scholarly journals Provocation of a crime in the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights and in the national judicial system

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 334-339
Author(s):  
Zubrytska M. V.

The legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights contain clear criteria for distinguishing provocation of a crime that violates the requirements of paragraph 1 of Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, from lawful conduct in the use of secret methods in criminal proceedings: 1) verification of the validity of the provocation (material criterion of provocation); 2) the procedure for reviewing the complaint on provocation (procedural criterion of provocation); 3) methodology of assessment of the European Court of Human Rights. When considering a defendant's complaint about the presence of signs of provocation in the actions of law enforcement agencies, national courts must establish the following procedural criteria: 1) whether there were grounds for monitoring the commission of the crime; 2) what is the measure of interference of law enforcement officers in the commission of a crime; 3) the nature of the actions to which the accused was subjected. In the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights, examples of provocation to commit a crime are, in particular, the following: law enforcement on its own initiative contact with the applicant in the absence of objective suspicion of his involvement in criminal activity or propensity to commit a criminal offense; 2) renewal of the proposal by law enforcement officers, despite the previous refusal, to insist, exerting pressure. Based on the analysis of the legal positions of the European Court of Human Rights, it was concluded that a new presumption has actually appeared in the criminal law of Ukraine - provocation of a crime. The basis for it is Art. 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, as well as the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in cases of provocation. The presumption of provocation of a crime is that an accused who has stated that he committed a crime under the influence of provocative actions of law enforcement officers cannot be prosecuted unless the investigation and the court establish otherwise. In national jurisprudence, courts most often considered the following situations as provocation of a crime: detection of a crime in the absence of objective information about the preparation for the commission of a crime or the beginning of its commission; inciting (pushing) a person to commit a crime through active and persistent actions; violation of the procedural order of conducting procedural actions. Keywords: provocation of a crime, provocation of bribery, incitement, initiative, exposing a crime.

2021 ◽  
pp. 28-31
Author(s):  
Maryna HRYTSENKO

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.


Author(s):  
Alina Harkusha ◽  
Violeta Rets

The article deals with problems of application of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights by national courts and criminal proceedings parties during the preparation of requests for temporary access to items and documents. The authors have established that the application of the case law of the European Court and compliance with the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has a positive impact on the efficiency and fairness of pre-trial investigation and justice in the consideration of such requests.


2021 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 18-27
Author(s):  
Mykhaylo Buromenskiy ◽  
Vitalii Gutnyk

The article gives a legal assessment of “provocation of bribe” as a kind of “provocation of crime”. The authors examine the relevant case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and find that the Court does not consider “provocation of bribe” as a provocation of a unique type of crime, but summarizes the situation of “provocation of crime”, including corruption crimes (including, giving a bribe, offering a bribe, receiving a bribe).The article pays special attention to the fact that the ECHR considers complaints of provocation of bribery in the context of the rights provided for in of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court’s position is that the existence of a proven provocation of a crime deprives a person of a fair trial from the very beginning of the proceedings. The article analyzes the signs of incitement to crime, which are an integral part of provocation of crime.The article emphasizes that the ECHR, when considering relevant cases, refers exclusively to the procedural aspect of bribery provocation, assessing the extent to which the bribery provocation affected the quality of the evidence obtained as a result. In case of considering relevant cases in the national court, the ECHR places the positive obligation to prove the absence of incitement (as a key sign of provocation of a crime) primarily on the prosecution.Based on the analysis of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, the authors draw attention to the fact that covert investigative and operational actions must be carried out in a passive way so as not to create any pressure on a person to commit a crime.The case-law of the ECHR also provides an opportunity to determine the limits of national courts’ examination of situations in which a defendant claims to be a victim of a “provocation of crime”. The national court must find out the following: 1) motives of decision-making on a covert action; 2) the degree of participation of the law enforcement agency in the commission of the crime; 3) the nature of any incitement or pressure experienced by the applicant; 4) reliable information about the defendant’s participation in such criminal activity.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-90
Author(s):  
Alla Demyda

The article focuses on the principle of impartiality and independence of judiciary as a part of the right to a fair trial according to Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. In particular, an account will be taken of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in matters of applications from national judges. The article considers the reflection of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights on the amendment of national legislations and the amendment of the provisions of the national constitutions regarding the principles of justice.


