scholarly journals The right to information in criminal proceedings in the context of international legal standards.

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 266-271
Author(s):  
Oksana Pchelina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Offense ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Material Evidence

It has been noted that such activities are a sphere of public life, which is inextricably linked with the need and possibility of coercion, which clearly indicates the restriction of certain human rights and freedoms to ensure the effectiveness of pre-trial investigation and trial. The provisions of international legal acts proclaiming and ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms in criminal proceedings have been analyzed. It has been emphasized that in the specified international legal acts there is no interpretation of the right to information, and also it is not considered as the separate right. The essence of the right to information and its place in the system of human rights and freedoms has been determined. The author’s understanding of the concept of the right to information in criminal proceedings has been offered, its content has been revealed and its compliance with international standards of human rights and freedoms has been clarified. The right to information in criminal proceedings has been defined as the possibility and procedure for obtaining, using, disseminating, storing and protecting information provided by the criminal procedure legislation of Ukraine, which determines the principles of criminal proceedings and ensures the solution of its tasks. It has been emphasized that the right to information in criminal proceedings in the context of international legal standards is multifaceted in nature, which allows us to consider it in several aspects, namely as: the basis of criminal proceedings; providing information on procedural rights; informing the person about his / her detention, suspicion / accusation of committing a criminal offense; gaining access to information on material evidence; a ban on the disclosure of information obtained during the pre-trial investigation and court proceedings, and its use not to solve the problems of criminal proceedings.

scholarly journals The current issues of the protection of the rights, freedoms of participants of criminal proceedings at the stage of judicial consideration

2020 ◽  
pp. 71-82
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Omelchenko ◽  
Vladislav Rebezyuk
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Experience ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Independent State ◽  
Legal Norms ◽  
Control Functions ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Right

This article explores the issues of protecting of the rights, freedoms of participants in criminal proceedings at the stage of judicial consideration. Consequently, examines of the current state and prospects of protecting the rights, freedoms of participants in criminal proceedings at the stage of judicial consideration is carried out. The current problems and ways of solving the issue of protecting the rights and freedoms of participants in judicial proceedings are considered. This article deals with the issues concerning of the protection of rights and freedoms in criminal proceedings. An indicator of the availability of justice is a component of the right to a fair trial, the existence of an optimal system of court costs and developed mechanisms for providing legal assistance to the poor. Meanwhile, all court judgments should be based on the current Constitution of Ukraine, as well as on the current legislation, without contradicting with them. The International experience in protecting the human rights and freedoms is very important and has a significant impact on the domestic legislation of both our state and other democratic states as a whole. The International standards of fundamental human rights and freedoms and their legitimate interests is the basis that fills the international experience in protecting human rights, freedoms and legitimate interests. The main provisions of the Constitution of the community of democratic states on human rights and freedoms must comply with all international standards, since the protection of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests ensures the sovereign, democratic and independent state. Each civilized state must ensure the implementation of legal guarantees for the protection of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of its citizens, this will become the key to the democratic development of the state. To summarize, the public is interested in ensuring that the rule of law is guaranteed through fair, impartial and effective administration of justice. The prosecutors and the judges ensure at all stages of the trial the guarantee of human rights and freedoms, as well as the protection of public order. This covers respect for the rights of the accused and the victims. Protecting the human rights in criminal proceedings at the trial stage is one of the main challenges facing the courts, prosecutors and lawyers. The opportunities of judicial protection through a system of various forms of judicial review is not only an additional guarantee of rights and freedoms, but also a condition for their speedy restoration. Key words: court proceedings, organizational and legal mechanism, protection of the rights, court decision, court control functions, The European Court of Human Rights, legal decisions, legal norms, court proceedings, protection of freedoms, availability of the justice.

Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights in juvenile cases. Selected cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 584 (9) ◽  
pp. 18-32
Author(s):  
Elżbieta Czyż
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Young Person ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
European Countries ◽  
European Court ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Entire Procedure

The right to a fair trial, rules on deprivation of liberty are important standards in the entire procedure of dealing with juveniles, from detention to the end of court proceedings. The judgments of the European Court of Human Rights cited in the article illustrate what are the problems with complying with this standard in practice in several European countries, including Poland. It seems that one of the reasons may be declarative, apparent treatment of the rights of child/juvenile, especially when it concerns procedural rights. Teaching a young person respect for the law and responsibility for his behaviour requires subjective treatment so that he can feel, on his own example, the operation of a system based on clear, predictable, understandable rules.

scholarly journals Przedstawiciel społeczny w transparentnym procesie karnym

2017 ◽  
Vol 69 (0) ◽  
pp. 21-37
Author(s):  
Paweł Czarnecki
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
The Public ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Community Organisation ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

The article analyses the rights and duties of a social representative in criminal proceedings (article 90 Code of Criminal Procedure). Participation in court proceedings may be declared, before the commencement of judicial examination, by a representative of a community organisation, if there is a need to defend a social interest or an important individual interest within the statutory purposes of such an organisation, especially in matters pertaining to the protection of human rights and freedoms. The representative of a community organisation who has been admitted to participate in court proceedings may participate in the trial, express their points of view and make statements in writing. The court shall admit a representative of a community organisation if it finds this to be in the interests of justice. This person shall not be allowed to ask questions to person questioned by the court, he has no right to make a complaint with the court, can`t submit motions for evidence and are not entitled to participate in a session or in an investigation. The author emphasizes the importance of participation by the citizenry in the administration of justice principle and the right to a fair and public hearing of his case. In article they were also discussed old draft bills in the position of social representative in criminal cases, and in particular the advantages and disadvantages of amending article 90 c.c.p. Amendment of 10 June 2016. The author argues that the changing of position will not increase the participation of the public in the proceedings, because the legislature did not admit procedural rights.

scholarly journals Victims‘ rights: The European court of human rights' practice and legislation in Serbia

Temida ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 145-166
Author(s):  
Milica Kovacevic
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Human Rights Practice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Status ◽  
Specific Standard ◽  
The Right

The paper deals with rights and position of victims in international documents, with special reference to the standards created by the European Court of Human Rights through its practice. This paper aims to provide brief analysis of some of the most important international documents, which set forth basic rights for victims, including: right to participate in the criminal proceedings, right to protection and the right to compensation. The paper intends to analyze these key right (standards, principles) through relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights, given that the wording of the relevant documents does not determine what entails the realization of a specific standard in real life. The main purpose of the article is to examine the compliance of regulations and practices in Serbia with international standards on the status and the rights of victims, from which some recommendations for improvement might arise.

scholarly journals ON THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN ENSURING EFFECTIVE DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2020 ◽  
pp. 158-163
Author(s):  
M. H. Motoryhina
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
The State ◽  
Special Role ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Defense Counsel ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Role Of The State ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article presents the issues on ensuring effective defense in criminal proceedings. Analysis of international legal documents, generalization of the practice of the European Court of Human Rights give grounds to divide international legal standards, that have been formed to facilitate the enforcement of the right to defense, into the following groups: 1) standards designed to facilitate the effectiveness of the defense by the accused him- or herself; 2) standards facilitating effective defense by the defense counsel; 3) standards, the adoption of which contributes to the effective defense maintained by the defense (when the defense is conducted jointly by the accused and the defense counsel) 4) standards that contain requirements for the state or its bodies and compel them to ensure the possibility of effective defense. The latter group of standards is important among others because the conduct of defense seems impossible without imposing certain requirements on the state and its bodies, and fixed guarantees of effective defense will turn into a declaration. The study of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on maintaining effective defense in criminal proceedings allows us to state the lack of unity in its legal positions, since the issue of the effectiveness of ensuring the human right to defense in criminal proceedings depends on the specific circumstances of the case. The court notes that, on the one hand, the state can only intervene in the activities of defense counsel within the limits of public interests, given the independent nature of the legal profession. On the other hand, it cannot stand aside in the event of the discovery of violations of the standards for the conduct of defense in criminal proceedings, which assigns it a special role in maintaining effective defense for the suspect, the accused in criminal proceedings. Based on the analysis of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, standards are identified that contain requirements for the state or its bodies and compel them to ensure the possibility of effective defense: 1) the obligation of the state to conduct real (not illusionary or formal) defense for the suspect, the accused, since the appointment of a defense counsel does not ensure maintaining effective legal services; 2) the obligation to provide the defense team with the time and opportunity to conduct effective defense.

