在监视中遵守人和公民的宪法权利和自由

Larysa V. Kravchenko
{"title":"在监视中遵守人和公民的宪法权利和自由","authors":"Larysa V. Kravchenko","doi":"10.56215/04221202.38","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The relevance of the study, given the law enforcement practice of the courts of Ukraine and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, based on the coverage of standard decisions, lies in identifying some errors in the pre-trial investigation. Further, the study disclosed the issues related to the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms during the surveillance. The purpose of the study is to identify the main reasons for recognising the evidence obtained during covert investigative action as inadmissible in the course of the trial. The methodological basis of the study is a comparative legal method based on the evaluation approach, a formal legal (dogmatic) method, analysis and synthesis. The study highlights individual papers in the context of the issue under consideration, which allowed disclosing the content of each of the areas and tracing their relationship. Based on the review of judicial practice and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the main reasons for declaring evidence inadmissible are presented and substantiated. In addition, individual court decisions on non-compliance with constitutional human rights and freedoms during such a covert investigative (search) action as surveillance are summarised and characterised. It was proved and argued that authorised bodies that have the right to authorise surveillance must comply with the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is determined in which cases the court may recognise evidence obtained during surveillance as admissible. The ultima ratio principle, which guarantees the observance of constitutional human and civil rights and freedoms during pre-trial investigations, is highlighted separately. A personal opinion on each of the analysed decisions is formulated, considering national and international legislation. The practical value lies in the fact that the results of the study allow the prosecution to avoid mistakes during the collection of evidence in criminal proceedings.","PeriodicalId":334836,"journal":{"name":"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Observance of the Constitutional Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen During Surveillance\",\"authors\":\"Larysa V. Kravchenko\",\"doi\":\"10.56215/04221202.38\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The relevance of the study, given the law enforcement practice of the courts of Ukraine and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, based on the coverage of standard decisions, lies in identifying some errors in the pre-trial investigation. Further, the study disclosed the issues related to the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms during the surveillance. The purpose of the study is to identify the main reasons for recognising the evidence obtained during covert investigative action as inadmissible in the course of the trial. The methodological basis of the study is a comparative legal method based on the evaluation approach, a formal legal (dogmatic) method, analysis and synthesis. The study highlights individual papers in the context of the issue under consideration, which allowed disclosing the content of each of the areas and tracing their relationship. Based on the review of judicial practice and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the main reasons for declaring evidence inadmissible are presented and substantiated. In addition, individual court decisions on non-compliance with constitutional human rights and freedoms during such a covert investigative (search) action as surveillance are summarised and characterised. It was proved and argued that authorised bodies that have the right to authorise surveillance must comply with the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is determined in which cases the court may recognise evidence obtained during surveillance as admissible. The ultima ratio principle, which guarantees the observance of constitutional human and civil rights and freedoms during pre-trial investigations, is highlighted separately. A personal opinion on each of the analysed decisions is formulated, considering national and international legislation. The practical value lies in the fact that the results of the study allow the prosecution to avoid mistakes during the collection of evidence in criminal proceedings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":334836,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav\",\"volume\":\"5 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1900-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.56215/04221202.38\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ûridičnij časopis Nacìonalʹnoï akademìï vnutrìšnìh sprav","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56215/04221202.38","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于乌克兰法院的执法实践和欧洲人权法院的判例法,根据标准判决的范围,这项研究的相关性在于查明审前调查中的一些错误。此外,该研究还揭示了在监视期间与遵守人权和公民权利及自由有关的问题。本研究的目的是确定在秘密调查行动中获得的证据在审判过程中被认定为不可采信的主要原因。本研究的方法论基础是基于评价法的比较法、形式法(教条式)法、分析与综合。该研究强调了正在考虑的问题背景下的个别论文,这允许披露每个领域的内容并追踪它们之间的关系。根据对司法实践和欧洲人权法院判决的审查,提出并证实了宣布证据不可采信的主要理由。此外,对在监视等秘密调查(搜查)行动中不遵守宪法人权和自由的个别法院判决作了总结和说明。事实证明,有权授权进行监视的授权机构必须遵守《欧洲人权公约》的准则。在哪些情况下,法院可以承认在监视期间获得的证据为可采证据,这是确定的。最后期限原则保证在审前调查期间遵守宪法规定的人权和公民权利及自由,这一原则单独得到强调。在考虑到国家和国际立法的情况下,对所分析的每一项决定提出个人意见。其实用价值在于,研究结果可以避免检察机关在刑事诉讼取证过程中出现失误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Observance of the Constitutional Rights and Freedoms of Man and Citizen During Surveillance
The relevance of the study, given the law enforcement practice of the courts of Ukraine and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, based on the coverage of standard decisions, lies in identifying some errors in the pre-trial investigation. Further, the study disclosed the issues related to the observance of human and civil rights and freedoms during the surveillance. The purpose of the study is to identify the main reasons for recognising the evidence obtained during covert investigative action as inadmissible in the course of the trial. The methodological basis of the study is a comparative legal method based on the evaluation approach, a formal legal (dogmatic) method, analysis and synthesis. The study highlights individual papers in the context of the issue under consideration, which allowed disclosing the content of each of the areas and tracing their relationship. Based on the review of judicial practice and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, the main reasons for declaring evidence inadmissible are presented and substantiated. In addition, individual court decisions on non-compliance with constitutional human rights and freedoms during such a covert investigative (search) action as surveillance are summarised and characterised. It was proved and argued that authorised bodies that have the right to authorise surveillance must comply with the norms of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is determined in which cases the court may recognise evidence obtained during surveillance as admissible. The ultima ratio principle, which guarantees the observance of constitutional human and civil rights and freedoms during pre-trial investigations, is highlighted separately. A personal opinion on each of the analysed decisions is formulated, considering national and international legislation. The practical value lies in the fact that the results of the study allow the prosecution to avoid mistakes during the collection of evidence in criminal proceedings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信