The rule of admissibility of evidence in the criminal process of continental Europe
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22197/rbdpp.v7i1.526Parole chiave:
criminal process, law of evidence, admissibility of evidence, legality of actions of authorities, postulate of the moral integrity of the justice system.Abstract
This paper presents a doctrinal review of the rule of admissibility of evidence in the criminal process of continental Europe, which can be understood narrowly as applying exclusively to the question of acceptability, i.e. determination what evidence can be admitted. This rule can also be understood in broad terms and applied to determine not only the admissibility of evidence but also its relevance and adequacy. Much attention was paid to the functions performed by the admissibility rule, especially its guarantee function. The state of scientific discussion on the recognition of unlawfully obtained evidence as “inadmissible evidence”, and the author’s views on this issue were also presented.Downloads
Riferimenti bibliografici
AJSCHINES. II 155.
AMBROSE OF MILANO. Epistulae, 21.9
ARYSTOFANES. Osy. p. 919.
ARYSTOTELES. Retoryka. In: ARYSTOTELES. Dzieła wszystkie, v. 6. Warszawa 2001.
ASHWORTH, Andrew. Exploring the integrity principle in evidence and procedure. In: MIRFIELD, Peter. SMITH, Roger. Essays for Colin Tapper. Oxford-New York 2003
BONNER, Robert J. Evidence in Athenian Court. Chicago 1905
CANALE, Damiano. The Many Faces of the Codification of Law in Modern Continental Europe. In: PATTARO, Enrico, CANALE Damiano, GROSSI, Paolo, HOFMANN, Hasso, RILEY, Patrick (Eds.). A History of the Philosophy of Law in the Civil Law World, 1600-1900. Series A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence. Netherlands: Springer 2009, Online ISBN 978-90-481-2964-5.
CHAU, Peter. Excluding Integrity? Revisiting Non-Consequentialist Justifications for Excluding Improperly Obtained Evidence in Criminal Trials. In: HUNTER, Jill. ROBERTS, Paul. YOUNG, Simon. DIXON, David (Eds.) The Integrity of Criminal Process: From Theory into Practice. Oxford-Portland 2016
DEMOSTENES. VII 46.
DEMOSTENES. Przeciw Timokratesowi. p. 149-151.
DEMOSTENES. XIX 146
DEMOSTENES. XXI 95.
DEMOSTENES. XXVI 24.
DEMOSTENES. XXXV 14
DERSHOWITZ, Alan M. Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?, Los Angeles Times, 8.11.2001;
DERSHOWITZ, Alan M. Why terrorism works: Understanding the threat, responding to the challenge. Yale University Press, 2002
ESSLINGER, Detlef. Mildes Urteil im Folter-Prozess, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 21.12.2004
EUROPEAN CONVENTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS, adopted in Rome on 4th November 1950. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf. (access: December 20, 2020).
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 1 June 2010, Gäfgen v Germany, no. 22978/05. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 11 February 2014, Cěsnieks v Latvia, no. 9278/06, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 11 July 2006, Jalloh v Germany, no. 54810/00, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 15 December 2005, Vanyan v Russia, no. 53203/99, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 2 December 2014, Taraneks v Latvia, no. 3082/06, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 21 September, Söylemez v Turkey, no. 46661/99, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 25 September 2012, El Haski v Belgium, no. 649/08, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 26 October, Khudobin v Russia, no. 59696/00, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 5 February 2008, Ramanauskas v Lithuania, no. 74420/01, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of 9 June 1998, Teixeira de Castro v Portugal, no. 44/1997/828/1034, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Judgment of April 2014, Lagutin and Others v Russia, no. 6228/09, 19123/09, 19678/07, 52340/08 and 7451/09, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/
GAGARIN, Michael. Women in Athebian Court. Dike 1, p. 43, 1998.
GERSON, Jean. Summa contra Ioannem Parisiensem (Opera, 1.11.152). In: KELLY, John M. Historia zachodniej teorii prawa. Kraków 2006;
GIUFFRE, Vincenzo. La repressione criminale nell 'esperienza romana, Napoli 1997
GRAFFIN, Niel. 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, no. 2, 2014, http://webjcli.org/article/view/339/437.
HARRISON, Alick Robin Walsham, The Law of Athens. Procedure. Oxford 1971
HYPEREJDES. V 33.
ISAJOS, XII 4.
ISIDORE OF SEVILLE. Sententiae, 3.51.
JOUSSE, Daniel. Traite de la justice criminelle. Paris: Debure 1771
KELLY, John M. A short history of western legal theory. Oxford University Press, 1992.
LEISI, Ernst. Der Zeuge im attischen Recht. Frauenfeld 1907
LIPSIUS, Justus Herman. Das attische Recht und Rechtsverfahren. Leipzig 1905-1915.
LITEWSKI Wiesław. Rzymski proces karny. Kraków 2003, p. 93.
LOCKE, John. Dwa traktaty o rządzie. London 1690
MACDOWELL, Douglas M. The Law in Classical Athens. London, 1978
MANFREDINI, Arnoldo D. La testimonianza del liberto contro il patrono nel processo criminale di età classica. In: Studi in onore di Arnaldo Biscardi. v. 3. Milano 1982
MIRHADY, David C. Athens’ Democratic Witness. Phoenix, 56/3, 2002.
SENECA, Medea, Poznań 2000
SLATER. Jerome. Tragic Choices in the War on Terrorism: Should We Try to Regulate and Control Torture? Political Science Quarterly, v. 121, no. 2, 2006
TOMASZ Z AKWINU. Summa teologiczna. Prawo, I-II, q. 96.5, Londyn 1986.
ZUMPT, August Wilhelm. Das Criminalrecht der Römischen Republik. Berlin 1869
Dowloads
Pubblicato
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
As of 2022, articles published in the RDPP are licensed under Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. rticles published until 2021 adopted the Creative Commons Atribuição-NãoComercial 4.0 Internacional.
Come citare
