A Comparative Analysis of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights on the Right against Self-Incrimination

• Escobar Veas, Javier ^[1]
  1. [1] Universidad Austral de Chile

     Universidad Austral de Chile

     Valdivia, Chile

     
• Localización: Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, ISSN-e 2525-510X, Vol. 8, Nº. 2, 2022
• Idioma: inglés
• DOI: 10.22197/rbdpp.v8i2.675
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Un análisis comparado de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos sobre el derecho a no autoincriminarse
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen
  • español

    El derecho a no autoincriminarse puede ser entendido como el derecho de todas las personas a permanecer en silencio y a no ser forzadas a colaborar con una investigación dirigida en su contra. A pesar de su fundamental importancia, el derecho a no autoincriminarse continúa planteando diversas discusiones, tanto a nivel teórico como práctico. ¿Pueden las personas imputadas rehusarse a entregar evidencia documental? ¿Puede este derecho aplicarse en procedimientos administrativos y civiles? ¿Cuál es el grado exigido de coacción para entender que este derecho ha sido infringido? Este artículo tiene por objeto analizar la evolución y el estado actual de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, a fin de dilucidar cómo este tribunal ha resuelto las interrogantes planteadas anteriormente.

  • English

    The right against self-incrimination can be understood as the right of all persons to remain silent and not to be forced to collaborate with an investigation against them. Despite of its fundamental importance, the right against self-incrimination raises several theoretical and practical discussions. Can defendants refuse to produce documentary evidence? Does this right apply to administrative and civil proceedings? What degree of coercion is necessary to trigger the application of this right? This article aims to analyse the evolution and current state of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in order to elucidate how the European court has resolved the questions posed above.

