When examining different legal systems such as civil law, common law and sacred law, you can examine how each type of system applies its respective theory to trials ensuring a fair trial and serving justice . There are two approaches practiced mainly in common law countries and civil law countries and these systems are referred to as adversarial and inquisitorial respectively. The inquisitorial system is a pioneering model of criminal procedures and has existed for over 700 years. This system is most commonly associated with civil law countries, as mentioned above. The probationary period in this inquisitorial system can be described more as a continuous investigation than its adversarial counterpart. It requires the judge to be completely impartial and make decisions based on the law because of the weight he holds. People often criticize this method due to the problems that arise. This is caused by using concepts that do not blend well to create a sense of due process, or by the judge being granted extreme power at both the investigative and procedural levels. There may also be system delays due to extensive preliminary investigations. Some examples of countries that use the inquisitorial system are, among others, New Zealand, France, China and Germany. An inquisitorial system is another model of the adversarial system used in common law countries; New Zealand for example. We can generally describe the inquisitorial system as one aimed at getting to the facts and serving justice through thorough investigation and examination of all tangible evidence. The adversarial system, on the other hand, is more oriented towards arriving at the facts through the competition between the prosecution and the central phase of the paper investigation; or you can name one. However, this right is limited if the suspect is involved in terrorist activities. The right to silence is also slightly different. There is a part of the trial where the defendant is required to respond, unlike in the United States where the right to remain silent extends throughout the entire trial. These two countries have many similarities and differences when it comes to how they handle the criminal process. process. They are similar in that the defendant is afforded certain rights although their applications are slightly different. The main difference I found between these two systems is that the United States takes an “innocent until proven guilty” approach while France takes more of a traditional legal approach, meaning the judge has the final say on the trial, the verdict and even on the sentence..