﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:trackback="http://madskills.com/public/xml/rss/module/trackback/">
  <channel>
    <title>Criminal Trial</title>
    <description>Criminal Trial Cases</description>
    <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/BlogId/642/Default.aspx</link>
    <language>en-GB</language>
    <webMaster>registration@casecheck.co.uk</webMaster>
    <pubDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:03:38 GMT</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 02:03:38 GMT</lastBuildDate>
    <docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
    <generator>Blog RSS Generator Version 0.0.0.0</generator>
    <item>
      <title>Mara’abe v The Prime Minister of Israel (September 15, 2005)</title>
      <description>The Supreme Court of Israel considered the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ in relation to the “Legal Consequences of The Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory” and issued an order requiring the State of Israel to reconsider the existing route of (at least one part of) the wall, on the grounds that it did not meet the test of proportionality.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12302/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12302/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=12302</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 15 Sep 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12302</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Jose Padilla v CT Hanft, et al (September 9, 2005)</title>
      <description>The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the decision of the district court, which held that the President lacks the authority to detain Padilla (an alleged “enemy combatant”) and that Padilla should therefore either be criminally charged or released.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12303/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12303/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=12303</guid>
      <pubDate>Fri, 09 Sep 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12303</trackback:ping>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Pupino (Police &amp; judicial cooperation in criminal matters) [2005] EUECJ C-105/03 (16 June 2005)</title>
      <description>The principle of interpretation in conformity with Community law was applicable to framework decisions adopted under article 34 EU.</description>
      <link>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12039/Default.aspx</link>
      <comments>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/CaseLaw/tabid/1184/EntryID/12039/Default.aspx#Comments</comments>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.casecheck.co.uk/Default.aspx?tabid=1184&amp;EntryID=12039</guid>
      <pubDate>Thu, 16 Jun 2005 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
      <trackback:ping>http://www.casecheck.co.uk/DesktopModules/BlogPlus/Trackback.aspx?id=12039</trackback:ping>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
