Abstract

Law enforcement practice of the Supreme Court in cases involving torture in the light of the standards of the European Court ofHuman Rights. The article is devoted to the study of individual legal positions of the Supreme Court, their coordination with the practiceof the European Court of Human Rights. The author emphasizes that the decisions of the European Court should serve as precedents,which will make it impossible to produce diametrically opposite decisions on similar categories of cases. Analysis of the problem ofcriminal responsibility for torture allows us to form conclusions and suggestions that are important for the development of the theoryof criminal law and the improvement of law enforcement practice.The article deals with the issues related to the peculiarities of the interpretation and application of Article 3 of the European Conventionon Human Rights of the European Court of Human Rights. In particular, the scope of Article 3 has been analyzed; it has been de -fined, what is necessary to understand under concepts of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Substantive and proceduralaspects of violations of the prohibition of torture have been revealed, as well as positive and negative obligations of a state to providethe effective protection of the right. The standards of the appropriate assessment of ill-treatment and the main aspects of judicial qualificationof a particular form of mistreatment as torture have been analyzed. The procedural guarantees, which must be provided for each personat the stage of pre-trial investigation, non-observance of which leads to a breach of Article 3 of the Convention, have been determined.Creation of the effective system of protection of human rights and its efficiency is analysed in relation to the crime of “torture”in the context of European Convention on human rights, which must be in future stored and taken for basis for a further improvementand systematization of the single European standards in area of human rights.

Highlights

  • The article examines the deterministic complex of such a corruption offense as provocation

  • which are divided into causes and conditions of crime according to the following criteria

  • most important determinants of the emergence of corrupt practices is the deformation of the value component of human consciousness

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Кого позбавлено свободи внаслідок арешту або тримання під вартою, має право ініціювати провадження, в ході якого суд без зволікання встановлює законність затримання і приймає рішення про звільнення, якщо затримання є незаконним. 115 КК, встановила, що у касаційній скарзі та доповненнях до неї засуджений, серед іншого, зазначав про застосування до нього незаконних методів слідства, незаконність адміністративного арешту під час розслідування даної кримінальної справи.

Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call