A Comparative Analysis of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on the Right against Self-Incrimination
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v8i2.675Palavras-chave:
KEYWORDS: Right against self-incrimination, right to remain silent, incriminatory evidence.Resumo
The right against self-incrimination can be understood as the right of all persons to remain silent and not to be forced to collaborate with an investigation against them. Despite of its fundamental importance, the right against self-incrimination raises several theoretical and practical discussions. Can defendants refuse to produce documentary evidence? Does this right apply to administrative and civil proceedings? What degree of coercion is necessary to trigger the application of this right? This article aims to analyse the evolution and current state of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in order to elucidate how the European court has resolved the questions posed above.Downloads
Referências
ALITO JR., Samuel A. Documents and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, v. 48, n. 1, p. 27-82, 1986.
AMAR, Akhil Reed and LETTOW, Renee B. Fifth Amendment, First Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause, Michigan Law Review, v. 93, n. 5, p. 857-928, 1995. https://doi.org/10.2307/1289986
ANDRITSAKIS, Katherine K. Corporate Record-Keepers and the Right against Self-Incrimination: An Equitable Approach to Fifth Amendment Analysis, Santa Clara Law Review, v. 27, n. 2, p. 411-442, 1987, p. 426.
ASHWORTH, Andrew. Self-Incrimination in European Human Rights Law. A Pregnant Pragmatism, Cardozo Law Review, v. 30, n. 3, p. 751-774, 2008.
BACHMAIER, Lorena. New Crime Control Scenarios and the Guarantees in Non-Criminal Sanctions: Presumption of Innocence, Fair Trial Rights, and the Protection of Property. In: SIEBER, Ulrich (ed.), Prevention, Investigation, and Sanctioning of Economic Crime. Alternative Control Regimes and Human Rights Limitations, Maklu, p. 299-334, 2019, p. 307.
BALSAMO, Antonio. The Content of Fundamental Rights. In: KOSTORIS, Roberto (ed), Handbook of European Criminal Procedure, Springer, p. 99-170, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-72462-1_3
BERGER, Mark. Europeanizing Self-Incrimination: The Right to Remain Silent in the European Court of Human Rights, Columbia Journal of European Law, v. 12, n. 2, p. 339-382, 2006.
BERGER, Mark. Self-Incrimination and the European Court of Human Rights: Procedural Issues in the Enforcement of the Right to Silence, European Human Rights Law Review, v. 5, p. 514-533, 2007.
BÖSE, Martin. The Consecutive Application of Different Types of Sanctions and the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem: The EU and the US on Different Tracks? In: LIGETI, Katalin and FRANSSEN, Vanessa (eds.), Challenges in the Field of Economic and Financial Crime in Europe and the US., Hart Publishing, p. 211-222, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781509908066.ch-010
DOLINKO, David. Is There a Rationale for the Privilege against Self-Incrimination?, UCLA Law Review, v. 33, n. 4, p. 1063-1148, 1985.
ESCOBAR VEAS, Javier. Ne bis in idem y sistemas sancionatorios de vía múltiple: análisis crítico de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos. In: CÁRDENAS, Claudia, GUZMÁN, José Luis, and VARGAS, Tatiana (eds.), XVI Jornadas chilenas de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales. En homenaje a sus fundadores, Tirant lo Blanch, p. 201-218, 2021.
ESCOBAR, Javier. Aplicación del derecho a no autoincriminarse en procedimientos administrativos sancionatorios: Análisis comparado de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y del Tribunal Constitucional chileno, Revista de Derecho Administrativo Económico, n. 34, p. 39-68, 2021. https://doi.org/10.7764/redae.34.2
GEYH, Charles Gardner. The testimonial component of the right against self-incrimination, Catholic University Law Review, v. 36, n. 3, p. 611-642, 1987.
GREEN, Michael S. The Privilege's Last Stand: The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and the Right to Rebel Against the State, Brooklyn Law Review, v. 65, n. 3, p. 627-716, 1999.
GRISWOLD, Erwin N. The Fifth Amendment Today, Harvard University Press, 1995.
HANCOX, Emily. The Right to Remain Silent in EU Law, Cambridge Law Journal, v. 80, n. 2, p. 228-231, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197321000362
HIGGINS, Georganne R. Business Records and the Fifth Amendment Right against Self-Incrimination, Ohio State Law Journal, v. 38, n. 2, p. 351-378, 1977.
