Skip to main content Accessibility help
  • Print publication year: 2012
  • Online publication date: June 2012

4 - The international human rights context



The previous chapters have drawn attention to the manner in which the common law and civil law traditions have adopted different approaches towards the regulation of evidence in criminal proceedings. Although we have seen that common beliefs in the importance of reaching accurate decisions and accommodating individual rights have underpinned each tradition, there was no conscious attempt to find common ground between the various systems until the second half of the twentieth century, when in the aftermath of the Second World War efforts were made to forge closer links between nations on the basis of shared rights and values. Since then, common principles of fairness have assumed considerable importance in the regulation of the process of proof in criminal proceedings. The development in the second half of the twentieth century of a number of international fair trial provisions forced states to reconsider their national evidential principles, and the values on which these were based, in the light of the right to a fair trial.

This reliance on fairness has not met with universal acceptance. Some have questioned whether fairness is the most satisfactory basis for a theory of the criminal process, while others have drawn attention to the necessary limitations of framing fairness in terms of individual rights. More recently, there has been considerable philosophical debate on the justification for human rights norms, such as the right to a fair trial. Although human rights can be justified on the fundamental moral premises of autonomy and personhood, it can be argued that certain rights such as the right to a fair trial can only be given meaning within the development of social practices and political institutions. Hence, just as we have seen that the notion of defence participation within the context of the criminal process may be better viewed as an institutional right or safeguard within a political system heavily weighted in favour of the state apparatus, so the right to a fair trial may be similarly better viewed as an ‘institutional’ right. Whatever the philosophical justifications, fairness is currently the principal frame of reference for regulating criminal proceedings. The international bodies responsible for interpreting and applying the fair trial principles have amassed a considerable body of case law and this provides an ideal basis on which to reassess some of the major premises of comparative evidence law.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Duff, A.Farmer, L.Marshall, S.Tadros, V.The Trial on Trial (3): Towards a Normative Theory of the Criminal TrialOxfordHart 2007 108
Jaconelli, J.Rights Theories and Public Trial 1997 14 Journal of Applied Philosophy169
Besson, S.Tasioulas, J.The Philosophy of International LawOxford University Press 2010
Griffin, J.On Human RightsOxford University Press 2008
Tasioulas, J.The Moral Reality of Human RightsFreedom from Poverty as a Human Right: Who Owes What to the Very PoorOxford University Press 2007 75
Maher, G.Natural Justice as FairnessThe Legal Mind: Essays for Tony HonoréOxford University Press 1986
Jackson, J.The Adversary Trial and Trial by Judge AloneThe Handbook of the Criminal Justice ProcessOxford University Press 2002
Findlay, M.Synthesis in Trial Procedures? The Experience of the International Criminal Tribunals 2001 50 International and Comparative Law Quarterly
Jackson, J.The Effects of Human Rights on Criminal Evidentiary Processes: Towards Convergence, Divergence or Realignment 2005 68 Modern Law Review742
Cappelletti, M.The Judicial Process in Comparative PerspectiveOxfordClarendon Press 1989
Delmas-Marty, M.Towards a Truly Common LawCambridge University Press 2002
Phuong, C.The Relationship between the European Court of Human Rights and the Human Rights Committee: Has the Same Matter Already Been Examined? 2007 7 Human Rights Law Review
European Court of Human RightsAnnual Report 2009StrasbourgRegistry of the European Court of Human Rights 2010
Robertson, A. H.Merrills, J. G.Human Rights in EuropeManchester University Press 1993 87
Trechsel, S.Human Rights in Criminal ProceedingsOxford University Press 2005
Weissbrodt, D.The Right to a Fair Trial under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsThe HagueMartinus Nijhoff 2001
Simpson, A. W. B.Human Rights and the End of EmpireOxford University Press 2001
Swart, B.Young, J.The European Convention on Human Rights and Criminal Justice in the Netherlands and the UKCriminal Justice in Europe: A Comparative StudyOxfordClarendon Press 1995
