In contrast to the European situation regarding the criminalization of the offence of abuse of office, in which many states have chosen to include in separate regulations belonging to the scope of their criminal law a series of facts that together could be classified as abuse of office, in Romania, the legislator, incriminated such illicit conduct in a single text of law, under the generic name of abuse of office. The national criminal provisions on “abuse of office”, “excess of authority” and similar expressions should be related only to the exercise of public power, strictly interpreted, being possible to be invoked and applied only in that cases in which the offence is of a grave nature, such as for example serious offences against the national democratic processes and against fundamental rights, infringement of the impartiality of the public administration and so on. This kind of provisions must cover various forms of serious offences that public servants may commit and they are not easy to be incriminated in detail in advance.

The European Convention on Human Rights plays a key role in ensuring the protection of human rights, whereas, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the guarantee of the rights enshrined in the Convention implies, on the one hand, their observance by national authorities and, on the other, the removal by each signatory State of the Convention of all negative consequences caused in the event of their violation. The provisions of the Convention and its Additional Protocols have direct applicability in domestic law, and their correct applicability and interpretation is made by reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, jurisprudence having super-legislative force in the national law of the signatory states and interpreted working authority. The existing situations in practice show numerous abuses of the authorities by which the rights of the accused persons were limited, harming their interests. In the administration of the evidences in criminal proceedings, the observance of the presumption of innocence has a special role in ensuring the protection of the rights of accused persons, while contributing to reducing the risk of possible abuse. Therefore, it is necessary at the level of the judicial system to promote the observance of the presumption of innocence and, implicitly, of the right to silence and not to incriminate oneself.

For the correct application of any legal norm, it is necessary to clarify all the elements susceptible to interpretation, and when there are gaps in the law or violations of the fundamental law of a state or of the provisions of international documents to which a country is a party, the intervention of the legislator is necessary for remedying these aspects. For these reasons, in the present scientific approach we aimed to analyze some aspects of essential importance of the new formula for criminalizing the offence of blackmail, aspects that may generate difficulties both in terms of interpretation and application. Only a regulation correlated with the fundamental law of the country and with the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights can meet the requirements necessary for the protection of the mental freedom of the person who represents the social value protected by the norm of criminalizing the offence of blackmail.

Adult’s violence manifested against children is an extremely common phenomenon and with dramatic consequences on the latter. Therefore, at the international level, an attempt has been made to prohibit the manifestation of any form of violence against children. In our scientific approach, we set out in particular to examine the extent to which internationally adopted documents succeed in preventing violence against children and in providing them with the necessary protection against such manifestations.

When God decided to take the Hebrew people as His own, Moses was called by God to go up Mt Sinai to receive the 10 Commandments. They are the duty owed to God (No false gods; No name in vain, Keep Holy the Sabbath) and duty to self and neighbour (Honour father and mother; Do not murder; Do not commit adultery; Do not steal; Do not bear false witness; Do not covet wife; Do not covet goods.) This was the first step that God called Moses to do as He was setting up a people and their society of 12 tribes in the Holy land. That is the Divine Law. Then there is the Natural Law and Positive Law.

Law is often transplanted from one place to another. Law is inextricably linked to its social context. In the new location, it will operate differently because the legal context changes. The law undergoes a transformation. In its new context, it might fulfill its intended purpose or satisfy a different one. In the extradition case of Meng Wanzhou, CFO of the Chinese private company, Huawei, the Canadian Court applied the double criminality test. This involved transferring the social context of the requesting jurisdiction, as it attached to the alleged conduct constituting the offence, to judge whether the domestic offence requirements could be satisfied. The social context may include background law comprising the sociolegal landscape. However, the law creating the offence is not transplanted for this purpose, as only the local law is relevant, not that of the foreign jurisdiction. This article reviews the application of the test and questions whether the deciding Court went too far by using foreign law, that creating US Sanctions against Iran, which does not exist in Canada, to satisfy a required element of the local offence. The article posits that the legal element of the transplanted ‘context’ shifted from passive background context to playing a performative role in the Court’s decision that the double criminality test had been satisfied. It is suggested that further study of the previous work of legal comparatists might help identify the role of transplanting law and context in this aspect of the extradition process.