What is human dignity and how does it relate to case law? Is it possible to reconcile sometimes conflicting interests and values in procedural practice? If and when can the public interest justify the restriction of individual rights? What are the differences between the perspectives of criminal law specialists and constitutionalists - for example, on the issue of parliamentary immunity? These were some of the topics discussed during the seminar with the participation of prof. Lech Garlicki and prof. Piotr Hofmański ‘Constitutional and international foundations of criminal law’, which took place on 21 March this year at the Faculty of Law and Administration of the University of Gdańsk.

Four distinguished panellists took the floor during the meeting, including two honorary doctors of the University of Gdańsk: prof. Leszek Garlicki (former judge of the European Court of Human Rights) and prof. Piotr Hofmański (until recently president of the International Criminal Court in The Hague), who received the title of honorary doctor the day before during the celebration of the University of Gdańsk's 55th anniversary. Dr hab. Krzysztof Grajewski, prof. UG from the Department of Constitutional Law and Political Institutions, and dr Maciej Fingas from the Department of Criminal Procedure Law and Forensics also took part in the discussion. The meeting was attended by guests: dr hab. Sławomir Steinborn, prof.UG, recently appointed President of the Court of Appeal in Gdańsk, Paweł Pik, Regional Prosecutor in Gdańsk, dr hab. Anna Jurkowska-Zeidler, prof. UG Vice-Rector for Cooperation and International Relations - and a group of employees and students of the Faculty of Law and Administration.

‘When such eminent figures appear, you know you want to see and hear them and what they have to say,’ said Ula, a law student who attended the meeting as part of her criminal law trial workshop.

The discussion was led by the Dean of the Faculty of Law, Administration and International Studies, dr hab. Wojciech Zalewski, prof. UG.

The order of speeches followed a kind of path ‘from idea to practice’. Prof. Leszek Garlicki, who was the first to speak, talked about the principle of dignity - and how it translates into the realities of procedural and adjudicative practice. As he stated: punishment is only consistent with dignity when it leaves the convicted person with hope for rehabilitation. Citing examples of various decisions, he pointed out the difficulties of applying the principle of dignity in practice - if only because the concept is not clearly defined. Judges therefore often prefer to rely on more concrete, better established regulations, and invoke the principle of dignity as an ornamental argument and additional premise.

Prof. Piotr Hofmański expressed his joy and pride at joining the academic community of the University of Gdańsk. In his speech, he discussed the relationship between criminal law and the constitution. ‘Criminal law has always been part of constitutional law: it protects the fundamental rights guaranteed by the constitution,’ he said. He also presented (from a historical and contemporary perspective) some trends in international law. Referring to the previous speaker's statement, he pointed to a new trend expressed in the Rome Statute, which guarantees the individual the right to redress for damage caused. He also presented examples of challenges related to the practical application of international law.

Prof. P. Hofmański's speech also touched upon the issue of the use of preventive measures in international criminal proceedings in the form of pre-trial detention, which is generally treated as an ultima ratio, and the balance between the rights of the accused individual and the procedural realities associated with the restriction of their freedom. ‘I cannot find the answer as to where to look for a balance between, on the one hand, a rigorous system of standards and, on the other hand, the need to seek justice and the need to give it to those who are desperately waiting for it,’ Professor concluded.

The topic of prof. Krzysztof Grajewski's speech was parliamentary immunity. The speaker pointed out the different ways it is understood by constitutional lawyers (according to whom immunity ‘excludes liability’) and by lawyers specialising in criminal law (who understand immunity as something that ‘excludes punishability’). The speaker presented the different types of immunity and dispelled some of the misinformation regarding its application or exclusion that sometimes appears in the media.

Dr Maciej Fingas, the last speaker, addressed the right of an individual to a defence counsel. In this case, too, there is often a clash between the interests of the state and the interests of the individual (as Judge Robert Jackson, who was involved in the Nuremberg trials, has already pointed out). Using examples of famous trials and the principles developed from them (such as the Salduz doctrine), he discussed the paradoxes associated with the right to defence and access to a defence lawyer at an early stage of criminal proceedings. He pointed out, among other things, how terrorism has influenced the approach to this right and considered the legitimacy of the accused's access to a defence lawyer when this access is limited - and de facto makes it impossible to provide legal assistance.

The seminar ended with a lively discussion in which, among others, Prof. S. Steinborn took the floor. He shared his thoughts on the important role of judges in the application of the law: their intuition, experience and ability to perceive not only the accused person, but also the consequences of their actions. ‘In law, it is impossible to write simple recipes or to decide every life situation that can happen,’ he noted. The discussion again touched upon the balancing of two values and the question of how far one can go in limiting individual rights. ‘The legal and humanistic activity of jurisprudence is very broadly based on proportionality, balancing interests, and seeking solutions in cases that are difficult to solve,’ said prof. L. Garlicki. Prosecutor Paweł Pik emphasised the importance of the legal and philosophical basis of the daily work of legal professionals. ‘Without it, we become slaves to the positivist understanding of law, and it is difficult to move away from that,’ said the prosecutor.

WPiA employees and students also contributed to the discussion.