Izločitev dokazov, pridobljenih s kršitvijo privilegija zoper samoobtožbo

Zrilić, Alja (author), Gorkič, Primož (mentor), Plesničar M., Mojca (mentor)

Privilegij zoper samoobtožbo je eno izmed temeljnih jamstev kazenskega postopka, saj obdolžencu v postopku zagotavlja položaj subjekta ter enakopraven položaj v odnosu do oblasti kot močnejšega nasprotnika. Obdolženca varuje pred prisilo oblasti in pred morebitnim lastnim neznanjem, zaradi česar je potrebno zagotoviti visoko stopnjo spoštovanja privilegija in ozko začrtati meje, ko je odstop od njega dovoljen. Pri tem obstoj privilegija sam po sebi ne prepreči samoobtožbe, ampak je privilegij odvisen od izločitve dokazov, pridobljenih z njegovo kršitvijo. Izsiljena izjava namreč lahko postane samoobtožba le, če je sodba oprta na tako izjavo; če pa s prisiljeno samoobtožbo okužene dokaze izločimo, ostane privilegij nedotaknjen. Izhajajoč iz tega, to magistrsko delo temelji na pregledu prakse ESČP, in sicer sodb Jalloh proti Nemčiji, Gäfgen proti Nemčiji in Ibrahim in ostali proti Združenemu Kraljestvu, ki vsaka v svoji luči obravnavajo posege v privilegij ter izločitev tako pridobljenih dokazov. Vsem je skupen premik k vse večjemu pomenu javnega interesa po pregonu dejanja oz. pomenu teže kaznivega dejanja v odnosu do privilegija. Jalloh je vzpostavil ta novi kriterij javnega interesa kot del testa, ali je prišlo do kršitve privilegija. Problematiko oženja pravic v imenu javnega interesa pa sta nadalje osvetlili tudi zadevi Gäfgen in Ibrahim – pri prvi to implicitno izhaja iz celotne razlage sodbe, pri drugi pa je kriterij javnega interesa upoštevan izrecno. Kot izhaja iz preučene prakse, varstvo privilegija ni več tako visoko kot včasih. Ta se v imenu interesa družbe po pregonu in materialni resnici vse bolj umika v ozadje – pri čemer pa se odmika tudi od ideje vladavine prava, na kateri sam privilegij stoji.

• Language: Slovenian
• Keywords: privilegij zoper samoobtožbo, izločitev dokazov, varstvo procesnih garancij, javni interes, Evropsko sodišče za človekove pravice, Jalloh proti Nemčiji, Gäfgen proti Nemčiji, Ibrahim in ostali proti Združenemu Kraljestvu
• Work type: Master's thesis/paper
• Organization: PF - Faculty of Law
• Year: 2019
• PID: 20.500.12556/RUL-110732
• COBISS.SI-ID: 16975953
• Publication date in RUL: 19.09.2019

Secondary language

• Language: English
• Title: The Exclusion of Evidence Obtained in Violation of Privilege Against Self-Incrimination

Abstract

The privilege against self-incrimination is one of the fundamental rights of criminal procedure. It grants the accused the status of the subject and an equal position with the state as the stronger opponent. It serves as protection against state coercion as well as the accused’s potential ignorance. For this reason, it is imperative that the principle be honoured and the instances when it may be denied strictly prescribed. That being said, the existence of the privilege does not in itself prevent self-incrimination as it depends on the exclusion of evidence obtained through the privilege’s violation. Only if the conviction is based on such a claim, can a coerced statement become self-incriminatory. However, if the evidence obtained through coerced self-incrimination is excluded, the privilege remains in effect. This thesis examines the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), specifically, the following cases: Jalloh v. Germany, Gäfgen v. Germany, and Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom. All of these in their own way deal with the violation of the privilege against self-incrimination and the exclusion of evidence obtained in the process. What the cases share is the acknowledgment of the growing importance of the public interest regarding prosecution wherein the severity of the criminal offence is inversely proportionate to the privilege. Jalloh thus sees the public interest as a new part of the criteria that establishes whether the privilege has been violated. The Gäfgen and Ibrahim cases shed further light on the issue of the restriction of rights. In the case of the former, the view is expressed implicitly in the overall verdict, while the latter explicitly follows the criteria of the public interest. Based on the examination of the established practice it is safe to conclude that the privilege no longer enjoys the protection it once did. Due to the public’s primary interest in prosecution and material truth the privilege is being pushed to the side-lines. As a result, it is slipping further away from the notion of the rule of law on which it is based.

• Keywords: privilege against self-incrimination, exclusion of evidence, protection of procedural rights, public interest, European Court of Human Rights, Jalloh v. Germany, Gäfgen v. Germany, Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom