فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری

شماره جاری

بر اساس شماره‌های نشریه

بر اساس نویسندگان

بر اساس موضوعات

نمایه نویسندگان

نمایه کلیدواژه ها

درباره نشریه

اهداف و چشم انداز

اعضای هیات تحریریه

اصول اخلاقی انتشار مقاله

بانک ها و نمایه نامه ها

پیوندهای مفید

پرسش‌های متداول

فرایند پذیرش مقالات

اطلاعات آماری نشریه

اخبار و اعلانات

داوران سال 1398

داوران سال 1399

داوران سال 1400

داوران سال 1401

داوران سال 1402

تقابل سازکار حمایت از شهود و بزهدیدگان با حقّ متهم بر دادرسی علنی (مطالعه در نظام بین‌‌المللی حقوق بشر)

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانش‌‌آموخته‌‌ی کارشناسی ارشد حقوق جزا و جرم‌‌شناسی، دانشکده‌‌ی حقوق و علوم سیاسی، واحد چالوس، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، چالوس، ایران

2 دانشیار، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

3 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

«حمایت از شهود و بزهدیدگان» و «علنی بودن دادرسی» که به عنوان دو اصل اساسی دادرسی کیفری شناخته می‌‌شوند، در برخی شرایط ممکن است در تقابل با یکدیگر قرار ‌‌گیرند. این امر ایجاب می‌‌کند که در موارد مقتضی، میان منافع شهود یا بزهدیدگان و حقوق دفاعی متهم، توازن برقرار گردد. از این رو، ضروری است دادگاه‌‌ها هنگام اتّخاذ تصمیم در خصوص تدابیر حمایتی برای شاهد و بزهدیده، حقّ متهم مبنی بر برخورداری از دادرسی علنی را نیز مورد ملاحظه قرار دهند. در این نوشتار با روش توصیفی- تحلیلی تلاش شده است که اقدامات و سازکارهای اتّخاذی از سوی نظام بین‌‌المللی حقوق بشر جهت برقراری موازنه بین این دو اصل، تبیین و مشخص شود. یافته‌‌های پژوهش بیانگر آن است که در نظام بین‌‌المللی حقوق بشر، با وجود شرایطی خاص ممکن است حمایت از شهود و بزهدیدگان در چهارچوب «منافع عدالت» قرار گیرد و یکی از مصادیق قانونی برگزاری غیرعلنی دادرسی‌‌ها قلمداد شود. لیکن برای اجتناب از بکارگیری نامعقول و گسترده‌‌ی این استثنا، چنین اقدامی فقط «در حد ضرورت و با رعایت اصل تناسب» امکان‌‌پذیر می‌‌باشد. بر این اساس، چنین نتیجه‌‌گیری شده است که ایجاد توازن میان منافع شاهد و بزهدیده (حفاظت از حیثیت و امنیت) و حقوق متهم (علنی بودن دادرسی)، مستلزم آن است که اقدامات و تدابیر محدودکننده در این خصوص، دقیقاً مشخص و کاملاً ضروری باشد. ضمن اینکه اگر یک اقدام محدود‌‌کننده‌‌ی حداقلی برای برقراری موازنه کفایت کند، فقط همان اقدام باید به انجام برسد و محدودیت در برگزاری علنی جلسات دادرسی می‌‌بایست به عنوان آخرین سازکار در زمینه‌‌ی حمایت از شهود و بزهدیدگان در نظر گرفته شود.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

Contrast of the Mechanism of Protecting Witnesses and Victims with the Right of Accused to a Public Hearing (Study in International Human Rights System)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Morteza Rasteh 1
  • Nasrin Mehra 2
  • Amir Ghofrankhah 3

1 Graduate of Master of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Chalus Branch, Islamic Azad University, Chalus, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 PhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

