an existing legal rule; in this context, actions which are not characterized by the law as crimes cannot be punished, c) the offender need to have the ability of critical thinking – in the sense that an imputation of guilt can take place; for people who do not have aesthesis, i.e. those who lack of objectivism cannot be punished for an action which is characterized by the law as offence; however, it is possible that the guardians of these persons are considered as having the responsibility for the actions of the offenders, d) the intention of the offender to commit the crime is also a necessary requirement for the existence of crime as a punitive behaviour.3
At the next level, the following clarifications need to be made: crime has both an active and a passive form; it can be expressed through a specific activity or it can refer to the failure of taking the measures required for the avoidance of an offence. Furthermore, a problem may exists when an offence involves in more than one countries which have evaluated the specific action differently: the law of one of these countries characterizes the action as crime while the law of the other country states that the specific action does not meet the requirements of a crime; usually, the law of the country where the specific action took place is applied; so, no conflict of law is developed. Moreover, it is possible that an action does not constitute a crime at the time point of its development but it is later characterized as a crime – with a new legal rule. This problem is usually addressed by the limitation of retrospective laws – usually laws of such type are avoided in the area of criminal law.
In accordance with the issues discussed above, criminal actions can be committed by individuals – persons; organizations of various types can be considered as legal entities in regard to a series of activities but they cannot be held liable for criminal offences – however, it is still possible for crimes to be