Call for papers 2025

CALL FOR PAPERS – DOSSIERS 2025

In order to broaden its scope and the quality of the scientific articles published, the editorial board of Brazilian Journal of Criminal Procedure (Scopus, WoS, SJR Q2, Scielo, Dialnet, Qualis A1, Anvur A) announces this public call for authors to thematic dossiers that will be published on the issues of the journal in 2025, according to the following list of themes, associated-editors and deadlines:

	Deadlines for submission	Periods of evaluation and corrections	Estimated publication
Vol. 11 n. 2	Mar. 23, 2025	Apr. and May. 2025	June 2025
Vol. 11 n. 3	July 20, 2025	Aug. and Sept. 2025	October 2025

 

The submission of articles must be done in the online system of RBDPP, indicating the addressed dossier. Any doubt or request can be sent to: rbdpp.editor@gmail.com or vinicius.vasconcellos@usp.br. The paper must comply with all the rules established in the Editorial Policies and Authors Guidelines of the RDBPP, so that their inattention will lead to preliminary rejection.

The article must be original, unpublished and compatible with the subject matter of the indicated dossier; it should count between 15 and 25 pages; it can be written in Portuguese, English, Spanish or Italian; the submitted file must contain title, abstract and keywords in the language of the text and in English, and a list of bibliographical references at the end. There will be evaluation through the double-blind peer review system. Preprint deposits are accepted.

For all the journal policies, scientific integrity standards and author guidelines: https://revista.ibraspp.com.br/RBDPP/about/submissions – the website may be translated to English in the right menu bar.

In addition to the specific call for papers for those dossiers, the call for the general sections of the RBDPP is always open.

 

• 11, n. 2 – “Extinction of Crime, Acquittal, and Fact-Finding Functions of the Criminal Trial”
  • Associated-Editors: Stefano Ruggeri (Università degli Studi di Messina, Italia) and Francesco Morelli (Università degli Studi di Messina, Italia)
  • Summary: The critical point of the relationship between the decision certifying the extinction of the offence and acquittal has always been the fact finding in the judgement. Around this issue even today there are still, on the one hand, expectations of the outcome of the legal system and, on the other, theoretical problems that are difficult to face with the sole support of codified legislation. It is an issue that reflects both the social expectation of 'justice' before the legal system's choice to extinguish the criminal liability of the crime, and the expectation, as a fundamental right, of the defendant to see his or her innocence recognized before a jurisdiction that has been unable to convict him or her. On the other hand, it seems paradoxical ‒ and it raises theoretical contradictions ‒ that the trial ends with a finding of an actual criminal offence that cannot be turned into a conviction. Because of these contradictions, this argument has probably led to the proliferation of many declinations of assessment, which can be appreciated today not only within the penal system itself but also in the relations between it and non-criminal judgments and, even more, other national and international jurisdictions. Yet, if we start from the presumption of innocence, the assessment in the judgement should be one and not further qualified (it can only be rigorously qualified because of the rule of judgement that supports it). Instead, we are familiar with various types of “ascertainment”, in the context of the extinction of the crime: hypothetical or provisional ascertainment, ascertainment based on the absence of evident innocence, and even acquittals with substantial ascertainment of the crime. These variegated categories serve, perhaps, also to determine an effect of the criminal judgment declaring the extinction of the crime that is necessarily inconsistent with the presumption of innocence but, unfortunately, often demanded by relevant social claims: the reverberation of the outcome of the proceedings, albeit acquittal, on the social dimension of the person, in the working environment, in future relations with institutions and even, sometimes, in the historical context. These are complex constructions - whose theoretical hold remains to be verified, in the light of the presumption of innocence and the general theory - that conceal the need to mitigate the profound feeling of trial failure that the extinction dynamic evokes. Perhaps they are rooted in pathogenic agents that are resistant, to some extent, to the presumption of innocence, and aim to sabotage the recognition of the status innocentiae that the verdict of acquittal contains. On the contrary, they could be antidotes to values outside the jurisdiction but affirmed by the criminal justice system which, by providing for factors of extinction of the crime, defuses what for some is the function of the trial (the conviction), by preventing the punishment of ascertained or ascertainable crimes. A conflict of values, then, in which what is at stake is the protection of the individual's subjective positions in the face of criminal jurisdiction? Or the need for a theoretical rearrangement that would make the relations between extinction of the crime and acquittal more clearly defined by a clear and geometric use of the rule of judgement? Or again - trespassing on the terrain of criminal policy - the need to give a non-criminal echo to the substantive finding that lies in the decision of extinction in order to allow legal consequences for facts that are criminally illegal but no longer punishable? The issue under consideration therefore reveals enormous theoretical, systematic, and applicative relevance, raising questions to which this dossier is addressed from a national and, above all, comparative perspective.
  • Deadline for submissions of articles: until March 23, 2025;
  • Period of evaluation: April and May, 2025;
  • Prediction for publication: June, 2025.

 

• 11, n. 3 – “Procedural safeguards in digital investigations, encryption and governmental hacking
  • Associated editor: Anna Mosna (University of Leiden, Netherlands; KU Leuven, Belgium)
  • Summary: Technological innovations increasingly lead to the digitalisation of many fields of life. This development regards the way in which people communicate, work or fill their free time. It includes also the way in which crime is committed and investigated. Encryption is a crucial tool in this dynamic as it ensures privacy and data protection and thus the security from illegal or unwanted inspection. As many other technologies also, encryption can be considered neutral in that its impact on society depends on the use that is made of it. In matters of criminal justice, it may be misused by criminals to better communicate and coordinate, thus representing an obstacle to effective law enforcement and a challenge as encrypted communication networks must be decrypted or infiltrated for investigations to advance. Investigative action entailing decryption and/or hacking by authorities opens new questions with regard to its legitimacy and proportionality as well as to its impact on criminal defence rights and fundamental rights in general. This dossier intends to discuss this impact and to assess what a balanced approach would require to ensure effectiveness both of criminal enforcement and of fundamental rights protection.
  • Deadline for submissions of articles: until July 20, 2025;
  • Period of evaluation: August and September, 2025;
  • Prediction for publication: October, 2025.