通过酷刑和不人道或有辱人格待遇获得的证据的可采性。欧洲人权法院提供了一个连贯和令人信服的方法吗?

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
W. Jasiński
{"title":"通过酷刑和不人道或有辱人格待遇获得的证据的可采性。欧洲人权法院提供了一个连贯和令人信服的方法吗?","authors":"W. Jasiński","doi":"10.1163/15718174-bja10022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe 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.","PeriodicalId":43762,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Does the European Court of Human Rights Offer a Coherent and Convincing Approach?\",\"authors\":\"W. Jasiński\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718174-bja10022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Crime Criminal Law and Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718174-bja10022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文介绍并评估了欧洲人权委员会在刑事诉讼中通过酷刑和不人道或有辱人格待遇获得的证据的可采性方面的做法。作者考察了该标准的内容、其理由以及欧洲人权法院推理的一致性。本文既涉及陈述和真实证据的可采性问题,也涉及违反《欧洲人权公约》第三条所取得的原始证据和派生证据的可采性问题。对通过个人压迫行为获得的证据的可采性进行了分析。对斯特拉斯堡法院判例法的评估表明,它的做法相当微妙,不幸的是,不一致和不连贯。它的主要缺点是缺乏对通过虐待获得的证据不可接受的理由的深入分析,以及对这类证据的个别类别的零碎处理,没有试图全面解决其在刑事诉讼中的可接受性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment. Does the European Court of Human Rights Offer a Coherent and Convincing Approach?
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.
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
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
12
×
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