Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA

  Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-1) Six-month period;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading ...

Sonstiges

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  BOKHONKO v. GEORGIA

  Art. 3 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ...Neu Zitiert selbst (6)

• EGMR, 11.07.2006 - 54810/00

  Einsatz von Brechmitteln; Selbstbelastungsfreiheit (Schutzbereich; faires …

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  The Court reiterates that 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, among many others, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts); see also El Haski v. Belgium, no. 649/08, § 81, 25 September 2012, with further references therein).

  This Court has also expressed its position on the moral incompatibility of using evidence obtained "as a result of acts of violence or brutality" with judicial integrity - "Any other conclusion would only serve to legitimate indirectly the sort of morally reprehensible conduct which the authors of Article 3 of the Convention sought to proscribe or, as it was so well put in the United States Supreme Court's judgment in the Rochin case..., to "afford brutality the cloak of law" (see Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 105, ECHR 2006-IX).

• EGMR, 23.02.2017 - 43395/09

  DE TOMMASO v. ITALY

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  The Court reiterates that 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, among many others, Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, § 94, ECHR 2006-IX, and De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, § 170, ECHR 2017 (extracts); see also El Haski v. Belgium, no. 649/08, § 81, 25 September 2012, with further references therein).
• EGMR, 19.12.1989 - 9783/82

  KAMASINSKI v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  Nonetheless, having regard to the fact that shortly after the charges were brought against him, the applicant and his lawyers submitted detailed arguments challenging the main aspects of the accusation and presenting an alternative version of events to the relevant authorities, the Court concludes that the applicant sufficiently understood the charges against him and the material substance upon which the charges were based (see Hermi, cited above, § 70; see also, mutatis mutandis, Petuhovs v. Germany (dec.) [Committee], no. 60705/08, 9 March 2010, and Kamasinski v. Austria, 19 December 1989, § 85, Series A no. 168).

 
• EGMR, 24.07.2001 - 44558/98

  VALASINAS v. LITHUANIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  The Court finds that the applicant's allegations amounted, cumulatively, to an arguable claim of ill-treatment triggering the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention for the State to conduct an effective investigation into them (compare with O.R. and L.R. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 24129/11, § 60, 30 October 2018; see also Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts), where the Court held that even a single strip search could amount to degrading treatment in view of the manner in which it is conducted, particularly if it aims to humiliate and debase).
• EGMR, 24.02.2005 - 18913/03

  HUSAIN c. ITALIE

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  In the light of the above, and taking into account that the Convention does not require a written translation of all items of official documents and that oral linguistic assistance may satisfy the requirements of the Convention (see Husain v. Italy (dec.), no. 18913/03, ECHR 2005-III, and Hermi, cited above, § 70), the Court considers that in the present case the applicant received the appropriate linguistic assistance, which allowed him to adequately participate in the trial against him.
• EGMR, 30.10.2018 - 24129/11

  O.R. AND L.R. v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 22.10.2020 - 6739/11

  The Court finds that the applicant's allegations amounted, cumulatively, to an arguable claim of ill-treatment triggering the procedural obligation under Article 3 of the Convention for the State to conduct an effective investigation into them (compare with O.R. and L.R. v. the Republic of Moldova, no. 24129/11, § 60, 30 October 2018; see also Valasinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 117, ECHR 2001-VIII; and Yankov v. Bulgaria, no. 39084/97, § 110, ECHR 2003-XII (extracts), where the Court held that even a single strip search could amount to degrading treatment in view of the manner in which it is conducted, particularly if it aims to humiliate and debase).

• EGMR, 03.10.2023 - 39272/15

  REPESCO ET REPESCU c. RÉPUBLIQUE DE MOLDOVA

  Dans la mesure où un requérant apporte un commencement de preuve de l'obtention d'éléments au moyen de mauvais traitements, le juge interne est tenu d'analyser la qualité de ces éléments et de faire la lumière sur les circonstances dans lesquelles ils ont été recueillis, faute de quoi il pourra y avoir violation de l'article 6 de la Convention (ibidem, §§ 45-46, et Bokhonko c. Géorgie, no 6739/11, § 96, 22 octobre 2020).