“Right to a fair trial under International Human Rights Law”

By  

Av. Jordan Daci, M.A (Ph.D. Candidate)

Abstract:

“Everyone has the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations as well as criminal charges brought before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law. Right to a fair trial is one of the most vital human rights and together with the right to security, and the right to protection from discrimination form the base of individual security from state authority. Without this very basic procedural right, a violation of a human right is unlikely to be remedied in domestic procedures. Moreover, this basic human right has a more vital role in protecting other human rights especially in developing countries were state institutions are weak or tend to be authoritarian. Because of this crucial role, the right to a fair trial remains still one of the most expansive and most complicated human rights. Individuals without the set of guarantees that includes the right to a fair trial would always be living under the fear of government – something which is sometimes intended and why this right is violated (Curtis, 2003 p.328).”

--------------------------------------------

Abstract in Albanian:

“Çdo person ka të drejtën për t’i parashtruar një gjykate të pavarur dhe të paanshme të krijuar me ligj, pretendimet e lidhura me të drejtat dhe detyrimet me karakter civil si dhe çdo lloj akuze penale.  E drejta për proces të rregullt është një ndër të drejtat më jetësore të drejtave të njeriut dhe së bashku me të drejtën për siguri dhe të drejtës për tu mbrojtur nga diskriminimi, formojnë bazën e sigurisë së individët ndaj autoritet shtetëror.  Pa këtë të drejtë themelore procedurale, dhunimi i të një të drejte të njeriut nuk do të mund të kurohej nga procedurat shtetërore. Për më tepër, kjo e drejtë themelore e njeriut ka një rol jetësor për mbrojtjen e të drejtave të tjera të njeriut, veçanërisht në vendet në zhvillim ku institucionet shtetërore janë të dobëta ose tentojnë të jenë autoritare. Pikërisht, për shkak të këtij roli thelbësor, e drejta për proces të rregullt mbetet ende një ndër të drejtat më të gjëra dhe më të ndërlikuara të njeriut.  Individët po të mos gëzonin garancitë që përmban e drejta për proces të rregullt do të jetonin gjithmonë në frikën e qeverisë- diçka e cila ndonjëherë synohet dhe që njëkohësisht është edhe arsyeja përse dhunohet kjo e drejtë. (Curtis, 2003 F.328).”

--------------------------------------------

Abstract in Macedonian:

Sekoja licnost ima pravo da objavi pred sekakov vid na nezavisen sud koj e osnoven so zakon, svoite (pretendime) koi se vrzani so pravata I odgovornosta so civilni karakteristiki I so sekakov vid na penalno obvinenje. Pravoto za eden regularen process e edna ot osnovnite I zivotnite prava na covekot koj zaedno so siguriranje na pravoto na odbranata protiv diskriminacijata, soedinuvatosnovata na individualnata sigurnost nasproti drzavnite avtoriteti. Bez ova osnovna proceduralna provost, krsenjeto na covekovite prava ne moze da se leci od drzavnite proceduri. Za poveqe, ovaja osnovna pravost za licnosta ima znacaen ulog za branenje na covekovite prava, specialno za zemjite na razvienje kade I drzavnite instituci se meki ili imat tendency da bidet avtoritarnii. Tokmu za ovoj znacaen element, pravosta za eden regularen process e edna od naj kompliciranite slucai na covekot. Licnostite bez ovie garancii koi soocinuvat pravosta na eden regularen process sekogas qe ziveele so stravot na drzavata nesto sto nekogas e celta I deka vo ednovreme e I pricinata zasto se maltretira ova pravost. (Curtis, 2003 p.328).

 Right to a fair trial is one of the most expansive and most complicated of all human rights protected under international law. (Curtis, 2003, p. 328) This right is guaranteed in the article 6 of the Protocol no.7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), article 8 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights (In-ACHR). Both the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have made clear that right to a fair trial foreseen by article 6 and 8 apply to all proceedings to which they are relevant. (Curtis, 2003, p.328). In other words right to fair trial applies both to administrative as well as judicial proceedings (Curtis, 2003, p. 328). This right applies whenever a subject of law in accordance with legal norms into force is entitled to a material as well as procedural right, than there must be a fair procedure to determine disputes about this right and respective claims.  

Right to a fair trial includes in itself a set of guarantees that apply case by case depending form the type of proceedings and the legal norms applicable on such case. According to the ECHR, the right to a fair trial is applicable in every civil and criminal proceeding, if a civil of right or obligation is involved.  This Court on the interpretation of the right to a fair trial has made clear that: “right to a fair trial foreseen in the Article 6 of the Protocol no.7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is a very expansive and in every case should be examined very carefully by national courts by analyzing in details every fact that in a way or another would violate the material and procedural rights of the defendant. (Nowvicki, 2003. Case Apeh Uldozotteinek Szovetesege and other vs. Hungary, application no.32367/96, Pellegrin vs. France No.28541/95).

