{"title":"不确定确定性?:解读欧洲人权法院的证明标准","authors":"C. Bicknell","doi":"10.1163/22131035-00802001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declares a single standard of proof (‘SoP’): proof beyond reasonable doubt (‘brd’). Yet the accuracy of this claim and the threshold’s appropriateness have both been challenged. This article uniquely considers and clarifies the Court’s interpretation and application of its SoP. Demonstrating SoP is capable of both broad and narrow interpretations, it shows the Court interprets SoP only narrowly. This understanding confirms brd as the applicable standard, whose use is then considered through detailed examination of the case law. The analysis shows that although the Court’s conception and approach to brd necessarily accommodate some doubt, violations are found with a consistently high level of certainty. There is however, a striking inconsistency in references made to the Rules of Court. Moreover, the Rules do not fully capture the Court’s approach. Addressing this, as the article proposes, would strengthen both the consistency and legitimacy of relevant decisions.","PeriodicalId":13730,"journal":{"name":"International Human Rights Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22131035-00802001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Uncertain Certainty?: Making Sense of the European Court of Human Rights’ Standard of Proof\",\"authors\":\"C. Bicknell\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/22131035-00802001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declares a single standard of proof (‘SoP’): proof beyond reasonable doubt (‘brd’). Yet the accuracy of this claim and the threshold’s appropriateness have both been challenged. This article uniquely considers and clarifies the Court’s interpretation and application of its SoP. Demonstrating SoP is capable of both broad and narrow interpretations, it shows the Court interprets SoP only narrowly. This understanding confirms brd as the applicable standard, whose use is then considered through detailed examination of the case law. The analysis shows that although the Court’s conception and approach to brd necessarily accommodate some doubt, violations are found with a consistently high level of certainty. There is however, a striking inconsistency in references made to the Rules of Court. Moreover, the Rules do not fully capture the Court’s approach. Addressing this, as the article proposes, would strengthen both the consistency and legitimacy of relevant decisions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":13730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Human Rights Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/22131035-00802001\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Human Rights Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/22131035-00802001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Human Rights Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22131035-00802001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Uncertain Certainty?: Making Sense of the European Court of Human Rights’ Standard of Proof
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declares a single standard of proof (‘SoP’): proof beyond reasonable doubt (‘brd’). Yet the accuracy of this claim and the threshold’s appropriateness have both been challenged. This article uniquely considers and clarifies the Court’s interpretation and application of its SoP. Demonstrating SoP is capable of both broad and narrow interpretations, it shows the Court interprets SoP only narrowly. This understanding confirms brd as the applicable standard, whose use is then considered through detailed examination of the case law. The analysis shows that although the Court’s conception and approach to brd necessarily accommodate some doubt, violations are found with a consistently high level of certainty. There is however, a striking inconsistency in references made to the Rules of Court. Moreover, the Rules do not fully capture the Court’s approach. Addressing this, as the article proposes, would strengthen both the consistency and legitimacy of relevant decisions.
期刊介绍:
The International Human Rights Law Review (HRLR) is a bi-annual peer-reviewed journal. It aims to stimulate research and thinking on contemporary human rights issues, problems, challenges and policies. It is particularly interested in soliciting papers, whether in the legal domain or other social sciences, that are unique in their approach and which seek to address poignant concerns of our times. One of the principal aims of the Journal is to provide an outlet to human rights scholars, practitioners and activists in the developing world who have something tangible to say about their experiences on the ground, or in order to discuss cases and practices that are generally inaccessible to European and NorthAmerican audiences. The Editors and the publisher will work hands-on with such contributors to help find solutions where necessary to facilitate translation or language editing in respect of accepted articles. The Journal is aimed at academics, students, government officials, human rights practitioners, and lawyers working in the area, as well as individuals and organisations interested in the area of human rights law. The Journal publishes critical articles that consider human rights law, policy and practice in their various contexts, at global, regional, sub-regional and national levels, book reviews, and a section focused on an up-to-date appraisal of important jurisprudence and practice of the UN and regional human rights systems including those in the developing world.