Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Does the European Court of Human Rights Offer a Coherent and Convincing Approach?

2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-153
Author(s):  
Wojciech Jasiński
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
European Court ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Main Shortcoming

Abstract The paper presents and assesses the approach of the ECtHR to admissibility of evidence obtained through torture and inhuman or degrading treatment in the criminal process. The author examines the content of the standard, its justifications and the consistency of the ECtHR's reasoning. The paper refers both to the admissibility of statements and real evidence as well as to primary and derivate evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 echr. The admissibility of evidence obtained by oppressive conduct of private individuals is also analysed. The assessment of the Strasbourg Court’s case law indicates that its approach is quite nuanced and, unfortunately, inconsistent and incoherent. Its main shortcoming is the lack of an in-depth analysis of the rationale for the inadmissibility of evidence obtained by maltreatment and the piecemeal treatment of individual categories of such evidence devoid of attempt to comprehensively address its admissibility in criminal proceedings.

Waiver in the Russian Criminal Process from the Point of View of Standards of European Court of Human Rights

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 746
Author(s):  
Irina N. CHEBOTAREVA
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Russian Law

The research deals with the case law of European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation on complaints of its citizens regarding violation of Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights in criminal proceedings when it considers waiver. The author has defined and analyzed both the standards of waiver and the Court’s approaches to the establishment of waiver and the requirements and conditions developed by it. The author’s analysis of the decisions of European Court of Justice in respect of Russia, in which the court considered the legality of waiver in specific criminal cases when the Russian authorities claimed that the Applicant had waived his right, has led to the conclusion about misunderstanding of the Russian law executor of this legal phenomenon. As a result the defects of law enforcement are hidden behind the waiver of one’s right in the Russian criminal process.

Extradition Between European and African Countries: Overcoming the Challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-319
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
African Countries ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Right

Although EU states use the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for the purpose of surrendering a person who is accused of committing an offence or who has been convicted of an offence, they use extradition when dealing with countries outside the EU. However, they use surrender when dealing with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Thus, extradition is one of the ways in which African and European countries (especially EU members) are cooperating in the fight against crime. Case law from courts in some African and European countries and from the European Court of Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, shows that extraditions between African and European countries have been delayed or hampered by allegations of human rights violations in the requesting state. These allegations have focused on mainly two rights: the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom from torture. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the extradition of a person should not go ahead if his or her trial was or will amount to a flagrant denial of justice or where there is a real risk of being subjected to torture. Although African courts and international human rights bodies have also held that extradition should not go ahead where there is a real risk that the person will be subjected to torture or where his/her trial will be unfair, they have not adopted the ‘flagrant denial of justice’ test. The case law also shows that some people have challenged the legal basis for their extradition. This article highlights this case law and suggests ways in which some of the challenges associated with extradition could be overcome. The article demonstrates that courts in some African and European countries have considered the nature of extradition enquiries. In some countries, such as Kenya, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings. However, in the United Kingdom, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings of a special type. There is consensus that extradition enquiries are not civil proceedings.

I respingimenti in mare di migranti alla luce della Convenzione europea dei diritti umani

2009 ◽  
pp. 591-607
Author(s):  
Alfredo Terrasi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
North African ◽  
European Court ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Migration Flows ◽  
High Seas

- Italian authorities have recently undertaken a new policy to face migration flows from north african coasts. Since May, 6th 2009 Italian coastguard and financial police vessels have intercepted a large number of boats carrying migrants and returned them to Libya, in force of a readmission agreement between Italy and Libya. These operations, even if they take place on the high seas, have to comply with the European Convention for Human Rights, considering that the migrants fall under jurisdiction of Italian authorities within the meaning of art. 1 of the Convention. In particular, on the basis of the European Court of Human Rights case law, it can be argued that returning migrants to Libya, as long as they can be exposed to torture or inhuman and degrading treatment, is prohibited by art. 3. Moreover, art. 4 or the Fourth Protocol prohibits the collective expulsions of aliens. Notwithstanding, it's uncertain whether forcible return of aliens is consistent with the latter provision considering that the European Court requires that aliens ‘leave the country' in order to apply art. 4. In the end the praxis of Italian authorities is inconsistent with the Convention non-refoulement obligation deriving from art. 3.

Principles Corroborated by Practice? The Use of Country of Origin Information by the European Court of Human Rights in the Assessment of a Real Risk of a Violation of the Prohibition of Torture, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 302-326 ◽  
Author(s):  
Femke Vogelaar
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Consistent Manner ◽  
Standard Set ◽  
Degrading Treatment

This article studies the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) approach to country of origin information in its case law under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights. It will first examine the standard set by the ECtHR on the use of country of origin information, followed by an assessment of the application of these principles by the ECtHR in its case law. The article specifically focusses on the use of country of origin information in expulsion cases of applicants from Somalia, Tamils applicants from Sri Lanka and applicants from Iran. The analysis of the ECtHR’s case law in this article will show that the ECtHR does not apply its own standards in a transparent and consistent manner. This raises questions as to the quality of the ECtHR’s assessment of the risk of a violation of Article 3.

The Oxford Handbook of Criminal Process

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
European Court

This handbook examines various aspects of the criminal process, including the role of prosecutors in common law and civil law jurisdictions, the rights and duties of experts, victim rights in civil law jurisdictions, surveillance and investigation, criminal prosecution and its alternatives, evidence discovery and disclosure in common law systems, evidence law as forensic science, common law plea bargaining, appeals and post-conviction review, and procedure in international tribunals. The book is organized into eight parts covering topics ranging from criminal process in the dual penal state to interrogation law and practice in common law jurisdictions, empirical and comparative approaches to criminal procedure, prosecution-led investigations and measures of procedural coercion in the field of corruption, international corporate prosecutions, special procedures for white-collar and corporate wrongdoing in Europe, and trial procedure in response to terrorism. Also discussed are the roles of the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights as guardians of fair criminal proceedings in Europe, double jeopardy or ne bis in idem in common law and civil law jurisdictions, plea bargaining vs. abbreviated trial procedures, restorative justice as an alternative to penal sanctions, and the pluralistic nature of international criminal procedure.

Remedies for breaches of prisoners’ rights in the European Prison Rules

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 467-488
Author(s):  
Kresimir Kamber
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Present Article ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Committee ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Effective Operation ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Rules And Standards

This article looks into the architecture of remedies for breaches of the right of prisoners not to be subjected to inadequate conditions of detention under the revised 2020 European Prison Rules (EPR). It seeks to expound the consistency and rationality of the relevant provisions of the 2020 EPR from the perspective of relevant principles and specific prescriptions of European prison law. For the purpose of the present article, the term ‘European prison law’ encompasses rules and standards set out in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, practice of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the provisions of the EPR. The article finds that, in this context, there is sufficient coherence in the relevant principles of European prison law – faithfully codified in the 2020 EPR – providing clear guidance to European States on how to put in place a system of remedies for breaches of prisoners’ rights and how to ensure its effective operation in practice.

ANONIMNI SVEDOCI I ZAŠTITA LjUDSKIH PRAVA

2021 ◽  
pp. 277-296
Author(s):  
Veljko Turanjanin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Step Test ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
National Legislation ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insufficient Knowledge

Тhe author deals with the problem of anonymous witnesses in the context of the right to a fair trial in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. One of the problems in the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is related to the testimonies of anonymous witnesses in criminal proceedings. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights has developed certain criteria that must be followed in national legislation, but it is obvious that there is insufficient knowledge regarding this problem, as well as the reluctance to apply the mentioned rules. The standards developed by the ECtHR are very important for national laws and jurisprudence. The author explains the development of a three-step test that needs to be examined when assessing a violation of the right to a fair trial, through an analysis of a multitude of judgments, in order to provide guidance on the application of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the European Convention on Human Rights. After introductory considerations, the author explains who can be a witness under the Convention, since this question is raised independently of national legislation, and then explains the right to examine witnesses, the admissibility of testimonies by anonymous witnesses and the examination of the three-stage test, and gives concluding remarks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document