Right to fair trial applies since at the moment when an application has been lodged until final execution of a court judgment. (Daci, 2006, p.186) This statement has been done by the ECHR in the Case QUFAJ CO. SH.P.K. vs. Albania (Judgment of November 18, 2004, Application no. 54268/00), §38) when the Court reiterates that Article 6 § 1 secures to everyone the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations brought before a court or tribunal; in this way it embodies the “right to a court”, of which the right of access, that is the right to institute proceedings before courts in civil matters, constitutes one aspect. However, that right would be illusory if a Contracting State’s domestic legal system allowed a final, binding judicial decision to remain inoperative to the detriment of one party. It would be inconceivable that Article 6 § 1 should describe in detail procedural guarantees afforded to litigants – proceedings that are fair, public and expeditious – without protecting the implementation of judicial decisions; to construe Article 6 as being concerned exclusively with access to a court and the conduct of proceedings would be likely to lead to situations incompatible with the principle of the rule of law which the Contracting States undertook to respect when they ratified the Convention. Execution of a judgment given by any court must therefore be regarded as an integral part of the “trial” for the purposes of Article 6. It is not open to a State authority to cite lack of funds as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt. Admittedly, a delay in the execution of a judgment may be justified in particular circumstances. But the delay may not be such as to impair the essence of the right protected under Article 6 § 1 (see Hornsby v. Greece, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II, p. 510-511, § 40; and Burdov v. Russia, no. 59498/00, § 34-35, ECHR 2002-III; see also Jasiuniene v. Lithuania, no. 41510/98, § 27, 6 March 2003).

Right to a fair trial is applicable whenever claims on civil rights and obligations are lodged to a court, tribunal, quasi judicial body and administrative body, including criminal proceedings. In this perspective, the ECHR has interpreted what mean “civil rights and obligations” in the case “Ringeisen vs. Austria”, (1979), where ECHR stated that the article 6/1 covers all kinds of proceedings, the result of which is determinant for private rights and obligations regardless of the character and the legislation which administers the way how the claims shall be examined as well as the authority that has jurisdiction to make the examination. (Gomien, 2005, p.50).

Criminal Proceedings

The concept of criminal proceedings varies in different countries in terms of criminal offence subjects, specific criminal offences, criminal punishment and criminal qualification for specific actions and omissions. To conclude on the issue whether we are dealing with a criminal process and not a civil process, ECHR emphases that several factor shall be taken into consideration such as: juridical and criminal qualification of the criminal offence by the domestic legislation of a country, the nature of the criminal offence, social gravity of the criminal offence and other circumstances related to the applicable law, events and facts as well as criminal punishment foreseen by the criminal law. A person shall be considered as a defendant for a criminal offence when state, undertakes measures which comprise the allegations that he or she has committed a criminal offence and which essentially impact to the status of the defendant. (Foti and others vs. Italy, 1982)

Right to a fair trial regarding a criminal proceeding, consists of set of guarantees for every person under investigation, trial, punishment, appeals and application for a reexamination. In other words it includes the whole process as determined under criminal material law and procedural law. While “indictment” under the article 6 of the Convention, means “the act through which a person is officially informed that has been charge with a criminal offence. (Daci, 2003, p.187)  

a. Right to have access to an independent and impartial court of law

Everyone has the right to have any claim relating to his civil rights and obligations as well as criminal charge brought before an independent and impartial court or tribunal established by law. Such right shall be guaranteed de facto not only de jure. However, the right to have access to a court might be limited under several circumstances with the purpose to secure a legitimate aim and to the extent of the aim itself. This right is subject to limitations also under several circumstances when for its enjoyment, legal aid is required in order to ensure that an individual exercises this right.  In this case, its enjoyment is made possible through the legal aid offered by qualified individuals. In the same manner, this right is ensured also for poor people .......

To read a full version of the article please contact the author at jordan.daci@gmail.com

b. Right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time

.....

c. Trial in absence “in absentia”

 .....

d. The principle of equality of means or “weapons”

 ....

e. Reasoning of judgments and the right to not testify against oneself

 .....

f. The presumption of innocence (in dubio pro reo)

 .....

g. The Right to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in details of the accusation against him

 .....

h. The right to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence

 ...

i. The right to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his choosing

 .....

j. The right to have free assistance of an interpreter 

.... 

k. No punishment without law

.... 

l. The right not to be tried or punished twice (Ne bis in idem)

  .....

To read a full version of the article please contact the author at jordan.daci@gmail.com

Bibliography and table of cases from the ECHR

1.      Curtis F.J. Doebbler. “International Human Rights Law: cases and Materials”. CDP, special printing. United States of America 2003.

2.      Donna Gomien. ”Udhëzues i shkurtër i Konventës Europiane për të Drejtat e Njeriut ”. Këshilli i Evropës 2005. Shtypur nga Gent Grafik. Tiranë 2005.

3.      Jordan Daci. “Të drejtat e Njeriut”. Luarasi University Press. Tirana, Albania June 2006.

4.      Nowicki Marek Antoni. “Rreth Konventës Europiane: Komentar i shkurtër mbi Konventën Europiane të Drejtave të Njeriut ”. Qendra Shqiptare për të Drejtat e Njeriut.  2003.

Cases:

1.      “Alber and Le Compte vs. Belgium”.

2.      “Apeh Uldozotteinek Szovetesege and other vs. Hungary”, application no.32367/96.

3.      “Artico vs. Italy”, 1980.

4.      “Axen vs. Germany”, 1983.

5.      “Brozicek vs. Italy”, 1989.  

6.      “Burdov v. Russia”, no. 59498/00.

7.      “Ekbatani vs. Sweden”, of May 26, 1988.

8.      “Foti and others vs. Italy”, 1982.

9.      “Hornsby v. Greece”, judgment of 19 March 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997.

10.  “Jasiuniene v. Lithuania”, no. 41510/98, § 27, 6 March 2003.

11.  “Pellegrin vs. France” No.28541/95.

12.  “QUFAJ CO. SH.P.K. vs. Albania” (Judgment of November 18, 2004, Application no. 54268/00) .

13.  “Ringeisen vs. Austria”, 1979.

14.   “Sunday Times (No.1) vs. United Kingdom”.

15.   “Thomann vs. Switzerlands”, of June 10, 1996.