Razlikovanje med testimonialnimi in telesnimi dokazi pri dometu privilegija zoper samoobtožbo

magistrsko diplomsko delo

Vid Mekše (Author), Miha Hafner (Mentor)

Abstract

Privilegij zoper samoobtožbo je eno najpomembnejših jamstev kazenskega postopka, ki ga vsebujejo mednarodni pravni akti ter ustave in zakoni mnogih držav. Procesno jamstvo ni neomejeno. Skoraj univerzalno je njegov domet omejen na testimonialne dokaze, telesnih dokazov pa privilegij ne ščiti. V teoriji in sodni praksi se je oblikovalo veliko teorij, ki opredeljujejo merila za razmejitev med enimi in drugimi. Posebno v Združenih državah Amerike teoretični okvir predstavljajo teorije, ki jih je mogoče razvrstiti v dve skupini: komunikacijske teorije in vsebinske teorije. Prve se pri opredelitvi testimonialnega dokaza osredotočajo na akt komunikacije, druge pa na določeno (pridobljeno) vsebino. Koncept privilegija zoper samoobtožbo, ki se je sicer razvil v angloameriških pravnih sistemih, v Evropi razvija predvsem Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice. Slednje domet opredeljuje zelo podobno kot Vrhovno sodišče Združenih držav Amerike, čeprav pojmov telesnega in testimonialnega dokaza ne uporablja. Slovenska sodna praksa na tem področju išče svojo pot med pristopi Združenih držav Amerike in Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice. Pot je treba najti, saj se pojavljajo (upravičeni) pomisleki glede tega, ali je razmejevanje med testimonialnimi in telesnimi dokazi sploh upravičeno in kako nove vrste dokazov, ki se pojavljajo z novimi preiskovalnimi tehnikami, vplivajo na razumevanje dometa privilegija. Delo se ukvarja z vsemi temi dilemami, poskuša pa ponuditi tudi odgovor na vprašanje, kako obravnavane teorije umeščajo izbrane dokaze v dihotomiji testimonialno – telesno.

Keywords

privilegij zoper samoobtožbo;pravica do molka;dokaz;telesni dokaz;testimonialni dokaz;epistemologija;komunikacija;poligraf;nevroznanost;kazenski postopek;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2023
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[V. Mekše]
UDC:	343.131(043.2)
COBISS:	169256195
Views:	44
Downloads:	13
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Distinction between testimonial and physical evidence in the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination
Secondary abstract:	The privilege against self-incrimination is one of the most important guarantees of criminal procedure, enshrined in international legal instruments and in the constitutions and laws of many countries. It is not an unlimited procedural guarantee. Almost universally, its scope is limited to testimonial evidence, while physical evidence is not protected by the privilege. Many theories have emerged in theory and jurisprudence which have shaped the criteria for distinguishing one from the other. Particularly in the United States, the theoretical framework is constituted by theories that can be classified into two groups: communication theories and substantive theories. The former focus on the act of communication in defining testimonial evidence, while the latter focus on specific (acquired) content. The concept of privilege against self-incrimination, while developed in Anglo-American legal systems, has been developed in Europe mainly by the European Court of Human Rights. The latter defines the scope very similarly to the United States Supreme Court, although it does not use the concepts of physical and testimonial evidence. Slovenian jurisprudence in this area is finding its way between the approaches of the United States and the European Court of Human Rights. A way needs to be found, as there are (legitimate) concerns as to whether the distinction between testimonial and physical evidence is justified at all, and how the new types of evidence emerging with new investigative techniques affect the understanding of the scope of the privilege. The thesis addresses all these dilemmas, but also attempts to offer an answer to the question of where the discussed theories place the selected evidence within the testimonial-physical dichotomy.
Secondary keywords:	privilege against self-incrimination;right to remain silent;evidence;physical evidence;testimonial evidence;epistemology;communication;polygraph;neuroscience;criminal procedure;Univerzitetna in visokošolska dela;
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Study programme:	0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE):	1970-01-01
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages:	VIII, 46 f.
ID:	20010362