The principle of proportionality in the criminal procedural penalty.

The element of obligation, required by the procedural legal rule, is not achieved unless a penalty is imposed when violated, it is without this penalty turns into pure advice or guidance, and this procedural penalty must be written and stipulated in the law and subject to the penalty to the principle (no penalty except by text) and this is undisputed, but does this mean that it is required that the penalty be stipulated - and exclusively - a direct explicit text? Or could it be merely stated in the terms "forbidden" to take a certain action? Although we are dealing here with the procedural sanction in general, but this question will take us indirectly to the subject of the doctrines of invalidity "legal and subjective" and there is no harm in that, the invalidity is the most beautiful form of procedural sanctions and has the closest ties with the procedural form, in particular the essential ones - so it will be addressed in the coming topics - and as an answer to the previous question we say ((under the doctrine of legal invalidity ... In the event that the legislator does not decide on the sanction, the action taken shall be considered valid even if it is not carried out within the limits prescribed by law... In the doctrine of self-invalidity, the legislator does not specify the cases, but rather imposes a penalty for violating the rule that it deems essential.