~....
.
Sciences sociales et humaines
_ t; :.:. •
THE BILL OF RIGHTS AND HUMAN RiGIJTS
1.
r
,",.
VALEN'TIN K.', DOVONON
Département d.'>Anglaîs '
~~ ~ :
i
.
" Université d'Abomey - Calavi
1 1 •
: Bénit'!
..~ .. .
Résumé,
Au moment où s'élaborait la Constitution: américaine, l'expression « droits de l'homme» n'était pas
,
,
,
Le Bill ofRights (Déclaration des droits) intervenu ultérieurement en amendement à la Constitution n'utilise pas
.cette expression un seul instant. Cependant il comporte, en réal ité, une gamme importante de droits de l' h0I111Ï1e,
l~lên~e s' lin 'avait pas, audépart, I'ambitjon de défendre de tels droits, mais plutôt d'assurer seulement la jou issance
d 'un certain nombre de lioertés individ!I~Jles. Ce faisant toutefois, il a défendu des 1ibertés chères. nonseu lernent
aux Aniéricains, mais à tout être humai~.j{ahonj'ustement pourlaquelle des normes internationales en matière de '
droitsde l'homme.télaborées de nombreuses décennies plus (a';d, n'o;!tpas manqué de prendre-en-compte les
1ibertés envisagées dans ce texte.
' .
, '
'I"i
l
de son contenu, comme un important document de droits de l'homme' .
• '
1
INTRODUCTION
attitude to àd~inistration. As'
as the" Bill of Rights '', This
consequence ofthis; many states
expression cannot be found in the
When itcomes to framing
had
co'nceived 'sp~cific
constitution, however. Il isused in
constitutions, it is seldornquestion
constitutional guarantees for
reference to the way those
of'human rights.foronething : ÏIi
·i;ld'iVi.duals, in th~ $hap~ of
amendnients were born,
democratie countries, it isveryrare
appendixes to theircë)J1stitu'ti'~ns.
In the Bill ofRights - as well as in
that a constitution falls in
Neverth~le;s'theoriginaltexi~~th~
therest ofthe Constitution - there
contradiction withhumanrights. In
American Constitution had not
is nowhere any mèntionof the
those countries, c6nstitutional
included sucha document. Butthis
phrase " human rights ". But vve'
norms are said 'ta" offer bettèr
tendencyt~ encourageprovisions
must rèmernberthat in the late 18'111
protection thau is possible by
aboutindividual guarantees ~as' so
Centurywhenthe document was
human rightswhose contents; by
~'i~()ri'g: , thJe ù "~a,d,)eé~
written, this expression wasalmost
th'é way,' is gei1eraily'riùHi
indispensable t'ô take itinto account
iriexistent. People spdl~c rather of
unprecise and unambitiôùs.' . "
in the'eI1d. 'In efféct, disregarding
"God's Iaw " 0'1' "law of nature "
, l,n, 't11e context oftl~e
such ~situati~n wouldprobably
or" law of reason". lt was later, in
American constitution, thesituation
have c~used the c~nstitution to be
the 20111 Century, that ail these
is rather different. For about two
i~ft unratified foralong time,orto
expressions disappeared for the
centuries,American colonies had
be simply 'abandoned.in the face
appellation" human rights ""'. So
beenut~der thedomination ofGreat
of so difficult alternatives,
we must not be s~lrprise~' at the
Britainwho had constantlycaused
Federalists agreed to the idea of
fact that such a phrase was not ,
injuries ta them, violating human
including provisions on individual
rnentioned in thé Bill of Rights
rights ih passing. .Becom ing
guarantees therein, but in theform
whose elaboration dates as far
independent states.in 177( they
ofamendments :thus werethe first
back as two centuries earlier .
kept a bittermemory o'r'Ùiè way
ten amendments » annexed to it.
, they hadbeen treated in the time,
They.we!e adopted and ratified
II" Originally.fifte,en1;l'lll/mbyr, the
and had somewhat of a reserved
together in 1791 and were known
proposals submitted to Congress
.,..,:
Rev, CAMES - Série-B,Vol:oos:r:-r 1-2.2003
.
, r

