About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2012 CDP 11 (2012)
Gafgen versus Germany: A Time for Reflection and A Lot of Questions

handle is hein.journals/crimlwr2012 and id is 467 raw text is: J DOCTRINA Gafgen c. Germania: un moment de reflectie si multe intrebAri Diana IONESCU Gafgen versus Germany: a time for reflection and a lot of questions [ ABSTRACT The study analyzes the European Court of Human Right's judgment in Gdfgen vs. Germany. In this case, the applicant claimed that he was threatened by the police with considera ble pain in order to make him reveal information about the child he was supposed to have kidnapped. Thus, the Court had to decide if there had been a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as well as whether the use at trial of the real evidence discovered as a result of a constrained statement infringed article 6 of the Convention. By eleven votes to six, the Court ruled that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and that there no violation of Article 6 occurred. Examining the solution and the reasons used by the European Court of Human Rights, the author supports the conclusion that the decision is contradictory. On one hand, the Court has pointed out the absolute character of the rule prohibiting torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (provided by article 3), and, on the other hand, stated that the use of real evidence secured as an indirect result of the statements extractedfrom the applicant does notprejudice the right to a fair trial (provided by article 6) only if the evidence effect on the conviction or the sentence. Although article 3 does not make any distinction, the Court chose to support two distinctions regarding the relationship between this article and article 6. These are, primarily, the distinction between torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and, secondly, the distinction between statements and real evidence. Combining these hypotheses, the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial is automatically prejudiced by the use of evidence secured by torture, regardless of the category they belong to, and also by the use of statements obtained by torture. The use of real evidence secured by inhuman or degrading treatment may be compatible with the dueprocess when these do not inflict on the conviction itself or the sentence. In the author's opinion, the Court's findings are invalid and therefore it is weakening the protection granted under article 3 and article 6 of the Convention. J KEYWORDS: torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, fair trial, exclusion of evidence, derivative evidence, human rights.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most