加纳通过侵犯人权行为获得的证据的可采性:分析Cubagee诉Asare及其他人案(NO. 1)。J6/04/2017) [2018] GHASC 14(2018年2月28日)

IF 0.2 Q4 LAW
J. D. Mujuzi
{"title":"加纳通过侵犯人权行为获得的证据的可采性:分析Cubagee诉Asare及其他人案(NO. 1)。J6/04/2017) [2018] GHASC 14(2018年2月28日)","authors":"J. D. Mujuzi","doi":"10.1163/17087384-12340044","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe Constitution of Ghana, unlike those of other African countries such as Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa is silent on the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. Jurisprudence from Ghana demonstrates that although there had been cases in which the High Court and the Court of Appeal briefly dealt with this type of evidence, the Supreme Court, the highest court in Ghana, had not expressed an opinion on this issue until recently. In February 2018, in the case of Cubagee v Asare and Others, the Supreme Court laid down the criteria that Ghanaian courts have to use in determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. In this article, the author argues that much as this is an important decision, the Supreme Court left some issues unresolved and there is still room for improvement.","PeriodicalId":41565,"journal":{"name":"African Journal of Legal Studies","volume":"12 1","pages":"81-105"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/17087384-12340044","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Admissibility of Evidence Obtained through Human Rights Violations in Ghana: Analysing Cubagee v Asare and Others (NO. J6/04/2017) [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)\",\"authors\":\"J. D. Mujuzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/17087384-12340044\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe Constitution of Ghana, unlike those of other African countries such as Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa is silent on the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. Jurisprudence from Ghana demonstrates that although there had been cases in which the High Court and the Court of Appeal briefly dealt with this type of evidence, the Supreme Court, the highest court in Ghana, had not expressed an opinion on this issue until recently. In February 2018, in the case of Cubagee v Asare and Others, the Supreme Court laid down the criteria that Ghanaian courts have to use in determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. In this article, the author argues that much as this is an important decision, the Supreme Court left some issues unresolved and there is still room for improvement.\",\"PeriodicalId\":41565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"African Journal of Legal Studies\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"81-105\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/17087384-12340044\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"African Journal of Legal Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/17087384-12340044\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"African Journal of Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/17087384-12340044","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

加纳的宪法与津巴布韦、肯尼亚、南非等非洲国家的宪法不同,对通过侵犯人权获得的证据的可采性问题保持沉默。加纳的判例表明,虽然高等法院和上诉法院曾在一些案件中简短地处理过这类证据,但加纳最高法院——最高法院直到最近才对这一问题发表意见。2018年2月,在Cubagee诉Asare等人一案中,最高法院制定了加纳法院在确定通过侵犯人权行为获得的证据的可采性时必须使用的标准。在这篇文章中,作者认为,尽管这是一项重要的决定,但最高法院留下了一些未解决的问题,仍有改进的余地。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Admissibility of Evidence Obtained through Human Rights Violations in Ghana: Analysing Cubagee v Asare and Others (NO. J6/04/2017) [2018] GHASC 14 (28 February 2018)
The Constitution of Ghana, unlike those of other African countries such as Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa is silent on the issue of the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. Jurisprudence from Ghana demonstrates that although there had been cases in which the High Court and the Court of Appeal briefly dealt with this type of evidence, the Supreme Court, the highest court in Ghana, had not expressed an opinion on this issue until recently. In February 2018, in the case of Cubagee v Asare and Others, the Supreme Court laid down the criteria that Ghanaian courts have to use in determining the admissibility of evidence obtained through human rights violations. In this article, the author argues that much as this is an important decision, the Supreme Court left some issues unresolved and there is still room for improvement.
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
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: The African Journal of Legal Studies (AJLS) is a peer-reviewed and interdisciplinary academic journal focusing on human rights and rule of law issues in Africa as analyzed by lawyers, economists, political scientists and others drawn from throughout the continent and the world. The journal, which was established by the Africa Law Institute and is now co-published in collaboration with Brill | Nijhoff, aims to serve as the leading forum for the thoughtful and scholarly engagement of a broad range of complex issues at the intersection of law, public policy and social change in Africa. AJLS places emphasis on presenting a diversity of perspectives on fundamental, long-term, systemic problems of human rights and governance, as well as emerging issues, and possible solutions to them. Towards this end, AJLS encourages critical reflections that are based on empirical observations and experience as well as theoretical and multi-disciplinary approaches.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信