scholarly journals Features of the legal position of the European Court of Human Rights on the issue of evidence obtained through fraud in criminal proceedings

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.K. Matulyan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Position

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.

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.

ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity of a person under article 1 of the protocol no. 6: Individual interpretations of the essence and consequences

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 257-267
Author(s):  
Bohdan V. Shchur ◽  
Iryna V. Basysta
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Method Comparison ◽  
Scientific Basis ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
The Individual

In present-day Ukraine, there is no unanimous answer to the question of the essence and consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive immunity under Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 either in the national criminal procedural legislation, or in the theory of criminal procedure, or among judges, investigators, prosecutors. Therefore, the purpose of the present paper is to try to attempt to formulate individual approaches to address this issue. The relevance of the subject under study is conditioned upon its theoretical and practical components. The former is that there this area is heavily understudied, and judicial practice, among other things, requires a certain scientific basis to formulate individual positions in their unity. The dilemma proposed in the title of this study was also addressed by members of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Supreme Court, who were approached by judges of the Grand Chamber for scientific opinions, emphasising the urgency and necessity of feedback from practitioners. To formulate the individual approaches serving the purpose of this study, the authors employed such general and special research methods as dialectical, induction and deduction, Aristotelian, system-structural, sampling method, comparison, and legal forecasting. Notwithstanding the fact that the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6, adopted by its plenary session in accordance with Article 4 of the Protocol No. 6 to the General Agreement on Privileges and Immunities of the Council of Europe, is “procedural”, it was proven that the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court has the authority to conduct proceedings on the application of such a person to review the judgment precisely in exceptional circumstances. It is emphasised that the ECHR decision should be considered as one that does not aim at the final assessment of criminal proceedings, so it cannot be equated with the decision of an international judicial institution, which would state Ukraine's violation of international obligations in court and the order of its execution will differ. The authors also address the fact that the consequences of the ECHR decision to refuse to waive the immunity stipulated in Article 1 of the Protocol No. 6 are critical. After all, such a decision of the European Court of Human Rights is the “bell” for Ukraine, which, among other things, may hint at the probability that the Court will identify the facts of human rights violations

Konstytucyjne granice stosowania przymusu bezpośredniego względem oskarżonego. Uwagi na tle orzecznictwa TK i ETPCz

2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (0) ◽  
pp. 115-0
Author(s):  
Anna Sikora
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
European Court ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal

The aim of the article is to present issues concerning the use of direct coercion against the accused. Indication of the basis and methods of the use of direct coercion in the criminal proceedings is extremely important, because of the values in which coercion measures interfere. Regulations which are going to be discussed during the dilatation consists legal rules defined by the Polish Constitutional Tribunal and the European Court of Human Rights.

scholarly journals Realization of the Rights of Convicts in the Russian Constitutional-Legal Model of Free Elections

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 932-940
Author(s):  
Svetlana Slobodchikova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Authority ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Criminal Punishment ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legal Model ◽  
Legal Position ◽  
The Russian Federation ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
Court Practice

The author studies retrospective and modern categories of admissible limitations of the constitutional right of a person to elect others and to be elected for appointment into bodies of public authority and public offices if they have committed grave or very grave crimes. The author also gives a contemporary assessment of the normative introduction of such limitations in the election field taking into account the legal positions in international and Russian court practice. It is argued that the current Russian constitutional-legal model of free elections has an undifferentiated limitation of active suffrage for persons sentenced to a criminal punishment with a limitation of freedom. The author analyzes the court practice regarding the lawfulness and adequacy of undifferentiating limitation of suffrage rights of convicts, specifically, the legal position of the European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. It is shown that some regimes of incarceration should be transferred into alternative types of punishment that do not entail the limitations of active suffrage. It is stated that there could be more stringent limitation for the realization of passive suffrage than for realization of the constitutional right to elect representatives into bodies of public authority and public offices, especially in cases of grave and very grave crimes. The author concludes that the limitations imposed by the federal legislation regarding the constitutional right to suffrage for persons guilty of grave or very grave crimes is admissible, no matter if the criminal punishment for such publically dangerous and illegal actions is conditional or it is an actual imprisonment in a penitentiary institution.

