Aall, J., ‘Waiver of Human Rights. Waiver of Procedural Rights According to ECHR Article 6’, Nordic Journal of Human Rights 2011, 29(2–3), pp. 206–278.Google Scholar

Addo, K. & Grief, N., ‘Does Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights Enshrine Absolute Rights?’, European Journal of International Law 1998, 9(3), pp. 51–524.Google Scholar

Aharoni, E. et al., ‘Neuroprediction of Future Rearrest’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013, 110(15), pp. 6223–6228.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Aharoni, E. et al., ‘Predictive Accuracy in the Neuroprediction of Rearrest’, Society for Neuroscience 2014, 9(4), pp. 332–336.Google Scholar

Alegre, S., ‘Rethinking Freedom of Thought for the 21st Century’, European Human Rights Law Review 2017, 2017(3), pp. 221–233.Google Scholar

Alimardani, A. & Chin, J., ‘Neurolaw in Australia: The Use of Neuroscience in Australian Criminal Proceedings’, Neuroethics 2019, 12, pp. 255–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Allen, R. J. & Mace, M. K., ‘The Self-incrimination Clause Explained and its Future Predicted’, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 2004, 94(2), pp. 243–293.Google Scholar

Aloui, K., Nait-Ali, A. & Naceur, M. S., ‘Using Brain Prints as New Biometric Feature for Human Recognition’, Pattern Recognition Letters 2018, 113, pp. 38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alschuler, A. W., ‘A Peculiar Privilege in Historical Perspective’, in Helmolz, R. H. et al. (eds.), The Privilege against Self-incrimination: Its Origins and Development, Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1997, pp. 181–204.Google Scholar

Ambach, W. et al., ‘A Concealed Information Test with Multimodal Measurement’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2010, 75(3), pp. 258–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ambach, W. & Gamer, M., ‘Physiological Measures in the Detection of Deception and Concealed Information’, in Rosenfeld, J. P. (ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments, London: Academic Press 2018, pp. 3–33.Google Scholar

Anderson, S., ‘Coercion’, in Zalte, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (https://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=coercion; Summer 2021).Google Scholar

Anderson, S. A., ‘The Enforcement Approach to Coercion’, Journal of Ethics & Social Philosophy 2011, 5(1), pp. 1–31.Google Scholar

Andorno, R., ‘The Relevance of Human Rights for Dealing with the Challenges Posed by Genetics’, in von Arnauld, A., von der Decken, K. & Susi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2020, pp. 335–349.Google Scholar

Appelbaum, P. S., ‘Assessment of Patients’ Competence to Consent to Treatment’, The New England Journal of Medicine 2007, 357(18), pp. 1834–1840.Google Scholar

Appelbaum, P. S, Lidz, C. W. & Klitzman, R., ‘Voluntariness of Consent to Research: A Conceptual Model’, Hastings Center Report 2009, 39(1), pp. 30–39.Google Scholar

Arai-Takahashi, Y., The Margin of Appreciation Doctrine and the Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the ECHR, Antwerp, Oxford, and New York: Intersentia 2002.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. J., ‘Excluding Evidence as Protecting Rights’, Criminal Law Review 1977, pp. 723–735.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. J., ‘Exploring the Integrity Principle in Evidence and Procedure’, in Mirfield, P. & Smith, R. (eds.), Essays for Colin Tapper, New York: Oxford University Press 2003, pp. 107–125.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. J., ‘Human Rights: Article 3 – Article 6’, Criminal Law Review 2007, pp. 717–721.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. J., ‘Self-incrimination in European Human Rights Law – A Pregnant Pragmatism?’, Cardozo Law Review 2008, 30(3), pp. 751–774.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. J., ‘The Exclusion of Evidence Obtained by Violating a Fundamental Right: Pragmatism before Principle in the Strasbourg Jurisprudence’, in Roberts, P. & Hunter, J. (eds.), Criminal Evidence and Human Rights: Reimagining Common Law Procedural Traditions, Oxford; Portland: Hart Publishing 2012.Google Scholar

Ashworth, A. J. & Zedner, L., Preventive Justice, New York: Oxford University Press 2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bachmaier, L., ‘The European Court of Human Rights on Negotiated Justice and Coercion’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 2016, 26(3), pp. 236–259.Google Scholar

Baird, A., Kennett, J. & Schier, E., ‘Homicide and Dementia: An Investigation of Legal, Ethical, and Clinical Factors of Australian Legal Cases’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2020, 71, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Barkhuysen, T. & van Emmerik, M., ‘Right to an Effective Remedy’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 1035–1061.Google Scholar

Barkhuysen, T. et al., ‘Right to a Fair Trial’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 497–654.Google Scholar

Bartholow, B. D. & Amodio, D. M., ‘Using Event-Related Brain Potentials in Social Psychological Research’, in Rugg, M. D. & Coles, M. G. H. (eds.), Electrophysiology of Mind. Event-Related Brain Potentials and Cognition, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996.Google Scholar

Bauer, A. J. & Just, A., ‘Neural Representations of Concept Knowledge’, in de Zubicaray, G. I. & Schiller, N. O. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Neurolinguistics, New York: Oxford University Press 2019, pp. 519–547.Google Scholar

Baumbach, T., ‘Chilling Effect as a European Court of Human Rights’ Concept in Media Law Cases’, Bergen Journal of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 2018, 6(1), pp. 92–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bedard, H. L., ‘The Potential for Bioprediction in Criminal Law’, The Colombia Science & Technology Law Review 2017, XVIII, pp. 268–325.Google Scholar

Beecher, H. K., ‘Some Fallacies and Errors in the Application of the Principle of Consent in Human Experimentation’, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1962, 3(2), pp. 141–145.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Ben-Shakhar, G., ‘Countermeasures’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar

Ben-Shakhar, G., ‘Current Research and Potential Applications of the Concealed Information Test: An Overview’, Frontiers in Psychology 2012, 3, Article 342.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bentham, J., Rationale of Judicial Evidence, Vol. 5, collected by D. S. Berkowitz & S. E. Thorne, London: Hunt and Clarke 1978.Google Scholar

Berg, J. W. et al., Informed Consent: Legal Theory and Clinical Practice, New York: Oxford University Press 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Berman, M., ‘The Normative Functions of Coercion Claims’, Legal Theory 2002, 8(1), 45–89.Google Scholar

Bijlsma, J. et al., ‘Legal Insanity and Risk: An International Perspective on the Justification of Indeterminate Preventive Commitment’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2019, 66(September–October), pp. 1–6.Google ScholarPubMed

Biondi, A. et al., ‘Are the Brains of Monozygotic Twins Similar? A Three-Dimensional MR Study’, American Journal of Neuroradiology 1996, 19(7), pp. 1361–1367.Google Scholar

Blair, R. J. R., ‘Neuroimaging of Psychopathy and Antisocial Behavior: A Targeted Review’, Current Psychiatry Reports 2010, 12(1), pp. 76–82.Google Scholar

Blair, R. J. R., ‘The Neurobiology of Impulsive Aggression’, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology 2016, 26(1), pp. 4–9.Google Scholar

Birks, D. & Douglas, T. (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, New York: Oxford University Press 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blitz, M. J., Searching Minds by Scanning Brains, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2017.Google Scholar

Bobes, M. A. et al., ‘Linkage of Functional and Structural Anomalies in the Left Amygdala of Reactive-Aggressive Men’, SCAN 2013, 8(8), pp. 928–936.Google Scholar

Bomann-Larsen, L., ‘Voluntary Rehabilitation? On Neurotechnological Behavioural Treatment, Valid Consent and (In)appropriate Offers’, Neuroethics 2013, 6(1), pp. 65–77.Google Scholar

Bossuyt, M. J., Guide to the ‘Travaux préparatoires’ of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bottalico, B. & Santosuosso, A., ‘Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity’ in the Italian Jurisprudence’, in Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, pp. 121–124.Google Scholar

Bradley, M. T. et al., ‘Leakage of Information to Innocent Suspects’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–199.Google Scholar

Brenner, D. J. & Hall, E. J., ‘Computed Tomography – An Increasing Source of Radiation Exposure’, The New England Journal of Medicine 2007, 57(22), pp. 2277–2284.Google Scholar

Brown, T. & Murphy, E., ‘Through a Scanner Darkly: Functional Neuroimaging as Evidence of a Criminal Defendant’s Past Mental States’, Stanford Law Review 2010, 62, pp. 1119–1208.Google Scholar

Brownsword, R., ‘Regulating Brain Imaging: Questions of Privacy, Informed Consent, and Human Dignity’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 223–244.Google Scholar

Bublitz, J. C., ‘My Mind Is Mine!? Cognitive Liberty as a Legal Concept’, in Hildt, W. & Franke, A. G. (eds.), Cognitive Enhancement, Dordrecht: Springer 2013, pp. 233–264.Google Scholar

Bublitz, J. C., ‘Freedom of Thought in the Age of Neuroscience’, Archiv Für Rechts- Und Sozialphilosophie 2014, 100, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar

Bublitz, J. C., ‘Cognitive Liberty or the International Human Right to Freedom of Thought’, in Clausen, J. & Levy, N. (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics, Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media Dordrecht 2015, pp. 1309–1333.Google Scholar

Bublitz, J. C., ‘“The Soul Is in the Prison of the Body” – Mandatory Moral Enhancement, Punishment & Rights against Neuro-Rehabilitation’, in Birks, D. & Douglas, T. (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, New York: Oxford University Press 2018.Google Scholar

Bublitz, J. C., ‘The Nascent Right to Psychological Integrity and Mental Self-determination’, in von Arnauld, A., von der Decken, K. & Susi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric, Padstow: Cambridge University Press 2020, pp. 387–403.Google Scholar

Bublitz, J. C., ‘Freedom of Thought as an International Human Right: Elements of a Theory of a Living Right’, in Blitz, M. J. & Bublitz, J. C. (eds.), The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, Volume 1, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 49–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bublitz, J. C., ‘Novel Neurorights: From Nonsense to Substance’, Neuroethics 2022, 15, Article nr. 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bublitz, J. C. & Merkel, R., ‘Crimes against Minds: On Mental Manipulations, Harms and a Human Right to Mental Self-determination’, Criminal Law and Philosophy 2014, 8(1), pp. 51–71.Google Scholar

Buelens, W., Herijgers, C. & Illegems, S., ‘The View of the European Court of Human Rights on Competent Patients’ Right of Informed Consent: Research in the Light of Article 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, European Journal of Health Law 2016, 23(5), pp. 481–509.Google Scholar

Burns, J. M & Swerdlow, R. H., ‘Right Orbitofrontal Tumor with Pedophilia Symptom and Constructional Apraxia Sign’, Archives of Neurolaw 2003, 60, pp. 437–440.Google ScholarPubMed

Bychawska-Siniarska, D., Protecting the Right to Freedom of Expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. A Handbook for Legal Practitioners, Strasbourg: Council of Europe 2017.Google Scholar

Catley, P. & Claydon, L., ‘The Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in the Courtroom by Those Accused of Criminal Offenses in England and Wales, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015, 2(3), pp. 510–549.Google Scholar

Chandler, J., ‘The Use of Neuroscientific Evidence in Canadian Criminal Proceedings’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015, 2(3), pp. 550–579.Google ScholarPubMed

Chau, P., ‘Excluding Integrity? Revisiting Non-Consequentialist Justifications for Excluding Improperly Obtained Evidence in Criminal Trials’, in Hunter, J. et al. (eds.), The Integrity of Criminal Process: From Theory into Practice, Oxford – Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, pp. 268–279.Google Scholar

Choo, A. L.-T., Abuse of Process and Judicial Stays of Criminal Proceedings, New York: Oxford University Press 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Choo, A. L.-T., The Privilege against Self-incrimination and Criminal Justice, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2013.Google Scholar

Christ, S. E. et al., ‘The Contributions of Prefrontal Cortex and Executive Control to Deception: Evidence from Activation Likelihood Estimate Meta-analyses’, Cerebral Cortex 2009, 19, pp. 1557–1566.Google Scholar

Christoffersen, J., Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2009.Google Scholar

Claydon, L., ‘Brain-Based Mind Reading for Lawyers: Reflecting on Possibilities and Perils’, Journal for Law and the Biosciences 2017, 4(3), pp. 594–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Corstens, G. J. M., Het Nederlands strafprocesrecht, bewerkt door M. J. Borgers & T. Kooijmans, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2021.Google Scholar

Committee on Bioethics of the Council of Europe, Strategic Action Plan on Human Rights and Technologies in Biomedicine (2020–2025), Adopted by the Committee on Bioethics (DH-BIO) at Its 16th Meeting (19–21 November 2019).Google Scholar

Council of Europe, Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, Strasbourg: Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights 2020a.Google Scholar

Council of Europe, The European Convention on Human Rights: A Living Instrument, Strasbourg: Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights 2020b.Google Scholar

Craig, J. N., ‘Incarceration, Direct Brain Intervention, and the Right to Mental Integrity – A Reply to Thomas Douglas’, Neuroethics 2016, 9, pp. 107–118.Google Scholar

Curry, P., Viernes, D. & Sharma, D., ‘Perioperative Management of Traumatic Brain Injury’, International Journal of Critical Illness and Injury Science 2011, 1(1), pp. 27–35.Google Scholar

Van der Cruyssen, I. et al., ‘Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Congruency between Encoding and Testing Improves Detection of Concealed Memories’, Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2021, doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.03.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dagogo, I. & Shaw, A. T., ‘Tumor Heterogeneity and Resistance to Cancer Therapies’, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology 2018, 15(2), pp. 81–94.Google Scholar

Daly, Y. M., ‘Ireland: Curtailment of the Right to Silence through Statutory Adverse Inferences’, New Journal of European Criminal Law 2021, 12(3), pp. 347–364.Google Scholar

Delfin, C. et al., ‘Prediction of Recidivism in a Long-Term Follow-Up of Forensic Psychiatric Patients: Incremental Effects of Neuroimaging Data’, PLoS ONE 2019, doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dennis, I., ‘Instrumental Protection, Human Right or Functional Necessity? Reassessing the Privilege against Self-incrimination’, The Cambridge Law Journal 1995, 54(2), pp. 342–376.Google Scholar

Desmoulin-Canselier, S., ‘Another Perspective on “Neurolaw”: The Use of Brain Imaging in Civil Litigation Regarding Mental Competence’, in D’Aloia, A. & Errigo, M. C. (eds.), Neuroscience and Law: Complicated Crossings and New Perspectives, pp. 529–547.Google Scholar

Dolinko, D., ‘Is There a Rationale for the Privilege against Self-incrimination?’, UCLA Law Review 1986, 33(4), pp. 1063–1148.Google Scholar

Douglas, T. et al., ‘Coercion, Incarceration, and Chemical Castration: An Argument from Autonomy’, Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 2013, 10(3), 393–405.Google Scholar

Douglas, T. et al., ‘Risk Assessment Tools in Criminal Justice and Forensic Psychiatry: The Need for Better Data’, European Psychiatry 2017, 42, pp. 134–137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Douglas, T. & Forsberg, L., ‘Three Rationales for a Legal Right to Mental Integrity’, in Ligthart, S. et al. (eds.), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice & Security, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 179–202.Google Scholar

Drewer, D. & Ellermann, J., ‘May the (Well-Balanced) Force Be with Us! The Launch of the European Counter Terrorism Centre (ECTC)’, Computer Law & Security 2016, 32(2), pp. 165–204.Google Scholar

Drizin, S. A. & Leo, R. A., ‘The Problem of False Confessions in the Post-DNA World’, North Carolina Law Review 2004, 82, pp. 892–1007.Google Scholar

Drysdale, A. T. et al., ‘Resting-State Connectivity Biomarkers Define Neurophysiological Subtypes of Depression’, Nature Medicine 2017, 23(1), pp. 28–38.Google Scholar

Duffy, P. J., ‘Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1983, 32, pp. 316–346.Google Scholar

Dukhart, J. et al., ‘Towards Increasing the Clinical Applicability of Machine Learning Biomarkers in Psychiatry’, Nature Human Behaviour 2021, 5, pp. 431–432.Google Scholar

Edersheim, J. G., Brendel, R. W. & Price, B., ‘Neuroimaging, Diminished Capacity and Mitigation’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 163–193.Google Scholar

Edwards, S. J. L., ‘Protecting Privacy Interests in the Brain Images: The Limits of Consent’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 245–260.Google Scholar

Ellwanger, J. et al., ‘Detecting Simulated Amnesia for Autobiographical and Recently Learned Information Using the P300 Event-Related Potential’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 1996, 23(1–2), pp. 9–23.Google Scholar

de Muñagorri, R. Encinas & Saas, C., ‘France. Is the Evidence Too Cerebral to Be Cartesian?’, in Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, pp. 79–110.Google Scholar

Evans, M. D., Religious Liberty and International Law in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, C., Freedom of Religion under the European Convention on Human Rights, New York: Oxford University Press 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Evans, M. D. & Morgan, R., Preventing Torture: A Study of the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, New York: Oxford University Press 1998.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Eyal, N., ‘Informed Consent’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition).Google Scholar

Faden, R., Beauchamp, T. L. & King, N. M. P., A History and Theory of Informed Consent, New York: Oxford University Press 1968.Google Scholar

Farah, M. J. et al., ‘Functional MRI-Based Lie Detection: Scientific and Societal Challenges’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2014, 15, pp. 123–131.Google Scholar

Farah, M. J. & Gillihan, S. J., ‘Diagnostic Brain Imaging in Psychiatry: Current Uses and Future Prospects’, Virtual Mentor 2012, 14(6), pp. 464–471.Google Scholar

Farahany, N. A., ‘Incriminating Thoughts’, Stanford Law Review 2012a, 64, pp. 351–408.Google Scholar

Farahany, N. A., ‘Searching Secrets’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2012b, 160, pp. 1239–1307.Google Scholar

Farahany, N. A., ‘Neuroscience and Behavioral Genetics in US Criminal Law: An Empirical Analysis’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015, 2(3), pp. 485–509.Google ScholarPubMed

Farwell, L. A., ‘Brain Fingerprinting: A Comprehensive Tutorial Review of Detection of Concealed Information with Event-Related Brain Potentials’, Cognitive Neurodynamics 2012, 6, pp. 115–154.Google Scholar

Farwell, L. A. & Makeig, T. H., ‘Farwell Brain Fingerprinting in the Case of Harrington v. State’, Open Court 2005, X(3), pp. 7–10.Google Scholar

Farwell, L. A., Richardson, D. C. & Richardson, G. M., ‘Brain Fingerprinting Field Studies Comparing P300-MERMER and P300 Brainwave Responses in the Detection of Concealed Information’, Cognitive Neurodynamics 2013, 7, pp. 263–299.Google Scholar

Fathaigh, R. Ó., ‘Article 10 and the Chilling Effect Principle’, E.H.R.L.R. 2013, 3, pp. 304–313.Google Scholar

Fawcett, J. E. S., The Application of the European Convention on Human Rights, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1987.Google Scholar

Fazel, S. et al., ‘Risk of Violent Crime in Individuals with Epilepsy and Traumatic Brain Injury: A 35-Year Swedish Population Study’, PLoS Medicine 2011, 8(12), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

Federspiel, W., ‘1984 Arrives: Thought(crime), Technology, and the Constitution’, William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal 2008, 16(3), pp. 865–900.Google Scholar

Feinberg, J., The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law: Volume 3: Harm to Self, New York: Oxford University Press 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ferrua, P., ‘Neuroscientific Evidence and Criminal Trial’, in D’Aloia, A. & Errigo, M. C. (eds.), Neuroscience and Law: Complicated Crossings and New Perspectives, Switzerland: Springer Nature 2020, pp. 403–414.Google Scholar

Finn, E. S. et al., ‘Functional Connectome Fingerprinting: Identifying Individuals Using Patterns of Brain Connectivity’, Nature Neuroscience 2015, 18(11), pp. 1664–1671.Google Scholar

Flinterman, K., ‘Compensation for Wrongful Conviction’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018.Google Scholar