---

Sciences sociales et humaines
by Virginiawere reduced by three
liberty, however,
1 . 2 . FREEDOM OF THE
when examinedby thatlnstitution,
,.PRESS.
,
: .
Of the remainingtwelve, ten were
We find that definition ln
· ratified by States. The two clauses
· article 18 of the Universal
The vfuudamental
which were discarded dealt with
Declaration on Human Rights ,
questions arising in the field of
· the number of representatives in
which underlinesthat: «this right
freedom
of the press are the
· Congress andwiththemodification
includesfreedomto change (one's)
following ones:
Who can
of their salary. Let us n?te in
·religiorror beliefandfieedorn either
.determinè.whatmust be published
.passing that Virginia's proposaIs
aloneorin commonwithothersand
? Which of the people or: the
·were
written
by
James
in public or private to manifest
government can indicate what it is
'MADI$ON.
(one'sjreligionor beliefin teaching
fitto publish ~" -. ."
practice worship and observance
James Madison, the
.What really mattersinthe study of
. » .
. .
fourth president ofthe US thought
.such a document is its contents,
.'. Religious freedom
rightly thatthe rightof deciding
So, from thispoint ofview, is the,
is totally observed in the United
whatcari he published belongs to
Bill of Rights concerned with-
·States.·P"~·a consequence, many
. the people. Itis theorilv condition
l ' "
'-:
.
,
" " ,
. " '
•
.human rights?
' sects' aïid 'religions developed'
. on which freedorn of the presscan
'A brief analysis of-itsmain .:. freely there.Almost everyreligion
. be effective. The righteousness of
provisions relativeto fundamental
in the world can be found in the
that position 'is ~onfirmecl' by the
Iiberties
US .Butthe Nation is a layrepublic
-fact that, whereverIt is the
( 1 ) and to the protection of the
that cannet sUPP0I1 any religion in
government that deterrnines. what
rights ofthe accused ( II) will help _ .. particular ".
can be published , there is censure
us have a precise idea about this
But whereas religious faith
, and thereforeabsencen f freed 0 111
issue .
is free; religious practice must
of the press:.: Undetuocrat ic
. "
.
- •• l ·
.
, ~
.
conform to law and public order .
countries around the worlcl offer so
L
.PROTE'CrION
OF
S:uch' is the position" of 'the
many examples that ,it.is,hardly
FUNDAMÊNTAL LIBERTIES
.supreme court tllat rejected as
woi1h,'qu~~inganyone Î)1 particular.
.
l , '
•
1. 1 RELIGIOUS LIBERTY
lÙl1a~f}.ii thêpractice:ofpolygamy
bY.· i~éhlbe:~s; of' ,ùie' 'Mô~'~dn
. ,
.: IJ;l many. democratie
Sect' 4)".
. '
. . . . .
. f .... "
, ,
: 'F'I:eeciom of the press,
countries, the question of religions
besides.js the counterpart orthe
.
t ' , , : -
.,....
•
1 r- 1 ; ~
'.~.~' .,. -',' !
. liberty can .sound old fashioned
(.1) Inthe vèin ofthàtprinciple, the'
people's rigÎl't tokn()vv.)Ü1~~7t !t
or ~elf~ evident today . But in t.he
Sup~e'~~Courhlil~81ri 1962'tl'iat
is the cornerstone of'the Âmerican
..., .
" , '.
:...
,~' \\ ' .. v : t '1 ~
< .
f~~I~~·. of the Bill .of Rights ;it
.. '
,
~ . .
' .
J
~
. _
publié ·sFg,o'ol'ôffièi~.rs co\\îld}1?S
I~li:lSS~;nedia policy. St;li;:tl~';eti~'ld
was v.an extremely . serious
require pupils tà,'r~çit~ statè
ofkri~wing wl~ât is to be kI~o'wn,
-
- ( . J . '
' .
i
:...:
"
, ! !
problem. ,A'~'(. a; .matter.,offact;
composèd prayers 'atthe s.t~ft of
it is the people and only the people
·many American settlers had left
e~~i~;di061day,évenifti~~prnyers
who mah~rs'. Thûcforc thés~l11e
Europe because of rel igious
werê n~{deÎ1omiri~itiOllài and ev~n
fii-st~~'rtï~leoftJi~B'ÙI of Rights
. 1
. , ' , '
, . ,
'
. •
"
persecution and 'l~ck of -free
if pupils!irho so desir~d could be
rnàkes ïtirilpos,sible for the
re ligious .practicevIt is not
·excusèdfrom recitiilgthem..In the
congress to abridge freedol11 ofthe
surprising then, that the veryfirst
view oftheCourt, that was an
press. Does this ~l1eall that SLJch·
clause of the Bill ofRights deals
uricon~Ùttitional attempt to
freedom has no limits 'lOfcourse
~ithreligiousfreedorn,Itdoes not
establish religiôn.· (Engely.Yitale
it 11~s"1 . 'But the i.sacrosanct
. defim;. wJlatis meant by religious
:) ~~2).·'· -c' ::', .:... .' '
pri~cipl~JI~ thatfié/cl i,s 1i..~edol11., .
.:'
..... : -
..'
'PaÙ'offréec(on-l orthe press
is - theoreticallyat I~ast - fi'éed~111
(2)
See.: Universal Declaration on
f ~.
• . . •
"
~
•
:
-,
~. *',
'
ofthought. The Bill (?fRigl-its does
HumanRights, (Re'soh-ition: 217 'A ill)
(4) Supreme Court: Reynolds \\;./ United
dot makeailY'e~plicit mention of
.
",'-
. '
. -,.
;- ,
,
.,'
of Deç:ember, 10th, 1948.
. ,
States; 1878.
.' J
Rev. CAMES-'-Série B, Vol. QOS N° 1-2.2003

