RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (Article 6 of the ECHR) Elizabeta Ivičević Karas Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Unit 5 Law and You Laws are often created to ensure the rights and protections of individuals.
Advertisements

Prof. Thomas Fleiner Class No 3 Rule of Law Belgrade Law Faculty Master Course on Comparative Constitutional Law Prof. Thomas Fleiner October 31 to November.
In cooperation with the Chapter 7 The right to a fair trial Part II: from trial to final judgement Facilitators Guide.
The right to a fair hearing before the Mental Health Review Board – what it means and how to ensure it Catherine Leslie Lawyer / Pro Bono Coordinator Mental.
The Supreme Court of Norway. Burden of Proof A Comparative Look at Selected Procedural Issues The Norwegian Supreme Court2.
+ Courtroom Participants. + 2 Fundamental Principles An accused person is innocent until proven guilty. Guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Participants in a Criminal Trial. Principles Canada’s criminal justice system has two fundamental principles: an accused person is innocent until proven.
+ The Criminal Trial Process. + The Charter Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that a person charged with an offence is to be.
Last Topic - Administrative Tribunals
DUE PROCESS DEVELOPMENTS IN TERMINATION AND GRIEVANCES.
Mr. Marquina Somerset Silver Palms Civics
The Judicial Branch. Court Systems & Jurisdictions.
The Organization of the Criminal Justice System
In cooperation with the Chapter 6 The right to a fair trial Part I: from investigation to trial Facilitator’s Guide.
The Baltic Sea Region Handling, protecting and testing evidence from children in legal proceedings A comparative study Anna Kaldal, Associate Professor.
Lecturer: Miljen Matijašević G10, room 6/I, Tue 15:30-16:30 Session 10, 19 Dec 2014.
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS IN TAX MATTERS ECHR cases Jussila v. Finland and Ruotsalainen v. Finland 32E29000 European and International.
1 China-EU Forum Beijing, 9 – 10 July, 2010 The protection of employees Forth section.
Legal Aid: A Right or a Privilege?. 2 + Sources of international law right to legal aid Scope of international law right to legal aid Canada’s duty to.
CASE OF GOLDER v. THE UNITED KINGDOM 21 February 1975 Daniela Čičkánová.
Course: European Criminal Law SS 2009 Hubert Hinterhofer.
Trial on Indictment in the Crown Court
Chapter is based on two parties battling to win the case, each acting as the adversary of the other. ROLE: to provide a procedure for the parties.
Amicus Legal Consultants THE DEPLOYMENT OF SPECIAL INVESTIGATIVE MEANS IN PROACTIVE ANTI-CORRUPTION INVESTIGATIONS.
LEGAL STUDIES Unit 4 AOS2 Overview U4.AOS2. Unit 4 Area of Study 2 Unit 4 Area of Study 2 Court processes and procedures, and engaging in justice 1. Elements.
Criminal Justice Process: The Trial Chapter 14. Due Process of law Constitutional guarantee ▫ that all legal proceedings will be fair ▫ that one will.
Law Reform Commission Criminal Process Pre-Trial Procedures Pierre Rosario DOMINGUE Chief Executive Officer Wednesday, May 7,
INVESTIGATION AND TRIAL OF OFFENCES. INVESTIGATION OF OFFENCES.
The Adversary System.  To provide a procedure for disputing parties to present and resolve their cases in as fair a manner as possible  Controlled by.
Legal Studies 3C.  People must be treated fairly  Right to be heard by an unbiased decision-maker  Know allegations made against you  Given a chance.
Belgrade Law Faculty Master-Course Human Rights and Non-Discrimination Fairness – Access to Justice Prof. Thomas Fleiner.
F.A.T..  For a legal system to operate effectively it must provide processes and procedures to help ensure that all parties involved in a legal dispute.
The Criminal Trial Process Section 11 (d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that each person charged with an offence is to be ‘presumed innocent.
Statements and Confessions
Protecting a Fair Trial
THE CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM The Participants. BURDEN OF PROOF  2 Fundamental Principles: Accused is innocent until proven guilty. Guilt must be proved.
The Adversary System Part I Chapter 7. Learning Intention Explain the processes and procedures for the resolution of criminal cases and civil disputes.
Ed Cape Professor of Criminal Law and Practice. 2.
In the Courtroom. Democratic Society Equal rights Freedom of speech Fair Trial These are just a few of the fundamental human rights.
TRIAL PROCEDURE Dr. KAROLINA KREMENS, LL.M. (Ottawa) International Criminal Procedure.
Trends and Successes in Improving Access to Justice Dr. Pim Albers Special advisor.
INVESTIGATION KAROLINA KREMENS, LL.M. (Ottawa), Ph.D. International Criminal Procedure.
1 CONTEMPT OF COURT ‘In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and.
Seminar on the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration Evidence & Hearings under the Swiss Rules Belgrade, 9 December 2015 University.
Criminal Law Lecture 5 Sources  Criminal Code (CAP 154) – Includes all major offences and criminal responsibility  Criminal Procedure Law (CAP 155)
RIGHT TO LIBERTY AND SECURITY Art. 5 ECHR Elizabeta Ivičević Karas Faculty of Law, University of Zagrebu.
Legal Studies * Mr. Marinello ARRESTS AND WARRANTS.
Unit 5 Law and You Laws are often created to ensure the rights and protections of individuals. Sets up a limited government The people have power The government.
The Court System Chapter 5. Courts  Trial Courts- two parties Plaintiff- in civil trial is the person bringing the legal action Prosecutor- in criminal.
SELF-REPRESENTATION The right of self-representation is defined as the right of anyone charged with a criminal offence to defend himself in person or through.
Attorney/Judge. The purpose of opening statements by each side is to tell jurors something about the case they will be hearing. The opening statements.
Comparing the Inquisitorial and Adversarial Systems.
Lost in Translations – An Examination of the Legal & Practical Problems Associated with the Implementation (or Non-Implementation) of Directive 2010/64/EU.
MAJOR FEATURES OF THE ADVERSARY SYSTEM OF TRIAL, INCLUDING THE ROLE OF THE PARTIES, THE ROLE OF THE JUDGE, THE NEED FOR THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE,
CRIMINAL PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES. WHAT EXACTLY ARE CRIMINAL PRE-TRIAL PROCEDURES?  Processes and procedures that occur before a trial or hearing commences.
Article III: The Judicial Branch Chapters: 11,12
Criminal Justice Process: The Investigation
English for Lawyers 1 Lecturer: Miljen Matijašević
Also known as the ‘accusatorial’ system.
Courtroom Participants
The Participants.
Chapter 6. The right to a fair trial
Chapter 7. The right to a fair trial
The Adversary System.
Directive 2016/800 on procedural safeguards for children suspected or accused in criminal proceedings Steven Cras Political Administrator, General Secretariat.
Trial before court of session
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The right to access to justice between EU Charter and ECHR
The reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Articles 2, 3 and 8 of Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001.
Presentation transcript:

RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (Article 6 of the ECHR) Elizabeta Ivičević Karas Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) 1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) Positive obligations of the state legislationfinances respect of “reasonable time” Negative obligations of the state not to influence the outcome of the procedure Obligations of all other state authorities

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) Inspiration found in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition There is no specific definition Undetermined legal standard – the court specifies its content Basic principles - defined in English and American law

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) Autonomous interpretation: Universal meaning of the notion General and particular elements

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) “Criminal charge”, Deweer v. Belgium, “Criminal”, Engel et al. v. Netherlands 1976: 1. the classification of the offence under national law 2. the nature of the offence 3. the nature and degree of severity of the sanction incurred

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) Independent and impartial tribunal established by law Independence: lack of subordination to any other organ of the state (executive) Impartiality: the judge is not biased in favour of either party the manner of appointment the term of office safeguards from outside pressure the appearance of independence

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) The right to a public hearing protection from “administration of justice in secret without public scrutiny” one of the means whereby confidence in the courts can be maintained limitations: reasons of public order and security

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) The right to be tried within a reasonable time, Deweer v. Belgium, from the official notification given to an individual by the competent authority of an allegation that he has committed a criminal offence or if the situation of the suspect has been substantially affected

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) The right to be tried within a reasonable time – assessment of the period, Eckle v. Germany, the conduct of the applicant the importance of the proceedings for the accused the complexity of the case the conduct of the domestic authorities

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) Examination of cases in concreto and in globo: Evaluation of facts of the concrete case, and not of the national law, in the light of ECHR Certain violations of the right to a fair trial may be compensated during the proceedings, under the condition that a trial as a whole had been fair

Right to a fair trial (art. 6) General elements of the fair trial: 1. The right to adversarial proceedings 2. Equality of arms 3. The right to a reasoned judgment (4. The judgment must not be founded on unlawfully obtained evidence)

Adversary principale The right to be heard Prosecution and defence must be given the opportunity to have knowledge of and comment on the observations filed and evidence adduced by the other party (Kamasinski v. Austria, 1989)

Principle of equality of arms The right of the party to take the same actions in the procedure that the opposite party can take Each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present his case – including his evidence – under conditions that do not place him at a substantial disadvantage vis-a-vis his opponent

Principle of equality of arms Basic aspects: Basic aspects: 1. Right of the parties to access the information 1. Right of the parties to access the information - consultation of the file - consultation of the file 2. Right of the parties to participate in the procedure 2. Right of the parties to participate in the procedure

Dolenec v Croatia, violation of Art. 6-1 taken together with Art. 6-3 the applicant was not able to prepare an adequate defence and was not afforded equality of arms the applicant (in pre-trial detention) did not have unrestricted access to the case file despite his repeated requests the applicant was not been able to contact the counsel assigned to him (by telephone, no answer to his request for his counsel’s visit to the prison)

The right to a reasoned judgment Quality of the judgment / decision Informational basis for appeal

Presumption of innocence Art. 6-2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

Presumption of innocence Two rules: Burden of proof In dubio pro reo

Right to silence / Privilege against self-incrimination Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare Nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare The defendant must not answer the questions nor present his defence

Right to silence / Privilege against self-incrimination Derived from Art. 6-1 and 2 It refers to defendant’s verbal statements and not to the material that can be taken independently of the defendant’s will (Saunders v UK, 1996) Materials gained by force and through violation of Art. 3 (Jalloh v. Germany, 2006)

Right to silence / Privilege against self-incrimination Police informer in prison cell? Defendant’s personal diary?

Right to silence / Privilege against self-incrimination A relative right Drawing of adverse inferences from the accused’s silence is a matter to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of the concrete case ( Condron v. UK, 2000) Drawing inferences against the defendant is not allowed if the defendant provides a satisfactory explanation of his silence

Minimum defence rights Art. 6-3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.

Minimum defence rights Compensation of procedural imbalance between: State organs Defendant

Minimum defence rights Possible limitations: Protections of certain interests (national security, protection of vulnerable witnesses or undercover police agents, protection of fundamental rights of another person, or protection of public interest) Only if the limitation is absolutely necessary (restrictive interpretation) Adequate compensation of consequences suffered by the defence

Minimum defence rights Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Information regarding the facts and legal definition/qualification Information regarding evidence Promptly?

Minimum defence rights Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence Adequate time? Adequate facilities? (legal assistance)

Minimum defence rights Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require. The right to defend oneself The right to the assistance of counsel of one’s own choosing The right to legal aid The right to contact the counsel

Hanževački v Croatia, Violation of Art. 6-1 taken together with Art. 6-3-c) The concluding hearing was held in absence of the applicant’s counsel, although he asked by telephone that the hearing be adjourned on account of his sudden illness Although the applicant informed the court that he did not wish to defend himself in the absence of his counsel, the presiding judge decided to hold a hearing The judgement was pronounced ECtHR: “one of the most important aspects of a concluding hearing in criminal trials was an opportunity for the defence, as well as for the prosecution, to present their closing arguments”.

Prežec v Croatia, Violation of Art. 6-1 taken together with Art. 6-3-c) the applicant wasn’t granted free legal assistance at the trial stage the lawyer assigned to him on appeal had not contacted him

Minimum defence rights Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him. The right to test witness evidence

Kovač v Croatia, violation of minimum defence right art. 6-3-d): violation of minimum defence right art. 6-3-d): Right to examine the prosecution witness The defendant didn’t have, at any stage of the procedure, an opportunity to examine a witness, whose testimony was the only evidence of the defendant’s guilt and the ground for his conviction At the trial stage, the court briefly examined the witness, in absence of the defendant Since the defendant hasn’t been summoned according to the law to a hearing before the investigating judge, the defendant didn’t have an opportunity to evaluate the witness testimony logically and psychologically

Minimum defence rights Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the right to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. The right to free assistance of interpreter

RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL (Article 6 of the ECHR) Elizabeta Ivičević Karas Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb