埃塞俄比亚的盘问权和证人保护:比较综述

Q4 Social Sciences
Tadesse Melaku
{"title":"埃塞俄比亚的盘问权和证人保护:比较综述","authors":"Tadesse Melaku","doi":"10.4314/MLR.V12I2.3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Cross-examination particularly in the context of criminal trial is a human right recognized in international human rights law and the Ethiopian constitution. However, states are increasingly facing another pressing policy consideration – protecting prosecution witnesses who could otherwise be subject to intimidation, and who could even risk their lives for providing evidence in the administration of criminal justice. Witness protection has become an important public interest that justifies the restriction of the right to cross-examination. Without such protection, witnesses could be uncooperative for fear of reprisal and, in view of this, many countries (including Ethiopia) have introduced measures restricting face-to-face examination through, among others, the suppression of witness identity. A review of foreign academic literature and foreign case law reveals that, when considering demands for anonymity, courts exercise maximum caution to ensure that the right to cross-examine witnesses is not unduly infringed. The writer argues that a recent constitutional ruling by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry in favor of withholding the identity of prosecution witnesses has failed to properly balance between the right to cross-examine against protecting witnesses. The ruling is likely to have a negative effect on fair trial and can adversely affect the fundamental rights of accused persons in Ethiopia   Key terms Anti-Terrorism Proclamation · Council of Constitutional Inquiry · Right to cross-examination · Ethiopian Constitution · Fair trial · Protection of witnesses and whistleblowers","PeriodicalId":30178,"journal":{"name":"Mizan Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.3","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Right to Cross-Examination and Witness Protection in Ethiopia: Comparative Overview\",\"authors\":\"Tadesse Melaku\",\"doi\":\"10.4314/MLR.V12I2.3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Cross-examination particularly in the context of criminal trial is a human right recognized in international human rights law and the Ethiopian constitution. However, states are increasingly facing another pressing policy consideration – protecting prosecution witnesses who could otherwise be subject to intimidation, and who could even risk their lives for providing evidence in the administration of criminal justice. Witness protection has become an important public interest that justifies the restriction of the right to cross-examination. Without such protection, witnesses could be uncooperative for fear of reprisal and, in view of this, many countries (including Ethiopia) have introduced measures restricting face-to-face examination through, among others, the suppression of witness identity. A review of foreign academic literature and foreign case law reveals that, when considering demands for anonymity, courts exercise maximum caution to ensure that the right to cross-examine witnesses is not unduly infringed. The writer argues that a recent constitutional ruling by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry in favor of withholding the identity of prosecution witnesses has failed to properly balance between the right to cross-examine against protecting witnesses. The ruling is likely to have a negative effect on fair trial and can adversely affect the fundamental rights of accused persons in Ethiopia   Key terms Anti-Terrorism Proclamation · Council of Constitutional Inquiry · Right to cross-examination · Ethiopian Constitution · Fair trial · Protection of witnesses and whistleblowers\",\"PeriodicalId\":30178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Mizan Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.3\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Mizan Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mizan Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4314/MLR.V12I2.3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

交叉询问,特别是在刑事审判方面,是国际人权法和埃塞俄比亚宪法所承认的一项人权。然而,各国正日益面临另一项紧迫的政策考虑- -保护控方证人,否则他们可能受到恐吓,甚至可能冒着生命危险在刑事司法行政中提供证据。证人保护已成为限制质证权的重要公共利益。没有这种保护,证人可能会因为害怕报复而不合作,鉴于此,许多国家(包括埃塞俄比亚)采取了限制面对面审查的措施,其中包括隐瞒证人的身份。对国外学术文献和外国判例法的回顾表明,在考虑匿名要求时,法院会最大限度地谨慎行事,以确保对证人进行盘问的权利不会受到不当侵犯。作者认为,最近宪法调查委员会做出的不公开检方证人身份的宪法判决,未能在证人的质证权和证人保护权之间取得适当的平衡。该裁决可能会对公平审判产生负面影响,并可能对埃塞俄比亚被告的基本权利产生不利影响。关键词:反恐宣言·宪法调查委员会·质证权·埃塞俄比亚宪法·公平审判·保护证人和举报人
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Right to Cross-Examination and Witness Protection in Ethiopia: Comparative Overview
Cross-examination particularly in the context of criminal trial is a human right recognized in international human rights law and the Ethiopian constitution. However, states are increasingly facing another pressing policy consideration – protecting prosecution witnesses who could otherwise be subject to intimidation, and who could even risk their lives for providing evidence in the administration of criminal justice. Witness protection has become an important public interest that justifies the restriction of the right to cross-examination. Without such protection, witnesses could be uncooperative for fear of reprisal and, in view of this, many countries (including Ethiopia) have introduced measures restricting face-to-face examination through, among others, the suppression of witness identity. A review of foreign academic literature and foreign case law reveals that, when considering demands for anonymity, courts exercise maximum caution to ensure that the right to cross-examine witnesses is not unduly infringed. The writer argues that a recent constitutional ruling by the Council of Constitutional Inquiry in favor of withholding the identity of prosecution witnesses has failed to properly balance between the right to cross-examine against protecting witnesses. The ruling is likely to have a negative effect on fair trial and can adversely affect the fundamental rights of accused persons in Ethiopia   Key terms Anti-Terrorism Proclamation · Council of Constitutional Inquiry · Right to cross-examination · Ethiopian Constitution · Fair trial · Protection of witnesses and whistleblowers
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
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
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