an understanding of Criminal Law as a "shield" and "sword" of Human Rights. 73 This duality and its compatibility will be addressed in sequence. i. On the origins of Human Rights as protection against the punitive excesses of States 30. Although the first historical outlines of Criminal Law were based on markedly retributive objectives, its modern formation has come to focus on limiting the use of state coercion, in order to guarantee the normative effectiveness of the rights of the accused in criminal proceedings. 74 This search for the establishment of controls and guarantees on the exercise of the punitive power of the State is closely linked to the emergence of modern debates on the protection of fundamental rights. 31. Each constitution forged according to the Western model, by providing for a myriad of individual rights that must be protected by the Public Authorities, has demonstrated a special concern for the protection of the rights of the accused. This concern has been reflected in various restrictions on the application of criminal law (e.g., the principle of strict legality and the non-retroactivity of the most burdensome law), the establishment of procedural guarantees (e.g., the presumption of innocence, in dubio pro reo, the principle of natural judgment, the prohibition of emergency courts, the requirements of due legal process and the legitimacy of evidence) and in the provision of limits to criminal execution (for example, the prohibition of cruel and inhuman punishments , the individualization of the sentence and the rights of the convicted). 75 I note, therefore, that the process of constitutional adaptation of criminal law 76 was characterized by a series of protections of the rights of the accused to guarantee a fair trial. 77 32. International Human Rights Law has incorporated this heritage from its inception, so that its first instruments already conferred rights and guarantees to the accused in domestic criminal systems in a wide range of areas, such as investigation, trial and criminal execution. The 1948 American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man already provided for the strict legality of custodial sentences, the right to prompt judicial review of the legality of a detention, to a trial within a reasonable time, and to humane treatment in prison (Article 25), as well as the principle of presumption of innocence (Article 26). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, also of 1948, established the right to a public, fair and equitable trial by an independent and impartial court (Article 10), as well as the presumption of innocence and the nonretroactivity of the most severe criminal laws (Article 11). Moreover, it cannot be 73 Robert Roth attributes the expression to Judge Van den Wyngaert, reporting that it was said in a presentation on the European citizen and criminal justice in the European Union in 1995. Cf. ROTH, Robert. Libres propos sur la subsidiarité du droit pénal. In: AUER, Andreas; DELLEY, Jean-Daniel; HOTTELIER, Michel; MALINVERNI, Giorgio (Eds.). Aux confins du droit: essais en l'honneur du Professeur Charles-Albert Morand. Bâle: Helbing & Lichtenhahn, 2001, p. 429-446. 74 Cf. CARDENAS, Juan. ‘The Crime Victim in the Prosecutorial Process.’ Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Vol. 9 (1986), p. 360 75 Cf. BADARÓ, Gustavo. Criminal Process. 4th ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais (2016), p. 37; RAMOS, André de Carvalho. Criminalization mandates in the International Human Rights Law: new paradigms for the protection of victims of violations of human rights. Brazilian Journal of Criminal Sciences, vol. 62 (2006), p. 3. 76 Cf. RAMOS, André de Carvalho. ‘Criminalization mandates in the International Human Rights Law: new paradigms for the protection of victims of violations of human rights. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Criminais’, vol. 62 (2006), p.3. 77 Cf. FLETCHER, George. ‘Justice and Fairness in the Protection of Crime Victims.’ Lewis and Clark Law Review, Vol. 9 (2005), p. 551. This evolution can also be observed in substantive criminal law, with the abolition of crimes whose existence was, in itself, incompatible with human rights. 11