---

'., ... '
.:..,
Sciences sociales et humaines
il, but ft is very important, because
such a: right; IIIeffect, the existence
'such or such ''aspect of his
wherevet-there.fàils tobefreedorn
witliin a' natiori of terrorist and
. adrÎliriistration.;Whether this
,'Of thought, ~ there' willfail tobe
ru-ffians-' associationswould -be
.' amendment is compulsory ornot
, '"freedol11 of the press, arid, vice
contrary to the requirernents of
. depends on the relevanceof the
. versa. The two notionsare very
· public order. 'Wè find the same
'~petitionand onthe nature ofthe
, closely linked. And ·it is not atall
, restriction in 'article-Zûof the
policy to he amended. In the end,
surprising that the Univèrsal
· Unl:vè'rsàl Declaration of Human
wemust notice 'that the ri/?ht to
Declaration on Human Rights-
" Rights as well as in article 16(2) of
petition is a heterogeneous right
(article 19) considers that freedom
. 'the 'Arnerican Convention on
"which derives i~ some extent from
ofthe press is a necessary result
· HumairRights,and article Il ofthe
freedrirrlof t&e press and of
of freedorn of thought. In other
, European Convention on Human
asso~iatiorî.But it looks specifie
words, freedoni. ofthe press is,the
Rights.
. Ô »
"
,
.' ':ànd~otbetotaily.confused with
proof or the consequence of
"éithe~ofthem. ,.'
.
, freedom ofthought.«
1,4.Rightofpetition
1.5 ~ghtofproljerty:
, From that observation
springs the outstanding importance
Intrinsically speaking, a
The Bill ofRights does not mention
ofthe press freedom.suppressing
petition is a claim fonnulated by
explicitly the right to property,but
. .it méans not only inexistence-of
citizens- and addressed to a
makes allusions to it in two
free media, butalso and especially
parliamentaryassemblyin order to
important passages which do Ilot
enslavement ofhuman mind, which
denounce .theabuses of the
deal basically with that right. The
" ,i,~ worsethan any other form of
administration and askfor a redress
first allusion is made bv article 3
1 . . . .
.
slavery.
, ofthe existing order.o. :'
which aims at protecting house
In the history of
owners from lodging soldiers
. I.3 Right of assembly
· American colonies, petitions were
against their will. The second one
, repeatedly (andvainly) senttothe
is to be found in article 5 which
The Bill ofRights acknowledges the
British. government who was
mainly deals with the right of the
right of assernbly that the
administrating them -, -Those
accused in criminal affairs, This
l
"
•
government must likewise
· petitions were to .reveal the
.passage protects private property
safeguard. As a matter offact, no
grievances and injustices to which
from being taken offfor public use
gathering, no meeting can be legally
hadgivenrisetheexploitingpolicy
withoùtjust compensation '. . .
forbidden in USA. .So.vtrade
ofthe colonizer, but none ofthem
.
. On the basis of this clause,
unions.religions congregations,
was taken intoconsideration by the
.associations ofvarious kinds, can
latter. The mention of sueh
a
,
' . '
Y , .
hold meetings as theythink itfit .
clause in the Bill ofrights is nodoubt
(;J, The Suprcme Court rulcd \\hm limits can
, No official permission is required
a consequence of th~"discontent
be imposed on the excrciscofIrccdcmofrhc
to that end. On the ground of this
resulting from thatsituation which
.
.
press in sorne cases:
.
.
'
..
. , right,. the supreme court, (less
mostsettlers considered insulting.
-whcn what is said presents'a clcar an{i present
dangcr tSchenck V. US 1919.)
conservative in the 1950 692 did
· The declaration of independence
-whcn the exercise olthat frccdom endnngcrs
its best to prote ct such associations
criticized and condernned that
social and moral standards.ï koth V. US:
as
the
NAACP' (National
attitude vigorously.Thus, we
Alberto V California, 1957)
.
-when defamatory reports onpuhlic officials
Association for the-Advancement
.
, 'c~rù}btbe surprised atthemention
'
. ,
are issuedout ol'malice. i.e.. while the author
ofColoured People) and the Civil
· of such a right in, the present
knows that the information is (alse, or if he
Liberties Union against Southern
document, even ifthat mention is
does not
do anything 'tü check its
verncityf New
York· 'Times
Co.'· V
anti Negro White organisations.
'very raie in riational constitutions
Sullivrul.l960.)
. ,
But terrorist, violent or
:.around the worlq.' '
.
(1:' ln this respect. sce also article 13 of the
thieves' associations are not
Whatit isimportant to
Arnerican Convention 'on l-luman Righls,
whose tille reads :
,.,':
~
admitted to the benefitofthis right:
· underlinehere besides, is that the
" Freedomofthouulu and expression ':'
orilypéaceful organisations are
people's right to petition calls for
t7Guilliën'R" et Vin~ent J.'; ~iquede tennes
concerned with the exercise' of
the government's effort to amend
'Juridiques, Paris - DALJ:OZ, 1985,'
71)

---

----------::-,..,.....---:-:-:---.-:---'""':""':'~,....__-.,...._:__""':'"'7.,....___:___:_-- Sci.ences soci.ales et hum.aines
we can consider that the right to
undertaken, they rnustbe based on
'c to gi ve such details-and ( or ). to
property is guaranteed. Ir-effect,
, substantial grounds. Ineffect, the
,.hold convincinggrounds for such
if il' were
otherwise,
no
.disturbance likely to becaused by
operations can nullifythe.warrant,
expropriation could .be arbitrary.
's~~h.ope;ations~e so serionsthat
·or sirnply prevent from establishing
Protection . from
arbitrary
·they can be undergone but
il. No search or seizure is possible
expropriation and protection ofthe
exceptionally, because, by their
either., when
'..
the. evidence on which
right to property are two different
.nature, they can entail violation of'
the warrant is based proves to be
aspects of the same thing : if the
some of other. basic rights' 9),
false«
right to property exists, to protect
especially the rightto dignity, the
it, we need to protect against
· right to mqve freely within one's
1.7'
. Bene±it from ri!!hts other
arbitrary expropriation. And ifit
.own. ,.~o,untf.Y, secrecy .vof
than those defiried in the
does not exist, it becornes
correspondence etc.
/'.'
Constitution
unnecessary to speak of arbitrary
expropriation. Let u~ n~Ùce'
For that reason, amohg others,
Article 9 of the
howeverthat' in' the' Universal
searches and seizures can take
Bill ofRights seems to make an
Declaration on human rights, the
place only on reasonable grounds.
amalgamation as far as human
l~~ aspects are envisaged
..
' , . '
"
• ~. A
. '
.
rights and people's tights are
. simultaneously ~'article 17 which
, But who candetermine
-concerned, Apart from the right'to
tackles the problern is divided into
the reasonabilityofsuch measures
self determination and the right of
two paragraphs; the first ~fwhich
?Ii is thejustice who is qualified
·mi~orities wifhi;1 a nation, or the
recognizes forrnally the right to
to makesuch
· right to security, the people has
property, and the second, the right
an appreciation. He thus.delivers
practically no specifie right which
to be protected against arbitrary
a warrant authorizing the search,
is not included in the scope of
. expropriation.
· theseizure or thearrest of the
human.rights, This article l'uns as
.. individual ln question.. Article 40f
follows:
.
.
We must on the other
the Bill ofRights insistsstronglyon
" The enumeràriori in the
hand
rèmernber that if the
·the fact that such warrants must
Constitution ofcertain rights shall
A~ie;ican Decra'ration of
specify " the place to be searched
not be construed lo deny "or
independence views the" pursuit
",and" the things and persoristo
· disparàge others retained by the
.of happiness "as afundamental
be seized ". Verycertainly, fàilure
, 'people"'"
.: " ~.
. ':. .
human right.isuchrecognition
,.
, "
,j
· , Here, it is '~ÏI~1P.'y .question of
. cannat be meaningful without the
avoiding that the -rights which
effectiveness of the right to
'belong to th~ people presentlyor
property.:
(Xlln,t.h,:t r~spe,et, see Universal Declaration
· whicii -are" likelyto 'existîIl !1~r
On the whole, the Bill of
.on Hunlan,Rigl)ts, prticle 12:.
>
:'favoûr,
" No one 'shal r lie subjected to arbitrary
~houldbe;discardedfrol11
Rights recognizes: perf~ctly t.~e
· interference with his privacy, family, home
· her benefit, on the ol~IY pretence
right to property.
.or correspondence, nor toauacksupon his
'. that suchrights are not mentibned
, honour and reputation. fveryone has the
'lin thé Constitution.
"- '
right to the 'prokètion of the law a~ainst
J -such 'interference or attacks ".
" .:: ,;.}, ' Of course, these rights
1.6'PI'otèction from unreaso11able
., '"! Contrar'ily to:the Universal Declaration
-refer to iùdivid~Ials in general, and
searches and seizures. .
"
.,~f Hum'an Riihts,)~.e Bill, ofrights does
: ,.
1
not acknowiedae cxplicitly Ihe right of
pertainto the' re~hl1 of human
· {xivacY: Yct,' theSupremc Court ruled that
'rifyits. r.
'Thereiire sorne forms of
.,
.
it is part of rights which derive frorn.a set
. ot:rights .explicitly grante(! by sOllle clauses
searches which can endanger
:ofthè Constitution: i.c.: 3'~, 4'\\ 5'h a 1id 9'1.
peac.e
and. tranquillity
of
amcndments. The doctrine thus -cnoliiicèd
individuals, and violate use.lessly
by the court his.:knpwn :as" Pcnumbral
rights ". Sec: .Gris-.yQld,
the 'privaci
a~d
8)
the sec'recy of
y. Conneçticul,
. 1
,
'1965:'
.
.
'. ,"
,
,
-l,
their homes and a:ffairs. The Bill of
r
, '1'
,
.
(Il') Suprellle, COlll:1. 1I(1app V. Uhio,1961.
Rights c'onsiders ,tqàt~' to be
./
;
.'
"
.. -
"
lW
Rev~ ÇAMES ~'Série B, \\{ol;'OOS'N°,l;-2. 2003

---

--., . - ,
Sciences sociales et. humaines
Article 10 seems to convey the
rights by,the Nationalgovemment, .
in secret. Nevertheless, no delay .
..same concern, although from. a
and at protecting individualsfrom
isdefined in the Bill ofRights. In
slightly different BOint ofview, This
that of States. Butthernost ..
effect,
the
circumstances
articlemakes it clearthatpowers
important point at stake is th~
surrounding sorne offencescan be
not attributed to the federal
enjoyment of human rights by
more or less complex.so that the
govemment belong either to State~
individuals, because wherevèr
timenecessary to have- precise
or tothe people. ,
human rights are applied, both
ideas about' the facts can be
As suggested a few lines above,
people's and individuals' as wellas
variable . But whatever the case,
distinction between the rights of a
States' rightsare positively
such delays should be admittedly-
people and those ofindividuals is
observed.
reduced,
rather ambiguous., That same
,
ambiguity prevailswhen it çomes
2.1.2 Specifications abOlit the jlllY:
to distinguishing people's duties
Thé rights studied' so' far conce~
and individuals' duties.,
.
any person, as they belong to the
. . Fhe'jury must be impartial:
. What powers, riot .delegated to
realmofhurnan rights, But there is
Their appreciation must be based
. thenational govemment nor denied
anothér set ofhuman rights which,
onthe factsand the law asit is at
to States.belongfor instance to the
though ofthe same natureas these, .
the· moment the offences are
State, or the people? Here, we cffi,l
benefit a particular typeof
committed . Objectivity.néutrality
take two fields into consideration:
individuals: the accused,
..
and 'equity seem to be required
,
regulation of edll~ation and
from thèmetribers of thejury. ,'...
: ,
• • '"'
. . . . .
' -
'
• • '
' r
, - , '
• • • • •
' .
regulationofmarriage and divorce.
n .Protection ofthé rights ofthe
,.'
-In additioru'that jury must
These.d~mains are not within the
accused
~ -,'
pertain to the state ând the district
range of~1att~{·sd~ectlyéontrolled
in'which the crime hashappened.
bythe nationalgovemment on.the
,
". '.'Independently fi6~ the
ineffect a criminal inflight can have
basis ofthe federal constitution. At
fact ofbeirig acêused ~r rot, evéry
gone- from cl state to anothér in
,
-
!
'
the same time we noticerhat the
persan having ta dowiththe court
order to escape trials. wheil he is .
righÙo ~du~~tionand the right to
is
presumably assured
of
caught in a state far from' that in
marriage.?I1d fam~ly lif~ are rights
equitabilityoftrials.. IIIaddition tô
which-be.has misbehaved, he is
which by their nature, -can be
this, 'tii~ a2~useci 'b~nefit from
likely to be brought by the police
enjoyed but by individuals as
spécifie în~~~tires ofprotection
to the state and district in which his
human rights jWhereas for tbê
whose contents varyaccording as
misdeed occurred. Of.course, in
States; ir cornes to guaranteeing
it cornes to criminal or civil affairs.
.
.....
such a place, it would be easier to
~
. -.
"
the benefit ofsuch rights ,
.
.
.
make'more
successful
'.
.
Nevertheless the exercise
2.1·Güafant~ei fdr:egu'itabie'trial~
investigations aboutthe crime: . '
ofthe rights in questioncan imply
, . :
the fulfilment of.sorne.specified
" T o b e valid and
. ~_ ' : r'
' .
l~
.~
•
"
"
.
duties : individuals have the right
acceptable, trials must have sorne
2.1.3 ;Infom1ation ofthe accused
to get married, but also they. havr
charàd~ristièsand be in harmony
J ••
;
the dutyofcomplying with the rules
with sorne requirernents, such as
_ When.the accused is
of Înarriage. Individuals have the
the following onés :.
.
heard by the jury, the sentence is
right to education.butthey samely
not. yetdeli vered. -Only an
haye the dutY of sending.their
2:.1.t Speedyand public trials:'
indictrnent is issued. The Bill of
.
•
• •
- 4 0 '
:- ~ '•• -
. ' 1 :
'
children to school.
.rights.makes itcompulsoryto
Trials must he 'rapid.
state in detail the nature andthe
, ' ,
'
"
Moreover, they m~st be held in
cause of the accusation. The
•
-
.
•
,
l '
On the whol~, in so rulin&,articles
. public..This is probablya reaction
teason why-the act.is illegal (the·
9 ard 1.0 aim re~pectively at
again~t' the practice of' G~eat
law which isbroken) and th~
protecting the people· from· a,
Britain where poÜticaltrials'were
circumstances which make it
possible encroachment op theif
retarded for yeais to bé hhally held
serious, must be,bl'üught tO the
Rev.'CAMES -SérieB, Vol. 005 N··1-2~ 2003
8t

