Court sentencing marks the end of evidentiary procedures. With perpetrators committing diverse criminal offences either once or repeatedly, simultaneously or successively, with varying degrees of intensity and deferring time and locational circumstances, deprivations of freedom and sanctions can be imposed in various stages of the procedure. Criminal code thus binds the court to consider and include in its sentencing any previous invasions of freedom or other imposed sanctions with no regard to the type of procedure during which they were imposed. The descriptions of criminal offences, misdemeanour offences and violations of military discipline, all criminal matters and thus part of the system of deviant behaviour enforced with sanctions should, on the legislative level, complement rather than overlap. Credit of time spent in detention and imprisonment, as prescribed in Article 56 of the Criminal code of Slovenia, are inconsistently regulated. The main problem lies with its third paragraph, where the general wording does not offer qualitative differentiation of the perpetrator's actions, but rather implies their overlap as the condition for the use of the credit. According to ne bis in idem rule, this situation should not be allowed. This article presents the problem of limited possibilities for constitutionally consistent interpretation and use of the third paragraph of Article 56.

Rights