The question is whether this repositions the role of the procedural subject as a source of evidence. On the part of the court, in so far as other methods of conducting the trial, maintaining order and questioning are obviously required. The differences are already palpable in the rules governing the composition of the court, since, with the exception of the single judge procedure,3 the composition of the court of first instance is made up of a professional judge and two persons with the following professional background: teachers, psychologists, members of a family, child and youth protection service, professionals working in the context of the administration of guardianship and child welfare, working or having worked in a position directly concerned with the treatment, care, employment, development, education or social assistance of the persons concerned, or with the resolution of the child’s fate, and who are or have been employed in a post requiring a university or college degree.4 Although the role of these persons in the evidentiary procedure remains limited in comparison with that of the chairman of the panel (specialised judge), the rights and obligations of the members of the panel remain the same and the rules on the disqualification of judges are also applicable to the sitting judge.5

The specificity of the procedures is also reflected at the level of organisational and administrative norms. The acting judges are designated on this basis by the OHIM:

The participation of defence in the processes is mandatory.7 It should be noted that some authors argue that the defender should also participate in the discovery of incriminating evidence, as this is what best serves the interests of the juvenile and the overall purpose of the proceedings.8 However, I feel that these expectations are unrealistic in the context of the legal profession, and that there are many other ways and means by which an authorised lawyer can help to deter his client from committing further offences.9 Let us not forget that in the majority of cases there is a much closer personal relationship between the defender and the accused in such cases.

To what extent, for example, is the defender responsible for inducing the juvenile defendant to confess or to repent? I do not believe that such an ethical requirement can be made of him or any other person involved in the proceedings, not least because this age group may also be offenders with different criminal histories or character traits (e.g. having criminal tendencies). 10

The fundamental question remains what the function of the legal representative is in the proceedings, whether he or she has any role – effective or formal – in the evidence.11 Is it right for the authorities (courts) to grant equal rights to the legal representative – thus elevating him or her to the status of a “second defence”?12 In my view, there is no legal obstacle to this practice, since, on the one hand, the special nature of the proceedings is precisely due to the increased protection of the personality of the accused and, on the other hand, there is usually no evidence of legal representatives obstructing the work of the defence with their constant comments and motions. Nevertheless, international practice shows that there is no complete overlap between the procedural rights of these two categories of persons. “The status of defence counsel is entrusted to duly qualified legal practitioners (lawyers, law professors, etc.), not to legal representatives, who are generally lay people and, in criminal proceedings, unfortunately, too emotionally close. Thus, they often lack the ‘distance’ necessary for a correct assessment of the case (e.g. evidence, coercive measures), which is more of a disadvantage for the accused than an advantage.”13

Among the means of proof, the following specific rules need to be analysed: