Admissibilidade de declarações obtidas como resultado de “tortura privada” ou tratamento inumano “privado” como prova no processo penal: surgimento de um novo parâmetro europeu?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.477Palavras-chave:
processo penal, admissibilidade da prova, tortura, Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos, processo justo.Resumo
Este artigo apresenta uma análise crítica da posição firmada pelo Tribunal Europeu de Direitos Humanos sobre a admissibilidade da prova (declarações gravadas) obtidas como resultado de “tortura privada ou tratamento inumano”, quando essa gravação tenha sido produzida fora de um processo criminal e não a ele direcionada. Conforme a visão do Tribunal, recentemente assentada (caso Ćwik v. Poland), o uso dessa prova em um processo criminal conduzido contra terceira pessoa, não contra a pessoa torturada, acarreta que esse processo seja automaticamente considerado injusto, em violação do art. 6 da Convenção Europeia de Direitos Humanos. Sustenta-se que a decisão do Tribunal não ponderou adequadamente a importância do fato de que o uso dessa prova não pode ter qualquer impacto na finalidade ou no nível de proteção contra a tortura ou outras formas de tratamento cruel, conforme as diretrizes do processo penal. Afirma-se que as declarações gravadas produzidas por indivíduos privados, sem o consentimento ou autorização de agentes públicos, anteriormente ao processo penal e não a ele dirigidas, por métodos contrários ao artigo 3 da Convenção devem ser consideradas provas admissíveis. Consequentemente, o Tribunal Europeu não deveria ter questionado a admissibilidade dessa prova, mas verificado a adequação do processo penal em sua integralidade às diretrizes do justo processo.
Downloads
Referências
BOJAŃCZYK, Antoni. Dowód prywatny w postępowaniu karnym w perspektywie prawnoporównawczej. Warsaw 2011, Wolters Kluwer Publisher, pp. 21-177.
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE decision of 21 November 2002, P.E. v. France, Comm. No. 193/2001, U.N. Doc. A/58/44, at 135 (CAT 2002)).
http://www.worldcourts.com/cat/eng/decisions/2002.11.21_PE_v_France.htm
COMMITTEE AGAINST TORTURE decision of 21 November 2002, Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia, Comm. No. 161/2000, U.N. Doc. CAT/C/29/D/161/2000 (2002). Available at:
https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/SDecisionsCATVolIen.pdf. Accessed on November 15, 2020.
Council of Europe Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms,
adopted on 4 November 1950. Available at: https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/rms/0900001680063765. Accessed on November 11, 2020.
DECLARATION ON THE PROTECTION OF ALL PERSONS FROM BEING SUBJECTED TO TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, adopted by General Assembly resolution 3452 (XXX) of 9th December 1975. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/declarationtorture.aspx. Accessed on November 6, 2020.
EXTRAORDINARY CHAMBERS IN THE COURTS OF CAMBODIA (TRIAL CHAMBER) decision of 5th February 2016, case no. 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC. Available at:
https://www.eccc.gov.kh/sites/default/files/documents/courtdoc/2016-02-11%2018%3A14/E350_8_EN.PDF. Accessed: November 10, 2020.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 12th July 1988, Schenk v. Switzerland, appl. no. 10862/84.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Grand Chamber] judgment of 29 April 1997, H.L.R. v. France, appl. no. 24573/94.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 23rd September 1998, A. v. UK, appl. no. 25599/94.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 11th February 2002, Visser v. the Netherlands, appl. no. 26668/95.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS decision of 25th May 2004, Arnold G. Cornelis v. the Netherlands, appl. no. 994/03.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Grand Chamber] judgment of 11th July 2006, Jalloh v. Germany, appl. no. 54810/00.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 31st May 2007, Šečić v. Croatia, appl. no. 40116/02.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Grand Chamber] judgment of 10th March 2009, Bykov v. Russia, appl. no. 4378/02.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 25th June 2009, Beganović v. Croatia, appl. no. 46423/06.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Grand Chamber] judgment of 1st June 2010, Gäfgen v. Germany, appl. no. 22978/05.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 12th February 2012, Othman (Abu Qatada) v. United Kingdom, appl. no. 8139/09.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 25th September 2012, El Haski v. Belgium, appl. no. 649/08.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 11th February 2014, Cĕsnieks v. Latvia, appl. no. 9278/06.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 24th July 2014, Al-Nashiri v. Poland, appl. no. 28761/11.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 24th July 2014, Husayn (Abu Zubaydah) v. Poland, appl. no. 7511/13.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 3 March 2016, Prade v. Germany, appl. no. 7215/10.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 16th June 2016, R.D. v. France, appl. no. 34648/14.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS [Grand Chamber] judgment of 13th September 2016, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom, appl. nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 15th October 2019, Mehmet Ali Eser v. Turkey, appl. no. 1399/07.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 5th December 2019, Hambardzumyan v. Armenia, appl. no. 43478/11.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 22 October 2020, Bokhonko v. Gorgia, appl. no. 6739/11.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS judgment of 5th November 2020, Ćwik v. Poland, appl. no. 31454/10.
GENERAL COMMENT NO. 20: ARTICLE 7 (PROHIBITION OF TORTURE OR OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT) adopted at the forty fourth session (1992). Available at:
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&TreatyID=8&DocTypeID=11. Accessed on November 20, 2020.
GENERAL COMMENT NO. 32, ARTICLE 14: RIGHT TO EQUALITY BEFORE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS AND TO A FAIR TRIAL), adopted at the ninetieth session, (2007), ccpr/c/gc/32. Available at:
http://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=6QkG1d%2fPPRiCAqhKb7yhsrdB0H1l5979OVGGB%2bWPAXhRj0XNTTvKgFHbxAcZSvX1OsJj%2fiyRmVA4IiMvUt2NlGKqqg2nh1qOE2hX5xoGtKE2v2YSQVV1Rv5NitNbSYwp. Accessed on November 13, 2020.
GRAFFIN, Neil J. The legal consequences of ill-treating Detainees held for Police Questioning in Breach of Article 3 ECHR. European Journal of Current Legal Issues, v. 20, n. 2, 2014. Available at: http://webjcli.org/index.php/webjcli/article/view/339. Accessed on November 11, 2020.
GREER, Steven. Is the Prohibition against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Really ‘Absolute’ in International Human Rights Law? Human Rights Law Review 2015. pp. 1-37. (advance access published on January 30, 2015). Doi: 10.1093/hrlr/ngu035. Available at: https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/r33346.pdf. Accessed on November 13, 2020.
HOFMAŃSKI, Piotr; WRÓBEL, Andrzej, Artykuł 6. In: GARLICKI Lech (org.). Konwencja o ochronie praw człowieka i podstawowych wolności. Tom I. Komentarz do artykułów 1-18, Warsaw: C.H. Beck Publishing, 2010. pp. 241-461.
JASIŃSKI, Wojciech; CHOJNIAK, Łukasz. The Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment in Criminal Proceedings. Overview of European and Polish Standards. In: FENYVESI, Csaba; HERKE Csongor (org.). Pleadings. Celebration Volume of Professor Tremmel Florian’s 70th Birthday. 148 Studia Iuridica Auctoritate Universitatis Pecs Publicata I (2011). Pecs 2011. pp. 125-134.
JASIŃSKI, Wojciech. Nielegalnie uzyskane dowody w procesie karnym. W poszukiwaniu optymalnego rozwiązania. Wolters Kluwer Publishing, Warsaw 2019.
KUCZYŃSKA, Hanna. Prawo dowodowe w postępowaniu przed Międzynarodowym Trybunałem Karnym. In: SKORUPKA Jerzy (org.) System Prawa Karnego Procesowego. Dowody. Tom VIII, cz. 2, Wolters Kluwer Publisher. Warsaw 2019. pp.1688-1752.
LAI HO, Hock. The Fair Trial Rationale for Excluding Wrongfully Obtained Evidence, In: GLESS Sabine; RICHTER Thomas (org.). Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspective on Evidentiary Rules. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice 74. Springer Open, pp. 285-288.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12520-2
MONINA, Giuliana. Article 15. Non-Admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture. In: NOWAK, Manfred; BIRK Moritz; MONINA Giuliana (org.). The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Its Optional Protocol. A Commentary. Oxford University Press 2019. pp. 417-440.
PATTENDEN, Rosemary. Admissibility in criminal proceedings of third party and real evidence obtained by methods prohibited by UNCAT. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, v. 10, n. 1. 2006. pp. 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1350/ijep.2006.10.1.1
RUSINEK, Michał. Zakazy odnoszące się do sposobu dowodzenia. In: SKORUPKA Jerzy (org.) System Prawa Karnego Procesowego. Dowody. Tom VIII, cz. 2, Wolters Kluwer Publisher. Warsaw 2019. pp. 2213-2315.
SCHARF, Michael P. Tainted Provenance: When, If Ever, Should Torture Evidence Be Admissible?, Case Research Paper Series in Legal Studies. Working Paper 07-27, September 2007. Available at:
https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=wlulr. Accessed on November 20, 2020.
SOLODOV, Denis; SOLODOV, Ilia. Legal safeguards against involuntary criminal confessions in Poland and Russia. Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, Porto Alegre, vol. 6, n. 3, p. 1661-1698, set./dez. 2020. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v6i3.368
THIENEL, Tobias. The admissibility of evidence obtained by torture under international law. European Journal of International Law, v. 17, n. 2, 2006, pp. 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chl001
TRECHSEL, Stefan; SUMMERS, Sarah, J. Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2006.
UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE AND OTHER CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT, adopted on 10 December 1984. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cat.aspx. Accessed on November 13, 2020.
WĄSEK-WIADEREK, Małgorzata, Model zakazów dowodowych z perspektywy Konwencji i orzecznictwa ETPCz. In: SKORUPKA Jerzy; DROZD Anna (org.). Nowe spojrzenie na model zakazów dowodowych w procesie karnym, Warsaw: C.H. Beck Publishing, 2015. pp. 20-41.
ZACH, Gerrit. Article 1. Definition of Torture. In: NOWAK, Manfred; BIRK Moritz; MONINA Giuliana (org.). The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Its Optional Protocol. A Commentary. Oxford University Press 2019. pp. 23-71.
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Os direitos autorais dos artigos publicados são do autor, com direitos do periódico sobre a primeira publicação, impressa e/ou digital.
Os autores somente poderão utilizar os mesmos resultados em outras publicações indicando claramente este periódico como o meio da publicação original. Se não houver tal indicação, considerar-se-á situação de auto-plágio.
- Portanto, a reprodução, total ou parcial, dos artigos aqui publicados fica sujeita à expressa menção da procedência de sua publicação neste periódico, citando-se o volume e o número dessa publicação, além do link DOI para referência cruzada. Para efeitos legais, deve ser consignada a fonte de publicação original.
Por se tratar de periódico de acesso aberto, permite-se o uso gratuito dos artigos em aplicações educacionais e científicas desde que citada a fonte, conforme a licença da Creative Commons.
A partir de 2022, os artigos publicados na RDPP estão licenciados com uma Licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. Os artigos puliicados até 2021 adotaram a Licença Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
---------------
Arquivamento e distribuição
Permite-se sem restrições o arquivamento do PDF final publicado, em qualquer servidor de acesso aberto, indexador, repositório ou site pessoal, como Academia.edu e ResearchGate.
Como Citar
