Indeed, the taxpayer of the penalty and his family would be exposed to absolute poverty and deprivation. constitutional reasons leading to point out that in any such penalty could be imposed. Regardless of private or collective system under which to organize the production and distribution of goods, the regime can not contain punitive sanctions rigging such extreme consequences for the taxpayer and his immediate family, such as those that come from the absolute loss of their ability livelihood – through forms of private ownership of wealth or user group – well, they, ultimately, confiscation would shape physically. INDIAN JURISDICTION-limits / -Content The fundamental right to due process is a legal limit-material special jurisdiction exercised by the authorities of indigenous peoples who perform as “their own rules and procedures, provided they are not opposites to the Constitution and the law. ” Whatever the content of the domestic legal requirements of indigenous communities, you must respect the rights and principles contained in the core of right enshrined in Article 29 of the Charter. Principle of proportionality of the penalty /-Discretion The Corporation has consistently held that the sanctions imposed on offenders should be proportional to the sanctioned conduct. The judicial authorities have wide discretion in sanctioning the use of power conferred by the Constitution or the law. However, this power is not unlimited, must be reasonable and leave intact other legal values protected by the laws. Collective sanctions or penalties are contrary to the principle that “no person shall be tried except under laws that predate the act which he is charged ….” Additionally, the professional law is built on the principle of individual responsibility, involving the prosecution of the accused and the principle of presumption of innocence, essential prerequisites for punitive power of the State or individuals who exercise judicial functions exceptionally.