Legal requirements for protection of the natural environment are continually being strengthened because of increased human damage to environmental resources. The applicable regulations of the Polish Penal Code towards protection of the environment were considerably amended in 2011 also to ensure implementation of European Parliament and European Council directives 2008 / 99 / EC, issued on the 19th November 2008. In addition, these changes also involve cross-border infringements, so that perpetrators cannot avoid retribution for actions committed under different provisions in individual Member States.

This article examines issues related to prison disciplinary proceedings. At the first part the Author describes – in a synthetic way – the evolution and aims of imprisonment, starting from ancient times until the 19th century. Mentioned are also the methods od prison discipline in places of penal isolation. The second part consist of a detailed account of historical development of prison disciplinary proceeding in Poland – from the period after the First World War until contemporary times. Concluding part of the article states that the objective of disciplinary sanctions is no longer only to provide safety and order within prisons but also is an important measure of inmate rehabilitation.

Although the principle of the confidentiality between client and attorney or solicitor is only one among many other professional duties of confidentiality, its nature is exceptional. Especially in the context of its legal regulation and a notion of controversy towards it. The main aim of the article is to analyze bodies of law that recognizes the duty of confidentiality between an attorney or a solicitor and their client, with particular focus on the regulation of the legal acts that allow the organs in criminal procedure to exempt the lawyer form a duty of professional confidentiality. Within the articles not only statutory law provisions has been analyzed but also norms of a corporate nature. The articles stress also that exists a dichotomy in the perception of the issue not only among professionals but also by the legislator himself.

In the last decade of the 20th century, a war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, once again making Europe a witness to an armed conflict. Almost at the same time, another local ethnic bloodshed started, but this time in distant Africa — in Rwanda. Both these events included the most horrifying international crimes against humanity: genocide and war crimes. To prosecute the most important commanding figures involved in these conflicts and hold them criminally responsible, two ad hoc United Nations tribunals were created: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. They finished their operation in 2017 and 2015, respectively. The tasks of conducting and completing all ongoing proceedings, including law enforcement, after the completion of their mandates have been entrusted to the UN International Residual Mechanism. One of the crucial assignments of the tribunals and later the Redisual Mechanism was to deal with the request on behalf of the convicted for granting them early release. Although none of the statutes of the aforementioned courts provided any ground for early release, soon it was accepted that both tribunals, as well as their successor, were entitled to proceed despite this issue. As soon as in 2001, the first convict was granted early release, but with no conditions. It is estimated that, to date, more than 2/3 of all convicted by the Tribunals have been released before the termination of their sentence. This should raise the question of how to rehabilitate that kind of offender, convicted of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, to ensure they do not pose a threat to society anymore. Especially since the offenders serve their punishment outside the country of their origin — meaning, different rules apply according to the domestic law regulation of the state that voluntarily agreed to enforce the sentence. This article analyzes the juridical approach of the tribunals and the Residual Mechanism on the issue of early release of the convicts involved in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

No abstract