Université de Montréal - Thèse sous forme numérique

60Table 4. Partial equivalence by inclusionTermscause de nonimputabilité(A)causa deinimputabilidad (B)Meaning―fait exonératoire ... qui empêchede considérer un faitdommageable comme une faute... soit en établissant que l‘élémentpsychologique fait défaut, ... soitparce que le fait provident d‘unecause étrangère‖ (Thiry 2006 :805)―fait exonératoire ... qui empêchede considérer un faitdommageable comme unefaute‖ (Thiry 2006 : 805)Graphical representation of therelationIntersection – Terms share a certain amount of semantic or conceptualcharacteristics but differ in others. In legal terminology, there are terms thathave the same essentialia but their accidentalia are different because eachhas a specific value within its legal system. The accidentalia may refer tocases, theories, situations or proceedings which contribute to the meaning ofthe term. In Table 5, the term A denotes the same essentialia as term Bwhich are highlighted in bold and basically correspond to the idea of―someone who the police have reasonable grounds to believe has committedan offence and to someone who is actually being detained‖. However, theaccidentalia of the two concepts are fundamentally different. Whereas theterm suspect is used to refer to ―a youth in the context of whether the policehad reasonable grounds for believing that the youth had committed anoffence‖, the concept of arguido does not presuppose that the person be ayouth. Whereas ―a person can be called a suspect if a police officer has ahunch or intuition that he is involved in something illegal even if there is noproof at all‖, the arguido status presupposes that there is strong evidenceagainst the person. Finally, whereas an arguido has rights and duties because