联合国叙利亚问题机制:欧洲法院是否会接纳叙利亚犯罪证据?

IF 2.2 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW California Law Review Pub Date : 2019-01-01 DOI:10.15779/Z38Z31NP4G
Natalia Krapiva
{"title":"联合国叙利亚问题机制:欧洲法院是否会接纳叙利亚犯罪证据?","authors":"Natalia Krapiva","doi":"10.15779/Z38Z31NP4G","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Note explores potential admissibility challenges that may arise when European courts use evidence of Syrian crimes collected by the newly-established International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria (“the IIIM”). The Note examines the evidentiary rules of four European countries—France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden––where Syrian cases are currently being investigated or prosecuted. Specifically, it focuses on evidence that was improperly or illegally obtained, including evidence procured by private actors. This Note also looks at the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) Article 8 and relevant case law from the European Court of Human Rights concerning illegal searches and seizures. Finally, this Note highlights the importance of avoiding admissibility issues that may arise as a result of the IIIM’s close cooperation with both private groups who gather the evidence on the ground and the European authorities that will ultimately be using such evidence in court.","PeriodicalId":51452,"journal":{"name":"California Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The United Nations Mechanism on Syria: Will the Syrian Crimes Evidence be Admissible in European Courts?\",\"authors\":\"Natalia Krapiva\",\"doi\":\"10.15779/Z38Z31NP4G\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Note explores potential admissibility challenges that may arise when European courts use evidence of Syrian crimes collected by the newly-established International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria (“the IIIM”). The Note examines the evidentiary rules of four European countries—France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden––where Syrian cases are currently being investigated or prosecuted. Specifically, it focuses on evidence that was improperly or illegally obtained, including evidence procured by private actors. This Note also looks at the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) Article 8 and relevant case law from the European Court of Human Rights concerning illegal searches and seizures. Finally, this Note highlights the importance of avoiding admissibility issues that may arise as a result of the IIIM’s close cooperation with both private groups who gather the evidence on the ground and the European authorities that will ultimately be using such evidence in court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51452,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"California Law Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"California Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38Z31NP4G\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"California Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38Z31NP4G","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本说明探讨了当欧洲法院使用新成立的国际、公正和独立叙利亚问题机制(“该机制”)收集的叙利亚罪行证据时可能出现的可采理性挑战。《说明》审查了目前正在调查或起诉叙利亚案件的法国、德国、荷兰和瑞典这四个欧洲国家的证据规则。具体而言,它侧重于不正当或非法获得的证据,包括私人行为者获得的证据。本说明还着眼于《欧洲人权公约》(《欧洲人权公约》)第8条和欧洲人权法院关于非法搜查和扣押的相关判例法。最后,本说明强调,必须避免由于国际移民组织与实地收集证据的私人团体和最终将在法庭上使用这些证据的欧洲当局密切合作而可能出现的可采性问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The United Nations Mechanism on Syria: Will the Syrian Crimes Evidence be Admissible in European Courts?
This Note explores potential admissibility challenges that may arise when European courts use evidence of Syrian crimes collected by the newly-established International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism for Syria (“the IIIM”). The Note examines the evidentiary rules of four European countries—France, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden––where Syrian cases are currently being investigated or prosecuted. Specifically, it focuses on evidence that was improperly or illegally obtained, including evidence procured by private actors. This Note also looks at the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) Article 8 and relevant case law from the European Court of Human Rights concerning illegal searches and seizures. Finally, this Note highlights the importance of avoiding admissibility issues that may arise as a result of the IIIM’s close cooperation with both private groups who gather the evidence on the ground and the European authorities that will ultimately be using such evidence in court.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
1
期刊介绍: This review essay considers the state of hybrid democracy in California through an examination of three worthy books: Daniel Weintraub, Party of One: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of the Independent Voter; Center for Governmental Studies, Democracy by Initiative: Shaping California"s Fourth Branch of Government (Second Edition), and Mark Baldassare and Cheryl Katz, The Coming of Age of Direct Democracy: California"s Recall and Beyond. The essay concludes that despite the hoopla about Governor Schwarzenegger as a "party of one" and a new age of "hybrid democracy" in California.
期刊最新文献
Democracy's Destiny Visible Policing: Technology, Transparency, and Democratic Control An Unstable Core: Self-Defense and the Second Amendment Paper Terrorists: Independence Movements and the Terrorism Bar Pump the Brakes: What Financial Regulators Should Consider in Trying to Prevent a Subprime Auto Loan Bubble
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1