Razvoj pravice do neposrednega zaslišanja obremenilne priče

(magistrsko diplomsko delo)

Matjaž Žbogar (Author), Primož Gorkič (Mentor)

Abstract

Pravica do neposrednega zaslišanja obremenilne priče (v nadaljevanju: pravica) je eno od pravnih jamstev, ki jih obdolžencu zagotavlja pravica do obrambe, ki je ena od elementov načela pravičnosti v kazenskem postopku. Pravica ima več namenov, zagotavlja javnost in adversarnost postopka, preprečuje uporabo lažnih in nezanesljivih dokazov, ima pa tudi močan simbolni pomen. Pravilo, da se mora tožnik soočiti s tožencem, kar je bistvo pravice, so poznali že Hebrejci in Rimljani. Po razpadu rimskega cesarstva se je pravilo ohranilo v pravu bizantinskega cesarstva in v kanonskem pravu, sicer pa so se uveljavili postopki, ki so temeljili na iracionalnih dokazih. V srednjem veku se je na evropski celini začel razvijati inkvizicijski postopek, ki pravice ni poznal. V Angliji pa se je začel razvijati akuzatorni postopek, v katerem se je pravica začela razvijati ob prehodu v novi vek. Pravica je zapisana v 6. amandmaju Ustave ZDA. Sodna praksa jo je pogosto povezovala s sistemom pravil prepovedi uporabe hearsay dokazov. Sodna praksa se spreminja, v drugi polovici 20. stoletja je veljalo, da je pravica en od vidikov sistema hersay dokazov in je bila dopustnost uporabe izjav, katerih avtorje obdolženec ni zaslišal, odvisna od presoje njene verodostojnosti, v zadnjem obdobju pa so se pravila zaostrila. V večjem delu Evrope se je pravica začela pojavljati po 2. svetovni vojni z uveljavljanem t.i. mešanih kazenskih postopkov. Pravico v okviru pravice do poštenega postopka zagotavlja tudi Evropska konvencija o človekovih pravicah. Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice je najprej postavilo standard, da se kot dokaz ne sme uporabljati izjav, katerih avtorje obdolženec ni mogel zaslišati, če so odločilnega pomena za izid sojenja. V zadnjem času so se pravila omilila, dopustna je tudi uporaba takih izjav, če so bili uveljavljeni uravnoteževalni ukrepi, ki zagotavljajo poštenost celotnega postopka. V slovenski zakonodaji ni izrecne določbe o pravici, jo pa zagotavlja 29. člen Ustave, ki določa pravico do obrambe. Določbe EKČP in odločitve ESČP veljajo neposredno tudi v slovenski zakonodaji.

Keywords

kazenski postopek;pravna jamstva;obremenilne priče;zaslišanje prič;pošten sodni postopek;pravica do obrambe;klavzula soočenja;anonimna priča;magistrske diplomske naloge;

Data

Language:	Slovenian
Year of publishing:	2016
Typology:	2.09 - Master's Thesis
Organization:	UL PF - Faculty of Law
Publisher:	[M. Žbogar]
UDC:	343(043.2)
COBISS:	15373393
Views:	2130
Downloads:	580
Average score:	0 (0 votes)
Metadata:

Other data

Secondary language:	English
Secondary title:	Development of the Right to Confront Adverse Witness
Secondary abstract:	The right to examine adverse witness is one of the legal guarantees provided to the accused by right of defence, which is an element of principle of equity in criminal proceedings. The right serves a range of purposes; it guarantees openness and adversariality of procedure, eliminates false and unreliable evidence and has a strong symbolic meaning. Rule that the accuser must face the accused, which is the essence of the right, has been known since Hebrew and Roman civilizations. After the collapse of the Roman Empire the rule was retained in the law of Byzantine Empire and in canon Law, otherwise procedures based on irrational proofs were established. The inquisitional procedure, which didn’t include the right, began to develop on the European continent in the medieval period. Meanwhile the accusatorial procedure began to develop in England. The right began to develop within it at the start of the modern period. The right is enacted in the 6th amendment of the US Constitution. Case law has often connected it with the system of rules prohibiting the use of hearsay evidence. Case Law has been changing. In the second half of 20th century it was considered that the right is only one aspect of the hearsay system. Admissibility of untested statements depended on assessment of its credibility. But the rules tightened lately. In the most part of the Europe the right emerged after the 2nd World War with the implementation of so called mixed criminal procedures. The right is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights as a part of the right to fair trial. The European Court on Human Rights at first raised the standard that untested statements are not admissible if the statement is decisive for the conviction. Lately the rules loosened and untested statements can be admissible if sufficient counterbalancing factors that secure the fairness of the proceedings are in place. Slovenian law has no explicit provision that enacts the right. It is, however, ensured by Article 29 of the Constitution. Provisions of the Convention and decisions of the ECHR apply directly to Slovenian legislation.
Secondary keywords:	criminal procedure;legal guarantees;adverse witness;examination of witness;fair trial;right of defence;confrontation clause;anonymous witness;
Type (COBISS):	Master's thesis/paper
Study programme:	0
Embargo end date (OpenAIRE):	1970-01-01
Thesis comment:	Univ. v Ljubljani, Pravna fak.
Pages:	93 f.
ID:	9248984