Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  KAPUSTYAK v. UKRAINE

  No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  KAPUSTYAK v. UKRAINE

  Art. 3, Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 6 Abs. 3 Buchst. d MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (2)Neu Zitiert selbst (5)

• EKMR, 15.07.1986 - 9938/82

  BRICMONT v. BELGIUM

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 26230/11

  Although it is normally for the national courts to assess the evidence before them, as well as the relevance of the evidence which defendants seek to adduce, there might be exceptional circumstances which could prompt the Court to conclude that the failure to hear a person as a witness was incompatible with Article 6 (see Bricmont v. Belgium, 7 July 1989, § 89, Series A no. 158, and Destrehem v. France, no. 56651/00, § 41, 18 May 2004).
• EGMR, 06.04.2000 - 26772/95

  LABITA c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 26230/11

  Such an investigation should be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 131, ECHR 2000-IV).
• EGMR, 22.04.1992 - 12351/86

  VIDAL c. BELGIQUE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 26230/11

  The task of the European Court is to ascertain whether the proceedings in issue, considered as a whole, were fair (see Vidal v. Belgium, 25 March 1992, § 33, Series A no. 235-B).
• EGMR, 31.10.2013 - 17416/03

  TARASOV v. UKRAINE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 26230/11

  While the testimony of the witnesses requested by the applicant could have shed light on the question of his possible ill-treatment, this testimony would have been relevant for the applicant's trial had he made a confession to the police and the domestic courts had relied on it securing his conviction (compare Tarasov v. Ukraine, no. 17416/03, § 105, 31 October 2013), or if this testimony would be of other importance to his conviction (see, for example, Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, §§ 28 and 29, ECHR 2003-V).
• EGMR - 45886/07

  [FRE]

  Auszug aus EGMR, 03.03.2016 - 26230/11

  In this context the Court reiterates that in accordance with its case-law the scope of the obligation to apply promptly to the domestic authorities, which is part of the duty of diligence incumbent on the applicants, must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case (see, mutatis mutandis, Mocanu and Others v. Romania [GC], nos. 10865/09, 45886/07 and 32431/08, § 265, ECHR 2014 (extracts)).

• EGMR, 14.12.2023 - 41298/21

  LÉOTARD c. FRANCE

  Par ailleurs, le requérant n'avance aucune raison permettant de penser qu'il a été privé d'un témoignage à décharge susceptible d'influencer l'issue de son procès (Kapustyak c. Ukraine, no 26230/11, §§ 94-95, 3 mars 2016, et Murtazaliyeva c. Russie [GC], no 36658/05, § 145, 18 décembre 2018), et la Cour ne saurait spéculer sur ce que les défunts auraient pu déclarer.
• EGMR, 01.06.2017 - 24705/16

  BERARDI AND OTHERS v. SAN MARINO

  Moreover, the above-mentioned article does not require the attendance and examination of every witness on the accused's behalf, and it is accordingly not sufficient for a defendant to complain that he has not been allowed to question certain witnesses; he must, in addition, support his request by explaining why it is important for the witnesses concerned to be heard, and their evidence must be necessary for the establishment of the truth (see Perna v. Italy [GC], no. 48898/99, § 29, ECHR 2003-V) and that the refusal to call witnesses was prejudicial to his defence rights (see Kapustyak v. Ukraine, no. 26230/11, § 89, 3 March 2016).