Focquaert, F., Van Assche, K. & Sterckx, S., ‘Offering Neurointerventions to Offenders with Cognitive-Emotional Impairments: Ethical and Criminal Justice Aspects’, in Vincent, N. A., Nadelhoffer, T. & McCay, A. (eds.), Neurointerventions and the Law: Regulating Human Mental Capacity, New York: Oxford University Press 2020.Google Scholar

Focquaert, F. & Schermer, M., ‘Moral Enhancement: Do Means Matter Morally?’, Neuroethics 2015, 8, pp. 139–151.Google Scholar

Forsberg, L., ‘Anti-libidinal Interventions and the Law’, Human Rights Law Review 2021, 24(4), pp. 384–408.Google Scholar

Ford, E. & Aggerwal, N., ‘Neuroethics of Functional Neuroimaging in the Courtroom’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 325–340.Google Scholar

Foqué, R. & ‘t Hart, A. C., Instrumentaliteit en rechtsbescherming, Arnhem: Gouda Quint 1990.Google Scholar

Fox, D., ‘Brain Imaging and the Bill of Rights: Memory Detection Technologies and American Criminal Justice’, American Journal of Bioethics 2008, 8(1), pp. 34–36.Google Scholar

Galligan, D. J., ‘The Right to Silence Reconsidered’, Current Legal Problems 1988, 41(1), pp. 69–92.Google Scholar

Gamer, M., ‘Mind Reading Using Neuroimaging Is This the Future of Deception Detection?’, European Psychologist 2014, 19(3), pp.172–183.Google Scholar

Gamer, M., Kosiol, D. & Vossel, G., ‘Strength of Memory Encoding Affects Physiological Responses in the Guilty Actions Test’, Biological Psychology 2010, 83(2), pp. 101–107.Google Scholar

Ganis, G. et al., ‘Lying in the Scanner: Covert Countermeasures Disrupt Deception Detection by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, NeuroImage 2011, 55(1), pp. 312–319.Google Scholar

Ganis, G., ‘Detecting Deception and Concealed Information with Neuroimaging’, in Rosenfeld, J. P. (ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments, London: Academic Press 2018, pp. 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ganis, G. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Neural Correlates of Deception’, in Illes, J. & Sahakian, B. J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, New York: Oxford University Press 2011, pp. 101–118.Google Scholar

Gaudet, L. M., Brain Fingerprinting, Scientific Evidence, and Daubert: A Cautionary Lesson from India’, Jurimetrics 2011, 51(3), pp. 293–318.Google Scholar

Gerstein, R. S., ‘Privacy and Self-incrimination’, Ethics 1970, 80(2), pp. 87–101.Google Scholar

Gerards, J., ‘Pluralism, Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine’, European Law Journal 2001, 17(1), pp. 80–120.Google Scholar

Gerards, J., ‘How to Improve the Necessity Test of the European Court of Human Rights’, International Journal of Constitutional Law 2013 11(2), pp. 466–490.Google Scholar

Gilbert, F., ‘A Threat to Autonomy? The Intrusion of Predictive Brain Implants’, AJOB Neuroscience 2015, 6(4), pp. 4–11.Google Scholar

Gkotsi, G. M. & Gasser, J., ‘Neuroscience in Forensic Psychiatry: From Responsibility to Dangerousness. Ethical and Legal Implications of Using Neuroscience for Dangerousness Assessments’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2016, 46, pp. 58–67.Google Scholar

Glenn, A. L. & Raine, A., ‘Neurocriminology: Implications for the Punishment, Prediction and Prevention of Criminal Behaviour’, Nature Reviews Neuroscience 2014, 15(1), pp. 54–63.Google Scholar

Glenn, A. L., Focquaert, F. & Raine, A., ‘Prediction of Antisocial Behavior’, in Clausen, J. & Levy, N. (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics, Dordrecht: Springer 2015, pp. 1689–1701.Google Scholar

Goering, S. et al., ‘Recommendations for Responsible Development and Application of Neurotechnologies’, Neuroethics 2021, 14, pp. 365–386.Google Scholar

Gomien, D., Short Guide to the European Convention on Human Rights, The Hague: Council of Europe Publishing 2005.Google Scholar

Goss, R., Criminal Fair Trial Rights: Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, Oxford, Portland, and Oregon: Hart Publishing 2016.Google Scholar

Granacher, R. P. Jr., ‘Traumatic Brain Injury’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 44–65.Google Scholar

Greely, H. T., ‘Neuroscience-Based Lie Detection: The Need for Regulation’, in Bizzi, E. et al. (eds.), Using Imaging to Identify Deceit. Scientific and Ethical Questions, Cambridge: American Academic of Arts and Sciences 2009, pp. 45–55.Google Scholar

Greely, H. T. & Wagner, A. D., Reference Guide on Neuroscience, Washington, DC: National Academies Press/Federal Judicial Center 2011.Google Scholar

Greenawalt, R. K., ‘Silence as a Moral and Constitutional Right’, William & Mary Law Review 1981, 23(1), pp. 15–71.Google Scholar

Greer, S., ‘Is the Prohibition against Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment Really ‘Absolute’ in International Human Rights Law?’, Human Rights Law Review 2015, 15, pp. 101–137.Google Scholar

Groenhuijsen, M. S. & Knigge, G., ‘Afronding en verantwoording. Algemeen deel’, in Groenhuijsen, M. S. & Knigge, G. (red.), Afronding en verantwoording. Eindrapport onderzoeksproject Strafvordering 2001, Deventer: Kluwer 2004, pp. 3–186.Google Scholar

Gross, M. L., The Brain Watchers, New York: Random House 1962.Google Scholar

Hafner, M., ‘Judging Homicide Defendants by Their Brains: An Empirical Study on the Use of Neuroscience in Homicide Trials in Slovenia’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2019, 6(1), pp. 226–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haller, S., ‘The Role of Central and Medial Amygdala in Normal and Abnormal Aggression: A Review of Classical Approaches’, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 2018, 85, pp. 34–43.Google Scholar

Harmon-Jones, E. & Peterson, C. K., ‘Electroencephalographic Methods in Social and Personality Psychology’, in Harmon-Jones, E. & Beer, J. S. (eds.), Methods in Social Neuroscience, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 170–197.Google Scholar

Harris, D. J. et al., Harris, O’Boyle, and Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, New York: Oxford University Press 2018.Google Scholar

Haynes, J.-D. et al., ‘Reading Hidden Intentions in the Human Brain’, Current Biology 2007, 17(4), pp. 323–328.Google Scholar

Haynes, J.-D., ‘Brain Reading: Decoding Mental States from Brain Activity in Humans’, in Illes, J. & Sahakian, B. J. (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Neuroethics, New York: Oxford University Press 2011, pp. 1–13.Google Scholar

Health Quality Ontario, ‘The Appropriate Use of Neuroimaging in the Diagnostic Work-Up of Dementia: An Evidence-Based Analysis’, Ontario Health Technology Assessment Series 2014, 14(1), pp. 1–64.Google Scholar

van der Heide, O. et al., ‘High-Resolution In Vivo MR-STAT Using a Matrix-Free and Parallelized Reconstruction Algorithm’, NMR in Biomedicine 2020, 33(4), pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

de Hert, P. & Koops, B.-J., ‘Privacy is nog steeds een grondrecht: Pleidooi voor uitsluiting van onrechtmatig bewijs’, Ars Aequi 2001, 50(12), pp. 972–975.Google Scholar

Holley, B., ‘It’s All in Your Head: Neurotechnological Lie Detection and the Fourth and Fifth Amendments’, Developments in Mental Health Law 2009, 28(1), pp. 1–23.Google Scholar

Holloway, M. B., ‘One Image, One Thousand Incrimination Words: Images of Brain Activity and the Privilege against Self-incrimination’, Temple Journal of Science, Technology & Environmental Law 2008, XXVII(1), pp. 141–175.Google Scholar

Hu, X. et al., ‘Increasing the Number of Irrelevant Stimuli Increases Ability to Detect Countermeasures to the P300-Based Complex Trial Protocol for Concealed Information Detection’, Psychophysiology 2012, 49(1), pp. 85–95.Google Scholar

Hu, X. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Combining the P300-Complex Trial-Based Concealed Information Test and the Reaction Time-Based Autobiographical Implicit Association Test in Concealed Memory Detection’, Psychophysiology 2012, 49(8), pp. 1090–1100.Google Scholar

Hughes, R. C., ‘Law and Coercion’, Philosophy Compass 2013, 8(3), pp. 231–240.Google Scholar

Huntjes, R. J. C., Verschuere, B. & McNally, R. J., ‘Inter-Identity Autobiographical Amnesia in Patients with Dissociative Identity Disorder’, PLoS ONE 2012, 7(7), pp. 1–8.Google Scholar

Hurd, A. J., ‘Reaching Past Fingerprints with Forensic Neuroimaging – Non-testimonial Evidence Exceeding the Fifth Amendment’s Grasp’, Loyola Law Review 2012, 58, pp. 213–249.Google Scholar

Iacono, W. G., ‘Encouraging the Use of the GKT’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar

Ienca, M., Common Human Rights Challenges Raised by Different Applications of Neurotechnologies in the Biomedical Field, Council of Europe, October 2021.Google Scholar

Ienca, M. & Andorno, R., ‘Towards New Human Rights in the Age of Neuroscience and Neurotechnology’, Life Sciences, Society and Policy 2017, 13(5), pp. 1–27.Google Scholar

Ienca, M., Haselager, P. & Emanuel, E. J., ‘Brain Leaks and Consumer Terotechnology’, Nature Biotechnology 2018, 36(9), pp. 805–810.Google Scholar

Illes, J. et al., ‘Ethical and Practical Considerations in Managing Incidental Findings in Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, Brain and Cognition 2002, 50(3), pp. 358–365.Google Scholar

Jacobs, P., Force-Feeding of Prisoners and Detainees on Hunger Strike: Right to Self-Determination versus Right to Intervention, Antwerpen: Intersentia 2012.Google Scholar

Jackson, J., ‘Re-conceptualizing the Right of Silence as an Effective Fair Trial Standard’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 2009, 58(4), pp. 835–861.Google Scholar