KLIP, André. Fair Trial Rights in the European Union: Reconciling Accused and Victims’ Rights. In: RAFARACI, Tommaso and BELFIORE, Rosanna (eds.), EU Criminal Justice Fundamental Rights, Transnational Proceedings and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Springer, p. 3-25, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-97319-7_1
LAMBERIGTS, Stijn. The Privilege against Self-Incrimination: A Chameleon of Criminal Procedure, New Journal of European Criminal Law, v. 7, n. 4, p. 418-438, 2016, p. 429. https://doi.org/10.1177/203228441600700404
LANGBEIN, John H. The Historical Origins of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination at Common Law, Michigan Law Review, v. 92, n. 5, p. 1047-1085, 1994. https://doi.org/10.2307/1289628
LASAGNI, Giulia. Banking Supervision and Criminal Investigation. Comparing the EU and US Experiences, Springer, 2019.
LASAGNI, Giulia. Prendendo sul serio il diritto al silenzio: commento a Corte cost., ord. 10 maggio 2019, n. 117, Diritto Penale Contemporaneo, n. 2, pp. 135-162, 2020.
LOCK, Tobias. Article 48 CFR. In: KELLERBAUER, Manuel, KLAMERT, Marcus and TOMKIN, Jonathan (eds.), The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental Rights. A Commentary, Oxford University Press, p. 2227-2230, 2019.
MOYLAND JR., Charles E. and SONSTENG, John. Privilege against Compelled Self-Incrimination, William Mitchell Law Review, v. 16, n. 1, p. 249-308, 1990.
REDMAYNE, Mike. Rethinking the privilege against self-incrimination, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, v. 27, n. 2, 209-232, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gql001
RODRIGUES, Heloisa. Fundamento central do direito à não autoincriminaçãop, Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, v. 4, n. 2, pp. 731-765, 2018. https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v4i2.134
RODRIGUES, Paulo. The Development of the Guarantee Against Self-Incrimination in the Brazilian Constitutional System: Different Views on a Common Legal and Political Institute. Comparative Law Review, v. 23, pp. 187-205, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/CLR.2017.008
SUMMERS, Sarah. Fair Trials, Hart Publishing, 2007.
TRACZ, Eliot T. Doctrinal Evolution and the Right against Self-Incrimination, University of New Hampshire Law Review, v. 18, n. 1, p. 109-142, 2019.
TRECHSEL, Stefan. Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, Oxford University Press, 2005.
Table of cases
European Court of Human Rights
Engel and Others v. Netherlands, no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72 (1976).
Öztürk v. Germany, no. 8544/79 (1984).
John Murray v. United Kingdom, no. 18731/91 (1996).
Saunders v. United Kingdom, no. 19187/91 (1996).
Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 40 (2000).
I.J.L. and Others v. United Kingdom, nos. 29522/95, 30056/96 and 30574/96 (2000).
J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96 (2001).
Allan v. United Kingdom, no. 48539/99 (2002).
Weh v. Austria, no. 38544/97 (2004).
Nilsson v. Sweden, no. 73661/01 (2005).
Jussila v. Finland, no. 73053/01 (2006).
Jalloh v. Germany, no. 54810/00 (2006).
O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom, nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02 (2007).
Bykov v. Russia, no. 4378/02 (2009).
ECtHR, Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no. 13079/03 (2009).
Gäfgen v. Germany, no. 22978/0 (2010).
Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07 (2010).
Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02 (2010).
Chambaz v. Switzerland, no. 11663/04 (2012).
Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11 (2014).
Ibrahim and Others v. United Kingdom, nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09 (2016).
Palmén v. Sweden, no. 38292/15 (2016).
A and B v. Norway, nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11 (2016).
Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09 (2016).
Šimkus v. Lithuania, no. 41788/11 (2017).
Serazin v. Croatia, no. 19120/15 (2018).
Kadusic v. Switzerland, no. 43977/13 (2018).
Orlen Lietuva Ltd. v. Lithuania, no. 45849/13 (2019).
Mihalache v. Romania, no. 54012/10 (2019).
Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17 (2019).
Velkov v. Bulgaria, no. 34503/10 (2020).
Bajić v. North Macedonia, no. 2833/13 (2021).
Timofeyev and Postupkin v. Russia, no. 45431/14 and 22769/15 (2021).
United States Supreme Court
Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 (1886).
Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892).
Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910).
Ullmann v. United States, 350 US 422 (1956).
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964).
Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 (1964).
Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406 (1966).
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967).
United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973).
Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988).
Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990).
United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).
European Union Court of Justice
Orkem v Commission of the European Communities, 374/87 (1989).
DB v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob), 481/19 (2021).
Downloads
Publicado
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2022 Javier Escobar Veas
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
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
