Gäfgen c. Germania: un moment de reflecţie şi multe întrebări
Gafgen versus Germany: a time for reflection and a lot of questions

Summary/Abstract: The study analyzes the European Court of Human Right’s judgment in Gäfgen vs. Germany. In this case, the applicant claimed that he was threatened by the police with considerable pain in order to make him reveal information about the child he was supposed to have kidnapped. Thus, the Court had to decide if there had been a violation of article 3 of the Convention, as well as whether the use at trial of the real evidence discovered as a result of a constrained statement infringed article 6 of the Convention. By eleven votes to six, the Court ruled that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention and that there no violation of Article 6 occurred. Examining the solution and the reasons used by the European Court of Human Rights, the author supports the conclusion that the decision is contradictory. On one hand, the Court has pointed out the absolute character of the rule prohibiting torture, inhuman or degrading treatment (provided by article 3), and, on the other hand, stated that the use of real evidence secured as an indirect result of the statements extracted from the applicant does not prejudice the right to a fair trial (provided by article 6) only if the evidence effect on the conviction or the sentence. Although article 3 does not make any distinction, the Court chose to support two distinctions regarding the relationship between this article and article 6. These are, primarily, the distinction between torture and inhuman or degrading treatment and, secondly, the distinction between statements and real evidence. Combining these hypotheses, the Court ruled that the right to a fair trial is automatically prejudiced by the use of evidence secured by torture, regardless of the category they belong to, and also by the use of statements obtained by torture. The use of real evidence secured by inhuman or degrading treatment may be compatible with the due process when these do not inflict on the conviction itself or the sentence. In the author’s opinion, the Court’s findings are invalid and therefore it is weakening the protection granted under article 3 and article 6 of the Convention.

• Details
• Contents