ARThe article discusses the legal basis and scope of 'trial in absence' within criminal proceedings. It explains that this legal mechanism is justified by the need to balance essential values of the criminal process, such as the right to defense and the state’s obligation to exercise jurisdiction. The article emphasizes that while the right to defense is crucial, it cannot be used to prevent the functioning of justice if the accused deliberately evades the process. The trial in absence allows proceedings to continue when the accused has intentionally avoided participation or cannot be located. However, strict adherence to due process guarantees is required, including ensuring effective legal representation throughout the process and allowing the defendant to challenge the sentence if their absence was due to factors beyond their control. The article argues that this institution does not violate constitutional rights but serves to ensure justice is not hindered by the accused’s deliberate avoidance.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced, legalistic explanation of the concept of 'trial in absence,' focusing on constitutional principles and procedural law. There is no evident ideological framing, loaded language, or one-sided emphasis. The content remains neutral, explaining both the justification and限