This article considers relevant science and law enforcement practice issues of state intervention’s legitimacy in the right to peaceful property enjoyment in criminal proceedings during property seizure. These issues are considered everywhere through international instruments’ prism, particularly the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention and the ECtHR case-law. Based on the ECtHR case law, the authors analyze the conditions under which the state may interfere in exercising a protected right, often called criteria for intervention. Based on the fact restrictions are permissible if they are prescribed by law, necessary in a democratic society and pursue a legitimate goal, the authors consider these conditions through the lens of national law enforcement practices of Ukrainian criminal proceedings. The authors emphasize the relevance of these criteria of the legality of individual rights restriction in criminal proceedings since when applying for property seizure, the Ukrainian legislator requires investigating judges to consider reasonableness and restriction proportionality of property rights, and apply the least onerous seizure method, not suspend or excessively restrict a person’s lawful business activities, or other consequences significantly affecting others’ interests. Due to the amendment of the Ukrainian criminal procedure legislation, the practice is slowly approaching the European Court of Human Rights practice’s European standards. However, proper systematic, logical and consistent court decisions limiting the human right to peaceful property possession remain critical. Based on the study, the authors offer a model of logical reasoning, following which the investigating judges can correctly formulate the motivational part of the decision to satisfy or deny the request for property seizure. Particular attention is paid to the reasonableness, suitability, necessity, and proportionality of the means of restricting the right to peaceful enjoyment of the property and describes each of them.


Author(s):  
Olena Bilichak

Based on the analysis of the provisions of domestic law, the practice of pre-trial investigation and court, the scientific article develops recommendations on how to take into account the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in covert investigative (search) actions and use the results obtained in evidence. It is established that the current legislation provides for the possibility of conducting pre-trial investigation of serious and especially serious crimes of covert investigative (investigative) actions, which in most cases is related to intrusion into privacy and correspondence of a person protected by Art. 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Therefore, knowledge of the content and consideration of the case law of the ECtHR in making procedural decisions on the conduct of pre-trial investigation by certain NSDCs and the use of the results obtained by them in court evidence is a strong guarantee of the legality of court decisions. When making certain procedural decisions regarding the materials of covert investigative (investigative) actions at the pre-trial and court stages of criminal proceedings, it should be taken into account that the right to secrecy of correspondence guaranteed by Art. 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ensures the inviolability of all forms of communication between persons, both by means of communication and without them. All covert investigative (search) actions should be carried out only in accordance with the law. Audio and video materials submitted by private individuals and produced «with the help» of law enforcement officers cannot be considered admissible evidence. Carrying out NSRD to control the commission of a crime (Article 271 of the CPC of Ukraine) should exclude the possibility of provocation by the pre-trial investigation authorities. If their intelligence staff was involved in such a special operation, in the initial stages of its conduct the conduct of the pre-trial investigation body should be exclusively passive and limited to observation. In any case, the evidence in the criminal proceedings in which the relevant special operation took place should not be based only on its materials, and the burden of proof rests with the prosecution. Key words: criminal proceedings, European Court of Human Rights, covert investigative actions.


Author(s):  
Miodrag Simović ◽  
Marina Simović

The well-known sentence in English Justice delayed is justice denied confirms historical awareness of the value of a speedy court decision. The right to a fair trial within a reasonable time applies to both civil and criminal proceedings. In a criminal trial, the issue of adjournment may also be regulated under Article 5 paragraph 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms when a person is detained. The rationale for the principle, in criminal proceedings, is “based on the need to allow the accused not to remain for too long in a state of uncertainty as to the outcome of criminal charges against him” (Kart v. Turkey, European Court of Human Rights, 2009). Furthermore, the variability of criminal proceedings that take too long - generally damages the reputation of the alleged offender. The European Court of Human Rights explained that “the reason for the verdict in so many lenghty proceedings is that certain contracting parties have not complied with the ‘reasonable time’ requirement under Article 6 paragraph 1 of the European Convention and have not prescribed a domestic remedy for this type of appeal” (Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], 2006-V).


Author(s):  
Mārcis Grinciuns

Rakstā tiek pētīta Eiropas Cilvēktiesību tiesas (ECT) pausto slepeno izmeklēšanas metožu (undercover operations) izpildes principu attiecināmība uz likumā “Par policiju” noteiktā kontrolpirkuma (turpmāk rakstā – policijas kontrolpirkums) izpildi. Policijas kontrolpirkums galvenokārt tiek veikts, lai atklātu administratīvos pārkāpumus, kuru izskatīšana nav piekritīga ECT, jo Cilvēka tiesību un pamatbrīvību aizsardzības konvencijas (turpmāk rakstā – Konvencija) 6. pantā noteiktās tiesības uz taisnīgu tiesu paredzētas apsūdzētajiem krimināllietās [1, angļu valodas versija]. Taču atsevišķos gadījumos arī administratīvais pārkāpums (vai disciplinārpārkāpums) var būt piekritīgs ECT kompetencei – tas atkarīgs no tā, kāda rakstura pārkāpums tiek izmeklēts un kāds sods par tā izdarīšanu paredzēts. ECT ir definējusi trīs kritērijus, pēc kuriem tā vērtē, vai pārkāpums atbilst krimināla pārkāpuma būtībai un ir piekritīgs Konvencijas 6. pantam. Aktuāls ir jautājums, vai likumpārkāpumi, kuru izmeklēšanā ir paredzēts izmantot policijas kontrolpirkumu, ir piekritīgi Konvencijas 6. pantam, un, ja tā, vai policijas kontrolpirkuma normatīvais regulējums ir atbilstošs ECT paustajiem slepenu izmeklēšanas metožu lietojuma principiem (nosacījumiem). The article examines the relevance of the principles of the use of secret investigation methods (undercover operations) expressed by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to the test-purchase measure set out in the Law “On police” (police test-purchase). The police test-purchase mainly is used to detect administrative offences which are not subject to review by the ECHR, since the right to a fair trial provided in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Convention) is reserved for defendants in criminal proceedings. The question is whether the offences, where police test-purchase is used as part of investigation, are subject to Article 6 of the Convention, and if so, whether the regulatory framework for police control is in line with the principles (conditions) of the use of secret investigative methods expressed by the ECHR.


