Political parties are private, association-based entities that fulfil constitutionally relevant functions. Since 2012 Spanish law has allowed them to be held criminally liable. This study, adopting a comparative perspective (in contrast to German law), criticises this possibility. First, it studies the role of parties in society and in the state. This is followed by a study of the foundations of the criminal liability of the legal person, seen from the perspective of the parties' singularity. The work goes on to deal with their conduct in a broad sense, the sanctions that apply to them, the cases in which these sanctions (as a general rule) can lapse and, finally, some questions of procedural law (from the status of the national political party as an active and passive subject of the process to the regime of the foreign political party).
This paper addresses the issues associated with the use of risk assessment tools in criminal proceedings, particularly in the context of sentencing. The traditional reliability attributed to these tools has led to the coining of the concept of evidence-based sentencing in this field, a trend that has been greatly enhanced by the incorporation of Artificial Intelligence into predictive tools. In order to lay the foundations for establishing a guarantee framework for the use of risk assessment algorithms within the criminal justice system (and, in particular, in the sentencing phase), the limitations derived from both current legislation on personal data protection and the European Union's Artificial Intelligence Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689) are specified, and appropriate proposals de lege ferenda are formulated in light of the regulatory reality in the comparative sphere (particularly in Italy).
The article analyses the legal treatment of deepfakes in Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of 13 June. Based on its regulatory definition, it examines the three essential criteria stipulated by the Regulation to define them. Namely, that the content is generated or manipulated using artificial intelligence, its similarity to reality and its ability to mislead. In seeking to clarify these concepts, the paper highlights the technical difficulties in subsuming these points, such as the technological difficulty of detecting deepfakes and determining with certainty that manipulation by artificial intelligence has taken place. It also points out the complex subjectivity of some of the elements provided by the Regulation. By contrast, analysis the political and criminal choices made by China and the United States in containing this phenomenon to highlight the structural differences between the regulatory models and their respective implications for fundamental rights. Finally, it evaluates the solution adopted by the Regulation based on the obligation of transparency and points out the practical difficulties of the path taken by the European Union in containing this phenomenon.
This paper advances several reforms to Organic Law 5/2000, governing the criminal responsibility of minors. It aims to emphasize the importance of the special prevention function of juvenile criminal law and to prevent the response provided therein for crimes committed by this group from being excessively severe, considering the importance of this function, the seriousness of the crime committed, and the severity of the penalties imposed on adults who commit the same acts under similar personal circumstances. More specifically, the paper proposes reducing (a) the catalog of offenses considered "extremely serious", (b) the offenses subject to the special rules provided for in Article 10.1, (c) the severity of the measures applicable to such offenses, and (d) the cases in which withdrawal from the initiation or continuation of proceedings is permitted.
This article analyzes the constitutional and administrative foundations of Spain's juvenile justice and child protection systems, emphasizing the central role played by welfare administrations in implementing re-educational measures and protection decisions. Although judicial authorities retain supervisory functions, the execution of measures is largely shaped by administrative bodies whose organizational models vary across Autonomous Communities. The study examines how legal minority -fixed at eighteen and operationally influenced by the relevance of the fourteen-year threshold- serves as the jurisdictional hinge connecting protection mechanisms, behavioral interventions, and juvenile justice responses. It further explores the legal and procedural challenges of age determination in uncertain cases. The article concludes by highlighting how the diversity of territorial structures and service models affects the practical configuration of both systems and raises important questions regarding equal access to rights for children subject to protective or re-educational measures.
