Principles and Common Requirements of a Participatory Model of Criminal Justice in International Human Rights Law and EU Law

Ruggeri, Stefano

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_14

Stefano Ruggeri²

248 Accesses

Abstract

After examining the contribution that international human rights law and EU law have made to the enhancement of participatory safeguards in criminal proceedings, this study provides a second comparative-law analysis. The purpose of the present discussion is to critically compare the models and common principles of a participatory understanding of criminal justice emerging from Strasbourg and Inter-American case-law, as well as from the developments that have taken place in EU law, in order to elaborate some requirements to solve the shortcomings that we observed in the national criminal justice systems under examination.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
The English text acknowledges the right of any person charged with a criminal offence not just to be heard in court but also to have an overall fair hearing.
2.
Chapter 8, A.
3.
A linguistic comparison may be interesting in this respect. It is worth noting that both the Spanish and Portuguese versions of the European Convention follow the French official text, thus relating to the right to have one’s own lawsuit examined by an independent authority.
4.
Chapter 9, A.
5.
Chapter 9, B.
6.
Ibid.
7.
Chapter 10, A.
8.
Parlato (2012), p. 389 ff.
9.
Chapter 10, C.III.2.
10.
Chapter 9, B.
11.
Chapter 8, B.
12.
Concerning Italy, see among others Marzaduri (1996), p. 20; Nobili (1998), p. 181 ff. In Germany, criminal law scholarship tends to exclude the principle of legality sharing the same constitutional protection reserved to the nullum crimen sine lege principle pursuant to Article 103(III) Const. However, the strict link between the two principles is not disputed and the mandatory prosecution is even considered to be the downside of Gesetzlichkeitsprinzip, in that the latter aims at avoiding the legal limits of criminal law provisions being exceeded, whereas the former prevents them from being lowered and from remaining on paper. Cf. Hassemer (1992), p. 529. For some criticisms on the foundation of this distinction, see Erb (1999), p. 119. Furthermore, the principle of legality shares an essential feature of the nullum crimen sine lege principle, that is, the need to respect equality of arms. In this sense see Kühne (2015), p. 210.
13.
Art. 14(3)(d) ICCPR.
14.
Ibid.
15.
Chapter 8, C.II.
16.
Chapter 8, C.I.2.
17.
Trechsel (2005), p. 254.
18.
As noted, the issue was not dealt with in Colozza v. Italy, whereas the Neumeister judgment made waiver conditional on specific safeguards. Cf. Chapter 8, C.II.
19.
Ibid.
20.
ECtHR, Öcalan v. Turkey, § 210.
21.
Ibid.
22.
Explanatory Memorandum, § 41.
23.
Chapter 10, B.II.1.
24.
Ibid.
25.
Wahl (2015), p. 74.
26.
Chapter 10, B.II.1.
27.
Art. 9 DirPIRPT.
28.
In Italy, as noted, the 1988 code enabled defendants tried in absentia to request to be relieved from the effects of the expiration of the time limit to appeal a default conviction. Yet the exercise of their right to evidence at second instance depended on the difficult proof that their absence in court had not been their own fault. Significantly, this situation remained unchanged after an important legislative reform, carried out by Law Decree 17/2005, converted in Law 60/2005. Cf. Chapter 2, F.II.1.
29.
Chapter 8, C.III.
30.
Art. 47(2) EU-FRCh.
31.
Art. 53 EU-FRCh.
32.
Art. 52(3) CFR. This provision has led to various reactions and very different suggestions for interpretation. For a strong interpretation of this clause, whereby the EU Charter incorporated the ECHR set-up of human rights protection, see Borowsky (2011), p. 687.
33.
Directive 2013/48/EU. See among others Bachmaier Winter (2015), p. 111 ff.
34.
Art. 3(1) DirAL.
35.
Art. 2(1) DirAL.
36.
Art. 2(4) DirAL.
37.
The question was raised by Bachmaier Winter, who, however, considers the EU limitation acceptable. Cf. Bachmaier Winter (2015), p. 117.
38.
Art. 3(4) DirAL.
39.
Chapter 8, D.I.
40.
Chapter 9, C.
41.
Chapter 8, D.II.1.
42.
Chapter 8, G.I.
43.
Chapter 10, C.I.1.
44.
Ibid.
45.
Chapter 10, C.I.2.
46.
Ibid.
47.
Ibid.
48.
Chapter 8, D.II.1.
49.
Chapter 9, D.
50.
Ibid.
51.
Chapter 10, B.II.2.a.
52.
Chapter 8, D.II.1.
53.
Chapter 10, C.II.1.b.
54.
Chapter 10, C.II.2.
55.
Chapter 9, D.
56.
Chapter 8, D.III.
57.
Chapter 10, C.II.1.c.
58.
IACtHR, ‘Mapiripán Massacre’ v. Colombia, § 219.
59.
Ayala Corao and Rivero (2014), p. 123.
60.
Art. 2(1)(a) DirLA.
61.
Chapter 8, E.III.
62.
Chapter 10, C.III.1.
63.
Chapter 8, E.III.
64.
Ibid.
65.
Ibid.
66.
Trechsel (2005), p. 345.
67.
Ibid., 227.
68.
In this sense see instead Trechsel (2005), p. 227.
69.
Chapter 9, E.II.
70.
Chapter 9, E.I.1.
71.
Ibid.
72.
Chapter 8, F.II.2.a.
73.
Below, G.II.3.
74.
Chapter 10, C.IV.
75.
Ibid., B.I.
76.
Chapter 8, F.III.2.
77.
Chapter 9, E.I.2.
78.
ECtHR, Isgrò v. Italy, § 35 et seq.
79.
Chapter 9, E.I.2.
80.
Chapter 10, C.IV.
81.
See respectively Chapter 8, F.II.1 and Chapter 9, E.I.1.
82.
ECtHR, Grand Chamber, Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. United Kingdom, § 124. See Vogel (2017), p. 36 f.
83.
Chapter 9, E.I.1.
84.
Chapter 8, F.III.2.
85.
Ibid.
86.
A different conclusion can be drawn in relation to the proceedings brought against Ancalaf Llaupe, who was prosecuted under the 1906 code, which provided for a pre-trial phase usually held in secret (sumario). Cf. IACtHR, Norín Catrimán et al. v. Chile, § 235.
87.
Ibid., § 164.
88.
Ibid., § 171 et seq.
89.
Jackson and Summers (2012), p. 339.
90.
Chapter 8, F.IV.
91.
Ibid.
92.
Ibid.
93.
Chapter 9, F.
94.
Ibid.
95.
Chapter 8, F.IV.
96.
Chapter 9, G.I.
97.
Ibid.
98.
Chapter 8, G.I.
99.
Chapter 10, D.
100.
Chapter 8, G.I.
101.
Chapter 10, D.
102.
Chapter 8, G.I.
103.
Chapter 9, G.I.
104.
Ibid.
105.
Chapter 10, D.
106.
Chapter 8, G.I.
107.
Ibid.
108.
Chapter 9, G.I.
109.
Ibid.
110.
Ibid.
111.
Chapter 10, D.
112.
Chapter 8, G.III.
113.
Chapter 10, D.
114.
Chapter 8, G.II.
115.
Casal (2014), p. 196.
116.
Art. 7(5) ACHR.
117.
In this sense see instead Casals (2014), p. 196.
118.
Chapter 9, G.II.
119.
Chapter 8, G.II.
120.
Ibid.
121.
Chapter 9, G.II.
122.
Ibid.
123.
Chapter 8, G.II.
124.
Ibid.
125.
Chapter 9, G.II.
126.
Maggio (2012), p. 36.
127.
Chapter 8, G.III.
128.
Chapter 9, G.III.
129.
Ibid.
130.
Ibid.
131.
Chapter 8, G.III.
132.
Ibid.
133.
ECtHR, Bouamar v. Belgium, § 60.
134.
Chapter 9, G.III.

References

Ayala Corao C, Rivero MD (2014) Article 4. In: Steiner and Uribe (eds) Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Comentario. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Berlin, pp 112–130
Google Scholar
Bachmaier Winter L (2015) The EU directive on the right to access to a lawyer: a critical assessment. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Human rights in european criminal law. New developments in European legislation and case law after the Lisbon treaty. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 111–131
Google Scholar
Borowsky M (2011) Artikel 52. In: Meyer J (ed) Charta der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 3rd edn. Nomos, Baden-Baden
Google Scholar
Casal JM (2014) Article 7. In: Steiner and Uribe (eds) Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos. Comentario. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, Berlin, pp 180–206
Google Scholar
Erb V (1999) legalität und Opportunität. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Google Scholar
Hassemer W (1992) Legalität und Opportunität im Strafverfahren – eine Skizze. In: Ostendorf H (ed) Strafverfolgung und Strafverzicht. Festschrift zum 125. Bestehen der Staatsanwaltschaft Schleswig-Holstein. Carl Heymanns, Köln et al
Google Scholar
Jackson JD, Summers SJ (2012) The internationalisation of criminal evidence: beyond the common law and civil law traditions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Kühne H-H (2015) Strafprozessrecht. Eine Systematische Darstellung des deutschen und europäischen Strafverfahrensrechts, 9th edn. C.F. Müller, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Maggio P (2012) Judicial reviews against deprivation of liberty. In: Ruggeri S (ed) Liberty and security in Europe. A comparative analysis of pre-trial precautionary measures in criminal proceedings. V&R Unipress (Universitätsverlag Osnabrück), Göttingen, pp 33–44
Google Scholar
Marzaduri E (1996) Azione: d) diritto processuale penale. In: Enciclopedia giuridica Treccani, vol V. Treccani, Roma, pp 1–23
Google Scholar
Nobili M (1998) Scenari e trasformazioni del processo penale. Cedam, Padova
Google Scholar
Parlato L (2012) Il contributo della vittima tra azione e prova. Torri del Vento, Palermo
Google Scholar
Trechsel S (2005) Human rights in criminal proceedings. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Vogel B (2017) “In camera”-Verfahren als Gewährung effektiven Rechtsschutzes? Neue Entwicklungen im europäischen Sicherheitsrecht. Zeitschrift für die internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, pp 28–38
Google Scholar
Wahl T (2015) Der Rahmenbeschluss zu Abwesenheitsentscheidungen. Brüsseler EU-Justizkooperation als Fall für Straßburg? EuCrim, pp 70–76
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Law, University of Messina, Messina, Italy
Stefano Ruggeri

Authors

Stefano Ruggeri
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Ruggeri, S. (2017). Principles and Common Requirements of a Participatory Model of Criminal Justice in International Human Rights Law and EU Law. In: Audi Alteram Partem in Criminal Proceedings. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_14

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54573-8_14
Published: 13 April 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-54572-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-54573-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics