Dictum of the day, or on the constitution of the past

[T]he Constitution is not simply some kind of statutory codification of an acceptable or legitimate past. It retains from the past only what is acceptable and represents a radical and decisive break from that part of the past which is unacceptable. It constitutes a decisive break...to a constitutionally protected culture of openness and democracy and universal human rights for...all ages, classes, and col-ours....The past was pervaded by inequality, authoritarianism, and repression. The aspiration of the future is based on what is justifiable in an open and democratic society based on freedom and equality. It is premised on a legal culture of accountability and transparency. The relevant provisions of the Constitution must therefore be interpreted to give effect to the purposes sought to be advanced by their enactment.

The Constitutional Court of South Africa, Shaballala and Others v. Attorney General of the Transvaal and Another, 1996 South Africa 725 (C.C.)

Dictum of the day, or on setting the record straight

The request refers to the conflict as “The International Combat Conflict” (...) For the Government Mr Lewis submitted that this were merely an error in translation and that it was acknowledged by Serbia that the conflict at the time was one of an international armed conflict.

The Government of Republic of Serbia v. Ejup Ganic, City of Westminster Magistrate's Court, 27 July 2010, para. 8.