THE right to a fair trial and use of unlawfully obtained evidence and guilty pleas in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights

Abstract

Article 6 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereafter – “Convention”) is one of the document’s most frequently cited provisions establishing “framework” protection in the area of judicial proceedings. The article is probably the best known conventional provision and the one which the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter – “Court”) refers to most often in practice. So, it is not unusual that the focus of this research is related to the right to a fair trial.

The purpose of this research is to define the concept of “fairness” in the context of criminal proceedings, provide specific examples of practices running contrary to principles of fairness (examples of unfair assessments of evidence, including evidence obtained through ill treatment, and simplified trials of criminal cases based on questionable guilty pleas). Another task is to reflect on the most recent case-law related to the fairness of criminal proceedings, reaching conclusions as to how standards of fairness have developed in the Court’s jurisprudence.

The aforementioned practical examples of unfair assessments of evidence in the course of full trials and simplified criminal trials were not chosen by accident. They largely relate to case-law with regards to countries that have introduced new procedures previously unknown to their legal and criminal justice systems. This concerns countries aiming to strengthen the adversarial context of criminal trials on the domestic level. Thus, the experience from these countries evaluated in the Court’s caselaw could serve as a useful indicator of the compliance of the current similar domestic judicial practices and the relevant legislation with the requirements of fairness ensuing from Article 6.