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.

scholarly journals Topical problems of legislative regulation of defense mandatory participation in criminal proceeding

2021 ◽  
pp. 124-134
Author(s):  
T.V. Korcheva
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Legislative Regulation ◽  
Mandatory Participation

For a certain category of persons in particular cases legislator provides for a special procedure of criminal proceedings as well as mandatory participation of a defender (Article 52, The Code of Criminal Procedure) to create additional person defense guarantees in criminal proceedings. The article is devoted to study of problem aspects of legislative regulation of defense mandatory participation in criminal proceedings. The importance of defense mandatory participation is emphasized as rendering legal aid to a person in criminal proceedings. This article is devoted to study the importance of the mandatory participation of a defender in criminal proceedings and on the basis of obtained data, with due consideration of international standards of human rights protection in criminal proceedings, to submit substantiated author’s proposals as regards the expansion of the circle of grounds for the mandatory participation of a defender in Ukrainian criminal proceedings. Within the topic of study we analyzed criminal procedural legislation in force, research works in this area, decisions of European Court oh Human Rights, aiming to reveal deficiencies in law and submit author’s proposals as regards their elimination.  According to normative sense of Article 52, The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine, the article gives classification of the grounds for mandatory participation of a defender depending on: 1) consideration of severity of a crime; 2) consideration of personal data of a defendant held criminally liable; 3) peculiarities of criminal proceedings.  Proposals are presented aimed to improve legislative regulation of Ukrainian criminal procedural law. It is proposed to add one more reason connected to the circumstance that the defendant denies suspicion against him/her and/or denies his/her guilt in commission of criminal offense. The proposal consists in addition to Article 52, Part 2, The Code of Criminal Procedure of Ukraine of new Item 10 postulating the mandatory participation of a defender in criminal proceedings against persons who deny a suspicion as specified in Suspicion Notice on deny pleading guilty at court session.

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 Ensuring the detection of property in the institute of property seizure

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (42) ◽  
pp. 236-247
Author(s):  
Anastasiia Bazhenova ◽  
Anatolii Desyatnik ◽  
Hanna Mudretska ◽  
Inna Pakipova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
General Interest ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Legal Method ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the study of certain issues of property detection in the institution of seizure of property. On the basis of comparative legal analysis, the possibility of ensuring the detection of property using search and seizure within the Criminal Procedure Code of the past and modern Criminal Procedure Code of Ukraine and foreign countries was assessed. The rights of the victim under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms are analyzed in terms of his/her right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law to decide his/her civil rights and obligations. The application of the criminal procedural legislation of Ukraine is analyzed taking into account the practice of the European Court of Human Rights on the protection of human rights in relation to the rights of individuals or legal entities to peacefully own their property. Emphasis is placed on the fact that the previous provisions do not in any way restrict the right of the state to enact such laws as it deems necessary to exercise control over the use of property in accordance with the general interest. Scientific methods such as analysis, synthesis, formal-legal and comparative-legal method became the methodological basis of the research.

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.

scholarly journals PEMBANTARAN PENAHANAN TERHADAP TERSANGKA DALAM PERSPERKTIF HAK ASASI MANUSIA (Studi Di Polres Purbalingga)

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Handri Wirastuti Sawitri
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Severe Pain ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The State ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

Suspect in custody who experience severe pain, must be doing maintenance by the investigator as the officers responsible for detention. Based on the implementation of research results “pembantaran” arrest suspects in the level of investigation based on several provisions or regulations, among others: the Criminal Procedure Code, Act No. 2 year 2002 as well as SEMA No. 1 in 1989. The protection of human rights for suspects, particularly in health care by providing opportunities for treatment in hospitals outside the prison, which is a right that must be respected and protected by the state.

scholarly journals Understanding of the concept of criminal procedure in the new Law on Criminal Procedure of Serbia

2006 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 531-545
Author(s):  
Momčilo Grubač
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Judicial Investigation ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Law ◽  
Administrative Proceedings

