(magistrska diplomska naloga)
Nikolina Borenović (Author), Primož Gorkič (Mentor), Miha Hafner (Co-mentor)

Abstract

Pravica do neposrednega zaslišanja obremenilne priče je izrazito v ospredju definicije poštenega postopka in ena ključnih pravic obrambe. Evropska konvencija za človekove pravice jo opredeljuje v 3. odstavku 6. člena. Pravica je doživela velik razvoj skozi zgodovino. Na začetku je bila izrazito absolutna, v novejši judikaturi Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice pa se že kaže rahljanje absolutnosti v smeri uvajanja izjem. Izrazit preobrat pri interpretaciji je doživela s sodbo Al-Khawaja in Tahery proti Veliki Britaniji, v kateri je sodišče uvedlo trostopenjski test, kateremu je treba zadostiti, da se lahko sprejme trditev določene priče, ki je obramba ni imela možnosti navzkrižno zasliševati. Tak dokaz po novi doktrini lahko sprejmemo, če je v ozadju upravičen razlog za odsotnost priče, če dokaz ni bil izključen ali odločilen za obsodbo ali pa če so bila postopkovna jamstva dovolj močna. S to zadnjo točko je sodišče uvedlo že izjemo od izjem, kot sta opozorila dva sodnika v ločenem mnenju, že izjeme pa bi morali interpretirati ozko. Kritiki so v svojih člankih razpravljali o naravi pravice, odločitvi Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice ter tudi o praksi v ZDA, ki se zlahka ne odpove absolutnosti. Slovenija pa se je s svojimi sodnimi odločitvami izkazala kot ena od držav, ki spoštujejo prakso ESČP in ji sledijo v svojih sodnih odločbah.

Keywords

pravica do neposrednega zaslišanja obremenilnih prič;obremenilne priče;zaslišanje prič;Al-Khawajev test;pošteno sojenje;pravica do poštenega sojenja;pravica do obrambe;sodna praksa;Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice;Evropska konvencija o človekovih pravicah;kazenski postopek;kazensko procesno pravo;magistrske diplomske naloge;

Data

Language: Slovenian
Year of publishing:
Typology: 2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization: UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher: [N. Borenović]
UDC: 343.143(4)(043.2)
COBISS: 16646737 Link will open in a new window
Views: 1288
Downloads: 333
Average score: 0 (0 votes)
Metadata: JSON JSON-RDF JSON-LD TURTLE N-TRIPLES XML RDFA MICRODATA DC-XML DC-RDF RDF

Other data

Secondary language: English
Secondary title: ǂThe ǂright to cross-examine incriminating witnesses in the newer case law of the European Court of Human Rights
Secondary abstract: The right to cross-examine incriminating witnesses represents the core of the definition of a fair trial and is one of the key rights of defense. The European Convention on Human Rights defines it in Article 6, paragraph 3. This right has experienced great development throughout history. At the outset, it was clearly absolute, but in the newer case-law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), there is already a rush of absoluteness towards exceptions. A significant turning point in interpretation was experienced with the judgment of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom, where the court established a three-step test, which must be satisfied in order to accept the claim of a particular witness who was not cross-examined by the defense. Such proof, regarding this new doctrine, can be accepted if a reason behind the absence of a witness is justified, if the evidence was not exclusive or decisive for a conviction or if the procedural guarantees were sufficiently strong. With this last point, the court has already introduced an exemption from exceptions, as the two judges pointed out in a separate opinion, but the exceptions should be narrowly interpreted. In their articles, critics discussed the nature of justice, the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and the practice in the United States, which cannot easily abolish absoluteness. Slovenia, through its judicial decisions, proved to be one of the countries that respect and follow the practice of the ECHR in its judgments.
Secondary keywords: right to cross-examine incriminating witnesses;incriminating witnesses;cross-examination;hearsay evidence;Al-Khawaja test;fair trial;case law;European Court of Human Rights;European Convention on Human Rights;
Type (COBISS): Master's thesis/paper
Study programme: 0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE): 1970-01-01
Thesis comment: Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages: 46 f.
ID: 11061078