Nijboer, J. F.Common Law Tradition in Evidence Scholarship Observed from a Continental Perspective 1993 41 American Journal of Comparative Law
Nijboer, J. F.Vision, Abstraction and Socio-Economic Reality 1998 49 Hastings Law Journal
Lucas, J. R.On JusticeOxfordClarendon Press 1980
Wąsek-Wiaderek, M.The Principle of Equality of Arms in Criminal Procedure under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and its Function in Criminal Justice of Selected European Countries: A Comparative ViewLeuven University Press 2000 50
Devlin, P.The Criminal Prosecution in EnglandLondonStevens 1960
Sharpe, S. D.Article 6 and the Disclosure of Evidence in Criminal Cases 1999 Criminal Law Review 273
Redmayne, M.Criminal Justice Act 2003: Disclosure and its Discontents 2004 Criminal Law Review 441 444
Spencer, J.EvidenceDelmas-Marty, M.Spencer, J.European Criminal ProceduresCambridge University Press 2002 594
Damaška, M.Evidentiary Barriers to Conviction and Two Models of Criminal Procedure: A Comparative Study 1973 21 University of Pennsylvania Law Review506
Summers, S. J.Fair Trials: The European Criminal Procedural Tradition and the European Court of Human RightsOxfordHart 2007 112
Harris, D. J.O’Boyle, M.Bates, E. P.Buckley, C. M.Harris, O’Boyle and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human RightsOxford University Press 2009
Van Kampen, P. T. C.Expert Evidence Compared: Rules and Practices in the Dutch and American Criminal Justice SystemAntwerpen and GroningenIntersentia Rechswetenschappen 1998 105
Zwaak, L. F.The NetherlandsFundamental Rights in European LawOxford University Press 2001
Pradel, J.FranceCriminal Procedure Systems in the European CommunityLondonButterworths 1993
Schmid, N.Handbuch des schweizerischen StrafprozessrechtsZurichDike 2009
Damaška, M. R.Of Hearsay and its Analogues 1992 76 Minnesota Law Review
Spencer, J.French and English Criminal Procedure: A Brief ComparisonThe Gradual ConvergenceOxfordClarendon Press 1994
Emmerson, B.Ashworth, A.Macdonald, A.Human Rights and Criminal JusticeLondonSweet & Maxwell 2007 5
Damaška, M.Atomistic and Holistic Evaluation of EvidenceComparative and Private International Law: Essays in Honour of John MerrymanBerlinDuncken and Humblot 1990
Ashworth, A.Article 6 and the Fairness of Trials 1999 Criminal Law Review 261
Jackson, J.The Impact of Human Rights on Judicial Decision MakingThe Judicial Role in Criminal ProceedingsOxfordHart 2000
Langbein, J.The Origins of Adversary Criminal TrialOxford University Press 2003
Kerr, LordThe Conversation between Strasbourg and National Courts – Dialogue or Dictation? 2009 44 Irish Jurist (new series)
Damaška, M. R.Evidence Law AdriftNew HavenYale University Press 1997 59
Reed, R.Murdoch, J.A Guide to Human Rights Law in ScotlandEdinburghTottel 2008
Dennis, I. H.The Law of EvidenceLondonSweet & Maxwell 2010
Esser, R.Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen StrafverfahrensrechtBerlinDe Gruyter 2002
Mittermaier, C. J. A.Die Gesetzgebung und Rechtsübung über Strafverfahren nach ihrer neusten FortbildungErlangenFerdinand Enke 1856
Arquint, S.Summers, S.Konfrontationen nur vor dem Gericht 2008 2 Plädoyer
Twining, W.Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory EvidenceCambridge University Press 2006 212
McConville, M.Sanders, A.Leng, R.The Case for the ProsecutionLondonRoutledge 1991 198
, R.Das Verbot des Selbstbelastungszwangs im Strafverfahren: Konkretisierung eines Grundrechts durch RechtsvergleichungZurichSchulthess 2003 82
Schwarze, F. O.Die Vertheidigung im mündlichen Verfahren 1878 15 Zeitschrift für Rechtspflege und Verwaltung in Sachsen
Vargha, J.Die Verteidigung in StrafsachenViennaManz'sche k. u. k. Hof-Verlag und Univ. Buchhandlung 1879 391
Delmas-Marty, M.Toward a European Model of the Criminal TrialThe Criminal Process and Human Rights: Towards a European ConsciousnessDordrechtMartinus Nijhoff 1995
Hodgson, J.Constructing the Pre-trial Role of the Defence in French Criminal Procedure: An Adversarial Outsider in an Inquisitorial Process 2002 6 International Journal of Evidence & Proof
Field, S.West, A.Dialogue and the Inquisitorial Tradition: French Defence Lawyers in the Pre-trial Criminal Process 2003 14 Criminal Law Forum
Field, S.Alldridge, P.Jörg, N.Prosecutors, Examining Judges and Control of Police InvestigationsCriminal Justice in Europe 227
Brants, C.Field, S.Discretion and Accountability in Prosecution: A Comparative Perspective on Keeping Crime out of CourtCriminal Justice in Europe 77
Jackson, J.The Effect of Legal Culture and Proof in Decisions to Prosecute 2004 3 Journal of Law, Probability and Risk
Elks, L.Righting Miscarriages of Justice? Ten Years of the Criminal Cases Review CommissionLondonJustice 2008