---

. -;
i . ~. : or· ' .
knowledge. of the accùsed.. This
offences which- 'call foi· severe
'.
.'However, iftbe'jü~y:lùîs
will help himprepare hisdefence .
punishments: by 'law. Doubtless
noryet èometo'a' decision,
.. Besides, the Supreme
becauseofthè severity 01 those
because f~r'jÎ1stahce"'l'li lack of
Court -ruled that the right .to
piinishments il) , the-Bill ofRights
informationslikelyto facilitate the
information applies to suspects in
providesimportant guarantees for
appreciation of sorue f~IClS the
police custody, who must be
,
'
' - '
.
;-
. .
"
thé accused, Thoseguarantees mn
accused can be heard "asecoiïd
informed.oftheir right to be silent,
as follows: .'.
time .. But after the seniënce is
oftheir right to counsel and ofthe
2.2~1
~e!ivér~d~ tl-us issimplyimpossible
fact that anything they say may be
" Reguiren~ent~f~ grand
. " .
.
used against them (Miranda V
1!!!:Y :
Arizona, 1966)
Before a person is tried in
2.2.3
Protection:' trom fôrcèd
court on a charge of capital or
testimony ag~inst 0I1eself
2.1.4
Confrontation with the
".
~ .. '. ;
witnesses ofthe opposed.party
infamous crime, he must be he~d
bya grand jury.A grand jury isa
An accused cannet l;é
~o~B
forced to give evidence against
.If i10
ofexperienced persons ~ho
happens that the
himself Ofcourse, there are 'cases
witnesses against the accused are
. ë~anl.ine c911ectiyelythe qualityof
in which the accused. frOI11 their
not in good faith 9r are telling1ies,
the ~vi~ence used against the
accused, If ihat evidence is not
heart ofhearts, acknowledge what
or ifthey are simply ill-. informed
sound enough,
they arereproached with. This is
about-the situation, much damage
ithe gf~~d .I~rY
cannet indict the accused. But ifit
not a forced testimony, but "a
can be unjustly. caused to the
l~~ppe'~si'Uiat'the 'evidence ii
confession. As a consequence, it
accused. BqJ in case there is
serious enough, it is taken into
is 110t what is forbidden. But when
confrontation.jthis risk 'qn .be
consideration and the accused is
it cornes to obliging an accusedto
corrected, because the accuseç!
indicted. TKen, im~l'oniy then can
givetestimonyagainsthimself this
cau point out mistakes-and errors
hé bé brought to'court fo'[ tri~l' ..
falls within the range ofwhat IS
arising from their statements.
. .:
Th~ advantage ~(this
rejected by the prescrit 'clause
Otherwise,. the ~uJJs.~qu~nt
measiirein the field~hluP-~~ight?
(article 5).
sentence. could- be wrong and
protection is that it limits the risk
. "
In effect, as IOllg 'as the
damaging to the accused.
'.
of bririging to co;~rt in~oter1t
accused is not prove;l guilty, he is
. . .
" , . '
considered innocent. '
2.1.5
.Assistance ofa'c~unse'l
persons.
. : , .,
.
l.U
The idea ofdue process of
2.2~2 Proteeti~n:againstiasecond
In the tenns ofthe Bill of
law' Il)
.
trial o!the S~l~ criminai offence
rights (article 6) , as;istanc~ of~
•
J
.• '
. "
counsel in the trial ofa criminal'is
Il'is indicated in the saille
In case a criminai
compulsory. Without such
clause tharno one'canbe deprived
offence is judgedand the sentence
assistance, the trial could not be
oflife, libertyand propertywithout
issued,..tileaccus~ci carin~t "b~
val id. In effect, in cases the
due processoflaw. This meansthat
judged av'er again . This idea
accusedfail to ensure a counse!for
for an accused to be ki lied
seemsto r~fèr to a case il) which
,
'
his own. defence.uhe Supreme
imprisoned or deprived of his
thejury couIdbe too lenienÙnthéii
Courtdemands thathe be provided
property, the rule of law must be
appreciation ofthe facts. The fifth
with one. Which means that if this
followed. Any mistakeeitherabout
amendmerit makes it c1ear that in
requirement isnot fulfilled, the trial
the proceedingsor the éxamiuation
any case" no second trial must be
would be void. . ... ,
offacts could make.it impossible
·unciertak~n. The reason is that as
to fulfil the requirements ofthis
sucl~ a tri~'l has exp~sed'once {he
2.2·
Safeguarding the rights of
principle. 'As a consequence no'
accused to the Ioss'ofhis life, ii is
the accused in criminai affairs
sentence could be taken to that
not ~ny more normal thé).t' so high a
efféct.
risk be taken again.'
..
.
EV~l1if it were,it l'luisthe
Crimes are serious
.
.....
"
"
.
.
•
j . . "
• . .
..: l
' . '
"
. . ~ .
82
Rev;CAME~ - Série B, Vol. 005 W 1-2.2003

