Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 9278/06

Referring to Jalloh v. Germany ([GC], no. 54810/00, ECHR 2006-IX), he pointed out that the Court has distinguished between cases where disputed evidence was obtained in breach of Article 8 and where evidence was obtained in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, ruling that different considerations apply to evidence recovered by a measure found to have violated Article 3. An issue may arise under Article 6 § 1 in respect of evidence obtained in violation of Article 3 of the Convention, even if the admission of such evidence was not decisive in securing the conviction (Jalloh, cited above, § 99).

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 9278/06

Drawing on the judgment in Schenk v. Switzerland (12 July 1988, §§ 45 and 46, Series A no. 140), the Government noted that while Article 6 of the Convention guarantees the right to a fair trial, it does not lay down any rules on the admissibility of evidence as such, which is therefore primarily a matter for regulation under national law.

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 9278/06

This finding applies irrespective of the probative value of the statements and irrespective of whether their use is decisive in securing the defendant's conviction (see Gäfgen, cited above, § 166; Kaçiu and Kotorri, cited above, § 117; Zamferesko, cited above, § 70; Tangiyev, cited above, § 73; and Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 36549/03, § 66, ECHR 2007-III).

Auszug aus EGMR, 11.02.2014 - 9278/06

This is to be contrasted with cases in which a conviction is not based on evidence obtained through ill-treatment but solely or to a decisive extent on the evidence of an absent witness in the absence of sufficient counterbalancing factors including strong procedural safeguards (compare and contrast Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, § 147, ECHR 2011).