Jackson, J. D. & Summers, S. J., The Internationalization of Criminal Evidence. Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions, New York: Cambridge University Press 2012.Google Scholar

Jalbrzikowski, M., ‘Functional Connectome Fingerprinting Accuracy in Youths and Adults Is Similar When Examined on the Same Day and 1.5-Years Apart’, Human Brain Mapping 2020, 41, pp. 4187–4199.Google Scholar

Jeandarme, I. et al., ‘Field Validity of the HCR-20 in Forensic Medium Security Units in Flanders’, Psychology, Crime & Law 2017a, 23(4), pp. 305–322.Google Scholar

Jeandarme, I. et al., ‘PCL-R Field Validity in Prison and Hospital Settings’, Law and Human Behavior 2017b, 41(1), pp. 29–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Jones, O. D., Shall, J. D. & Shen, F. X. (eds.), Law and Neuroscience, New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business 2014.Google Scholar

Jong, C. D. De, The Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion or Belief in the United Nations (1946–1992) (diss. Maastricht), Antwerp, Groningen, and Oxford: Intersentia – Hart 2000.Google Scholar

Just, M. A. et al., ‘Machine Learning of Representations of Suicide and Emotion Concepts Identifies Suicidal Youth’, Nature Human Behaviour 2017, 1, pp. 911–919.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., Cherkassky, V. L. & Brant, D., ‘Reply to: Towards Increasing the Clinical Applicability of Machine Learning Biomarkers in Psychiatry’, Nature Human Behaviour 2021, 5, pp. 433–435.Google Scholar

Just, M. A., Wang, J. & Cherkassky, V. L., ‘Neural Representations of the Concepts in Simple Sentences: Conceptactivation Prediction and Context Effects’, NeuroImage 2017, 15, pp. 511–520.Google Scholar

Karcz, M. & Papadakos, P. J., ‘Respiratory Complications in the Postanesthesia Care Unit: A Review of Pathophysiological Mechanisms’, Canadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy 2013, 49(3), pp. 21–29.Google Scholar

Kassam, K. S. et al., ‘Identifying Emotions on the Basis of Neural Activation’, PLoS ONE 2013, 8(6), pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Kanwisher, N., ‘The Use of fMRI in Lie Detection: What Has Been Shown and What Has Not’, in Bizzi, E. et al. (eds.), Using Imaging to Identify Deceit. Scientific and Ethical Questions, Cambridge: American Academic of Arts and Sciences 2009.Google Scholar

Kelly, B. D., ‘Brain Imaging in Clinical Psychiatry: Why?’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 111–122.Google Scholar

Kiehl, K. A. et al., ‘Age of Gray Matters: Neuroprediction of Recidivism’, NeuroImage: Clinical 2018, 19, pp. 813–823.Google Scholar

Kiener, M., ‘Coercion’, in Craig, E. (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Version 2, 2020).Google Scholar

Kilbride, M. & Iuliano, J., ‘Neuro Lie Detection and Mental Privacy’, Maryland Law Review 2015, 75(1), pp. 163–193.Google Scholar

Kirchmair, L., ‘Objections to Coercive Neurocorrectives for Criminal Offenders – Why Offenders’ Human Rights Should Fundamentally Come First’, Criminal Justice Ethics 2019, 38(1), pp. 19–40.Google Scholar

Knack, N., Chandler, J. A. & Fedoroff, J. P., ‘A Qualitative Study of Forensic Patients’ Perceptions of Quasi-coercive Offers of Biological Treatment’, Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2020, 38(2), pp. 135–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Koffemand, N. R., (The Right to) Personal Autonomy in the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights (nota opgesteld ten behoeve van de Staatscommissie Grondwet), Leiden: Leiden University 2010.Google Scholar

de Kogel, C. H. & Westgeest, E. J. M. C., ‘Neuroscientific and Behavioral Genetic Information in Criminal Cases in the Netherlands’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2015, 2(3), pp. 580–605.Google Scholar

Kooijmans, T. & Mevis, P. A. M., ICT in the Context of Criminal Procedure: The Netherlands, TLS/EUR/AIDP 2013.Google Scholar

Koops, E. J., Verdachte en ontsleutelplicht: hoe ver reikt nemo tenetur? Deventer: Kluwer 2000.Google Scholar

Koops, B.-J., ‘S. en Marper tegen het Verenigd Koninkrijk, No. 13, Dec. 04, 2008’, European Human Rights Cases 2009, 10(2), pp. 148–165.Google Scholar

Koops, E. J. & Stevens, L., ‘J. B. versus Saunders. De groeiende duisternis rond nemo tenetur’, Delikt & Delinkwent 2003, afl. 3, pp. 281–294.Google Scholar

Korponay, C. & Koenigs, M., ‘The Neurobiology of Antisocial and Amoral Behaviour’, in Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016, pp. 10–39.Google Scholar

Kozel, F. A. et al., ‘Detecting Deception Using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, Biological Psychiatry 2005, 58(8), pp. 605–613.Google Scholar

Kozel, F. A. et al., ‘Functional MRI Detection of Deception after Committing a Mock Sabotage Crime’, Journal of Forensic Sciences 2009, 54(1), pp. 220–231.Google Scholar

Kraft, C. J. & Giordano, J., ‘Integrating Brain Science and Law: Neuroscientific Evidence and Legal Perspectives on Protecting Individual Liberties’, Frontiers in Neuroscience 2017, 11, Article 621.Google Scholar

Kraphol, D. J., ‘Limits of the CIT in Criminal Cases’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar

Kuiper, R., Vormfouten. Juridische consequenties van vorm verzuimen in strafzaken (diss. Nijmegen), Deventer: Kluwer 2014.Google Scholar

Labkovsky, E. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘The P300-Based, Complex Trials Protocol for Concealed Information Detection Resists Any Number of Sequential Countermeasures against up to Five Irrelevant Stimuli’, Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 2012, 37(1), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Lamar, M. et al., ‘Dementia’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 68–80.Google Scholar

Lamberigts, S., ‘The Privilege against Self-incrimination: A Chameleon of Criminal Procedure’, New Journal of European Criminal Law 2016, 7(4), pp. 418–438.Google Scholar

Lamond, G., ‘The Coerciveness of Law’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2000, 20(1), pp. 39–62.Google Scholar

Langleben, D. D., Willard, D. F. X. & Moriarty, J. C., ‘Brain Imaging of Deception’, in Simpson, J. R. (red.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 217–236.Google Scholar

Lavazza, A., ‘Freedom of Thought and Mental Integrity: The Moral Requirements for Any Neural Prosthesis’, Frontiers in Neuroscience 2018, 12(82), pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Lavazza, A., ‘Technology against Technology: A Case for Embedding Limits in Neurodevices to Protect Our Freedom of Thought’, in Blitz, M. J. & Bublitz, J. C. (eds.), The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, Volume 1, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 259–287.Google Scholar

Lavrysen, L., ‘System of Restrictions’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 307–330.Google Scholar

Lawson, R. A., ‘Hoe exclusief dient de ‘exclusionary rule’ te zijn?’, in Duyx, P. D. & van Zeben, P. D. J. (eds.), Via Straatsburg, Liber Amicorum Egbert Myjer, WLP 2004, pp. 181–206.Google Scholar

Lemley, M. A. & Volokh, E., ‘Law, Virtual Reality, and Augumented Reality’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review 2018, 166, pp. 1051–1138.Google Scholar

Leshinskaya, A. et al., ‘Neural Representations of Belief Concepts: A Representational Similarity Approach to Social Semantics’, Cerebral Cortex 2017, 27(1), pp. 344–357.Google Scholar

Lester, A., ‘Freedom of Expression’, in Macdonald, R. St. J. et al. (eds.), The European System for the Protection of Human Rights, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhof Publishers 1993, pp. 465–491.Google Scholar

Levy, L. W., Origins of the Fifth Amendment, New York: Oxford University Press 1968.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., ‘Gedwongen brain imaging in de strafrechtspleging en artikel 3 EVRM: van analogie naar deductie’, in Bosma, A. K. & Buisman, S. S. (eds.), Methoden van onderzoek in het strafrecht, de criminologie en de victimologie, Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2018, pp. 51–66.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., ‘Coercive Neuroimaging Technologies in Criminal Law in Europe: Exploring the Implications for the Prohibition of Ill-Treatment (Article 3 ECHR)’, in Reins, L. S. (ed.), Regulating New Technologies in Uncertain Times, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser – Springer 2019a, pp. 83–102.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., ‘Coercive Neuroimaging, Criminal Law and Privacy: A European Perspective’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2019b, 6(1), pp. 289–309.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., ‘Het recht tegen zelfincriminatie ex artikel 6 EVRM: Doorwerking van het nemo tenetur-beginsel in enkele gedachte-experimenten volgens de benadering van het EHRM en van de Hoge Raad’, Delikt en Delinkwent 2019c, 3(16), pp. 216–234.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., ‘Coercive Forensic Neuroimaging and the Prohibition of Ill-Treatment (Article 3 ECHR)’, in Waltermann, A. et al. (eds.), Law, Science and Rationality, The Hague: Eleven 2020a.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., ‘Freedom of Thought in Europe: Do Advances in ‘Brain-Reading’ Technology Call for Revision?’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2020b, 7(1), pp. 1-27.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., ‘Autonomie en privacy als rechtsgronden van het zwijgrecht en het nemo tenetur-beginsel?’, Nederlands juristenblad 2021/2408.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., Douglas, T., Bublitz, C. & Meynen, G., ‘The Future of Neuroethics and the Relevance of the Law’, AJOB Neuroscience 2019 10(3), pp. 120–121.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., Douglas, T., Bublitz, C., Kooijmans, T. & Meynen, G., ‘Forensic Brain-Reading and Mental Privacy in European Human Rights Law: Foundations and Challenges’, Neuroethics 2020, doi.org/10.1007/s12152-020-09438-4, pp. 191–203Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., Meynen, G., Biller-Andorno, N., Kooijmans, T. & Kellmeyer, P., ‘Is Virtually Everything Possible? The Relevance of Ethics and Human Rights for Introducing Extended Reality in Forensic Psychiatry’, AJOB Neuroscience 2021a, doi.org/10.1080/21507740.2021.1898489.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., Kooijmans, T., Douglas, T. & Meynen, G., ‘Closed-Loop Brain Devices in Offender Rehabilitation: Autonomy, Human Rights, and Accountability’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2021b, 30(4), pp. 32–47.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S. & Meynen, G., ‘Zwijgen in de 21^e eeuw: tijd voor herbezinning op het recht tegen zelfincriminatie?’, in Kooijmans, T. et al. (red.), Op zoek naar evenwicht (liber amicorum Marc Groenhuijsen), Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2021.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., Meynen, G. & Douglas, T., ‘Persuasive Technologies and the Right to Mental Liberty: The ‘Smart Rehabilitation’ of Criminal Offenders’, in Ienca, M. et al. (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Life Science, Information Technology and Human Rights, New York: Cambridge University Press 2022.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., Kooijmans, T. & Meynen, G., ‘“Brain-Reading” in Criminal Justice and Forensic Psychiatry: Towards an Integrative Legal-Ethical Approach’, in Ligthart, S., van Toor, D., Kooijmans, T., Douglas, T. & Meynen, G. (eds.), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice, and Security, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021a, pp. 121–142.Google Scholar