In this paper the author has outlined that the solutions introduced in the new Law on Criminal Procedure of Serbia concerning the concept of criminal procedure, its structure and scope are confusing and wrong. In his opinion those mistakes have caused the largest number of other wrong solutions in the new Law, especially in regulation of presentation of evidence. Unlike the former pre-criminal proceedings, which was constantly and justifiably considered to be with no criminal procedural effect, the new Criminal Procedural Law treats even the police "pre-investigation" and prosecution investigation as parts of the criminal proceedings and enables that verbal evidence (statements of the witnesses and accused) presented in those administrative proceedings can be used later for rendering the judgment in the later criminal proceedings. The author has demonstrated that by introducing the prosecution investigation instead of the judicial one investigation is not part of the judicial criminal proceedings anymore and that therefore principals of directness and contradictoriness in the main proceedings should have been more elaborated than before in the new Law, in stead of making them questionable by introducing number of new exemptions. According to the Law on Criminal Procedure the new criminal procedure now consists of the non-judicial investigation and judicial main criminal proceedings. In the field of legislature, this change has raised two major issues before the legislator: (1) to secure protection of human rights in the non-judicial investigation and (2) to secure court judgment that will be based on the evidence, presented according to the rules of contradictoriness and directness, in the judicial part of the criminal proceedings. Based on these requests, the evidence presented in the non-judicial previous proceedings cannot be used, in author's opinion, for rendering the judgment although the new Law allows that, even in a broader sense comparing it to the time when the investigation was a judicial activity.

scholarly journals GARANTISMO, SISTEMA ACUSATÓRIO E A PRODUÇÃO DE PROVA EX OFFICIO PELO MAGISTRADO

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (59) ◽  
pp. 210
Author(s):  
Teodoro Silva SANTOS ◽  
Nestor Eduardo Araruna SANTIAGO
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Legal Process ◽  
Accurate Analysis ◽  
Criminal Process ◽  
Procedure Code ◽  
European Court

RESUMO Objetivo: A análise da possibilidade de produção de provas ex officio pelo magistrado, prevista na redação do inciso I do art. 156 do Código de Processo Penal, advinda da reforma implementada pela Lei nº. 11.690/2008, que alterou os dispositivos relativos à prova no Processo Penal à luz da Constituição e do Garantismo Penal. Metodologia: Métodos analítico e dedutivo, mediante pesquisa bibliográfica e documental de doutrina e jurisprudência, especialmente dos tribunais superiores brasileiros e do Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos, no âmbito do modelo garantista constitucional e também legal. Resultados: A possibilidade de iniciativa probatória pelo juiz no processo penal antes de iniciada a ação penal, expressa no art. 156, inciso I, do Código de Processo Penal, com a redação advinda da Lei nº. 11.690/2008, contrapõe-se ao garantismo penal, bem como à Constituição, por colocar em risco a imparcialidade judicial. A norma se exprime como resquício de um regime inquisitorial, por afrontar os direitos e as garantias fundamentais, notadamente o princípio da imparcialidade, alcançado por meio do distanciamento do magistrado da função probatória. Contribuições: O tema é relevante, pois abre espaço para uma análise precisa da persecução da verdade no contexto do processo penal ante a possibilidade de atuação ex officio do juiz na produção de provas, fato este que se contrapõe ao sistema processual acusatório adotado no Brasil, centrado na existência de sujeitos processuais diversos e detentores de funções distintas: acusar, defender e julgar, em consonância com o princípio do devido processo legal e de outros princípios corolários deste. Palavras-chave: sistema acusatório; garantismo processual; produção de prova ex officio; imparcialidade. ABSTRACT Objective: To analyze the possibility of producing ex officio evidence by the magistrate, provided for in item I of article 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arising from the reform implemented by Law no. 11,690 / 2008, which amended the provisions relating to evidence in the Criminal Procedure in the light of the Constitution and the Penal Guarantee. Methodology: Analytic and deductive methods, by way of bibliographic and documentary research of doctrine and jurisprudence, especially from the Brazilian higher courts and the European Court of Human Rights, within the scope of the constitutional and also legal guarantee model. Results: The possibility of evidential initiative by the judge in the criminal process before the beginning of the criminal lawsuit, expressed in Article 156, item I of the Criminal Procedure Code, with the wording granted by Law no. 11,690/2008, opposes the criminal guarantee, as well as the Constitution, for putting at risk the judicial impartiality. The law expresses as a remnant of an inquisitorial regime to affront fundamental rights and guarantees, notably the principle of impartiality, achieved by way of distancing the magistrate from the evidence function. Contributions: The topic is relevant, as it opens up an accurate analysis of the pursuit of the truth in the context of criminal proceedings given the possibility of ex officio action by the judge in the production of evidence, a fact that contrasts with the accusatory procedural system adopted in Brazil, centered in the existence of different procedural subjects and holders of different functions: accusing, defending and judging, in line with the principle of due legal process and other corollary principles thereof. Keywords: accusatory system; procedural guarantee; production of ex officio evidence; impartiality.

scholarly journals Evidentiary problems in the investigation of corruption crimes in Ukraine

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (32) ◽  
pp. 117-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mikhailo Shcherbakovskyi ◽  
Ruslan Stepaniuk ◽  
Vasyl Kikinchuk ◽  
Oleksiy Oderiy ◽  
Liudmyla Svyrydova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Criminal Cases ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Strict Adherence ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Timely Access

The fight against corruption in Ukraine is one of the main tasks of law enforcement agencies. However, the process of proving corruption crimes in criminal cases is accompanied by problems that negatively affect the quality of the pre-trial investigation. The purpose of the article is to identify and study typical investigative errors and develop recommendations on the proper use of means and methods of proof in criminal cases of corruption crimes, taking into account the norms of national legislation and international criteria for ensuring human rights in criminal proceedings. To achieve this goal, a comparative and systemic structural analysis of international and domestic regulatory legal acts and court decisions, a selective study of materials from criminal cases on corruption crimes were made. It has been established that the process of proving in cases of corruption crimes in Ukraine will fully comply with international standards for ensuring human rights, provided that operational officers, investigators, and prosecutors comply with the admissibility criterion of evidence, especially when using secret measures. Investigative errors that take place at the stage of pre-trial investigation in this category of criminal cases lead to the restriction of human rights and freedoms and consist in significant violations of the criminal procedural law when collecting, checking, and evaluating evidence, as well as when opening the collected materials to the defense. Preventing such violations requires strict adherence to the general requirements for conducting undercover activities, formulated in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and domestic courts. The proof must take into account the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine of the inadmissibility of evidence derived from materials collected in violation of the law. The defense side should be provided with timely access to the materials of covert events, including the documents that served as the basis for their implementation. It is important not to allow actions that are regarded as a provocation (incitement) of the suspect to commit a corruption offense.

scholarly journals Beginning or continuance of the reform of Serbian criminal procedural law

2006 ◽  
Vol 78 (9) ◽  
pp. 83-96
Author(s):  
Momčilo Grubač
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
Criminal Code ◽  
The State ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Fundamental Freedoms ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights

This Article represents author's reaction to the idea of initiating preparation of the new Serbian Criminal Procedural Law and achieving this goal in a short term of several months. The author thinks that this idea is uwustifiable for several reasons. Instead of drafting the new criminal code we shall take into consideration what has already been done, and we shall proceed with the reform by amending and supplementing the existing Criminal Code, by making it legally perfect in respect of several clearly defined issues, which obviously require such intervention. The author makes references to seven issues that require consideration in the reform of Serbian criminal procedural law. According to him it is necessary to: [1] make a final draft of the Criminal Code; [2] amend Criminal Code and add more detailed provisions on witness protection and protection of inured persons in the criminal procedure; [3] remove the provision on international criminal assistance and extradition from the Criminal Code and adopt a State Union law; [4] potentially change the model of investigation proceedings, by transferring investigation to the competence of the state prosecution or police and referring to the investigating judge so that he can only pass decisions on limitation of human rights during the proceedings; [5] re-evaluate once more whether the Criminal Code is in compliance with European Convention on protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms [6] harmonize the Criminal Code with later adopted constitutional provisions (Constitutional Charter 2003) and with the provisions of new Criminal Code 2005; [7] take into consideration justifiable objections of the court practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document