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • ALITO JR., Samuel A. Documents and the Privilege against Self-Incrimination, University of Pittsburgh Law Review, v. 48, n. 1, p. 27-82, 1986.
  • AMAR, Akhil Reed and LETTOW, Renee B. Fifth Amendment, First Principles: The Self-Incrimination Clause, Michigan Law Review, v. 93, n. 5,...
  • ANDRITSAKIS, Katherine K. Corporate Record-Keepers and the Right against Self-Incrimination: An Equitable Approach to Fifth Amendment Analysis,...
  • ASHWORTH, Andrew. Self-Incrimination in European Human Rights Law. A Pregnant Pragmatism, Cardozo Law Review, v. 30, n. 3, p. 751-774, 2008.
  • BACHMAIER, Lorena. New Crime Control Scenarios and the Guarantees in Non-Criminal Sanctions: Presumption of Innocence, Fair Trial Rights,...
  • BALSAMO, Antonio. The Content of Fundamental Rights. In: KOSTORIS, Roberto (ed), Handbook of European Criminal Procedure, Springer, p. 99-170,...
  • BERGER, Mark. Europeanizing Self-Incrimination: The Right to Remain Silent in the European Court of Human Rights, Columbia Journal of European...
  • BERGER, Mark. Self-Incrimination and the European Court of Human Rights: Procedural Issues in the Enforcement of the Right to Silence, European...
  • BÖSE, Martin. The Consecutive Application of Different Types of Sanctions and the Principle of Ne Bis in Idem: The EU and the US on Different...
  • DOLINKO, David. Is There a Rationale for the Privilege against Self-Incrimination?, UCLA Law Review, v. 33, n. 4, p. 1063-1148, 1985.
  • ESCOBAR VEAS, Javier. Ne bis in idem y sistemas sancionatorios de vía múltiple: análisis crítico de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Europeo...
  • ESCOBAR, Javier. Aplicación del derecho a no autoincriminarse en procedimientos administrativos sancionatorios: Análisis comparado de la jurisprudencia...
  • GEYH, Charles Gardner. The testimonial component of the right against self-incrimination, Catholic University Law Review, v. 36, n. 3, p....
  • GREEN, Michael S. The Privilege's Last Stand: The Privilege Against Self-Incrimination and the Right to Rebel Against the State, Brooklyn...
  • GRISWOLD, Erwin N. The Fifth Amendment Today, Harvard University Press, 1995.
  • HANCOX, Emily. The Right to Remain Silent in EU Law, Cambridge Law Journal, v. 80, n. 2, p. 228-231, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0008197321000362
  • HIGGINS, Georganne R. Business Records and the Fifth Amendment Right against Self-Incrimination, Ohio State Law Journal, v. 38, n. 2, p. 351-378,...
  • KLIP, André. Fair Trial Rights in the European Union: Reconciling Accused and Victims’ Rights. In: RAFARACI, Tommaso and BELFIORE, Rosanna...
  • LAMBERIGTS, Stijn. The Privilege against Self-Incrimination: A Chameleon of Criminal Procedure, New Journal of European Criminal Law, v. 7,...
  • LANGBEIN, John H. The Historical Origins of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination at Common Law, Michigan Law Review, v. 92, n. 5, p. 1047-1085,...
  • LASAGNI, Giulia. Banking Supervision and Criminal Investigation. Comparing the EU and US Experiences, Springer, 2019.
  • LASAGNI, Giulia. Prendendo sul serio il diritto al silenzio: commento a Corte cost., ord. 10 maggio 2019, n. 117, Diritto Penale Contemporaneo,...
  • LOCK, Tobias. Article 48 CFR. In: KELLERBAUER, Manuel, KLAMERT, Marcus and TOMKIN, Jonathan (eds.), The EU Treaties and the Charter of Fundamental...
  • MOYLAND JR., Charles E. and SONSTENG, John. Privilege against Compelled Self-Incrimination, William Mitchell Law Review, v. 16, n. 1, p. 249-308,...
  • REDMAYNE, Mike. Rethinking the privilege against self-incrimination, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, v. 27, n. 2, 209-232, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gql001
  • RODRIGUES, Heloisa. Fundamento central do direito à não autoincriminaçãop, Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal, v. 4, n. 2, pp....
  • RODRIGUES, Paulo. The Development of the Guarantee Against Self-Incrimination in the Brazilian Constitutional System: Different Views on a...
  • SUMMERS, Sarah. Fair Trials, Hart Publishing, 2007.
  • TRACZ, Eliot T. Doctrinal Evolution and the Right against Self-Incrimination, University of New Hampshire Law Review, v. 18, n. 1, p. 109-142,...
  • TRECHSEL, Stefan. Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, Oxford University Press, 2005.
  • European Court of Human Rights
  • Engel and Others v. Netherlands, no. 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72 (1976).
  • Öztürk v. Germany, no. 8544/79 (1984).
  • John Murray v. United Kingdom, no. 18731/91 (1996).
  • Saunders v. United Kingdom, no. 19187/91 (1996).
  • Heaney and McGuinness v. Ireland, no. 34720/97, § 40 (2000).
  • I.J.L. and Others v. United Kingdom, nos. 29522/95, 30056/96 and 30574/96 (2000).
  • J.B. v. Switzerland, no. 31827/96 (2001).
  • Allan v. United Kingdom, no. 48539/99 (2002).
  • Weh v. Austria, no. 38544/97 (2004).
  • Nilsson v. Sweden, no. 73661/01 (2005).
  • Jussila v. Finland, no. 73053/01 (2006).
  • Jalloh v. Germany, no. 54810/00 (2006).
  • O’Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom, nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02 (2007).
  • Bykov v. Russia, no. 4378/02 (2009).
  • ECtHR, Ruotsalainen v. Finland, no. 13079/03 (2009).
  • Gäfgen v. Germany, no. 22978/0 (2010).
  • Brusco v. France, no. 1466/07 (2010).
  • Aleksandr Zaichenko v. Russia, no. 39660/02 (2010).
  • Chambaz v. Switzerland, no. 11663/04 (2012).
  • Glantz v. Finland, no. 37394/11 (2014).
  • Ibrahim and Others v. United Kingdom, nos. 50541/08, 50571/08, 50573/08 and 40351/09 (2016).
  • Palmén v. Sweden, no. 38292/15 (2016).
  • A and B v. Norway, nos. 24130/11 and 29758/11 (2016).
  • Žaja v. Croatia, no. 37462/09 (2016).
  • Šimkus v. Lithuania, no. 41788/11 (2017).
  • Serazin v. Croatia, no. 19120/15 (2018).
  • Kadusic v. Switzerland, no. 43977/13 (2018).
  • Orlen Lietuva Ltd. v. Lithuania, no. 45849/13 (2019).
  • Mihalache v. Romania, no. 54012/10 (2019).
  • Korneyeva v. Russia, no. 72051/17 (2019).
  • Velkov v. Bulgaria, no. 34503/10 (2020).
  • Bajić v. North Macedonia, no. 2833/13 (2021).
  • Timofeyev and Postupkin v. Russia, no. 45431/14 and 22769/15 (2021).
  • United States Supreme Court
  • Boyd v. United States, 116 US 616 (1886).
  • Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547 (1892).
  • Holt v. United States, 218 U.S. 245 (1910).
  • Ullmann v. United States, 350 US 422 (1956).
  • Malloy v. Hogan, 378 US 1 (1964).
  • Murphy v. Waterfront Comm'n, 378 U.S. 52 (1964).
  • Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406 (1966).
  • Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966).
  • United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218 (1967).
  • Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263 (1967).
  • United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1 (1973).
  • Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 (1976).
  • Doe v. United States, 487 U.S. 201 (1988).
  • Pennsylvania v. Muniz, 496 U.S. 582 (1990).
  • United States v. Hubbell, 530 U.S. 27 (2000).
  • European Union Court of Justice
  • Orkem v Commission of the European Communities, 374/87 (1989).
  • DB v Commissione Nazionale per le Società e la Borsa (Consob), 481/19 (2021).