No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
Whether or not the prohibition of torture allows exemptions is controversial not only in Germany but worldwide. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) had to answer this question in the case of Gäfgen versus Germany (App. 22978/05). The Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg court delivered its judgment on 1 June 2010. It held that the prohibition of torture (Article 3 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) does not grant any exemptions, even if the life of another is at risk. The present case commentary agrees with this result of the judgment. The next question is even more interesting from the legal point of view: What are the legal consequences of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention, especially with regard to criminal court cases against the offender and the victim of torture? The ECHR emphasizes the necessity of the effectiveness of the protection of the fundamental rights under the Convention. As a result, it argues for a thorough investigation and deterrent punishment of the offenders on the one hand and for an extensive exclusion of evidence obtained as a consequence of torture from the proceedings against the victim of torture on the other.
1 The text of the Convention is available at http://echr.coe.int (all citations last assessed Nov. 1, 2010).Google Scholar
2 See Grabenwarter, Christoph, Europäische Menschenrechtskonvention, para. 3, 6 (4th ed. 2009).Google Scholar
3 Landgericht Frankfurt am Main [LG – Regional Court], 23 Strafverteidiger 327 (2003).Google Scholar
4 LG Frankfurt am Main, 23 Strafverteidiger 325 (2003).Google Scholar
5 LG Frankfurt am Main, 5–22 Ks 2/03 3490 Js 230118/02, available at http://juris.de.Google Scholar
6 Gäfgen v. Germany, Application 22978/05 (June 30, 2008), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=837249&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649.Google Scholar
7 Gäfgen v. Germany, Application 22978/05 (June 1, 2010), para. 88–91, available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=868977&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 [hereinafter Gäfgen v. Germany].Google Scholar
8 Kudla v. Poland (GC), 2000-XI Eur. Ct. H.R. 510, para. 91–92.Google Scholar
9 Ireland v. the United Kingdom, 2 Eur. H.R. Rep. 25, para. 162; Labita v. Italy, 2000-IV Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 120; Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 88, 89; see Jacobs and White: The European Convention on Human Rights 80 (4th ed. 2006); David Harris, Michael O'Boyle, Edward Bates, & Carla Buckley – Law Of The European Convention on Human Rights 75 (2nd ed. 2009).Google Scholar
10 Ireland v. the United Kingdom, para. 167; Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 90.Google Scholar
11 Akkoç v. Turkey, 2000-X Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 115; Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 90. Compare also the definition of Art. 1 para. 1 of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. See also, e.g., Eric Hilgendorf, Folter im Rechtsstaat?, 59 Juristenzeitung 331, 334 (2004).Google Scholar
12 Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, 4 Eur. H. R. Rep. 293, para. 26 (1982); Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 91, 108.Google Scholar
13 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 101 – 108.Google Scholar
14 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 107.Google Scholar
15 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 87, 176. See also Ireland v. the United Kingdom, para. 163; Chahal v. the United Kingdom, 23 Eur. H. R. Rep. 413, para. 79–81 (1997); Saadi v. Italy, Application 37201/06, para. 138 (February 28, 2008), available at http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=829510&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 Google Scholar
16 Explicitly stated in Article 15 para. 2 of the Convention and Article 2 para. 2 of the UN Convention Against Torture. See also Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 7 of the UN Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and common Article 3 para. 1 a and c of the Geneva Convention.Google Scholar
17 Contra e. g., Rolf Dietrich Herzberg, Folter und Menschenwürde, 60 Juristenzeitung 321, 325, 328 (2005).Google Scholar
18 Edward Peters, Torture (1996) (providing a historical overview).Google Scholar
19 Amnesty International, USA: Shadow over Justice, available at http://amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/094/2010/en (Oct. 1, 2010).Google Scholar
20 See Joerden, Jan, Über ein vermeintes Recht (des Staates) aus Menschenliebe zu foltern, 13 Jahrbuch Für Recht Und Ethik 495, 518 (2005).Google Scholar
21 Luis Greco, Die Regeln hinter der Ausnahme: Gedanken zur Folter in sog. Ticking Time bomb- Konstellationen, 154 Goltdammer's Archiv 628 (2007), Luis Greco, Lebendiges und Totes in Feuerbachs Straftheorie 128, 138 (2009).Google Scholar
22 For a justification of torture in cases like this see, e. g., Winfried Brugger, Vom unbedingten Verbot der Folter zum bedingten Recht auf Folter?, 55 Juristen Zeitung 165 (2000). See also Joerden, supra note 20, at 503 (many further references to the German literature).Google Scholar