Protection of witnesses and victims is one of the most important issues related to criminal proceedings, which has been emphasized in global and regional documents and has come to the fore through human rights judicial authorities. Lack of proper support for the witness or the victim may impair the correct execution of justice; Because the courts will have no choice but to close the case or acquit the accused if the necessary documents are not collected. In the meantime, the judicial authorities are required to consider and protect the defense rights of the accused. Therefore, neither the interests of witnesses and victims nor the rights of the accused can be considered as an absolute principle; But in any situation there is room for mutual interests to be balanced. Therefore, creating this balance as well as adopting correct and path-breaking measures in this regard is one of the challenging issues in criminal proceedings that must be taken into consideration by the criminal justice system. One of the most important measures that may be taken to create this balance and according to the interests of justice is to limit the publicity of all or part of the proceedings. However, due to the fact that publicity of the hearing has been emphasized in human rights documents as a basic principle and one of the defense rights of the accused, therefore, only if a person appears as a witness in a public court session or is a victim of a crime, is, it cannot be recognized as an acceptable justification for the necessity of implementing protective measures; Rather, standing as a witness and testifying in a public session, or revealing the victim's identity through the presence of the public and the media, should be considered a serious threat to the witness and the victim, and the court by presenting acceptable evidence confirm the existence of such threats verify and prove, and as long as other protective measures can be applied, the court should not resort to holding hearings in private.
Considering that nowadays the human rights documents and the rights recognized in the constitution of the governments are increasingly mixed together and have caused the formation of a single and comprehensive model related to the principles of procedure, identifying the criteria and the policy It is necessary to accept the international human rights system and model these standards in criminal laws and domestic judicial procedure. Therefore, the purpose of the issue, is to untangle the mechanisms of the international human rights system and conceivable measures to establish a balance between the protection of witnesses or victims and the accused's right to a public hearing, as well as to strengthen the components and criteria of its guarantee in national courts and in It is the light of the findings of the law of the present age.
The current research, which was carried out with the descriptive-analytical method and the use of library and documentary sources, will seek to answer the question that, What is the most important programs and measures imaginable to support witnesses and victims in order to create  the balance with the accused's right to a public hearing?
Regarding the background of the research as well as the innovation aspect of this article, it should be mentioned that although due to the basic importance of protecting witnesses and victims, there have been researches about it, but so far the study of the contents of the cases submitted to the human rights judicial authorities in order to identify the procedures and actions of these authorities regarding the creation of a balance between the protection of witnesses or victims and the right of the accused to a public trial has not been carried out in the present; In particular, a special attitude to the interpretations of the Human Rights Committee as the only authority interpreting the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the rulings issued by the European Court and the Inter-American Court as the executive arm of the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights, which have so far been In relation to this topic, it has been less discussed, it is one of the special features and innovations of the present article.
The findings of the research show that in the international human rights system, despite the fact that the protection of witnesses and victims has not been specified as one of the exceptions to the public hearing, it is clear from the provisions of the documents and procedures of the human rights authorities, It is possible that despite special circumstances, the protection of witnesses and victims may be included in the framework of "interests of justice" and considered as one of the legal examples of closed hearings. But in order to avoid the unreasonable and widespread application of this exception, such an action is only possible "to the extent of necessity and in compliance with the principle of Proportion".
Based on this, it has been concluded that creating a balance between the interests of the witness and the victim (protection of dignity and security) and the rights of the accused (publicity of the hearings) requires that restrictive measures in this regard are precisely defined and absolutely necessary. be In addition, if a minimal restrictive measure is sufficient to establish a balance, only the same measure should be carried out, and restricting the public holding of hearings should be considered as the last measure in relation to the protection of witnesses and victims. On this basis, concealing the identity of witnesses; Taking necessary measures for the physical protection of witnesses and victims, such as the presence of a person as a bodyguard; Removing the accused from the court during the hearing of witness and victim statements;  Making statements in a shielded manner that prevents physical identification of witnesses and victims, such as using curtains, walls, or any other type of cover; Listening to the statements of witnesses and victims through the use of communication technologies such as video conferencing and similar measures is one of the most common and practical measures and mechanisms related to the protection of witnesses and victims, which should be carried out by the judicial authority. Therefore, as long as these protective measures are applicable, the court should not ignore the accused's rights to a fair trial and resort to making the hearings closed.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Protection of Witnesses and Victims
  • Rights of Accused
  • Public Hearing
  • Necessity and Proportion
  • The Interests of Justice
مراجع
  • اختری، عباس و مؤذن‌‌زادگان، حسنعلی (1398)، «جایگاه حقوق بزهدیده در مرحله‌‌ی تحقیقات مقدماتی از منظر قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری ایران»، پژوهش حقوق کیفری، دوره‌‌ی 7، شماره‌‌ی 26.
  • جلالی، محمد و سودبر، سوگل (1399)، «تأثیر دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر در نظام حقوق داخلی دولت‌‌های اروپایی»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره‌‌ی 11، شماره‌‌ی 1.
  • راسته، مرتضی؛ توجهی، عبدالعلی و نعمتی، مژگان (1401)، «همسنجی مؤلفه‌‌های دادرسی علنی در نظام بین‌‌المللی حقوق بشر و نظام دادرسی کیفری ایران»، پژوهش‌‌های حقوق جزا و جرم‌‌شناسی، دوره‌‌ی 10، شماره‌‌ی 20.
  • راسته، مرتضی؛ مؤذن‌‌زادگان، حسنعلی و دولتخواه پاشاکی، پیمان (1401)، «مطالعه‌‌ی تطبیقی استثنائات حضور افراد در جلسه دادرسی کیفری؛ نظام بین‌‌المللی حقوق بشر و نظام کیفری ایران»، مطالعات حقوق کیفری و جرم‌‌شناسی، دوره‌‌ی 52، شماره‌‌ی 2.
  • رضوی‌‌فرد، بهزاد و دیرباز، مرضیه (1392)، «حمایت‌های حقوقی دیوان کیفری بین‌‌المللی از بزهدیدگان»، پژوهش حقوق کیفری، دوره‌‌ی 2، شماره‌‌ی 3.
  • رضوی‌‌فرد، بهزاد و قربان‌زاده، حسین (1395)، «حق بر علنی بودن دادرسی بعنوان یکی از حقوق دفاعی متهم در رویه‌‌ی دادگاه‌‌های کیفری بین‌‌المللی»، مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، دوره‌‌ی 7، شماره‌‌ی 1.
  • کوشکی، غلامحسن و امینی، زهرا (1396)، «بررسی تطبیقی حمایت از شهود در قانون آیین دادرسی کیفری ایران و منشور شهود انگلستان»، پژوهش حقوق کیفری، دوره‌‌ی 6، شماره‌‌ی 21.
  • مهرا، نسرین و قلی‌‌پور، غلامرضا (1400)، «اساسی‌‌سازی نسبیِ دادرسی منصفانه در قانون اساسی مشروطه»، پژوهش حقوق کیفری، دوره‌‌ی 9، شماره‌‌ی 34.
  • والین، لوک (1385)، «قربانیان و شهود در حقوق بین‌‌المللی؛ از حقّ حمایت تا حقّ بیان»، ترجمه‌‌ی توکل حبیب‌‌زاده و مجتبی جعفری، مجله‌‌ی حقوقی بین‌‌المللی، دوره‌‌ی 23، شماره‌‌ی 34.

