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

Sep. 20, 2025

Oct. Nov. 2025

Nov. Dec. 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The article must be original, unpublished and compatible with the subject matter of the indicated dossier; it should count between 15 and 25 pages; it can be written in Portuguese, English, Spanish or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 – “A Comparative Analysis of Negotiated Justice Systems”
    • Associated-editors: Giulia Lasagni (University of Bologna, Italy) and Jacopo Della Torre (University of Genova, Italy)
    • Deadline for submissions of articles: until September 20, 2025;
    • Period of evaluation: October and November, 2025;
    • Prediction for publication: November and December, 2025.

    • Summary: Until a few decades ago, it was widely believed that, due to its construction in accordance with the principles of the mixed (inquisitorial) model, criminal trials in continental Europe and Latin America were inherently incompatible with consensual procedures for terminating proceedings. On this view, negotiated justice was traditionally seen as a phenomenon intrinsic to adversarial systems rooted in common law jurisdictions—such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, or Australia.

      Today, however, this dogma has been decisively challenged. Across many Romano-Germanic legal systems, various forms of negotiated resolutions have rapidly proliferated, marking what can only be described as a global shift—one that has not bypassed continental Europe and Latin America. Increasingly, civil law jurisdictions are codifying mechanisms in which the resolution of the criminal conflict becomes the object of “negotiation” between the parties—and in some cases, the court itself—in order to reach an agreement. In parallel, several countries, such as Austria, Slovenia, and Portugal, have witnessed the rise of informal negotiation practices, not explicitly provided for by statute but developed and stabilized through prosecutorial and judicial praxis.

      Moreover, growing attention is being paid—both in legislation and legal doctrine—to informal and hybrid forms of negotiated justice, which lie at the intersection of discretion, procedural simplification, and restorative practices. These models often escape traditional classifications but play a crucial role in shaping the daily operation of criminal justice systems. The role of informal mechanisms—whether as transitional tools, pragmatic responses to systemic overload, or expressions of a shifting penal culture—deserves particular scrutiny, especially in relation to the risks of opacity, inequality, or uneven application of guarantees.

      Other systems have gone further. In France, for example, the scope of plea bargaining has been expanded to include more serious offenses. In Germany, following decades of debate, the legislature has codified an existing informal practice in the form of the Verständigung, a negotiated procedure formally applicable to all categories of offenses. What emerges from this evolution is the growing recognition that a distinctive phenomenon—what we might now call European negotiated justice—is taking shape. While legal frameworks differ, a variety of national "styles" or "models" of plea negotiation are developing, each reflecting local legal culture and procedural values.

      This call for papers invites contributions that explore negotiated justice in criminal proceedings from a comparative perspective. Papers may focus on a single national system or adopt a broader, cross-border or theoretical approach. The following themes are particularly welcome:

      • The historical development and the diffusion of negotiated procedures across the world, and the emergence of distinct models of plea bargaining;
      • The problematic relationship between negotiated justice and criminal evidence, including the role of the standard of proof and the principle of truth-seeking;
      • The implications of plea bargaining for the fundamental rights of both the accused and the victim, including issues of consent, equality of arms, and judicial oversight;
      • Key judgments of the European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights relevant to plea agreements, and soft law instruments adopted by the Council of Europe addressing negotiated justice;
      • The implications of forms of negotiated justice on sanctioning models;
      • The contribution of the EU Directives on procedural rights to the development of fair and balanced consensual mechanisms in criminal proceedings;
      • The role and limits of negotiated justice within the framework of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, particularly in light of Article 40 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939;
      • The intersections between negotiated justice and procedural sanctions;
      • The emergence and legal treatment of informal and extra-codified practices of negotiated justice;
      • The challenges posed by the mutual recognition of judgments resulting from negotiated agreements in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, including issues of equivalence, trust, and due process in cross-border enforcement;
      • The repercussions of negotiated justice on the right to an effective remedy and potential impact the occurrence of miscarriages of justice;
      • Enforcement of negotiated justice: empirical analysis of data emerging from the practice.