(i) Made by other persons; or
(ii) Constituted by other circumstances beyond that person's control.