---

..•
-.:--.-....:..:.::_...:..-~
--.;,.;
-"---'--'-
~
.Sciences sociales ·et humaines
" punishments " shall not be "
document must not beconsidered
risk
of
being
unusual ".The world " unusual
as refused to people:this provision
r
"here meansiunreasonable or
isundoubtedlya elever approach .:
2.3 Safeguardingtherights ofthe
inequitable.
.r:
to that difficulty, But what ifsuch a
accusedin civil affairs
'. On thé basis of that clause,
clause were omitted ? Would the
the supreme Courtjudged in 1972
rights unmentioned failto exist. as
Trial by jury isobserved
(Furrnan Vs Georgia) that the
a consequence ?:
also in civil affairs in.which the
capital punishment which was
ln the field -of human
financial amount at stake is at least
imposed
on' the
accused
rights, the rights are supposed to
twenty dollars.Article7ofthe Bill
constituted a '.' cruel and unusual
have ever existed, prior to any
ofRights rules that, if affairs so
punishrnent "Buton.the contrary,
written tex t». -So, were they
tried by a jury should be re-
. the Courtheld that death .as
rnentioned or not.etheywould
examined.jt would b'é according
punishmentfor personsconvicted
soundly èxi'st".· provided il is
to the rule of common law. The
'.
. -
;
of first degreemurdèr, was.not in
dernonstrated that they are humari
provisionsounds like one ofthose
and of itself cruelrand ünusual
rights. But how to effect such a
formerly studied in the frame of
. punishment in violation ofthe 8th
demonstration without a text ?
criminal offence, but the latter are
.....
amendrnent: The Courtindicated
far more detailed and precise, and
.. , '
.... 011 the other hand ,
also that to effectsuch a
considers re examinations as
ex cept probably. the secol}Sl
punishrnent, the jury ·and,the
exceptional. :
amendmentwhichrefers jo bearing .
•
_
•
_
• _ J
" .
~.
.
.
sentencingjudgë shouldconsider
9fw!-v,s Py.SJat~s.,the Bill ofrights
the individualcharacter. ofthe
2.4 Protection'oftheaccusedfi'OlTI
deals so relevantly with humar:
t . ·
1
•
offender and the circumstances of
too severe sanctions
rights that olle can wonder
the crime before.deciding whether
whether it is.amere,biUpfr,ights or
or: no'! to-jrnpo'se the.death
-, .....i~ F~i~)lapp,~11 th~t
a Billofhuman riglus..:TI]!~ hasbeen
. sentence (GreggV Georgia; Profitt
. decisions of the court be too.harsh
made possible,by théfact ~ilat\\10th
V. Fia; Jureck V. Texas: 1976).
. in cornparison with theoffence
human.rights and the Bi.11 ofrights
committed by the accused. In such
are based on the same lundamental
' , j " , '
' , : ' .
CONCLUSION,;,' fi:
cases; decisions are not equitable.
p'l;i~l~ipl~.:protectionand.defence
because they fail toestablish a
.<;>,tïpq,ivid.\\.,laI.s against iheir.own
.., ,-1, .•
·'Fhe'.B.iH ofrRights
reasonable balance between the
,g<;>ye~1l1~el}rS.;. .' .
guaranteescertainly .Yatioll~
offenceand the damage càusedby
fundamental individual liberties(
the offender, To put it otherwise,
AI\\l1\\lEX: The Bill ofRiuhts
.-
. ",
.
_ . '
.
_. f ~
. '
"-:".
t , t
_
religions freedom, freedorn ofthe
th~y' ~ffènd :Ù~g"6ff~ha'~F' :mo/e
Articles .in addition to. and
.pressrfreedom .ofassernbly 'and
bad iy,llj~a\\l 'the .oh~ry'd~t: has
'~i~1~nd111ent of. t1~e ~O'l~t;tut\\;n'
petition.. :) and-most of the rights
• • • '
~
1
~'f:;
offended while breakingthe ruleof .
the United States of America,
of the accused. But.not.every
law. The resultofthis is injusticein
proposed by Congress,.a,~"1d ratified
human right is envisaged by it; in
.detrirnenttorhe accused. As
,by~ t,hy several states, pursuant to
so far as such iniportant 'l:ïghts as
.
. '
;
. . .
justice i s-neede d. to correct
the. fifth article of the oriaina]
'the right tc-trée1110Vell.'iènt'within
injustice, and' not the. reverse,
the-national territory, the rightto
.C~n?titutiol~. Jr,:.::': " .:~. l' ;
article 8 oftheBilrofkighismakes
work,thé righttocultural.life.etc. '..
. . "
it cieai that-" bailsvand" fihes"
AMENDMENT l ,.
'
are not takeninto accounttlierein.
must not be" excessive" and that
: ...
'éonQr~ss' ·~ilal; 'm'ake no
,
,
........
,
Thus is posed the problem of the
... ~
. ; . . . .
.
.
rights not i11'entioned· in' the
, .~-'-----.:.-'----'.,....,...""':-'-"--
'''',For a morc detailcd study orthc'principle
constÜutioI1, . and : of
the
ofdue proces~orlall'.sec: I3ARR<,)N (,I.A
c'oÎlsé'quènèeof that· sitüation :
'il3l(iuil{i~I;( R) ,;n~(Vincl:nl'l.I ':) : op". ~il
) and DIENI-:S (è. ·fh.):' COIistitulionallalV
article9 of the Bill'ofRightsprovès
: sec also:.l3arron( •.1 ..) alid i)il:Ill:,'(C..TIî.) :
: West Publishing Co.. St l'aul. Minnesota,
'Col1slilUliona!
1.,111
.. ,(JI) .. Cil.
)1)S7 ( pp. 141 - 156).
~"
't6:be wekome àsît rules;tliat Hie
p'.13S:paragraph ;\\ 1 (:li"l:l1Iill~ Opil;'i/'Il'
rights not acknowledged in that
in thc Suprl:l1ll: Cou ri ).