23 The situation of torture would be the highest challenge for the power, because nobody can substitute the action, which is ordered. About the correlation between force, threat and power as a generalized medium of interaction, see Luhmann, Niklas, Macht 9, 60 (2d ed. 1988), Niklas Luhmann, Die Politik Der Gesellschaft 45, 55 (2000).Google Scholar
24 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 116–118.Google Scholar
25 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 117, 119, 123.Google Scholar
26 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 125 with further references.Google Scholar
27 LG Frankfurt am Main, 58 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 692 (2005).Google Scholar
28 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 123–125; contra Gäfgen v. Germany (Casadevall, J., dissenting), para. 6.Google Scholar
29 Nikolova and Velichkova v. Bulgaria, Application 7888/03, para. 60–64 (Dec. 20, 2007). See, in this context, Harris, et al., supra note 9, at 48, 108.Google Scholar
30 Artico v. Italy, 3 Eur. H.R. Rep. 1, para. 33 (1980).Google Scholar
31 X and Y v. Netherlands, 8 Eur. H.R. Rep. 235, para. 27 (1985). See Harris, et al., supra note 9, at 107, 384.Google Scholar
32 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 123.Google Scholar
33 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 126; Gäfgen (Casadevall, J., dissenting), para. 8.Google Scholar
34 Gäfgen v. Germany para. 128, 129.Google Scholar
35 Article 6 of the Convention is quoted in the Introduction of this case note.Google Scholar
36 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 163–165.Google Scholar
37 For a similar differentiation of two kinds of rules in another context, see Ast, Stephan, Normentheorie und Strafrechtsdogmatik 16, 22 (2010). One can distinguish effect- or causation- norms and action- norms. It is a peculiarity of the precept to render a fair trial that the ascertainment of this “effect” is a matter of evaluation.Google Scholar
38 On the character of procedure rules as constitutive rules and their relation to regulative rules like the prohibition of torture, see Mittag, Matthias, A Legal Theoretical Approach to Criminal Procedure Law: The Structure of Rules in the German Code of Criminal Procedure, 7 German Law Journal 637, 643 (2006).Google Scholar
39 One could understand the judgment in an alternative way. Possibly the ECHR assumes only hypothetically rules of the second kind and denies anyway the impact of the breach of these rules on the results of the proceeding. However, by reading the judgment it seems that that the court does not assume these rules only hypothetically.Google Scholar
40 For a detailed analysis, see Gaede, Karsten, Fairness als Teilhabe – Das Recht auf konkrete und wirksame Teilhabe durch Verteidigung gemäß Art. 6 EMRK 804, 813 (2007).Google Scholar
41 Schenk v. Switzerland, 13 Eur. H.R. Rep. 242, para. 46 (1988).Google Scholar
42 See Khan vs. the United Kingdom, 2000-V Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 35; Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 162–165.Google Scholar
43 The ECHR has already decided that statements obtained as a result of ill-treatment in breach of Art. 3 are generally inadmissible, as well as real evidence obtained as a direct result of acts of violence. See Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 166–168; Harris, et. al., supra note 9, at 257. The most important judgment in this context is Jalloh v. Germany, 2006-IX Eur. Ct. H.R., para. 105–108. The U.S. Supreme Court, to which the ECHR refers, in Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 73, accepts the doctrine of the “fruit of the poisonous tree.” Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 441 (1984).Google Scholar
44 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 175.Google Scholar
45 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 176–178.Google Scholar
46 See, e.g., Claus Roxin, Bernd Schünemann – Strafverfahrensrecht, para. 24/60 (26th ed. 2009).Google Scholar
47 Knut Amelung, Informationsbeherrschungsrechte Im Strafprozeß 14–29 (1990).Google Scholar
48 See 31 BGHSt, 304, 308.Google Scholar
49 See 27 BGHSt, 355, 357.Google Scholar
50 Amelung, supra note 47, at 24, 30. With reference to the American information-transaction approach, Schrock & Welsh, Up from Calendra: The Exclusionary Rule as a Constitutional Requirement, 59 Minn. L. Rev. 251 (1975).Google Scholar
51 See Maurer, Hartmut, Allgemeines Verwaltungsrecht, para. 30 (17th ed. 2009).Google Scholar
52 29 BGHSt 244; 32 BGHSt 68; 34 BGHSt 362.Google Scholar
53 In contrast, the ECHR considered in cases of a violation of Art. 8 of the Convention the obtained evidence admissible. See Schenk v. Switzerland, supra note 41, at para. 46–49; Khan v. the United Kingdom, supra note 42, at para. 38–40. Kühne & Nash, Case Commentary on Khan v. the United Kingdom, 55 Juristenzeitung 997 (2000) (skeptical).Google Scholar
54 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 180.Google Scholar
55 Gäfgen v. Germany (Rozakis, J., dissenting).Google Scholar
56 In conformity with 27 BGHSt 355, 358.Google Scholar
57 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 180.Google Scholar
58 Gäfgen v. Germany, para. 178.Google Scholar
You have
Access