Ligthart, S., Kooijmans, T. & Meynen, G., ‘Neurorechten: wat doet Nederland ermee?’, Nederlands juristenblad 2021b/1578.Google Scholar

Liljegren, M. et al., ‘Criminal Behavior in Frontotemporal Dementia and Alzheimer Disease’, JAMA Neurology 2015, 72(3), pp. 295–300.Google Scholar

Linden, D., ‘Overcoming Self-Report: Possibilities and Limitations of Brain Imaging in Psychiatry’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 123–135.Google Scholar

Lisofsky, N. et al., ‘Investigating Socio-cognitive Processes in Deception: A Quantitative Meta-analysis of Neuroimaging Studies’, Neuropsychologia 2014, 61, pp. 113–122.Google Scholar

Loucaides, L. G., ‘The Right to Freedom of Thought as Protected by the European Convention on Human Rights’, Cyprus Human Rights Law Review 2012, 1(1), pp. 79–87.Google Scholar

Lukács, G. et al., ‘The First Independent Study on the Complex Trial Protocol Version of the P300-Based Concealed Information Test: Corroboration of Previous Findings and Highlights on Vulnerabilities’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2016, 110, pp. 56–65.Google Scholar

Lykken, D. T., ‘The GSR in the Detection of Guilt’, Journal of Applied Psychology 1959, 43(6), pp. 385–388.Google Scholar

Lykken, D. T., A Tremor in the Blood: Uses and Abused of the Lie Detector, McGraw-Hill Book Company 1981.Google Scholar

Lyons, D., ‘Welcome Threats and Coercive Offers’, Philosophy 1975, 50(194), pp. 425–436.Google Scholar

MacCormick, N., Legal Right and Social Democracy: Essays in Legal and Political Philosophy, New York: Oxford University Press 1984.Google Scholar

Maity, A. et al., ‘Detection of Hypoxia in the Early Postoperative Period’, Anesthesia, Essays and Researches 2016, 6(1), pp. 34–37.Google Scholar

Marshall, J., Personal Freedom through Human Rights Law? Autonomy, Identity and Integrity under the European Convention on Human Rights, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff 2009.Google Scholar

Mason, R. A. & Just, M. A., ‘Neural Representation of Physics Concepts’, Psychological Science 2016, 27(6)904–913.Google Scholar

Matsuda, I., Ogawa, T. & Tsuneoka, M., ‘Broadening the Use of the Concealed Information Test in the Field’, Frontiers in Psychiatry 2019, 10, doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00024, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Matthies, S. et al., ‘Small Amygdala – High Aggression? The Role of the Amygdala in Modulating Aggression in Healthy Subjects’, The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 2012, 13(1), pp. 75–81.Google Scholar

Mavronicola, N., Torture, Inhumanity and Degradation under Article 3 of the ECHR: Absolute Rights and Absolute Wrongs, New York: Hart Publishing 2021.Google Scholar

McCarthy-Jones, S., ‘The Autonomous Mind: The Right to Freedom of Thought in the Twenty-First Century’, Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2019, 2(19), pp. 1–17.Google Scholar

McCarthy-Jones, S., ‘Freedom of Thought: Who, What, and Why?’, in Blitz, M. J. & Bublitz, J. C. (eds.), The Law and Ethics of Freedom of Thought, Volume 1, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 27–47.Google Scholar

McCrudden, C., ‘Human Dignity and Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights’, The European Journal of International Law 2008, 19(4), pp. 655–724.Google Scholar

McGregor, J., ‘Undue Influence as Coercive Offers in Clinical Trials’, in Reify, D. A. & Riker, W. J. (eds.), Coercion and the State, New York: Springer Science + Business Media B. V 2008, pp. 45–59.Google Scholar

McMillan, J., ‘The Kindest Cut? Surgical Castration, Sex Offenders and Coercive Offers’, Journal of Medical Ethics 2014, 40, pp. 583–590.Google Scholar

Mecacci, G. & Haselager, P., Identifying Criteria for the Evaluation of the Implications of Brain Reading for Mental Privacy, Science and Engineering Ethics 2019, 25, pp. 443–461.Google Scholar

Meegan, D. V., ‘Neuroimaging Techniques for Memory Detection: Scientific, Ethical, and Legal Issues’, American Journal of Bioethics 2008, 8(1), pp. 9–20.Google Scholar

Meijer, E. H. et al., ‘The P300 Is Sensitive to Concealed Face Recognition’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2007, 66(3), pp. 231–237.Google Scholar

Meijer, E. et al., ‘A Comment on Farwell (2012): Brain Fingerprinting: A Comprehensive Tutorial Review of Detection of Concealed Information with Event-Related Brain Potentials’, Cognitive Neurodynamics 2013a, 7, pp. 155–158.Google Scholar

Meijer, E. H. et al., ‘Detecting Concealed Information from Groups Using a Dynamic Questioning Approach: Simultaneous Skin Conductance Measurement and Immediate Feedback’, Frontiers in Psychology 2013b, 4, Article 68.Google Scholar

Meijer, E. H. et al., ‘Memory Detection with the Concealed Information Test: A Meta-analysis of Skin Conductance, Respiration Heart Rate and P300 Data’, Psychophysiology 2014, 51, pp. 879–904.Google Scholar

Meijer, E. H. et al., ‘Deception Detection with Behavioral, Autonomic, and Neural Measures: Conceptual and Methodological Considerations that Warrant Modesty’, Psychophysiology 2016, 53, pp. 653–604.Google Scholar

Meijer, E. H. & van Koppen, J., ‘Lie Detectors and the Law: The Use of Polygraph in Europe’, in Canter, D. & Žukauskiene, R. (eds.), Psychology, Crime and Law: Psychology and Law: Bridging the Gap, Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited 2008, pp. 31–50.Google Scholar

Meijer, E. H. & van Toor, D. A. G., ‘Reading the Sleeping Mind: Empirical and Legal Considerations’, in Ligthart, S. et al. (eds.), Neurolaw: Advances in Neuroscience, Justice, and Security, Cham: Palgrave Macmillan 2021, pp. 101–120.Google Scholar

Meijer, E. H. & Verschuere, B., ‘Deception Detection Based on Neuroimaging: Better Than the Polygraph?’, Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging 2017, 8, pp. 17–21.Google Scholar

Meijer, E. H. & Verschuere, B., ‘Detection Deception Using Psychophysiological and Neural Measures’, in Otgaar, H. & Howe, M. L. (eds.), Finding the Truth in the Courtroom: Dealing with Deception, Lies, and Memories, New York: Oxford University Press 2018, pp. 209–224.Google Scholar

Meixner, J. B., ‘Liar, Liar, Jury’s the Trier? The Future of Neuroscience-Based Credibility Assessment in the Court’, Northwestern University Law Review 2015, 106, pp. 1451–1488.Google Scholar

Meixner, J. B. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Countermeasure Mechanisms in a P300-Based Concealed Information Test’, Psychophysiology 2010, 47(1), pp. 57–65.Google Scholar

Meixner, J. B. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘A Mock Terrorism Application of the P300-Based Concealed Information Test’, Psychophysiology 2011, 48(2), pp. 149–154.Google Scholar

Meixner, J. B. & Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Detecting Knowledge of Incidentally Acquired, Real-World Memories Using a P300-Based Concealed-Information Test’, Psychological Science 2014, 25(11), pp. 1994–2005.Google Scholar

Meixner, J. B. Jr., ‘Admissibility and Constitutional Issues of the Concealed Information Test in American Courts: An Update’, in Rosenfeld, J. P. (ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments, London: Academic Press 2018, pp. 405–429.Google Scholar

Mendez, M. F., ‘The Unique Predisposition to Criminal Violations in Frontotemporal Dementia’, Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 2010, 38(3), pp. 318–323.Google Scholar

Mertens, R. & Allen, J. B., ‘The Role of Psychophysiology in Forensic Assessments: Deception Detection, ERPs, and Virtual Reality Mock Crime Scenarios’, Psychophysiology 2008, 45, pp. 286–298.Google Scholar

Meynen, G., ‘A Neurolaw Perspective on Psychiatric Assessments of Criminal Responsibility: Decision-Making, Mental Disorder, and the Brain’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2013, 36(2), pp. 93–99.Google Scholar

Meynen, G., ‘Legal Insanity and Neurolaw in the Netherlands: Developments and Debates’, in Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016a, pp. 137–168.Google Scholar

Meynen, G., Legal Insanity: Explorations in Psychiatry, Law and Ethics, Switzerland: Springer 2016b.Google Scholar

Meynen, G., ‘Brain-Based Mind Reading in Forensic Psychiatry: Exploring Possibilities and Perils’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2017, 4(2), pp. 311–329.Google Scholar

Meynen, G., ‘Forensic Psychiatry and Neurolaw: Description, Developments, and Debates’, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2018, doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2018.04.005.Google Scholar

