scholarly journals Interrogations And The Right To Remain Silent - A Comparative Approach

SEEU Review ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-78
Author(s):  
Arta Bilalli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Right To Silence ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Conventions

Abstract Interrogations are a very specific component of any criminal investigation. The answers gained through interrogative process provides information that are considered as direct evidences. In contemporary criminal procedure, the court is not absolved from gaining other evidences, even in cases when the defendant confesses his/her guiltiness. This is a mechanism for excluding the inquisitorial approach for extracting compulsory confessions. The modern procedure uses a variety of mechanisms to guarantee that the defendant will not be compelled to confess guilt. Those mechanisms are part of most important international conventions as International Convention for Civil and Political Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights, the Statutes of International Tribunals (i.e. International Tribunal for ex-Yugoslavia, International Tribunal for Rwanda) and part of different constitutional and legal acts of modern states. A very interesting “highlight” remains the right to silence which guarantees that the defendant might remain silent and it will not be interpreted against him. The defendant, even in cases with direct evidences, can remain silent and cannot be forced to answer given questions. Another “highlight” is that one that appears from the privilege against self-incrimination that allows the defendant to not answer a question, if by answering, he/she may confess guilt or incriminate him/herself. How deep is this privilege? Are there, maybe questions, that he/she are obliged to answer (i.e. disclosure of identity?) The article will focus in interrogations and the right to silence by most important international acts and domestic acts of different countries (USA, France, Germany, Albania, Kosovo, Macedonia) and upcoming specifics in the relation interrogations vs. remaining silent.

scholarly journals The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the European Convention on Human Rights: a tale of two halves or a potentially unified vision of human rights?

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Broderick
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Social Dimension ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right

The traditional dichotomy of rights between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights, on the other hand, has been increasingly eroded in scholarly and judicial discourse. The interdependence of the two sets of rights is a fundamental tenet of international human rights law. Nowhere is this interdependence more evident than in the context of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or UN Convention). This article examines the indivisibility and interdependence of rights in the CRPD and, specifically, the positive obligations imposed on States Parties to the UN Convention, in particular the reasonable accommodation duty. The aim of the paper is to analyse, from a disability perspective, the approach adopted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or ‘Strasbourg Court’) in developing the social dimension of certain civil and political rights in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), namely Articles 2 and 3 (on the right to life and the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, respectively), Article 8 (on the right to private and family life) and Article 14 ECHR (on non-discrimination). Ultimately, this paper examines the influence of the CRPD on the interpretation by the Strasbourg Court of the rights of persons with disabilities under the ECHR. It argues that, while the Court is building some bridges to the CRPD, the incremental and often fragmented approach adopted by the Court could be moulded into a more principled approach, guided by the CRPD.

scholarly journals Citizenship Deprivation under the European Convention-System: A Case Study of Belgium

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-282
Author(s):  
Louise Reyntjens
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
System A ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Foreign Fighters

In response to Islamic-inspired terrorism and the growing trend of foreign fighters, European governments are increasingly relying on citizenship deprivation as a security tool. This paper will focus on the question of how the fundamental rights of individuals deprived of their citizenship are affected and which protection is offered for them by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘ECHR’). In many countries, these new and broader deprivation powers were left unaccompanied by stronger (procedural) safeguards that protect the human rights they might affect. Unlike the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the ECHR does not provide for an explicit right to citizenship. The question therefore rises what protection, if any, is offered by the ECHRsystem against citizenship deprivation and for the right to citizenship. Through a case study of the Belgian measure of citizenship deprivation, the (implicit) protection provided by the Convention-system is demonstrated.

scholarly journals O direito estatal à suspensão das obrigações do Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos | The state right to the suspension of the obligations of the international covenant on civil and political right

KPGT_dlutz_1 ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-48
Author(s):  
Vivianny Galvão
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Human Rights Council ◽  
The Face ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Jus Cogens ◽  
The Right ◽  
Political Right

O direito estatal à suspensão das obrigações do Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos Resumo: Este artigo dedica-se à análise do artigo 4.º do Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos de 1966, com especial atenção à interpretação do direito estatal à suspensão das obrigações internacionais. Cabe, atualmente, ao Conselho de Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas a tarefa de investigar os casos em que esta suspensão acontece, bem como fiscalizar os motivos da suspensão e estabelecer os parâmetros considerados legítimos. Os direitos humanos trazidos pelo Pacto Internacional sobre os Direitos Civis e Políticos, além dos demais tratados em matéria de direitos humanos, limitam o direito estatal de suspensão. As medidas aplicadas pelo Estado que evocam o direito de derrogação precisam ser consideradas estritamente necessárias e sua adoção, fundamentada e temporária; caso contrário, o Estado derrogador será considerado violador das obrigações assumidas na ordem internacional. Somente o instrumento da denúncia é capaz de desobrigar o Estado dos acordos firmados e, ainda assim, essa desvinculação não alcançariam em tese certos costumes internacionais nem, tampouco, as normas de ius cogens ou obrigações erga omnes. Infere-se que a lógica do artigo 4.º, também presente na Convenção Europeia de Direitos Humanos, está norteada pela preservação do Estado Democrático de Direito conforme se extraiu da criação da categoria dos direitos irrevogáveis. Além disso, mesmo diante da possibilidade de suspensão parcial e temporária dos direitos, o Conselho de Direitos Humanos não deixa de fiscalizar a atuação do Estado, pelo contrário, esse Conselho passa a emitir recomendações mais contundentes contra o Estado. Palavras-chave: Direito de suspensão. Direitos humanos. Direito Internacional. Pacto Internacional de Direitos Civis e Políticos. _____ The state right to the suspension of the obligations of the international covenant on civil a: nd political right Abstract: This article is devoted to the analysis of the article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 1966, with special attention to the interpretation of state law to the suspension of international obligations. The UN Human Rights Council is now responsible for investigating the cases in which this suspension takes place, as well as monitoring the reasons for the suspension and establishing the parameters considered legitimate. The human rights brought by the ICCPR, in addition to the other human rights treaties, limit the State's right to suspend. The measures applied by the State that evoke the right of derogation must be considered strictly necessary and the adoption, substantiated and temporary. Otherwise, the derogating State shall be considered as violating the obligations assumed in the international order. Only the instrument of denunciation can release the State from the agreements reached and, even so, that untying would not achieve in theory certain international customs nor the norms of jus cogens or obligations erga omnes. It is inferred that the logic of Article 4, which is also present in the European Convention on Human Rights, is guided by the preservation of the Democratic Rule of Law as derived from the creation of the category of irrevocable rights. Moreover, even in the face of the possibility of partial and temporary suspension of rights, the Human Rights Council does not cease to supervise the actions of the State; on the contrary, this Council is issuing more forceful recommendations against the State. Keywords: Human rights. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. International Law. Right of suspension.

