This article is dedicated to the new provisions in Code of Criminal Procedure in Serbia, which went into effect in 2009. The article presents critical comments of some inapplicable, contradictory and unclear provisions. The paper is separated in four parts: 1) reference to another nonexistence provisions; 2) contradictory provisions; 3) unclear provisions and 4) gaps in the law. Therefore, the author interprets those confused regulations and suggests the improvement of legal text.

The author points out on polyvalent meaning of the term rehabilitation in law. She analyzes Serbian legislature: Criminal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure and Law on rehabilitation. She draws the demarcation line between the rehabilitation of just sentenced convict, the rehabilitation of unjustified sentenced convict and the rehabilitation of the victims of the political repression. There are differences between their goals, foundation, contents, conditions and procedure. It is pointed to the need of adding some special attribute to some kinds of rehabilitation or their precise legal definition.

The paper analyzes the measures of witness protection through anonymous testimony in continental law. At first, there are introductory considerations about identity and anonymity. The second part pays attention to origin of anonymous testimony in con­tinental law. The third part is the main. There are described and classified different measures of anonymous testimony. Finally, author point to certain necessary limitation on the occasion of anonymous testimony.

U nasoj zemlji se tek poslednjih nekoliko godina intenzivno radi na obezbeđenju zastite svedoka. Sistem zastite svedoka ipak nije u potpunosti izgrađen. U Srbiji su u toku zakonodavne aktivnosti kojima ce se zastita svedoka podici na visi nivo i zaokružiti. Sudeci po postojecoj, kao i po planiranoj zakonskoj regulativi, zastita svedoka u Srbiji bice na relativno zadovoljavajucem nivou i uglavnom usklađena sa opsteprihvacenim pravnim standardima iz te oblasti.

The paper analyzes measures of witness protection through preventing the physical encounter of accused and witness. They can be directed to the physical putting out of action of intimidation and retaliation, but also to the protecting the physical integrity of witness, in other words to the preventing his secondary victimization. This kind of measures of witness protection can be related to the rules of evidence and to the process coercion. Some legislatures exclude the possibility of confrontation witnesses with the accused in interest of witness protection. It is especially desirable by children and other vulnerable witnesses. Somewhere, the prohibition of confrontation is limited to the criminal offences against sexual integrity. Contribution to the witness protection is also such kind of organization of recognition that person who is recognized can not see and hear the person who perform the recognition. The temporary removing of the accused from a courtroom can also be the measure in function of witness protection. It is also provided for judges duty to inform the accused about process after his return at the session. Sometimes the legislatures issue the victims right to safe place of waiting to hearing. Finally, we have a hearing by video - conference and close circuit television. Primary goal is elimination of negative consequences the courts at morpheme. It can be possibility or duty. This measure is not exception to the principle of immediacy. Some general institutions with regard to process coercion can also be in function of witness protection. There are detention on account of influence on witnesses, prohibition of meeting with certain persons and obligatory notice about releasing accused from detention.

This article focuses on special expeditious procedures for crimes committed during the trial. Two types of such procedures were analyzed: amendment of the indictment for crimes of the accused, which were either committed or discovered during the trial; and, procedure for charges raised by other persons for the first time during the trial. The author analyzes the conditions, basic features and limits of these procedures, as well as how to choose the appropriate expeditious procedure and provide adequate protection of the accused. The analysis is followed by pro et contra arguments. These procedures can be easily justified by principles of rationality and crime prevention policy. Not only do they prevent unnecessary expenses for the criminal justice system, but they also facilitate sentencing and efficient crime prevention. The commission of a criminal offense in the courtroom is insolent behavior, which can be successfully prevented by providing possibility to initiate a trial on the spot.

The author analyzes a summary trial and describes it as a specific simplified procedure which is the common law counterpart to summary procedures in civil law systems. Before the author came to this conclusion, she had set criteria for categorization of different procedures and defined a special procedural form, which is determined by two constitutive elements: special legal ground and characteristic structure of such a procedure.