Meynen, G., ‘Ethical Issues to Consider before Introducing Neurotechnological Thought Apprehension in Psychiatry’, AJOB Neuroscience 2019, 10(1), pp. 5–14.Google Scholar

Meynen, G., ‘Neuroscience-Based Psychiatric Assessments of Criminal Responsibility: Beyond Self-Report?’, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 2020, 29, pp. 446–458.Google Scholar

Mhuircheartaigh, R. N. et al., ‘Cortical and Subcortical Connectivity Changes during Decreasing Levels of Consciousness in Humans: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study using Propofol’, The Journal of Neuroscience 2010, 30(27), pp. 9095–9102.Google Scholar

Michael, F. et al., Consensus Report of the APA Work Group on Neuroimaging Markers of Psychiatric Disorders, American Psychiatric Association 2012.Google Scholar

Michalowski, S., ‘Critical Reflections on the Need for a Right to Mental Self-determination’, in von Arnauld, A., von der Decken, K. & Susi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric, Padstow: Cambridge University Press 2020, pp. 404–411.Google Scholar

Miller, G., ‘fMRI Lie Detection Fails a Legal Test’, Science 2010, 328, pp. 1336–1337.Google Scholar

Mirfield, P., Silence, Confessions and Improperly Obtained Evidence, New York: Oxford University Press 1997.Google Scholar

Mohnke, S. et al., ‘Brain Alterations in Peadophilia: A Critical Review’, Progress in Neurobiology 2014, 122, pp. 1–23.Google Scholar

Mohr, A. et al., ‘The Similarity of Brain Morphology in Healthy Monozygotic Twins’, Cognitive Brain Research 2002, 20(1), pp. 106–110.Google Scholar

Monina, G., ‘Article 15. Non-admissibility of Evidence Obtained by Torture’, in Nowak, M., Birk, M. & Monina, G. (eds.), The United Nations Convention against Torture and Its Optional Protocol (2nd Edition): A Commentary, New York: Oxford University Press 2019, pp. 417–440.Google Scholar

Moratti, S. & Patterson, D. (eds.), Legal Insanity and the Brain: Science, Law and European Courts, Portland: Hart Publishing 2016.Google Scholar

Morse, S., ‘New Neuroscience, Old Problems’, in Garland, B. (ed.), Neuroscience and the Law. Brain, Mind, and the Scales of Justice, New York: American Association for the Advancement of Science 2004, pp. 157–198.Google Scholar

Morse, S. J., ‘Diminished Capacity, Neuroscience, and Just Punishment’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G.& Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 155–172.Google Scholar

Morse, S. J. & Roskies, A. L. (eds.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience, New York: Oxford University Press 2013.Google Scholar

Muller, W., ‘Bewijs verkregen als gevolg van bedreiging met foltering: is een ‘giftige vrucht’ wel altijd een verboden vrucht?’, NJCM-Bulletin 2009, nr. 1, pp. 22–41.Google Scholar

Muñoz, J. M., ‘Chile – Right to Free Will Needs Definition’, Nature 2019, 574, p. 634.Google Scholar

Murdoch, J., Protecting the Right to Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe 2012.Google Scholar

Murphy, E. R. D. & Rissman, J., ‘Evidence of Memory from Brain Data’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2020; lsaa078, doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa078.Google Scholar

Myjer, E., ‘Onrechtmatig maar niet unfair: De gebugde drugshandelaar’, NJCM-Bulletin 2000, 25(7/8), pp. 1255–1261.Google Scholar

Myjer, E., Van Duimschroef naar bloedproef, Preadvies NVVR, Deventer: Kluwer 1978.Google Scholar

Nadal, M. V., ‘Artificial Intelligence and ‘Pseudonymity’: The Government Presents the First Version of the Digital Rights Charter’, NeuroRights Initiative 17 November 2020 (www.nri.ntc.columbia.edu, visited on 15 May 2021).Google Scholar

Nadelhoffer, T. et al., ‘Neuroprediction, Violence, and the Law: Setting the Stage’ Neuroethics 2012, 5(1), pp. 67–99.Google Scholar

Nadelhoffer, T. & Sinnott-Armstrong, W., ‘Neurolaw and Neuroprediction: Potential Promises and Perils’, Philosophy Compass 2012, 7(9), pp. 631–642.Google Scholar

Nahari, G. & Ben-Shakhar, G., ‘Psychophysiological and Behavioral Measures for Detecting Concealed Information: The Role of Memory for Crime Details’, Psychophysiology 2011, 48(6), pp. 733–744.Google Scholar

Nelson, R. M. et al., ‘The Concept of Voluntary Consent’, The American Journal of Bioethics 2011, 11(8), pp. 6–16.Google Scholar

Nishimoto, S. et al., ‘Reconstructing Visual Experiences from Brain Activity Evoked by Natural Movies’, Current Biology 2011, 21(19).Google Scholar

Noggle, R., ‘The Ethics of Manipulation’, in Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2020 Edition).Google Scholar

Nouwt, J., ‘Reasonable Expectations of Geo-privacy?’, SCRIPTed – A Journal of Law, Technology & Society, 5(2), 375–403.Google Scholar

Noyon, L. et al., ‘Integrating Neuroscience in Criminal Law: The Dutch Situation as an Example’, International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 2019, 18(3), pp. 281–291.Google Scholar

Nozick, R., ‘Coercion’, in Morgenbesser, S., Suppes, P. & White, M. (eds.), Philosophy, Science, and Method Essays in Honor of Ernest Nagel, St. Martin’s Press 1969, pp. 440–474.Google Scholar

Nugent, K. M., ‘Practical Legal Concerns’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012a, pp. 255–273.Google Scholar

Nugent, K. M., ‘Neuroimaging and the Constitution’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012b, pp. 275–302.Google Scholar

’Brien, D. M. O, ‘Fifth Amendment: Fox Hunters, Old Women, Hermits, and the Burger Court’, Norte Dam Law Review 1978, 54(1), pp. 26–72.Google Scholar

’Callaghan, P. O & Shiner, B., ‘The Right to Freedom of Thought in the European Convention of Human Rights’, European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance 2021, 8(2–3), pp. 112–145.Google Scholar

’Driscoll, K. O & Leach, J. P., ‘“No Longer Gage”: An Iron Bar through the Head Early Observations of Personality Change after Injury to the Prefrontal Cortex’, BMJ 1998, 317, pp. 1673–1647.Google Scholar

Ölçer, F. P., ‘Illegally Obtained Evidence in European Treaty of Human Rights Law (ETHR)’, Annales de la Faculté de Droit d’Istanbul 2008 40(57), pp. 65–153.Google Scholar

Ölçer, F. P., ‘The European Court of Human Rights: The Fair Trial Analysis under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights’, in Thaman, S. C. (ed.), Exclusionary Rules in Comparative Law, Dordrecht: Springer Science + Business Media 2013, pp. 371–399.Google Scholar

Ormerod, D., ‘ECHR and the Exclusion of Evidence: Trial Remedies for Article 8 Breaches?’, Criminal Law Review 2003, Feb., pp. 61–80.Google Scholar

Oshana, M., ‘How Much Should We Value Autonomy?’, Social Philosophy & Policy Foundation 2003, 20(2), pp. 99–126.Google Scholar

Osugi, A., ‘Daily Application of the CIT in Japan’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar

Paasonen, J. et al., ‘Functional Connectivity under Six Anesthesia Protocols and the Awake Condition in Rat Brain’, NeuroImage 2018, 172, pp. 9–20.Google Scholar

Pardini, D. A. et al., ‘Lower Amygdala Volume in Men Is Associated with Childhood Aggression, Early Psychopathic Traits, and Future Violence’, BIOL Psychiatry 2014, 75(1), pp. 73–80.Google Scholar

Pardo, M. S., Neuroscience Evidence, Legal Culture, and Criminal Procedure, American Journal of Criminal Law 2006, 33(3), pp. 301–337.Google Scholar

Pardo, S. & Patterson, D., Minds, Brains, and Law. The Conceptual Foundations of Law and Neuroscience, New York: Oxford University Press 2015.Google Scholar

Partsch, K. J., ‘Freedom of Conscience and Expression, and Political Freedoms’, in Henkin, L. (ed.), The International Bill of Rights: The Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, New York: Columbia University Press 1981, pp. 209–245.Google Scholar

Pattenden, R., ‘Admissibility in Criminal Proceedings of Third Party and Real Evidence Obtained by Methods Prohibited by UNCAT’, The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 2006, 10, pp. 1–41.Google Scholar

Peçi, I., Sounds of Silence (diss. Groningen), Nijmegen: WLP 2006.Google Scholar

Peth, J., Vossel, G. & Gamer, M., ‘Emotional Arousal Modulates the Encoding of Crime-Related Details and Corresponding Physiological Responses in the Concealed Information Test’, Psychophysiology 2012, 49(3), pp. 3980–390.Google Scholar

Picton, T. W., ‘The 300 Wave of Human Event-Related Potential’, Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology 1992, 9(4), pp. 456–479.Google Scholar

Pillai, J. & Sperling, M. R., ‘Interictal EEG and the Diagnosis of Epilepsy’, Epilepsia 2006, 47(1), pp. 14–22.Google Scholar

Pirker, B., Proportionality, Analysis and Models of Judicial Review, Groningen: Europa Law Publishing 2013.Google Scholar

Pitcher, K. M., Judicial Responses to Pre-trial Procedural Violations in International Criminal Proceedings, The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press 2018a.Google Scholar

Pitcher, K. M., ‘Rights-Analysis in Addressing Pre-trial Impropriety: An Obstacle to Fairness?’, in Jackson, J. D. & Summers, S. J. (eds.), Obstacles to Fairness in Criminal Proceedings: Individual Rights and Institutional Forms, Oxford: Hart Publishing 2018b, pp. 273–300.Google Scholar

Pitcher, K. M. & Samadi, M., ‘Integriteit als perspectief bij de rechterlijke reactie op vormverzuimen’, DD 2018/59, pp. 731–746.Google Scholar

Poldrack, R. A. et al., ‘Predicting Violent Behavior: What Can Neuroscience Add?’, Trends in Cognitive Science 2018, 22(2), 111–123.Google Scholar

