Neue Kooperation: dejure.org × Doctrine bringen KI-Power für Aktenanalyse, Recherche und Texterstellung. Doctrine entdecken
×

Rechtsprechung
   EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07, 33194/07   

Zitiervorschläge
https://dejure.org/2013,13912
EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07, 33194/07 (https://dejure.org/2013,13912)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25.06.2013 - 33192/07, 33194/07 (https://dejure.org/2013,13912)
EGMR, Entscheidung vom 25. Juni 2013 - 33192/07, 33194/07 (https://dejure.org/2013,13912)
Tipp: Um den Kurzlink (hier: https://dejure.org/2013,13912) schnell in die Zwischenablage zu kopieren, können Sie die Tastenkombination Alt + R verwenden - auch ohne diesen Bereich zu öffnen.

Volltextveröffentlichung

  • Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

    KAÇIU AND KOTORRI v. ALBANIA

    Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6+6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. c, Art. 35, Art. 35 Abs. 1, Art. 41 MRK
    Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Six month period) Remainder inadmissible Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Torture) (Substantive aspect) Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - ...

Sonstiges

 
Sortierung


Kontextvorschau



Hinweis: Klicken Sie auf das Sprechblasensymbol, um eine Kontextvorschau im Fließtext zu sehen. Um alle zu sehen, genügt ein Doppelklick.

Wird zitiert von ... (23)Zitiert selbst (34)

  • EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

    Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07
    The assessment of this level depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 18 January 1978, § 162, Series A no. 25, and Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 67, ECHR 2006-IX).

    While Article 6 guarantees the right to a fair hearing, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is primarily a matter for regulation under national law (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX; Schenk v. Switzerland, 12 July 1988, §§ 45-46, Series A no. 140; and Teixeira de Castro v. Portugal, 9 June 1998, § 34, Reports 1998-IV).

    But must the treatment be qualified as torture before a violation of Article 3 can also lead to a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Two Grand Chamber judgments have either left open the question whether the use of real evidence obtained by an act classified as inhuman and degrading treatment, but falling short of torture, always rendered a trial unfair (Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, §§ 106-07, ECHR 2006-IX) or avoided answering directly the question in general terms, due to the particular circumstances of the case and the lack of a causal link between the prohibited methods of investigation and the applicant's conviction and sentence (Gäfgen, cited above, § 180).

  • EGMR, 27.11.2008 - 36391/02

    Wirksamkeitsverpflichtete Konventionsauslegung; Recht auf konkreten und wirksamen …

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07
    The rights of the defence will in principle be irretrievably prejudiced when incriminating statements made during police interrogation without access to a lawyer are used for a conviction (Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, § 55, 27 November 2008).

    As already pointed out in the above-mentioned partly dissenting opinion in the Gäfgen judgment, it would be difficult for a Court that has accepted that the absence of a lawyer in the initial stages of an investigation renders the entire trial unfair (Salduz v. Turkey [GC], no. 36391/02, 27 November 2008), to limit the scope of the exclusionary rule only to evidence obtained by torture.

  • EGMR, 26.07.2012 - 38773/05

    SAVITSKYY v. UKRAINE

    Auszug aus EGMR, 25.06.2013 - 33192/07
    In addition to the severity of the treatment, there is a purposive element to torture, as recognised also in the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which in Article 1 defines torture in terms of the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering for such purposes as obtaining information or a confession, punishing, intimidating, coercing, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity (see Dikme v. Turkey, no. 20869/92, § 94, ECHR 2000-VIII; Mikheyev v. Russia, no. 77617/01, § 149, 26 January 2006; and, Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, § 127, 26 July 2012).

    The standard of proof, namely "beyond reasonable doubt", and the related evidentiary considerations set out above, must, in my opinion, be very carefully applied when it comes to allegations of torture - the gravest form of treatment proscribed by Article 3 - and therefore cannot be established by presumption, inference nor likeliness (compare with Selmouni v. France [GC], no. 25803/94, §§ 91-106, ECHR 1999-V; Gäfgen, cited above, § 94; Dedovskiy and Others v. Russia, no. 7178/03, §§ 39-50, 59-61 and 80-86, ECHR 2008 (extracts); Savitskyy v. Ukraine, no. 38773/05, §§ 15-18 and 129-139, 26 July 2012; Virabyan v. Armenia, no. 40094/05, §§ 17-29 and 31, 2 October 2012; and, Lenev v. Bulgaria, no. 41452/07, §§ 111-18, 4 December 2012).

  • EGMR, 24.01.2019 - 76577/13

    Italien verurteilt: 18.000 Euro Entschädigung für Amanda Knox

    À cet égard, la Cour ne peut que constater que, malgré les plaintes réitérées de la requérante, les traitements qu'elle a dénoncés n'ont fait l'objet d'aucune enquête (Kaçiu et Kotorri c. Albanie, nos 33192/07 et 33194/07, § 94, 25 juin 2013 ; voir aussi les conclusions du tribunal de Pérouse dans le cadre de son jugement du 22 mars 2013, paragraphe 101).
  • EGMR, 05.11.2020 - 31454/10

    CWIK v. POLAND

    This is irrespective of the probative value of the statements and irrespective of whether their use was decisive in securing the defendant's conviction (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 166 and the cases referred to therein; Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, § 117, 25 June 2013; Cesnieks v. Latvia, no. 9278/06, §§ 65-66, 11 February 2014; Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.
  • EGMR, 07.03.2023 - 29999/04

    MAMASAKHLISI v. GEORGIA AND RUSSIA

    Regarding this point, the Court refers to its repeated emphasis on the crucial importance within this context of opening and maintaining medical records upon the admission of persons into custody (see Kaçiu and Kotorri v. Albania, nos. 33192/07 and 33194/07, § 96 with further reference, 25 June 2013).
Haben Sie eine Ergänzung? Oder haben Sie einen Fehler gefunden? Schreiben Sie uns.
dejure.org Übersicht EGMR
dejure.org nutzen ohne Ablenkung
Werbung abschalten. Jetzt buchen! Keine automatische Verlängerung.
Info zum PUR-Angebot
Sie können auswählen (Maus oder Pfeiltasten):
(Liste aufgrund Ihrer bisherigen Eingabe)
Komplette Übersicht