scholarly journals THE PROHIBITION OF TORTURE, CRUEL OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT IN CLOSED INSTITUTIONS

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (91) ◽  
pp. 23-29
Author(s):  
Jelena Girfanova
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Degrading Treatment ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
European Regional

In the paper “The prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment in closed Institutions” the author has examined the obxervasnce of  persons’  in detention,  custody or imprisonment human rights in the European regional acts and national instruments as well as the provision of health care for detainees and convicted persons alike.All basic human rights’ documents, namely: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the United Nations and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms state that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, degrading his or her human dignity”.  All persons who have been punished, regardless of the crimes for which they were convicted, have the right to humane treatment and respect for their personality. No actions of people, whatever they may be, justify the inhuman treatment of them or the humiliation of their personality.  

The taking of hostages and international humanitarian law

1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (270) ◽  
pp. 196-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hernán Salinas Burgos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

It is generally acknowledged by the international community that the taking of hostages is one of the most vile and reprehensible of acts. This crime violates fundamental individual rights—the right to life, to liberty and to security—that are protected by binding legal instruments such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the worldwide level, and the 1969 American Convention on Human Rights and the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms on the regional level. The United Nations General Assembly has stated that the taking of hostages is an act which places innocent human lives in danger and violates human dignity.

Constituting Humanity: Democracy, Human Rights, and Political Community

2005 ◽  
Vol 31 ◽  
pp. 227-252 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Bohman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Affairs ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Popular Sovereignty ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Strongly Connected ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

Democracy and human rights have long been strongly connected in international covenants. In documents such as 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the 1966 International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, democracy is justified both intrinsically in terms of popular sovereignty and instrumentally as the best way to “foster the full realization of all human rights.” Yet, even though they are human and thus universal rights, political rights are often surprisingly specific. In the Covenant, for example, “the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs” is equated with “the right to vote and to be elected.” More often then not, their realization is left to states and their constitutions, as for example in the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights. Political rights have a “peculiar” status among enumerated human rights, and this difficulty has to do with deep assumptions about the nature and scope of democracy and political community that remain unexamined by the drafters of these important declarations.

The Economic and Political Determinants of Human (Including Health) Rights

1978 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 145-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vicente Navarro
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Power Relations ◽  
Political Power ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Individual Property ◽  
Socioeconomic Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
Fair Wages ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

This paper presents an analysis and critique of the U.S. government's current emphasis on human rights; and (a) its limited focus on only some civil and political components of the original U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and (b) its disregard for economic and social rights such as the rights to work, fair wages, health, education, and social security. The paper discusses the reasons for that limited focus and argues that, contrary to what is widely presented in the media and academe: (1) civil and political rights are highly restricted in the U.S.; (2) those rights are further restricted in the U.S. when analyzed in their social and economic dimensions; (3) civil and political rights are not independent of but rather intrinsically related to and dependent on the existence of socioeconomic rights; (4) the definition of the nature and extension of human rights in their civil, political, social, and economic dimensions is not universal, but rather depends on the pattern of economic and political power relations particular to each society; and (5) the pattern of power relations in the U.S. society and the western system of power, based on the right to individual property and its concomitant class structure and relations, is incompatible with the full realization of human rights in their economic, social, political, and civil dimensions. This paper further indicates that U.S. financial and corporate capital, through its overwhelming influence over the organs of political power in the U.S. and over international bodies and agencies, is primarily responsible for the denial of the human rights of the U.S. population and many populations throughout the world as well.

The Right to Enter One’s Own Country: The Conflict between the Jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee and the Travaux Préparatoires of Article 12(4) of the iccpr

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-123
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Civil And Political Rights ◽  
The Right

Abstract Article 12(4) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (iccpr) provides that ‘[n]o one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.’ The jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee shows that Committee members have often disagreed on the question of whether the right under Article 12(4) is reserved for citizens only or it can be claimed by non-citizens who consider the countries in which they were born or they have lived for longer periods as their own. In its earlier case law, the Committee held that Article 12(4) is applicable to nationals only. Since 1999, when General Comment No.27 was adopted, the Committee has moved towards extending the right under Article 12(4) to non-nationals. Its latest case law appears to have supported the Committee’s position that Article 12(4) is applicable to non-nationals. Central to both majority and minority decisions in which the Committee has dealt with Article 12(4), is whether the travaux préparatoires of Article 12(4) support either view. This article relies on the travaux préparatoires of Article 12(4) to argue that it does not support the view that Article 12(4) is applicable to non-nationals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document