“one-stage” proceedings, during which all the relevant records are presented at the outset – including information about the accused’s previous life;

the rule indicating the “presumption of guilt” of the accused, that he has the right to make a statement, but not the obligation to take an oath;

there is no “cross-examination”: the court asks the questions first and then gives the prosecutor or the defence the opportunity to ask them;

the courts can also assess evidence obtained illegally, where appropriate;

witnesses are summoned by the prosecution or the court; if the defence submits a request to examine a person as a witness, it must give detailed reasons for its statement or submission;

court decisions are not based on witness testimonies but on the case file (minutes); the primary aim is to establish the material truth, from which the judge must seek to exclude all subjects;

there is no such thing as a “plea bargain”: in order to obtain a conviction, the prosecutor must in any case bring the case to trial, where the evidence is fully assessed by the court even if the accused has confessed; the function of the trial is therefore primarily to determine the circumstances of sentencing, not criminal responsibility;

no one can be convicted on the basis of a single piece of evidence (e.g. a confession or DNA match), at least two pieces of evidence are required for a conviction, and it is also regulated by law that convictions based solely on the testimony of anonymous witnesses cannot be convicted.1