[fr] The principle of legality was initially understood as a guarantee against the arbitrariness of judicial power: "God forbid that the Parliaments should be fair".
This vision differs markedly from the Anglo-Saxon approach, and more particularly the North American one, in which the judge is perceived as the protector of citizens against state power and its tyrannical excesses.
[d] The Constitutional Council stated that it follows from these provisions that the legislator is obliged to define the offences in terms sufficiently clear and precise to exclude arbitrariness.
[citation needed] Now the parliament retains control of the two most serious types of offense, crimes and délits, but contraventions have become a regulatory matter handled by the executive, as discussed in the first chapter of the code, article 111–2.
Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.Nonetheless, it is not a legally binding text: it therefore cannot be invoked in the national or international jurisdictions of States which have signed the Universal Declaration.
[10]Still, this judicial instrument leaves considerable leeway to the judge of that country, and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, is not recognized as a jurisdiction whose decisions are binding on individual States.
The European Court of Human Rights only has jurisdiction if the national legal system has already ruled: it may however have an independent interpretation of the Convention and notably determine what it considers a criminal matter.
This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations.