The Exclusionary Rule in Criminal Procedures: An Analytical Study in the European Court of Human Rights Jurisprudence
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
This research deciphers the European Court’s standing on the dictum of excluding illegally obtained evidence in criminal procedures. It seeks to look into judicial precedents that reveal the methodology followed by the European Court in this regard to see whether the Court has inclined to actually assess the obtained illegal evidence, or even draws any attention to it. If it is proven that the Court actually evaluates the legitimacy of this evidence and assesses its acceptance, the next question would be to assess the extent to which it does so, and whether the Court has the authority to exclude the evidence all together.
The research seeks to clarify the legal controls adopted by the Court to determine the scope of its powers in this matter, whether in terms of evaluating the evidence and estimating its acceptance, or in terms of the powers to rule on the illegality of the evidence in the event of a violation of one of the rights stipulated in the European Convention on Human Rights, especially the right to a fair trial and the right to respect private life.
This study answers the problem from the theoretical level to the practical one. Although the Court monitored the legitimacy of evidence and its acceptance in many cases, it did not establish a clear methodology for dealing with legitimate evidence. Despite the fact that that Court has adopted a number of criteria, the Court did not go as far as to suggest any as the dominant one, and it did not go further to suggest one of them and formulate it as a real approach to dealing with evidence. However, the jurisprudence of the European Court is replete with judicial precedents that are based on criteria and foundations that are suitable to serve as the base for the establishment of clear detailed regulations regarding the exclusion rule, but that needs a serious pause from the Court and a bold step by which the Court proceeds to take an explicit position in this regard.
Metrics
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
The exclusionary ruleCriminal proceduresEuropean Court of Human RightsRight to respect for private lifeRight to fair trialJurisprudence
الكتب
بلال، أحمد عوض. قاعدة استبعاد الأدلة المتحصلة بطرق غير مشروعة في الإجراءات الجنائية المقارنة، دار النهضة العربية، القاهرة، ط 3، 2013.
المجلات
الهواري، عبد الله محمد عبد الله. "المحكمة الأوروبية الجديدة لحقوق الإنسان: دراسة في ضوء أحكام الاتفاقية الأوروبية لحقوق الإنسان والبروتوكولات الملحقة والمعدلة لها" مجلة البحوث القانونية والاقتصادية، جامعة المنصورة، ع 45، 2009.
الرواشدة، سامي حمدان. "قاعدة استبعاد الأدلة غير المشروعة في الإجراءات الجزائية - دراسة مقارنة" المجلة الأردنية في القانون والعلوم السياسية، جامعة مؤتة، عمادة البحث العلمي، مج 3، ع 3، 2011.
علوي، يوسف محمدي. "المبادئ العامة لتسليم المجرمين بالمغرب في ظل الاجتهادات القضائية لمجلس الدولة الفرنسي والمحكمة الأوروبية لحقوق الإنسان" المجلة المغربية للإدارة المحلية والتنمية، ع 125، 2015.
الاتفاقيات
الاتفاقية الأوروبية لحقوق الإنسان والحريات الأساسية عام 1950، مكتبة حقوق الإنسان، جامعة مينيسويتا، http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/arab/euhrcom.html تاريخ الزيارة: 10/2/2019.
ثانيًا: المراجع المرومنة
al-Hwārī, ʿabdāllah Muḥammad ʿabdāllah. "al-Maḥkamah al-Aūrūbīyyah al-Jadīdah li-Ḥuqūq al-Insān: Dirāsah fī ḍūʾ Aḥkām al-Ittifāqīyyah al-Aūrūbyyah li-Ḥuqūq al-Insān wa-al-Brūtūkūlāt al-Mulḥaqah wa-al-Muʿaddalah lhā" (in Arabic) Majllat al-Bḥūth al-Qānūnīyyah wa-al-Iqtiṣādīyyah: Jāmʿat al-Manṣūrah - Kullīyyat al-Ḥuqūq, 2009, issue 45.
al-Rawāshidah, Samī ḥamdān, "The Admissibility of Evidence Obtained Illegally in Criminal Proceedings: A Comparative Study" (in Arabic), al-Majallah al-Aurduniyyah fī al-Qānūn wa-al-ʿulūm al-Syāsiyyh: Jāmiʿat muʾtah -ʿamādat al-Baḥth al-ʿilmī, 2011, vol. 3, issue1.
al-Ittifāqīyyah al-Aūrūbīyyah li-Ḥuqūq al-Insān wa-al-Ḥurīyyāt al-Asāsīyyah ʿaām 1950, Maktabat Ḥuqūq al-Insān, Jāimiʿat Manyūsītā (in Arabic): http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/arab/euhrcom.html.
Bilāl Aḥmad ʿawaḍ, Qāʿidat Istibʿaād al-Adillah al-Mutḥṣṣilah bi-Ṭruq ghyr Mashrūʿah fī al-Ijrāʾāt al-Jnāʾīyyh al-Muqārnh, (in Arabic), Dār al-Nahḍh al-ʿrabīyyah: al-Qāhirh, 2013, 3st.
ثالثًا: المراجع الأجنبية
Books
Bogdan M: Reflection of the Principle of Loyalty in Matters Regarding the Adduction of Evidence in the Romanian Criminal Proceedings. Lex Et Scientia. XXII (1), 2015.
Jackson, J. & Summers, S: Fair trials and the use of improperly obtained evidence. In the Internationalization of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions (Law in Context, pp. 162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012, doi:10.1017/CBO9781139093606.010.
Sabine Gless, Thomas Richter, Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules, Springer Open, 2019.
Judgments
Affaire Sica c. Roumanie (2013) HUDOC.
Asch v. Austria (1991) HUDOC.
Göçmen v. Turkey (2006) HUDOC.
Jalloh v. Germany (2006) HUDOC.
Khan v. UK (2000) HUDOC.
Kobiashvili v. Georgia (2019) HUDOC.
Kopp v. Switzerland (1998) HUDOC.
Nix v. Williams (1984) HUDOC.
P. G. and J. H. v. the United Kingdom (2001) HUDOC
Saidi v. France (1994) HUDOC
Salduz v. Turkey (2008) HUDOC.
Schenk v. Switzerland (1988) HUDOC.
Svetina v. Slovenia, (2018) HUDOC.
Tyrer v. UK (1978) HUDOC.
Journals
Ben Fitzpatrick, Nick Taylor: Human Rights and the Discretionary Exclusion of Evidence, Journal of Criminal Law (UKJCL) 2001.
Breslin J. Right to privacy denied by the house of lords: R v khan. Journal of Financial Crime 1997, 4 (4).
Kalkamanuly D: Genesis of the investigatory actions of criminal procedure of the republic of Kazakhstan, Journal of Advanced Research in Law and Economics 2016 Winter, 7 (7):1715.
Nash: Secretly recorded conversations and the European Convention on Human Rights: Khan v UK, The International Journal of Evidence & Proof, 2000.
Stariene L: The limits of the use of undercover agents and the right to a fair trial under article 6 (1) of the European convention on human rights. Jurisprudence 2009 (3).
Articles
Ionita E. E: The Exclusion of Illegally Administered Evidence, Challenges of the Knowledge Society, 2015.
Zlata D: Admissibility of evidence, judicial review of the actions of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the protection of fundamental rights Text not revised by the author.
Websites
Employee's privacy breached by employer's monitoring: Final 1 edition]. The Times2007Apr24.https://0search.proquest.com.mylibrary.qu.edu.qa/docview/319667379/1BFB9413D8B24F88PQ/5?accountid=13370.
Evidence and proofs from the perspective of the European Court of Human Rights,http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/Themis/Written%20paper%20Italie/Themis%20written%20paper%20Romania%202.pdf.
F. Pınar Ö.: Illegally Obtained Evidence in European Treaty of Human Rights (ETHR) Law, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/6992.
Gäfgen v. Germany: threat of torture to save a life?, Article By: Stijn Smet, July 6,2010,STRASBOURGOBSERVERS,https://strasbourgobservers.com/category/by-topic/prohibition-of-torture/.