Pivaty, A. et al., ‘Opening Pandora’s Box: The Right to Silence in Police Interrogations and the Directive 2016/343/EU’, New Journal of European Criminal Law 2021a, 12(3), pp. 328–346.Google Scholar

Pivaty, A. et al., ‘Strengthening the Protection of the Right to Remain Silent at the Investigative Stage: What Role for the EU Legislator?’, New Journal of European Criminal Law 2021b, 12(3), pp. 427–448.Google Scholar

Pivaty, A., ter, P. Vrugt, & de Vocht, D., Policy Report Netherlands, EmPriSe Project 2021.Google Scholar

Pugh, J., ‘Coercion and the Neurocorrective Offer’, in Birks, D. & Douglas, T. (eds.), Treatment for Crime: Philosophical Essays on Neurointerventions in Criminal Justice, New York: Oxford University Press 2018, pp. 94–116.Google Scholar

Pugh, J., Autonomy, Rationality, and Contemporary Bioethics, New York: Oxford University Press 2020.Google Scholar

Purshouse, J., ‘The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy and the Criminal Suspect’, Modern Law Review 2016, 79(5), pp. 871–884.Google Scholar

Pustilnik, A. C., ‘Neurotechnologies at the Intersection of Criminal Procedure and Constitutional Law’, University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper 2012, 61, pp. 1–20.Google Scholar

Raichle, M. E., ‘An Introduction to Functional Imaging in the Context of Lie Detection’, in Bizzi, E. et al. (eds.), Using Imaging to Identify Deceit. Scientific and Ethical Questions, Cambridge: American Academic of Arts and Sciences 2009.Google Scholar

Raichle, M. E., ‘What Is fMRI?’, in Gazzaniga, M. S. & Rakoff, J. S. (eds.), A Judge’s Guide to Neuroscience: A Concise Introduction, California: University of California 2010.Google Scholar

Raine, A., The Anatomy of Violence: The Biological Roots of Crime, New York: Pantheon Books 2013.Google Scholar

Rainey, S. et al., ‘Is the European Data Protection Regulation Sufficient to Deal with Emerging Data Concerns Relating to Neurotechnology?’, Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2020, 7(1), pp. 1–19.Google Scholar

Rainey, B., McCormick, P. & Ovey, C., The European Convention on Human Rights, New York: Oxford University Press 2021.Google Scholar

Redmayne, M., ‘Rethinking the Privilege against Self-incrimination’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 2007, 27(2), pp. 209–232.Google Scholar

Reify, D. A. & Riker, W. J. (eds.), Coercion and the State, New York: Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008.Google Scholar

Renucci, J.-F., Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion, Strasbourg: Council of Europe 2005.Google Scholar

Richardson, G., ‘Coercion and Human Rights: A European Perspective’, Journal of Mental Health 2008, 17(3), pp. 245–254.Google Scholar

Richmond, S., ‘Introduction’, in Richmond, S., Rees, G. & Edwards, S. J. L. (eds.), I Know What You’re Thinking: Brain Imaging and Mental Privacy, Croydon: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar

Rickli, J. M. & Ienca, M., ‘The Security and Military Implications of Neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence’, in Friedrich, O. et al. (eds.), Clinical Neurotechnology Meets Artificial Intelligence. Advances in Neuroethics, Cham: Springer 2021, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar

van Rijn, A., ‘Freedom of Expression’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 765–811.Google Scholar

Risacher, S. L. & Saykin, A. J., ‘Neuroimaging in Aging and Neurologic Diseases’, in Dekosky, S. T. & Asthana, S. (eds.), Handbook of Clinical Neurology, Vol. 167, Geriatric Neurology, Amsterdam: Elsevier B. V. 2019, pp. 191–227.Google Scholar

Roberts, C. K., Reconceptualising the Place of the Forum Internum and Forum Externum in Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (diss. University of Bristol), Bristol 2020 (electronic version).Google Scholar

Roberts, P., ‘Excluding Evidence as Protecting Constitutional or Human Rights?’, in Zedner, L. & Roberts, J. V. (eds.), Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Essays in honour of Andrew Ashworth, Oxford: Oxford University Press 2012, pp. 171–190.Google Scholar

Roberts, P. & Zuckerman, A., Criminal Evidence, New York: Oxford University Press 2010.Google Scholar

Rodrigues-Amorim, D. et al., ‘Schizophrenia: A Review of Potential Biomarkers’, Journal of Psychiatric Research 2017, 3, pp. 37–49.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘Brain Fingerprinting’: A Critical Analysis’, The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice 2005, 4(1), pp. 20–37.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘P300 in Detecting Concealed Information’, in Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011, pp. 63–89.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J. P. (ed.), Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: Recent Developments, London: Academic Press 2018.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J. P., ‘P300 in Detecting Concealed Information and Deception: A Review’, Psychophysiology 2020, 57(7).Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘Simple, Effective Countermeasures to P300-Based Tests of Detection of Concealed Information’, Psychophysiology 2004, 41(2), pp. 205–219.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘The Complex Trial Protocol (CTP): A New, Countermeasure-Resistant, Accurate, P300-Based Method for Detection of Concealed Information’, Psychophysiology 2008, 45(6), pp. 906–919.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘Review of Recent Studies and Issues Regarding the P300-Based Complex Trial Protocol for Detection of Concealed Information’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2013, 90, pp. 118–135.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘Evidence Suggesting Superiority of Visual (Verbal) vs. Auditory Test Presentation Modality in the P300-Based, Complex Trial Protocol for Concealed Autobiographical Memory Detection’, International Journal of Psychophysiology 2015a, 96(1), pp. 16–22.Google Scholar

Rosenfeld, J. P. et al., ‘Superiority of Pictorial versus Verbal Presentation and Initial Exposure in the P300-Based, Complex Trial Protocol for Concealed Memory Detection’, Applied Psychophysiology Biofeedback 2015b, 40(2), pp. 61–73.Google Scholar

Rosell, D. R. & Siever, L. J., ‘The Neurobiology of Aggression and Violence’, CNS Spectrums 2015, 20, pp. 254–279.Google Scholar

Roskies, A. L., ‘Brain Imaging Techniques’, in Morse, S. J. & Roskies, A. L. (red.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience, New Yok: Oxford University Press 2013a, pp. 37–74.Google Scholar

Roskies, A. L., ‘Other Neuroscientific Techniques’, in Morse, S. J. & Roskies, A. L. (red.), A Primer on Criminal Law and Neuroscience, New Yok: Oxford University Press 2013b, pp. 75–88.Google Scholar

Roskies, A. L., ‘Mind Reading, Lie Detection, and Privacy’, in Clausen, J. & Levy, N. (eds.), Handbook of Neuroethics, Dordrecht: Springer 2015, pp. 679–695.Google Scholar

Ruiz-Blondet, M., Jin, Z. & Laszlo, S., ‘CEREBRE: A Novel Method for Very High Accuracy Event-Related Potential Biometric Identification’, IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security 2016, 11(7), pp. 1618–1629.Google Scholar

Rushing, S. E., Pryma, D. A. & Langleben, D. D., ‘PET and SPECT’, in Simpson, J. R. (red.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 3–26.Google Scholar

Rusconi, E. & Mitchener-Nissen, T., ‘Prospects of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging as Lie Detector’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 2013, 7, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Russo, M. et al., ‘Evaluation of Accuracy and Reproducibility of a Relocatable Maxillary Fixation System for Fractionated Intracranial Stereotactic Radiation Therapy’, Journal of Medical Ration Sciences 2016, 63, pp. 41–47.Google Scholar

Ryberg, J., ‘Punishment, Pharmacological Treatment, and Early Release’, International Journal of Applied Philosophy 2012, 26(2), pp. 231–244.Google Scholar

Ryberg, J., ‘Neuroethics and Brain Privacy: Setting the Stage’, Res Publica 2017a, 23, pp. 153–158.Google Scholar

Ryberg, J., ‘Neuroscience, Mind Reading and Mental Privacy’, Res Publica 2017b, 23, pp. 197–221.Google Scholar

Ryberg, J., Neurointerventions, Crime, and Punishment, New York: Oxford University Press 2020.Google Scholar

Sententia, W., ‘Neuroethical Considerations: Cognitive Liberty and Converging Technologies for Improving Human Cognition’, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 2004, 1013, pp. 221–228.Google Scholar

Stoller, S. E. & Wolpe, P. R., ‘Emerging Neurotechnologies for Lie Detection and the Fifth Amendment’, American Journal of Law and Medicine 2007, 33(2), pp. 359–375.Google Scholar

Sbrizzi, A. et al., ‘Fast Quantitative MRI as a Nonlinear Tomography Problem’, Magnetic Resonance Imaging 2018, 46, pp. 56–63.Google Scholar

Schabas, W. A. (ed.), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: The Travaux Préparatoires, New York: Cambridge University Press 2013.Google Scholar

Shaw, E., ‘Offering Castration to Sex Offenders: The Significance of the State’s Intentions’, Journal of Medical Ethics 2014, 40, pp. 594–595.Google Scholar

Shen, F. X., ‘Neuroscience, Mental Privacy and the Law’, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 2013, 36, pp. 653–713.Google Scholar

Shen, F. X., ‘Law and Neuroscience 2.0’, Arizona State Law Journal 2016, 48, pp. 1043–1086.Google Scholar

Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012.Google Scholar

van der Sloot, B., ‘How to Assess Privacy Violations in the Age of Big Data? Analysing the Three Different Tests Developed by the ECtHR and Adding for a Fourth One’, Information & Communication Technology Law 2015, 24(1), pp. 74–103.Google Scholar

Smith-Bindman, R. et al., ‘Radiation Dose Associated with Common Computed Tomography Examinations and the Associated Lifetime Attributable Risk of Cancer’, Archives of Internal Medicine 2009, 169(22), pp. 2079–2086.Google Scholar

Sommaggio, P. et al., ‘Cognitive Liberty. A First Step Towards a Human Neuro-rights Declaration’, BioLaw Journal 2017, 3, pp. 27–45.Google Scholar