scholarly journals ASSESSMENT OF THE CONCLUSIONS OF «SCIENTIFIC JUDGES» IN THE PRACTICE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

2019 ◽  
pp. 125-137
Author(s):  
N. Akhtyrska
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Video Recording ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Case File ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article, based on an analysis of judicial and investigative practices, highlighted the complex issues relating to the legal status of an expert and a specialist, ensuring their independence, evaluating and using the conclusions of an expert and a specialist by the court in strict compliance with and ensuring the principle of equality of the parties in the criminal process. The defense has the right to request the cross-examination of the expert, regardless of whether he was questioned at the pre-trial investigation stage. This does not exclude the possibility of using the previous testimony in court (protocol, audio, video recording), but only for the purpose of establishing contradictions. Refusal to satisfy the petition is a violation of the Convention requirements for a fair trial and equality of the parties. A tacit refusal of any guarantee of justice is not excluded, but at the same time, the existence of such a refusal must be proved «unequivocally». The court is obliged to accept as evidence from the defense the findings of the expert on the same issues on which the prosecution provided the findings of the state examination. The rules of admissibility of evidence may sometimes be contrary to the principles of equality of the procedural capacities of the parties and the adversarial process or otherwise affect the fairness of the proceedings. The rules for the admissibility of the conclusions of a specialist should not deprive the party of defense of the opportunity to effectively challenge them, in particular, by using them in the case or obtaining other opinions and conclusions. The state prosecution is obliged to disclose to the defense all available evidence (the conclusions of the examination for the benefit of the prosecution, and for the benefit of the defense). Hiding expert conclusions is a violation of the principle of equality of the parties. In the context of globalization, it is often necessary to use evidence obtained in the territory of a foreign state. All documents must be provided to the defense for review in plain language. If at the end of the investigation some documents are not translated and it is provided only after the start of the judicial review, the court is obliged to announce their contents and provide them for review. According to the Court, this does not constitute a violation of the right to defense. In case of poor-quality translation, the party has the right to request a re-transfer. If documents in a foreign language remain in the case file (without translation), this does not indicate a violation of convention standards if the arguments contained in these documents are not based on the indictment or conviction. Thus, in order to provide methodological assistance to law enforcement agencies and courts in the application of legislation related to the involvement of experts and the assessment of their findings, it is necessary to develop guidelines with regard to international standards, convention requirements, as well as to make changes and additions to existing legislation. Key words: criminal proceedings, «scientific judges», questioning of an expert, expert opinion, specialist opinion, European Court of Human Rights.

The European Union and the Rights of Individuals in Criminal Proceedings

2019 ◽  
pp. 114-136
Author(s):  
Valsamis Mitsilegas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Eu Directive ◽  
Transformative Potential ◽  
Right To Information ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
The Eu

This chapter considers the secondary legislation that has been adopted by European Union institutions under Article 82(2) TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) in the field of procedural rights in criminal proceedings. Article 82(2) TFEU is included in the Lisbon Treaty conferring to the EU express competence to adopt minimum standards on criminal procedure. The chapter first provides an overview of the EU Directive on the right to interpretation and translation, the right to information, the right of access to a lawyer, the right to legal aid, procedural rights of children, and presumption of innocence. It then discusses some of the key challenges in reaching agreement on EU standards on procedural rights in criminal proceedings, before concluding with an analysis of the transformative potential of EU law on procedural rights when viewed within the broader constitutional and institutional context of the EU.

With the Stroke of a Pen: Legal Standards for Adding Names to Government Kill Lists

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandre Andrade Sampaio ◽  
Luís Renato Vedovato
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Protection ◽  
Central Intelligence Agency ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Intelligence Agency ◽  
Special Operations ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The Right

United States (us) government officials disclosed, in 2010, that Anwar Al-Aulaki, a dual us-Yemeni citizen alleged to be a leader of the terrorist group Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, had been added to a list of individuals that the Central Intelligence Agency (cia) and the Joint Special Operations Command (jsoc) were authorised to target for death. It is clear that the right to life is affected by targeted killing actions, as the objective of the practice is to kill the targeted individual. For such a practice to be lawful, it has to be considered non-arbitrary according to international standards. The two main instruments of universal scope that provide a legal protection for this right are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The use of lethal force by a State would be legally justified by: (1) the carrying out of a lawfully imposed death penalty; (2) during an armed conflict, under international humanitarian law; and (3) if the force used was necessary, proportional and not the first option. This article examines the question of whether adding names to kill list remains legal under international human rights and humanitarian law, and if so, under what circumstances?

The European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights as Guardians of Fair Criminal Proceedings in Europe

2019 ◽  
pp. 88-114
Author(s):  
Bettina Weisser
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Public Hearing ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
Procedural Rights

This chapter discusses the role of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (the Court) in safeguarding fair criminal proceedings in Europe. In particular, it analyzes the procedure-related guarantee of a fair trial and its various implications as they are laid down in Article 6 ECHR and shaped by the case law of the Court. The chapter first provides an overview of the general procedural guarantees under Article 6, section 1, focusing on the independence and impartiality of the tribunal, right to a fair hearing (equality of arms, the right to remain silent and the privilege against self-incrimination, entrapment), public hearing, and hearing within a reasonable time. It then considers procedural rights in criminal proceedings under sections 2 and 3 of Article 6, along with the presumption of innocence under section 2 and specifically listed minimum rights in criminal proceedings under section 3.

scholarly journals LEGAL STANDARDS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE IN CRIMINFL PROCEEDINGS

2020 ◽  
pp. 252-261
Author(s):  
O. Mazur
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

The article deals with the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding evidence and evidence, which are disclosed in the provision of paragraph 3 of Article 6 “The right to a fair trial” of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the latest practice of the Supreme Court regarding the criteria for admissibility of evidence and analysis of the current criminal procedural law. As you know, the attitude of the state towards the protection of human rights and freedoms is one of the indicators of its democracy. Ukraine has chosen the European Community as the main strategic vector of development. Such a vector provides for the unification of the regulatory framework in accordance with European legislation, as well as compliance by law enforcement agencies with international standards for the protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens. That is why, the corresponding rule is enshrined in the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine, providing that the rule of law in criminal proceedings is applied taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (part 2 of article 8). A detailed analysis of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine regarding the admissibility of evidence in criminal proceedings and the relationship of these norms with the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights is carried out. They also examined the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the admissibility of evidence in decisions in which a violation by the state of the norms of the Convention was found, and in decisions in which such a violation was not found. So, summarizing and analyzing the practice of the ECHR, we saw that the Court emphasizes that a guilty verdict cannot be generally based only on inadmissible evidence, and if such a sentence is pronounced, then this is a violation of Article 1 6 of the Convention in respect of an unfair trial. Therefore, the investigator, prosecutor, investigating judge and judge should take into account the relevant practice of the ECHR and the norms of the Convention in their procedural activities in order to avoid these violations and to submit complaints to the European Court of Human Rights in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document