2021 ◽  
pp. 656-673
Author(s):  
N. Akhtyrska

The article discusses topical issues of the use of evidence obtained as a result of covert (investigative) search actions (hereinafter - CISA), in particular, control over the commission of a crime. An analysis of the investigative and judicial practice testifies to the ambiguous interpretation of the tactics of the CISA, which leads to the ruling of acquittals by the courts, since signs of provocation are established in the actions of law enforcement officials. The judicial practice has not developed a unified approach to assessing the actual circumstances of control over the commission of a crime. Different interpretations are allowed by the courts of first instance and appeal. International convention standards provide for the possibility of such measures that are effective in the fight against corruption. The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - the ECHR) also recognizes the legality of covert operations in the fight against organized crime and corruption. At the same time, the ECHR points to a number of signs that allow determining the legality of such actions. In particular, the ECHR identifies two groups of criteria: substantive and procedural. Some relate to the nature of the actions of both parties themselves, while others allow the court to assess and verify the procedural grounds and the procedure for conducting the operation. Despite the fact that the Decisions of the European Court of Human Rights are considered a source of law and the courts of Ukraine are obliged to use them in legal proceedings, in practice a number of unresolved questions arise when assessing evidence. That is, whether they are reliable and proper. Alternatively, is there a provocation, that is, a criminal offense, excluding person’s accusation? The general criteria for provocation is the repeated offer by the agent to commit any illegal actions; verbal, organizational, psychological acts aimed at provoking, an attempt to evoke compassion, pity; use of friendly ties. The very fact of expressing “abstract readiness” (to hand over an unlawful benefit) on the part of law enforcement agencies is not a provocation. A new direction in expert practice, linguistic expertise, which solves questions of speech and law, is used in Ukraine in this category of criminal proceedings extremely rarely. Since the operational purchase, test purchase, special investigative experiment are carried out in conditions of direct establishment of interpersonal communication, the content of communication should be considered from the point of view of tactical characteristics (psychological, organizational, speech), for the presence of a call to commit illegal actions by insisting, persuasion: – the use of nihilistic culture, the prevailing illegal practice (“Everybody does it”, “You have to live”), – willingness to pay (“I collected money”), – involvement in the subject’s problems, which he/she can solve with the help of illegal benefits. Using the example of a specific criminal proceeding, the author reveals the mistakes of the investigating authorities and justifies the advisability of raising the level of awareness regarding the use of the possibilities of linguistic expertise to establish signs of provocation, indicating passive corruption or the exclusion of charges.


2019 ◽  
pp. 104
Author(s):  
MILENA SLAVEYKOVA-RUKOVA

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) plays a crucial role in the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals. The goal of this Court is to resolve complaints in which these individuals allege that the State of their citizenship fails to perform the obligations arising from the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950 (the Convention). The ECtHR assesses the reasonableness of the term for “final” resolution of a legal conflict, and includes therein the time needed to implement the judgment. Currently, excessively long periods needed to implement the judgments which award payments of certain amounts to plaintiffs at the expense of budgetary funds is still a sensitive issue for Bulgaria as well as for Ukraine. As a respective confirmation of such a situation for Ukraine, the author mentions ECtHR’s judgment passed in 2017 in the case of Burmych and Others v. Ukraine, which actually determined the fate of 12,148 applications filed to the Court by Ukrainian citizens who complained of the violation of their right to a fair trial because of the failure to implement final judgments passed by national courts. The purpose of the article is to determine the impact of ECtHR’s judgments on the rulemaking and practice of national courts. The experience of Bulgaria is taken as the object of study. The author analyzes two pilot ECtHR judgments which found that Bulgarian courts breached the requirements of Art. 6, § 1 of the Convention. After these judgments became final, the Bulgarian Parliament amended the laws “On the Judiciary” and “On the Liability of the State and Communities for Damage Caused” to incorporate the provisions which are aimed at avoiding any future violations similar to those found by ECtHR. The author studies these legislative changes and the practice of their application with the aim of illustrating that ECtHR judgments have an efficient impact on the improvement of national legal rules. In summary, the author maintains that the mechanisms of compensation described in the article – the administrative one (after amendments to the Law “On the Judiciary”) and the judicial one (after amendments to the Law “On Liability of the State and Communities for Damage Caused”) precisely meet the ECHR criteria.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document