scholarly journals Torture as a ground for inadmissibility of evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 28-31
Author(s):  
Maryna HRYTSENKO
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
The State ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
National Courts ◽  
European Court ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The European Court of Human Rights, which focuses on the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, points to the importance of the prohibition of torture. The Court has formed its position based on the importance of Article 3 of the Convention and, consequently, the inadmissibility of the evidence obtained in violation of that article by the prosecution. This paper analyzes the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on the implementation of evidence-based activities in national legal systems, and in particular examines the requirements of the Court on the admissibility of evidence-based exercise and activity obtained in the course of work results. The paper demonstrates the ECHR's practice on the issue of torture in obtaining evidence and the consequences of using such a «method», its significance for the practice of national courts and the modernization of the position of courts in relation to the dynamics of this issue. As a result, problematic areas of Ukrainian legislation and justice were identified. The reasons for the use of torture by the authorities and the safeguards introduced by Ukraine to combat the use of such inhuman treatment by the authorities were identified. Changes in the opinion of the European Court of Human Rights on this issue and its significance for Ukraine are analyzed. The possibilities of application of the ECHR for evaluation of admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings in Ukraine are examined. The patterns characterizing the legal positions of the ECHR in assessing the admissibility of evidence are discovered and singled out. Ukraine should take into account that the responsibilities of the state, in addition to refraining from the use of torture to obtain evidence, include the protection of people from these encroachments by third parties.

scholarly journals JUSTIFICATION OF SUSPICION DURING THE APPLICATION OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDING MEASURES

2021 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 169-174
Author(s):  
Maryna Savchuk ◽  
◽  
Artem Shapar ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Crucial Role ◽  
Scientific Article ◽  
Precautionary Measure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Criminal Proceeding ◽  
European Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure Law ◽  
Precautionary Measures

The scientific article contains information on the study of the concept of «reasonableness of suspicion», the study by the investigating judge of the evidence that substantiates the suspicion during the application of precautionary measures. The article analyzes scientific works on certain topics, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and national legislation. The main problem is identified, which is related to the fact that the investigating judge in most cases, when considering a request for a measure of restraint, ignores the need to examine the evidence related to the examination of suspicion. The result of the above material is the fact that the notification of a person of suspicion can in no way justify the application of measures to ensure criminal proceedings. An important procedural step, which plays a crucial role in the pre-trial investigation stage, is the notification of a person of suspicion. Suspicion is presented to a person only on the basis of proper, admissible, sufficient and reliable evidence, it allows to suspect a person of committing a criminal offense. The pre-trial investigation body does not always establish all sufficient grounds for such a suspicion, so the question arises as to its validity. After the notification of suspicion, it is possible to apply one of the measures to ensure criminal proceedings, namely: a precautionary measure. The norms of the criminal procedure law oblige the court, when choosing a measure of restraint, to take into account the data underlying such a decision. The presence of a notice of suspicion is not an identical notion of the validity of the suspicion. In order to substantiate the suspicion, the parties to the criminal proceedings are obliged to provide the investigating judge with evidence of the circumstances to which they refer, which in turn entails the duty of the investigating judge, the court to verify and evaluate the evidence. The presence of risks does not justify the suspicion. The need to comply with the rule on the verification of «reasonableness of suspicion» is realized by establishing criteria that should be investigated and established by the investigating judge during the consideration of motions for the application of measures to ensure criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals CIVIL CLAIM IN A CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IN UKRAINE AS A MEANS OF GUARANTEE AND PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUALS’ RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
pp. 174-177
Author(s):  
O. A. Tymoshenko
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Justice System ◽  
National Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Technical Requirements ◽  
European Court

The article deals with analyzing the state of the civil claim scientific research in criminal proceedings in Ukraine and summarizing it. It was determined the relevance of scientific rethinking of the phenomenological foundations of a civil claim in criminal proceedings. It is proved that the importance of the mechanism of criminal justice has the issue of legal support of the institute of civil claim, as an important component of guaranteeing and protecting the rights and freedoms of citizens. First of all, this is explained by the importance of a civil claim in criminal proceedings, its actual role that a civil claim plays in the justice system, ensuring the protection of the violated rights of citizens. On the basis of the state critical analysis of a civil claim legal support in criminal proceedings in Ukraine, it was determined its components and given their characteristics, which include: 1) the subjective component of the legal relations relating to civil claim in criminal proceedings in Ukraine; 2) the procedural issues of filing and considering a civil claim; 3) legal and technical requirements relating to the form and content of the civil claim. It was made and justified the provisions concerning the prospects of improving the civil claim mechanism functioning in criminal proceedings in Ukraine. Transformation of scientific understanding and practical perception of civil claim in criminal proceedings as a means of securing and protecting human rights and freedoms has been proved, on the basis of which the directions of improving the functioning of the said legal institute in Ukraine are distinguished, namely: 1) enhancing the role and importance of the European Court of Justice’ s activities human rights in extending his practice to litigation in criminal proceedings in Ukraine; 2) strengthening the mechanisms of human rights protection at the domestic (national) level in accordance with the requirements of international law, which are a component of civil claim in criminal proceedings; 3) improve the procedure for enforcement of the decisions of the national courts of Ukraine in the part related to civil claim in criminal proceedings, etc.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document