InstanceCheck.com
Title
Criminal Justice Related Daily News |
Description
The author discusses, from the point of view of international human rights law, the judgment of the British House of Lords in A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2), which held that statements obtained by torture could never be admissible in evidence. The judgment is concluded to be fully consonant with international law and to provide an excellent example for other courts faced with this highly topical question.
In January 2006, the European Court of Human Rights held that the punishment of two individuals in 2003 in Estonia for the deportation of civilians to the Soviet Union in 1949 classified as a crime against humanity, was not contrary to the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal law. According to the Court, in 1949 crimes against humanity were already proscribed and criminalized, and responsibility for such crimes could not ‘be limited only to the nationals of certain countries and solely to acts committed within the specific time frame of the Second World War’. While the Court's ruling is correct, its legal reasoning lends itself to a number of serious criticisms.
The author discusses, from the point of view of international human rights law, the judgment of the British House of Lords in A and Others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (No. 2), which held that statements obtained by torture could never be admissible in evidence. The judgment is concluded to be fully consonant with international law and to provide an excellent example for other courts faced with this highly topical question.
Languages
English
Contact
- Leung, Andrew
-
- Salt Late City S
- US 12345
-
- +1.7031113733
Logos
Additional Information
Related Domains