Sommaggio, P. & Mazzocca, M., ‘Cognitive Liberty and Human Rights’, in D’Aloia, A. & Errigo, M. C. (eds.), Neuroscience and Law: Complicated Crossings and New Perspectives, Switzerland: Springer Nature 2020, pp. 95–111.Google Scholar

Sottiaux, S. & van der Shyff, G., ‘Methods of International Human Rights Adjudication: Towards a More Structured Decision-Making Process for the European Court of Human Rights’, Hastings International and Comparative Law Review 2008, 31(1), pp. 115–156.Google Scholar

Spence, S. A. et al., ‘Behavioural and Functional Anatomical Correlates of Deception in Humans’, Neuroreport 2001, 12(13), pp. 2849–2853.Google Scholar

Spence, S. A. et al., ‘Muchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy’ or a ‘Miscarriage of Justice’? An Initial Application of Functional Neuroimaging to the Question of Guilt Versus Innocence’, European Psychiatry 2008, 23(4), pp. 309–314.Google Scholar

Sutton, S. et al., ‘Evoked-Potential Correlates of Stimulus Uncertainty’, Science 1965, 150(3700), pp. 1187–1188.Google Scholar

Staffaroni, A. M., ‘Neuroimaging in Dementia’, Seminars in Neurology 2017, 37(5), pp. 510–537.Google Scholar

Stevens, L., Het nemo-teneturbeginsel in strafzaken: van zwijgrecht naar containerbegrip (diss. Tilburg), Nijmegen: WLP 2005.Google Scholar

Stevens, L., ‘Het nemo-teneturbeginsel als containerbegrip? Een beschouwing van de koers van het EHRM naar aanleiding van het Jalloh-arrest’, Delikt & Delinkwent 2007/54, pp. 682–697.Google Scholar

Stevens, L., ‘Gedwongen biometrische toegangsverschaffing is niet in strijd met nemo tenetur’, Nederlands juristenblad 2019/315, pp. 400–403.Google Scholar

Susi, M., ‘Novelty in New Human Rights. The Decrease in Universality and Abstractness Thesis’, in von Arnauld, A., von der Decken, K. & Susi, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights: Recognition, Novelty, Rhetoric, Padstow: Cambridge University Press 2020, pp. 21–33.Google Scholar

Sweeney, A. et al., ‘Multimodality Cranial Image Fusion Using External Markers Applied via a Vacuum Mouthpiece and a Case Report’, Strahlentherapie und Onkologie 2003, 179(4), pp. 254–260.Google Scholar

Szmukler, G. & Appelbaum, P. S., ‘Treatment Pressures, Leverage, Coercion, and Compulsion in Mental Health Care’, Journal of Mental Health 2008, 17(3), pp. 233–244.Google Scholar

Taylor, P. M., Freedom of Religion: UN and European Human Rights Law and Practice, New York: Cambridge University Press 2005.Google Scholar

Thommen, M. & Samadi, M., ‘The Bigger the Crime, the Smaller the Chance of a Fair Trial? Evidence Exclusion in Serious Crime Cases under Swiss, Dutch and European Human Rights Law’, European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 2016, 24, pp. 65–85.Google Scholar

Thompson, S. K., ‘The Legality of the Use of Psychiatric Neuroimaging in Intelligence Interrogation’, Cornell Law Review 2005, 90, pp. 1601–1638.Google Scholar

Thompson, S. K., ‘A Brave New World of Interrogation Jurisprudence’, American Journal of Law & Medicine 2007, 33, pp. 341–357.Google Scholar

Timonen, M. et al., ‘The Association of Preceding Traumatic Brain Injury with Mental Disorders, Alcoholism and Criminality: The Northern Finland 1966 Birth Cohort Study, Psychiatry Research 2002, 113(3), pp. 217–226.Google Scholar

van Toor, D. A. G., ‘Het nemo-teneturbeginsel: Rechtspraak van het Europese Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens en de Hoge Raad vergeleken’, Tijdschrift voor Bijzonder Strafrecht & Handhaving 2016, (1), pp. 28–43.Google Scholar

van Toor, D. A. G., Het schuldige geheugen? Een onderzoek naar het gebruik van hersenonderzoek als opsporingsmethode in het licht van eisen van instrumentaliteit en rechtsbescherming (diss. Nijmegen), Deventer: Wolters Kluwer 2017.Google Scholar

van Toor, D. A. G., ‘Het nemo-teneturbeginsel bij digitale opsporingsbevoegdheden: oproep tot discussie over fundamentele bezinning van de normering van het opsporingsonderzoek in een digitale context’, Tijdschrift voor Bijzonder Strafrecht & Handhaving 2021, nr. 2, pp. 89–100.Google Scholar

Tortora, L. et al., ‘Neuroprediction and A. I. in Forensic Psychiatry and Criminal Justice: A Neurolaw Perspective’, Frontiers in Psychology 2020, 11(222), pp. 1–9.Google Scholar

Trechsel, S., Human Rights in Criminal Proceedings, New York: Oxford University Press 2005.Google Scholar

Treglia, G. et al., ‘Diagnostic Performance and Prognostic Value of PET/CT with Different Tracers for Brain Tumors: A Systematic Review of Published Meta-Analyses’, International Journal of Molecular Sciences 20(19), 2019.Google Scholar

Turner, J. I. & Weigend, T., ‘The Purposes and Functions of Exclusionary Rules: A Comparative Overview’, in Gless, S. & Richter, T. (eds.), Do Exclusionary Rules Ensure a Fair Trial? A Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, Cham: Springer 2019, pp. 255–282.Google Scholar

UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief, Report on the Freedom of Thought, 5 Ocotber 2021, A/76/380.Google Scholar

Vermeulen, B. & Battjes, H., ‘Prohibition of Torture and Other Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 381–424.Google Scholar

Vermeulen, B. & Roosmalen, M., ‘Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 735–764.Google Scholar

Verschuere, B., Ben-Shakhar, G. & Meijer, E. (eds.), Memory Detection: Theory and Application of the Concealed Information Test, New York: Cambridge University Press 2011.Google Scholar

Verschuere, B. & Meijer, E., ‘What’s on Your Mind? Recent Advances in Memory Detection Using the Concealed Information Test’, European Psychologist 2014, 19(3), pp. 162–171.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. A., ‘Neuroimaging and Responsibility Assessments’, Neuroethics 2011, 4, pp. 35–49.Google Scholar

Vincent, N. A., Nadelhoffer, T. & McCay, A. (eds.), Neurointerventions and the Law: Regulating Human Mental Capacity, New York: Oxford University Press 2020.Google Scholar

Vorhaus, J., ‘On Degration – Part One: Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights’, Common Law World Reviews 2002, 31, pp. 374–399.Google Scholar

de Vries, K., ‘Right to Respect for Private and Family Life’, in van Dijk, P. et al. (eds.), Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights, Cambridge: Intersentia 2018, pp. 667–734.Google Scholar

Wagner, A. et al., fMRI and Lie Detection: A Knowledge Brief of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience, The MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Law and Neuroscience 2016.Google Scholar

Waldron, J., ‘Torture and Positive Law: Jurisprudence for the White House’, Columbia Law Review 2005, 105(6), pp. 1681–1750.Google Scholar

Walker, N., ‘Ethical and Other Problems’, in Walker, N. (ed.), Dangerous people, London: Blackstone 1996, pp. 1–12.Google Scholar

Wall, B. F. et al., Protection of Pregnant Patients during Diagnostic Medical Exposures to Ionizing Radiation. Advice from the Health Protection Agency. The Royal College of Radiologists and the College of Radiographers, London: Health Protection Agency 2009.Google Scholar

Waller, L. et al., ‘Evaluating the Replicability, Specificity, and Generalizability of Connectome Fingerprints’, NeuroImage 2017, 158, pp. 371–377.Google Scholar

Wang, J. et al., ‘Identifying Thematic Roles from Neural Representations Measured by Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging’, Cognitive Neuropsychology 2016, 33(3–4), pp. 257–264.Google Scholar

Wang, J., Cherkassky, V. L. & Just, M. A., ‘Predicting the Brain Activation Pattern Associated with the Propositional Content of a Sentence: Modeling Neural Representations of Events and States’, Human Brain Mapping 2017, 38(10), pp. 4865–4881.Google Scholar

Wertheimer, A., Coercion, Princeton: Princeton University Press 1987.Google Scholar

Wertheimer, A. & Miller, F. G., ‘There Are (STILL) No Coercive Offers’, Journal of Medical Ethics 2014, 40(9), pp. 592–593.Google Scholar

Williamson, B., ‘Brain Data: Scanning, Scraping and Sculpting the Plastic Learning Brain through Neurotechnology’, Postdigital Science and Education 2019, 1, pp. 65–86.Google Scholar

Witzel, J., ‘Implications of Neuroimaging for Dangerousness Assessment’, in Simpson, J. R. (ed.), Neuroimaging in Forensic Psychiatry. From Clinic to the Courtroom, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell 2012, pp. 195–200.Google Scholar

Woodward, N. D. & Cascio, C. J., ‘Resting-State Functional Connectivity in Psychiatric Disorders’, JAMA Psychiatry 2017, 72(8), pp. 743–744.Google Scholar

Yang, Y. et al., ‘Localization of Deformations within the Amygdala in Individuals with Psychopathy’, Archive of General Psychiatry 2009, 66(9), pp. 986–994.Google Scholar

Yuste, R. et al., ‘Four Ethical Priorities for Neurotechnologies and AI’, Nature 2017, 551.Google Scholar

Yuste, R., Genser, J. & Herrmann, S., ‘It’s Time for Neuro-rights’, Horizons 2021(18), pp. 154–164.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, D., ‘Coercive Wage Offers’, Philosophy & Public Affairs 1981, 10(2), pp. 121–145.Google Scholar

Zijlmans, J. et al., ‘The Predictive Value of Neurobiological Measures for Recidivism in Delinquent Male Young Adults’, Journal of Psychiatry & Neuroscience 2021, 46(2), pp. 271–280.Google Scholar

Zukotynsk, K. et al., ‘PET/CT of Dementia’, American Journal of Roentgenology 2018, 211(2), pp. 246–259.Google Scholar