ب. انگلیسی

Books and Article

  • Akhtari, Abbas and HasanAli MoazenZadegan (2019), “Victim’s Rights in Preliminary Investigations in the Context of the Iranian Criminal Procedure Code”, Journal of Criminal Law Research, Vol.7, No.26. [In Persian]
  • Bassiouni, Cherif (1994), The Protection of Human Rights in the Administration of Criminal Justice: A Compendium of United Nations Norms and Standards, Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
  • Bentham, Jeremy (1838), The Works of Jeremy Bentham, 7 (Introductory View of the Rationale of Judicial Evidence), Edinburgh: William Tait.
  • Bicskei, Tamás and Others (2018), “Content Creators v. Judges: How Open Can a Courtroom be in the Information Age?”, EJTN Themis Semi-Final D - Judicial Ethics and Professional Conduct, Vol.19, No.2.
  • Cooper, Gilead (2019), “Open (in)Justice: Privacy, Open Justice and Human Rights”, Trusts & Trustees, Oxford University Press, Vol.25, No.7.
  • Dadwal, Lalit (2019), “Open Justice and Rule of Law: Indian Scenario”, International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews, Vol.6, No.1.
  • Donat-Cattin, David (2008), Article 68; Protection of Victims and Witnesses and their Participation in the Proceedings, in Otto Triffterer and Kai Ambos (eds.), Commentary on The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; Observer’s Notes, Article by Article, Oxford: Nomos.
  • Gaurav Gupta, Nishant (2001), Report on Protection of witnesses, New Dehli: National Law Institute University.
  • Grozev, Yonko and Others (2009), Right to a Fair Trial under the European Convention On Human Rights (Article 6), London: InterIghts.
  • Hall-Coates, Shauna (2015), “Following Digital Media into the Courtroom: Publicity and the Open Court Principle in the Information Age”, Dalhousie Journal of Legal Studies, Vol.24, No.4.
  • Jalali Mohammad and Soodbar Sogol (2020), “The Impact of European Court of Human Rights on National Legal Order”, Comparative Law Review, Vol.11, No.1. [In Persian]
  • Kooshki, GholamHasan and Zahra Amini (2018), “Comparative study the Protection of witnesses in the Code of Criminal Procedure of Iran and the Charter of the UK witnesses”, Journal of Criminal Law Research, Vol.6, No21. [In Persian]
  • Lepofsky, David (1995), “Cameras in the Courtroom — Not Without My Consent”, National Journal of Constitutional Law, Vol.6, No.1.
  • Maffei, Stefano (2012), The Right to Confrontation in Europe: Absent, Anonymous and Vulnerable Witnesses, Amsterdam: Europa Law Publishing.
  • Mehra, Nasrin and Gholipour Gholamreza (2021), Fair Trial partial Constitutionalization in the Mashruteh Constitution, Journal of Criminal Law Research, Vol.9, No34. [In Persian]
  • New South Wales Department of Justice (2012), Supporting Victims and Witnesses of Crime Through the Court, Process, (Justice Journey Court Preparation Guide), Sydney: Victims Services.
  • Nicholls, Jesse (2017), “Open Justice and Developments in the Law on Anonymity; Access to Material on the Court File and Reporting Restrictions”, Doughty Street Chambers, Vol,23, No.3.
  • Pejic, Jelena and Lesnie, Vanessa (2000), What Is a Fair Trial (A Basic Guide to Legal Standards and Practice), New York: Lawyers Committee for Human Rights.
  • Rasteh, Morteza; Tavajohi, Abdilali and Nemati, Mozhgan (2023), “Comparison of the Components of the Public Hearing in the International Human Rights System and Iranian Criminal Proceeding System”, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol.10, No.20. [In Persian]
  • Rasteh, Morteza; Moa, zenZadegan, HasanAli and Dolatkhah Pashaki, Peyman (2023), “Comparative Study of Exceptions to the Attendance the People in Criminal Hearing; International Human Right System and Iranian Criminal System”, Criminal Law and Criminology Studies, 52, No.2. [In Persian]
  • Razavifard, Behzad and Dirbaz, Marzyeh (2013), “ICC Legal Protections of Victims”, Journal of Criminal Law Research, Vol.1, No.3. [In Persian]
  • Razavifard, Behzad and Ghorbanzadeh, Hossein (2016), “The right to public proceeding as one of the defensive rights of the accused in international criminal tribunals procedure”, Comparative Law Review, Vol.7, No.1. [In Persian]
  • Robinson, Mary (2009), Trial Observation Manual for Criminal Proceedings: Practitioners Guide No.5, Geneva: International Commission of Jurists.
  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2011), The Criminal Justice Response to Support Victims of Acts of Terrorism, Vienna: Publishing and Library Section United Nations Office.
  • United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2008), Good practices for the protection of witnesses in criminal proceedings involving organized crime, Vienna: Publishing and Library Section United Nations Office.
  • Walleyn, Luc (2006), “Victimes et témoins de crimes internationaux: du droit à une protection au droit à la parole”, Translators: Tavakol Habibzadeh and Mojtaba Jafari, International Law Review, Vol.23, No.34. [In Persian]