---

Sciences sociales et humaines
. ...
. ~
lawrespecting an establishment of
be compelled'in any criminal case
people.
, '
religion' or, prohibiting the, free
to he a witnessagainsthimself, nor
exercise'thereof, o~ abridging the
be deprived-of.life.iliberty, or
AMENDMENT X .
freedom ofspeech.or ofthe press,
property, without due.process.of
',tl-ie 'pdwers,hdt,:.- " ':
01;
the, right to .the.ipeople
law; .norshàll private property be
delegated to the United-States by
peaceably to .assernble, and.to
tàkenfor publicusewithout just
.the Constitution, nor pmhibited
petition the Governrnent .for a.
compensation.
'~.
1
by it to thé states; are rèserved to
redress ofgrievances..
j .. ' '
the Statesrespectivcly. or to the"
...
.
",
;
.",
AMENDMENT VI.
1
"
people." .
' 'l" •
.
;;',
,
AMENDMEN1Il.,·
.
.. : , : -In aIl -crirninal
. Bjbliography .
A weIl regulated Militia,
prosecutions, theaccused sha11
being necessary to thesecurity of
enjoy the right to a 'speedy and
A, Basic dbc'LII'ncnts :
a free State.the righrofthepeople
.'-;,
public trial, by an: impartialjury of
!
; .
(
to keepand bear Arms-shall not
the State and district wherein the
be infringed . ,
crime shall have been committed;
which 'district' sha11 have been
.:.
American Déclaration of
AMENDMENT III.
lndependence.
previouslyascertain'ed by law,and
Nosoldier shall, in time of
tobe informed of the nature and
peace be quartered in any house,
.:..
N EV 1N S' ( A Il an. ) ,. and
cause. of the accusation.lto. be .
COMMAGER ( Henry Steele)
-withoutthe consent of the owner,
confronted. .with 'the witnesses
:A Pocket History(;fth~ United
nor in time ofwar, bùt in a mariner
against himto have conipulsory
States"
Washington Square
to be prescribedbylaw. \\ ,
processfor obtainirig witnesses in
"'Press,5 Ii; ed.; 1972,"
,
• •
J " . ~,'
\\
;"
~ , '.
. '
- ' . '
. .
"
his faveur; and -to.have-the
AMENDMENT I V . : '
assistance of counsel for; his
.:.
Déclaration Universelle des
-i -The right 'of the 'people to
defence. .(:.
',._'
,',
, .: droits de c'0Iîol~lme: 16 dec,
be secure in their persons,houses,
. t'; ..
f
~ L •
1948.
, ' l ,
.
papers, and' effects, àgainst
AMENDMENT VII ,
tinre~son~ble sé~~ches' and
.:.':' Pacte-international.relatif aux
In suitatcommon law,
seizures,sha11 not be violatéd, and
'droits économiques, sociaux et
wherethevaluein controversy shall
: cLilturels,16 c1écembrcl966
no W~rrants shall issue, butupon
exceedtwenty dollars, the right of
(entrée en vigueur: 3 .Janvier
probablecause,supported by'Oàth
trialby jury shall bepreserved, and
. \\976) " ' : .
or affirmation, and particularly
no fact triedby ajury sha11be
describing the place ,t6 . be
otherwise re' '-'examinedinany
.:., , 'Pact~inte~mitioiHil relatifaux
sèarched.and the persons or things
'Courtof.the United States, than
'dr~ii,s ~ivils ~t politiq~les: 16
tobe seized.
, ' , .
',., "
according- to the Tules lof' the
~ ,.. décembre 1966,: entrée en vi-
commonlaw.
".
"glIeu'r : 23,3 ,1'?76.
AMENDMENTV,'
,
j '
.No person sha11 be held to
AMENDMENT VIII .
. '
•
•
1
~
~.:~
Protoco le facultatif se'rappor-
answerfora capital, or othérwise
: , .Excessive bailsballnot be
::~:,tant au pacte international l'C-
infamous crime, unless on a
required, non-excessive- fines
, " latifaux droits civils el politiques
, .du.lô décembre 1966; entrée
presentment or indictment or.a
imposed, .nor cruel, ~nd, unusual
.• en vigueur :23 .m~rs 1976! '
grandjury, except in cases arising
punishmentsinflicted-.
.
,
, ~
in thé land Of naval forces, or in
.:.
Paul Williams. ed, The Inter-
the Militia, when in actual service
kMENpMENT IX.'
.national.Bill of (-Iuman Rights,
in time of War or public danger;
" The.enumeration in the
; Ent wh istle Books BOX 611,
nor shall any persan be subject for
Constitution. ofcertain
,
rights
,
shall
G leu Even, Cal iforn ia, USA'.
.
.
the same offence to be twice put
not beconstrued to deny.or
" ,
' .
.
. . '
' . - " ;
. '
injeopardyoflife ~r limb,nor sha11
disparage others retained by the
B . Others works
. , .
, ......
,.:: ,;1'
"1
84
Rev. CAMÈS -S~rie B, Vol. 005 N° 1:2. 20p3
.... .-
.
. .~
~

---

____~
~~~_~
~~-k~œs~~~~hJ~~~
• The Wortd Almanac and Book of"
", ions.
"" Etats - Unis: Espace Européen.
Facts
Funk and Wagnalls
- - ,
"Inter- Nationales, Collectiori "
"1992,
Corporation, Mahwah, New
« Nouveaux Horizons ».
• Revue.Francaise de drOIt consti-
" Jersey * , 1994.
• FISHER ( Louis) Constitutional
tutionnel : Droit Constitutionnel
• Barron ( J.A ) and Dienes ( C.
Dialogues: Înterpretation as
des Etats - Unis, Paris, Presse
TH.): Constitutional Law: West
political process . Princeton, New
Universitaire de France, 1998.
PublishingCo,St Paul, Minnesota, "
Jersey, Princeton University
• SchwartzB. : Le droit aux Etats
1987.
Press -
Unis :une créationpellnanente.
• Burgess ( Fr .) . Les institutions
• Levasseur ( A ) : Le droit des
Paris ECONOMICA 1979.
Américaines, 7< éd ition, Presses
Etats - Unis, Paris Dalloz, 1994.
Zollner ( E): Le droit des Etats -
Universitaires de France, 1999.
• MARSHALL ( T. , éd.) : Théo-
Unis. Paris, Presses Univ. de"
• BOWEN ( C.D.): Le rendez -
rie et Pratique du Gouvernement
France, 200 1. "
. vous de Philadelphie, Paris, Edi-
Constitutionnel: La France et les
Rev. CAMES - Série B, Vol. 005 W 1-2.2003
85 .

---