Cases and Reports

  • Case of Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. The United Kingdom, ECtHR (No. 26766/05), 2009.
  • Case of Artemov v. Russia, ECtHR (No. 14945/03), 2014.
  • Case of Asto and Rojas v. Peru, IACtHR (Ser. C No. 137), 2005.
  • Case of Biryukov v. Russia, ECtHR (No. 14810/02), 2008.
  • Case of Chaushev and Others v. Russia, ECtHR (No. 37037/03; 39053/03 and 2469/04), 2016.
  • Case of Doorson v. The Netherlands, ECtHR (No. 20524/92), 1996.
  • Case of Francis v. Jamaica, HRC (No. 320/1988), U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/47 /D/320/1988, March 24, 1993.
  • Case of Hulki Gunes v. Turkey, ECtHR (No. 28490/95), 2003.
  • Case of Kartoyev and Others Russia, ECtHR (Nos. 9418/13; 9421/13 and 49007/13), 2021.
  • Case of Kostovski v. The Netherlands, ECtHR (No. 11454/85), 1989.
  • Case of Kovač Croatia, ECtHR (No. 503/05), 2007.
  • Case of Mirilashvili v. Russia, ECtHR (No. 6293/04), 2008.
  • Case of Sutter v. Switzerland, ECtHR (No. 8209/78), 1984.
  • Case of Tierce And Others v. San Marino, ECtHR (Nos. 24954/94, 24971/94 and 24972/94), 2000.
  • Case of Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic A/K/A "DULE" , ICTY (Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses), 1995.
  • Case of Van Mechelen and Others v. The Netherlands, ECtHR (No. 21363/93), 1997.
  • General Comment No.32: Article 14: Right to Equality Before Courts and Tribunals and to a Fair Trial, HRC (U.N. Doc. No. CCPR/C/GC/32), 2007.
  • Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, IACmHR (OEA/Ser. L/V/II. 84, Doc. 39 rev), 1993.
  • Second Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Peru, IACmHR (OEA/Ser. L/V/II. 106, Doc.59 rev), 2000.
  • The Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community Case, IACtHR (Series C, No. 79), 2001.
  • Third Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Colombia, IACmHR (OEA/Ser. L/V/II. 102, Doc. 9 rev.1), 1999.

International Documents

  • American Convention on Human Rights (1969).
  • Convention of the Organization of The Islamic Conference on Combating International Terrorism (1999).
  • Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985).
  • European Convention on Human Rights (1950).
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).
  • Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Fair Trial and Legal Assistance in Africa (2003).
  • United Nations Convention against Corruption (2003).
  • United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (2000).
  • Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999).

Websites

فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق کیفری
دوره 12، شماره 44
مهر 1402
صفحه 125-162
فایل ها
هم رسانی
ارجاع به این مقاله
آمار